TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Subject:Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization? From:Scott Turner <quills -at- airmail -dot- net> To:Jay Maechtlen <techwriter -at- laserpubs -dot- com> Date:Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:51:50 -0700
In financial services we simply separate the roles as initiator or originator and a reviewer/approver. We don't bother to categorize it with a term other than as an approval authority separate from the originator.
Scott T.
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 23:09, Jay Maechtlen <techwriter -at- laserpubs -dot- com> wrote:
>
> But, presumably, neither originator nor approver would necessarily need to have two functioning eyes?
> in total, two or three eyes might be enough?
>
>
>> On 6/19/2015 1:02 AM, Robert Fekete wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have a problem with a term in our product documentation (and the UI as
>> well), and I'd like to ask for your collective wisdom.
>>
>> In line with the four-eyes principle, our product can require an authorizer
>> to approve (and possibly review) the actions of a user. Currently, this is
>> dubbed four-eyes authorization. The problem is that the "4-eyes" term is
>> derogatory and should be changed. Possible candidates we found and are
>> commonly used are "dual control" and "two-person rule", but these are not
>> as accurate, because in every definition I could find (for example,
>> http://www.theserverside.com/report/Integration-of-User-Control-Mechanisms-into-Secure-Critical-Applications
>> ), they refer to two users who have the same privileges to perform an
>> action, but can only do so together. In our setup, this is not the case,
>> one of the users is who performs the action, and the other approves that.
>>
>> If any of you works in an IT security or finance-related field, have you
>> encountered a problem with four-eyes before? (And how did you solve it?)
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your ideas in advance.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Robert Fekete
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> --
> Jay Maechtlen
> 626 444-5112 office
> 626 840-8875 cell
> www.laserpubs.com
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as quills -at- airmail -dot- net -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
