Imprint shouldn´t be displayed
It should be possible to choose whether an imprint is displayed by group/page or not. In our case an imprint doesn´t make sense at all and – really important – leads to INCORRECT BUT LEGAL RELEVANT informations. There are user displayed in the imprint, which have nothing to do with the imprint in a legal point of view.
Closed due to inactivity.
@Steffen Knop: We had the same issue. A checkbox would be great. We managed to hide the Imprint via css as a workaround. You could do the same.
Hey Steffen, I wouldn't say that we didn't think it through. We just didn't have a legal information mind. It was more about showing users who is the admin of the page and can manage it. But we'll take it into consideration to make the imprint optional. Let's see whether other customers are in need of this feature, too.
An imprint of a magazine shows detailled who is responsible for what. The coyo imprint shows anybody who is declared as admin. If you use user-groups for assigning admins there are displayed all user belonging to this group, which shows from time to time people who have nothing to do with the content of a workgroup. And they might be even displayed as first person in the imprint (if his surname starts with A).
anyhow... from my point of view coyo hasn´t really thought about this feature. and to be honest: cannot follow the argument that coyo becomes a configuration monster. a simple checkbox "show imprint" wouldn´t kill the settings of a user group.
in general we don't want to make the majority of the features optional. If you could enable / disable most of the features in COYO it would become a configuration monster quite quickly. One of COYO's main advantages is the easy use, setup and configuration.
You are right in the way that colleagues in the imprint might not be responsible for all the content but they might be responsible for some of the content. The way I see it, It is a bit like an imprint in a magazine - an intern / trainee might have contributed an article and will therefore be listed in the imprint, although he or she is not responsible for the whole magazine.
The imprint for pages was initially introduced so that users can see who might be a contact person for that particular page. So, the legal point of view was not really the priority. I have to admit though, that the name "Imprint" suggest a legal background.
As a workaround I would suggest that you could rename the navigation entry from "Imprint" to something else like e.g. "Admins" or to add a disclaimer to the imprint (since it is a widget layout, you could place any widget in it).
An intern or a trainee can edit, but he is not responsible for the content.
Its the same discussion as with the event section in coyo. Somebody who edits the event page is not necessarily the organizer of the event.
Well but if you are able to edit you are responsible for the content in a way. The imprint doesn't mean that each person is responsible for all the content on the page, does it?
And by the way: I really don´t understand why you introduce a feature like this without the possibilty to disable it.
Compare it like this: You don´t want to occur in the imprint of an online magazine, because you write articles from time to time.
An imprint means, that the persons mentioned in it are responsive for the whole content. We have many persons in workgroups who are admins, because they have to edit some parts of the workgroup. But they are not responsible for the whole content.
Hey Steffen, what do you mean by "There are user displayed in the imprint, which have nothing to do with the imprint in a legal point of view"? The imprint shows all admins of that particular page - so colleagues who could edit the content in any way. What would be your expectation here?