1

Sorry if I sound confusing, but for my application I need to come up with a name for a "role" that defines the following:

  1. If no user has this role, that means the application is accessible for ALL users
  2. If one or more users has this role, only those users can access the app

I came up with some weird role names:

  1. Restrict Access
  2. Restricted Access
  3. Allow Access
  4. Restrict Access to

can't think of any name that fits well for my use case.... any suggestions?

  • Why not just user? If nobody has the role user, everybody is a user. But I wonder what UX problem you try to solve here. – jazZRo Mar 5 at 10:41
0

A commonly used word for in this context is permission. However, if you're specifically looking for a certain word and their definition, the English StackExchange is where you find the experts for that.

That being said, I don't think that you can find a name good enough to convey both rules to your users. So in the sense of usability, you should explicitly explain those rules somewhere in the onboarding process or whenever it comes to granting permissions.

| improve this answer | |
  • Actually "role" is perfectly reasonable to use here, what with "role based authorization" being a best-practice n'all. – straya Mar 6 at 6:23
  • Yes and no. Roles only make sense if there's more than one. Users with different roles have different permissions or different "levels of access". In that case there is only one "role". Therefore I would argue that we're not talking about the concept of roles here. It's more like we're dealing with either an open application with no restrictions or a restricted application with some users given the explicit permission to access it. – QWERTZdenker Mar 6 at 7:45
  • I don't think you have a firm grasp of the concept of authorization. I agree that the scenario described by the OP is strange, the desired behaviour does not really fit a role nor permission. – straya Mar 10 at 3:16
0

"Party-Pooper". Because whoever has that role makes things very different for many other people.

As a side note: it sounds like you are making something very strange. I suggest you talk to more people about the greater system/goals you are attempting to build to get feedback as to whether you are taking an appropriate approach vs a strange and risky approach.

| improve this answer | |
0

My 2c:

  1. If no user has this role, that means the application is accessible for ALL users
  2. If one or more users has this role, only those users can access the app
  1. This could be referred to as "public", "anonymous" or "unrestricted" access
  2. This would normally be referred to as "authenticated" users / access.

As @straya says, switching between a mode where everyone can access the site to only people holding a specific role can access the site seems very unusual. Can you re-phrase the question?

| improve this answer | |
0

Could it be "Owner" or "Access/Domain Owner"?

If there is now owner it kinda belongs to everyone. If there is an owner (or more) they are the only ones to have access to it.

| improve this answer | |
0

I would go with "Allowed" or "Whitelisted". I think those words convey the idea, that when no user is tagged that way everyone is equal in access, and when someone is they have superior access.

| improve this answer | |
0

If no user has this role, that means the application is accessible for ALL users

This role is commonly called "Guest". The application is available to all guests.

If one or more users has this role, only those users can access the app

This is commonly called "Registered user". The application is only available to registered users.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.