Your comments

This question is about the spaces in Asset Studio (predefined spaced) and not about the user specific spaces in  the new Consumer UI. 

I understand that the new UI will have a similar concept for spaces. But afaik, this UI will be only available for 'consumer' UI. The issue mentioned above is about assets managers that would see different spaces (eg. depending on their country or division). 


Today, Asset Studio allows  to show relevant spaces as widgets on the home page per user role. Unfortunately, we can not avoid the user to click the spaces button and see all availalbe spaces in the system.


Hi Petra,
I am aware that on the long run, PIM & DAM will get more integrated. The above feature request just emphasizes our request to consider in this, the current difficulty of linking assets to a product in PIMS. In the media type fields in PIM, you essentially need to know the name of the asset and type it in the search box; there are no other filter options. In a demo scenario, this can work because you have a pre-populated set of assets in as nice structure under the aspects category.
But in reallity, the user has a DAM with 1000s of uploaded & annotated assets in a logical taxonomy. It is unlogical to introduce an additional artificial taxonomy under aspects in PIM. The business user expects to just navigate withinin the DAM taxonomy to select an asset, (maybe even from a pre-filtered sub branch dependent on the PIM field: e.g. AssetTypes/Documents/SpecSheets'). Additional facet filtering is often needed to reduce this set to a smaller subset small which allows you to the select the intended asset easyly.


Essentially, I think it is a good solution as this solution makes sure that upload of new files (original, new versions, additional files) happen via a consistent mechanism. It does indeed conflict a bit with the the fact that during this upload, a hidden (new) asset is created in the system. Still, I think that the above solution, on the long run, could be used to extend the action menu of the view uploads screen to show more actions to the businness users (make uploaded file available as new asset, attach as new version to existing record, attach as new file, attach as additonal file on current version of a record,...)

Thanks, this was also discussed via support and we are looking forward to see all improvements on the matter of upload & download stability in the OOB product as of v5.9.

Please also generalilze this for the 'add files' on a records (next to the master file) and the upload additional files on a file version functionality.

Related topic: when a user has modification permissions (but NO delete permissions) on records, he is still able to delete the master file. From a technical perspective, this is a modification, but still... would it not make more sense to disable master file deletion together with record deletion? Or can this behaviour be made configurable via a system setting?
Alternative (in line with above feature request), dedicated permissions for 'candeletefile' and 'denydeletefile' could be introduced, but I think too many permissions can make things too complex: e;g. what about 'canuploadnewversion', 'candeleteversion', 'canuploadadditionalfile',...

Hi Petra,

Do you mean that it will no longer be possible to download any file directly via the web interface? Or do I need to understand the notification concept more as something wider than pure emailing? I don't like the idea that a user (even for the smallest files download) needs waiting for an email with download link. The problem today is especially with large impact downloads (and the lack of async fallback), and not about download of simple 50kb jpeg files.

The described behaviour above did not completly match the reality: in case of Download order, there is even no fallback at all (so FTP fallback only is included in send as email functionality).WeI would like to extend our feature request to a more generic solution for download orders. In case impact is too high, schedule the download as a background job and send an email with download link when ready.

It will even not work by giving the user 'administrative' access. The only user in the system that can now have an overview of projects is the user with login name 'Administrator'. So, a permission setting is expected here as a solution. Then it can be managed by configuration what users roles have the capability for viewing the entire list of projects.

Thank you Petra.
We are looking forward to the upcoming versions.
Regards,
Bart.