>Hi Nadya,
>Just returning a favor :)
>
>< SNIP >
>>If, however, for this particular user or this particular regime the button never would be accessible, I would make it invisible.
>
>The word 'regime' has followin definitions neither of wich is what you want.
>
>1. A form of government: a fascist regime. b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
>2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
>3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
>4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
>
>I think word 'mode' would be appropriate here

One of the meanings of the word 'regime' is 'mode of operation', like in 'winter regime of driving'. It's not necessarily there in the English language, but I've found it in a few other languages (including Nadya's and mine).

So if this particular form has some sort of general mode switcher, which changes few other things around it as well, it would make sense to hide a few buttons (but then, IMO, a pageframe would be better for that, right?), but if the conditions change by mere navigation along the underlying table, I'd rather play with enabled. I have a form where the business rules state that for some of the documents the parent record is not editable; there the edit button (which should call a related form) flips its .enabled state, so it becomes obvious for the user whether a record is editable or not. There's also another button which enables the user to clone one specific type of document - where the parent record information is copied automatically and details copied with some blank fields - and the Copy This button flips into visible only if such a document is selected. So, I've applied both approaches on the same form, because the logic of the data seemed to dictate it. Users liked it... well, never heard them complain, and they did like the functionality behind it.