viewer

17:25 Jul 26, 2012 

Thank you all for your valuable input!

14:42 Jul 26, 2012 

I think you are right about this, after all. Grezgorz does tell us that all the terms in the left-hand column are roles. I must admit I had forgotten about that. A role must refer to a person: a role called "X Viewer" refers to a type of person who views in a particular way (or who views particular things). I have withdrawn my answer.

13:50 Jul 26, 2012 

I know the implementation of roles is simple, so I say there is no need for an application to have many differnt viewer utilities for different users login from different entrances.

13:37 Jul 26, 2012 

@Charles Davis,your understanding of viewer is a privilege type,that's too narrow.Viewer may mean person who can access some comtents.But this is not the emphasis.On The left side are all roles, on the right side are all privileges allowed to the roles.3 "accounts",5 'allows".That's clear enough.Think about a registered member and a full member of proz.com,do they have 2 different viewers,no, they all login from one entrance.Think about a back end of a website with roles of manager,administrator and super administrator.A manager can upload contens, an administrator can add or delete modules of the site,a super administrator can delete users.Do they have different viewers?No, they login from a same back end.
If viewer means utility,why there is only privileges described,there is no description of functionality, menus,features and even the outlook?

12:20 Jul 26, 2012 

In fact, a "viewer" (utility) for a user with a "viewer" role or privilege level is quite a reasonable concept. In many situations, you want users with viewer privileges to be able to view things but not edit them. So you provide them with a "viewer" utility but do not give them access to the "editor" facility, which can only be used by those with "administrator" privileges.

11:45 Jul 26, 2012 

Your interpretation of "viewer" as "viewer role" in the left-hand column makes no sense. The "Branded Viewer", for example, enables "viewer accounts" (that is, users with viewer accounts) to see branded products. In "viewer accounts", viewer does refer to a role; it means that those who have viewer accounts, those whose role is that of viewer, can use the Branded Viewer to see this kind of product. But the Branded Viewer itself cannot be a role, it must be a utility. Otherwise it is saying that the branded viewer role allows those with a viewer role to see the products, which is nonsensical. Utilities called "viewers", for viewing things, are very common in computing. That is what these are.

Why do you say that there is no such complicated thing as a viewer for a user with a certain privilege level? There is nothing complicated about this. A viewer (device) is simply a utility. Like any program, access to it can be restricted to certain categories of users, in principle. In any case, it does not say that only users with viewer accounts can use these "Viewer" utilities.

11:10 Jul 26, 2012 

There is no such complicated thing as a viewer for a user with a certain privilege level.

08:52 Jul 26, 2012 

I think "utilities/applications enabling human users to view content " Grzegorz Mysiński mentioned are not applications of end users, but are applications of the sever.So the answer "can be both" is based on misunderstanding.