Skip to content

Rosetta

Your feedback matters to us. Help us improve Rosetta by telling us what you’d like to see using the message areas below. You can also can support something already posted.

We would love to be able to respond to every idea that is submitted, but this is not feasible. We are, however, committed to responding to the most popular ideas—those that have received the most points.

For more information please review our FAQ and guidelines. Thank you.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

5 results found

  1. view only- user who cannot break anything

    For error-detection and workflow documentation it is sometimes necessary to be able to view all configurations in Rosetta - even all in the Administration area.
    But not all users should be able to edit configuration elements in Rosetta, especially not in the Administration Area.
    In our (ZBW/Germany) opinion, a view-only-user would be very handy. This person would be able to see all the configuration details and the view-option would be available to her/him, but not the edit-button.
    She/he would not be able to break anything, but would be able to see all the details needed for documentation or other purposes.…

    22 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. Read-only user

    As we've begun bringing more users into Rosetta we've seen the need for a different type of user, who could basically do these things:
    *view/download IEs/files
    *view the collection tree

    But should not be able to:
    *see/modify processes.
    *delete IEs or purge the recycle bin

    We checked using dummy accounts with 'Viewer/Editor - View' and 'Approver/Assessor/Arranger - View' but neither of these can see the collection tree, either from the data management menu or from the search screen. So, we'd like something similar Viewer-Editor-View but with access to the collection tree.

    10 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. Producer Mandatory Fields shall be controlled by a code table

    As of now (version 5.3) there is no code table to control which fields are optional or mandatory when adding a producer.

    We provide Rosetta as a service and the details (name, email, telephone etc.) of producers can be seen across the installation. This means that staff user 1 from institution A can see the details of the producers of all the other institutions. The workaround is to enter 123 as telephone.

    Basically we would like Rosetta to be fully compliant with the concept of multi-tenancy.
    Until this can be reached we would like to see code tables in use…

    5 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. Assigning a valid SSO user to a default account if one does not exist

    We do not wish to have all of our institutional users in Rosetta, leaving that for administrators and publishers.

    When a user has signed in successfully through SSO (in our case ADFS) we know that they are from our institution, so we should be able to do access rights rules based on this.

    We are also able to pass through extra parameters through SAML to identify the type of user, and where they have come from, it would be great to be able to assign such users to basic user accounts so we can have granular access rights to IE's…

    4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. Expand the search scope of the search box on web collection page

    Is it possible to expand the search scope of the search box on web collection page from the current collection to all its sub-collections and itself?

    For example, I tried to search IE2119194 by its partial title "South Korea's economic puzzle" on the following page;

    http://rosetta-app.snu.ac.kr:1801/delivery/action/collectionViewer.do?collectionId=109127824&operation=viewCollection

    but no matching IEs were found, because the IE belongs to the collection(id=109127824)'s sub-sub-sub collection(138846884).

    • 109127824 > 138830885 > 138834664 > 138846884
    4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base