# Adminstrator and Developer role clarification **URL:** \ **Category:** Radiant CMS\ **Created:** [June 21, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087 "2008-06-21T22:21:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/1 "2008-06-21T22:21:19Z")
Is the Adminstrator role considered to be the all powerful role? And developer has less priveleges? Or is it the other way around? I see 2 main roles in my use of Radiant so far. - Site setup person. Layouts, css, taking care of where page parts go, everything you need to have a functional radiant framework for your site. - Content person. Once the layout is in place, this person would create and manage pages of content. Given the names “administrator” and “developer” I would assume that developer means they have access close to the code level. Which, by process of eleimination, means admiistrator has less access to content only. Are my assumptions right? I just want to be sure that in my public extensions I am exposing the right sections to the right users. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/2 "2008-06-22T03:28:17Z")
On Jun 21, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Alex W. wrote: > Are my assumptions right? I just want to be sure that in my public > extensions I am exposing the right sections to the right users. Nope. An administrator is a superuser. A developer can do everything, but create and edit other users. The two roles are really more akin to “root” and “designer”. – John L. [http://wiseheartdesign.com](http://wiseheartdesign.com) ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 5:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/3 "2008-06-22T05:52:07Z")
John, have you ever considered changing the name “developer” to “designer”? I think it’d be more clear. Also, I’d think clarity could be further improved by: ``` * Showing that there is a Basic user privilege level that is applied when Administrator and Developer are not checked. It's not always clear that you still get something when all the options are unchecked and it's certainly not clear what that "something" is permitted to do. (Perhaps a name like "Writer" or "Author" would help). * Currently, Radiant's permission structure has 3 permission levels -- each with progressively more authority (i.e. Developer = Basic User + Unique Developer Powers and Administrator = Developer + Unique Admin Powers). So checking Administrator *and* Developer makes no sense -- yet today this is an option. That's really where this thread's question comes from. I can think of several ways to prevent this confusion to users but first the decision needs to be made whether this progression of powers is the best approach or whether roles should only consist of their unique capabilities (i.e. Admin just includes permissions to edit Users and Extension not any Developer stuff -- to get those privileges, you'd need to add the Developer role to your user). I'm used to the former since that's what we have today but I can think of cases where I'd have an Admin who doesn't have Developer privileges. The latter method is also more extensible since others may add roles that don't fit the subset/superset approach. ``` -Chris ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 11:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/4 "2008-06-22T11:46:34Z")
Chris P. said the following on 21/06/08 11:51 PM: > John, have you ever considered changing the name “developer” to > “designer”? I think it’d be more clear. Why? A ‘developer’ is someone who develops content. This is obvious to anyone except a programmer. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/5 "2008-06-22T06:57:16Z")
Chris P. wrote: > John, have you ever considered changing the name “developer” to > “designer”? I think it’d be more clear. > > Also, I’d think clarity could be further improved by: Well said. In my mind, it should work one of two ways. 1. Have a 3 tier permission system where each tier has more rights than the one before. Perhaps Administrator, Designer, and Author. This seems close to the current radiant approach, but the UI needs to a drop down box with a little documentation about what each setting means. Having checkboxes makes this confusing since options with more previliges are inclusive of the other options. 2. Have a component based permission system where each user can have any number of roles. Each role give them access to something else. In this case the permissions should be labeled by what that allows them to do. Perhaps “User Management”, “Development”, “Authoring”. Any user may have any combination of these. This allows someone to manage users and post content, but not be allowed to mess with the layout or other more technical aspects defined in extenstions, for instance. This method works well with using checkboxes for each permission type. Option 2 seems more flexible, as Chris noted. And perhaps those aren’t the best permission names or levels. But if you guys can decide on an official approach, I would be happy to submit a well specced patch implementing it. If, of course, enough people feel this needs attention at all. -Alex > **[Beautiful Pixel](https://beautifulpixel.com/)** > > A log of random code experiments and semi-useless thoughts from some software developer named Alex... ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 5:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/6 "2008-06-22T17:09:37Z")
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Anton A. wrote: > Chris P. said the following on 21/06/08 11:51 PM: > > > John, have you ever considered changing the name “developer” to > > “designer”? I think it’d be more clear. > > Why? > > A ‘developer’ is someone who develops content. > This is obvious to anyone except a programmer. Ironic, but true. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/7 "2008-06-22T18:22:54Z")
If you look at the mockups repo and in the ‘blade’ directory, you’ll see there is a ‘Design’ tab in the interface. I imagine that role will be changing names as we implement that UI. Sean ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/8 "2008-06-22T18:45:46Z")
Hi, I raised the role issue in response to a question regarding SCM’ing templates a week or so back… [Layouts, snippets and site assets on the file system? - Radiant CMS - Ruby-Forum](http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/152887) Anyway, to repost a few relevant points. My first thought was to keep the the 3-tier (renaming Developer for Designer) - but juggling some of the privileges about. A couple of days later, nearing delivery of a site, I actually countered it with a need for 4-tiers (and still juggling privileges about). Jonathan McCoy wrote: > … > In keeping designs and code DRY, we find ourselves using snippets to > contain more than user-editable content, and use them heavily for > fragments of design logic. As such, we want to keep day-to-day users far > away from anything that can cause damage to the site. > > Standard (Pages) → Designer (+ Snippets) → Administrator (+ Layouts, Users, etc) Jonathan McCoy later wrote: > I’ve monkey-patched a frozen version of Radiant (0.6.7) with some of the > functionality I lusted for above. No testing or a “designer” flag (just > put snippets on the Admin/Dev level). I’d be more inclined to assemble > patches and tests (to the spec above) if anybody else was interested in > it being pushed into the trunk? > > Would be nice to review the user levels available - or if we’re all > feeling code-happy, granular access control. I can foresee the need for > the following roles at least: > > 1. Content Monkey (pages + preferences) > 2. Designer (+ layouts + snippets) > 3. Developer (+ extensions) > 4. Administrator (+ user management) > > … > I’d keep the developer flag for the > benefit of extensions/plugins that need technical setup. Another > question, is whether flags are more desirable than a user-level number > (ie 1 to 4) or even a class-name, which can be mapped out to a role > name. A popup list with userlevels can be used instead. It removes the > uncertainty of having admin flagged, but developer unflagged → what > rights does the user have?! Jon. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/9 "2008-06-22T19:12:08Z")
Jonathan McCoy wrote: > I think it’s fairly useful to define the difference between a Content > If you’re designing a site to be managed by an in-house team, you’ll > need to segregate the design (layouts and snippets) from the > copywriters. Likewise, it’s a fair idea to keep management of extensions > and site setup from designers - leaving it with the technical support > team. And of course leaving user management to the project manager. > > Jon. Jon, that’s a very good explanation! We should use that in the new ‘Summer Reboot’ documentation [1] as a discussion on roles in Radiant 🙂 Cheers, Mohit. 6/23/2008 | 1:09 AM. [1] [http://wiki.radiantcms.org/Summer\_Reboot](http://wiki.radiantcms.org/Summer_Reboot) ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/10 "2008-06-22T18:59:06Z")
Anton A. wrote: > Chris P. said the following on 21/06/08 11:51 PM: > > A ‘developer’ is someone who develops content. > This is obvious to anyone except a programmer. Huh?? I think it’s fairly useful to define the difference between a Content Manager, Designer and Developer - because frankly there’s a big difference. Developer = Web D. = RoR[etc]/DB/XML/XHTML/CSS Designer = Web Designer = HTML/CSS Content Manager = Idiot = Copywriter/Editor “Developers open TextMate, Designers open DreamWeaver and Content Managers can’t switch on their computer.” - Pretty much says it all. If you’re designing a site to be managed by an in-house team, you’ll need to segregate the design (layouts and snippets) from the copywriters. Likewise, it’s a fair idea to keep management of extensions and site setup from designers - leaving it with the technical support team. And of course leaving user management to the project manager. Jon. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/11 "2008-06-22T20:10:50Z")
Jonathan McCoy said the following on 22/06/08 12:59 PM: > difference. > > Developer = Web D. = RoR[etc]/DB/XML/XHTML/CSS > Designer = Web Designer = HTML/CSS > Content Manager = Idiot = Copywriter/Editor > > “Developers open TextMate, Designers open DreamWeaver and Content > Managers can’t switch on their computer.” - Pretty much says it all. Why are you being insulting? The whole point is to have content. Without content a web site is just an academic exercise in programming. – The quality, not the longevity, of one’s life is what is important. –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 7:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/12 "2008-06-22T19:18:00Z")
Mohit S. wrote: > Jonathan McCoy wrote: > > > I think it’s fairly useful to define the difference between a Content > > If you’re designing a site to be managed by an in-house team, you’ll > > need to segregate the design (layouts and snippets) from the > > copywriters. Likewise, it’s a fair idea to keep management of extensions > > and site setup from designers - leaving it with the technical support > > team. And of course leaving user management to the project manager. > > > > Jon. > > Jon, that’s a very good explanation! We should use that in the new > ‘Summer Reboot’ documentation [1] as a discussion on roles in Radiant 🙂 > > Cheers, > Mohit. > 6/23/2008 | 1:09 AM. > > [1] [http://wiki.radiantcms.org/Summer\_Reboot](http://wiki.radiantcms.org/Summer_Reboot) Thanks… (I’ll write a more coherent version for the docs!!) There’s a few holes in the documentation I’d like to fix, so I’ll would be interested in taking part in the reboot. Cheers, Jon. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/13 "2008-06-22T20:38:18Z")
Anton A. wrote: > The whole point is to have content. > Without content a web site is just an academic exercise in programming. That theory is great, when one person designs, builds and manages a site. But as soon as you have more than one person involved in the management of a site, as with any business function, tasks and responsibilities are delegated to the appropriately trained and graded staff. Security, authorization/editorial and responsibility becomes even more important, the larger the team becomes. Role based access has nothing to do with “Design Versus Content”, but the logical separation of discrete roles. Jon. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/14 "2008-06-22T21:12:36Z")
Anton A. wrote: > blah Whatever. Nice argument. Sadly it fell apart shortly after “For most businesses…”. The reality is quite different, and I can assure you that the ability to write copy, doesn’t provide you with the competence to make design or technical decisions. While you’re theory is sound for a utopian future, we’re trying to solve a real tangible problem in the here/now. Can we get back to the original discussion now? ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/15 "2008-06-22T21:50:22Z")
Jonathan McCoy said the following on 22/06/08 03:12 PM: > Anton A. wrote: > > > blah > > Whatever. Nice argument. Sadly it fell apart shortly after “For most > businesses…”. The reality is quite different, and I can assure you > that the ability to write copy, doesn’t provide you with the competence > to make design or technical decisions. I never said it did. I wasn’t denigrating those roles. Unlike you I wasn’t denigrating any roles. All have to play their part. Calling the people involved in content development “Idiots” as you did is insulting. – As a goatherd learns his trade by goat, so a writer learns his trade by wrote. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/16 "2008-06-23T00:23:46Z")
Um, this thread’s starting to deteriorate a bit. @Alex - As you mentioned, I’m starting to like the component-ized approach as it makes it possible for extension builders to integrate new roles without breaking the UI (which oddly enough uses checkboxes = component mentality). @ Anton - My choice of wording certainly is certainly objective but I chose it with the goal of conveying information to a lay user or small business owner to help them understand what the roles offer and what their boundaries are. Again, it’s debatable but I think you would have more folks give you an answer closer to what we mean here if you asked, “what does your website designer do” vs. “what does your website developer do?” I think that part of this stems from the fact that the word “developer” is generally only used in the context of: ``` * Software Developer * Land/Subdivision Developer ``` This is one of those cases, where “designer” leads the new user to the right conclusion but, once you know what the role already means, “developer” is probably more technically accurate. Interestingly, in one of your later posts, you define “Developer” and “Designer” separately where “Developer” was working outside of the Radiant UI (including RoR and DB tasks). And where Developer got into (x)html or css, the role overlapped with your definition of “Designer” It kind of made my point. In any case, I’m not stuck on one particular name. I was only trying to find a term that someone from outside of the web world could look at and make a fairly close guess at the scope of that role. -Chris ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/17 "2008-06-22T20:52:25Z")
Jonathan McCoy said the following on 22/06/08 02:38 PM: > authorization/editorial and responsibility becomes even more important, > the larger the team becomes. > > Role based access has nothing to do with “Design Versus Content”, but > the logical separation of discrete roles. Indeed. That’s not the point I’m arguing about. For most businesses the business value of the site is reflected by the content. The infrastructure (and those roles) is essential to the delivery of the content, but without the content - why bother? Calling the people who manage the content, the writers and editors “Idiots” as you did is insulting, just as insulting as calling people like John L., Sean C. and Chris parish “coding jerks”. In fact the case can be made that the content is ‘ongoing’ whereas code can be ‘frozen’. ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/18 "2008-06-23T00:29:37Z")
Chris P. said the following on 22/06/08 06:22 PM: > @ Anton - My choice of wording certainly is certainly objective but I > chose it with the goal of conveying information to a lay user or small > business owner to help them understand what the roles offer and what > their boundaries are. I don’t object to the clarification, I don’t object to a better definition of the roles. I do object to people being called “Idiots”. That’s all. – All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. –Thomas Paine ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/19 "2008-06-23T00:36:03Z")
Chris P. wrote: > Um, this thread’s starting to deteriorate a bit. > > @Alex - As you mentioned, I’m starting to like the component-ized > approach as it makes it possible for extension builders to integrate > new roles without breaking the UI (which oddly enough uses checkboxes > = component mentality). > You guys should look at Matt Freels’ branch from a while back. He > factored out roles into a separate entity (model, etc). I thought the > code quality was good but Radiant wasn’t ready for it. I feel we should > let the UI changes drive that kind of change. Sean ---
**Author:** ![squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@squeegy](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/squeegy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 12:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087/20 "2008-06-23T00:47:45Z")
Sean C. wrote: > I feel we should let the UI changes drive that kind of change. I originally posted to record my thoughts and possibly help others understand what Radiant was “thinking” with it’s roles. I wholeheartedly agree with you here Sean. I see much of this already coming. -Chris [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/adminstrator-and-developer-role-clarification/141087.md?page=2)