Access-control copy often grows one screen at a time. “Admin” means billing owner in one flow and workspace manager in another. A checkbox says “Manage members” without clarifying whether that includes deleting accounts. An error tells someone they lack permission but not who can grant it.
CopyDoc can export Figma text to a spreadsheet, help reviewers work outside the design file, and re-import approved changes. That makes it useful for a permission-copy audit, but the team first needs a trustworthy model of what each role can actually do.
Establish the access model
Meet with product, engineering, security, support, and UX writing to identify the authoritative source for roles and entitlements. Record role names, scope, assigner, default access, inherited access, temporary access, and the actions each permission permits.
Distinguish concepts that interfaces often blur:
- identity: who the person is;
- role: a named bundle of access;
- permission: an allowed action;
- scope: where that action applies;
- status: invited, active, suspended, expired, or removed;
- ownership: special responsibility that may not transfer like an ordinary role.
If the product model itself is inconsistent, do not paper over it with elegant labels. Log the product decision that must be made.
Inventory permission-related strings
Collect the Figma screens for member lists, invitations, role selectors, settings, project sharing, access requests, upgrade prompts, audit logs, destructive actions, and permission errors. Include mobile, empty, loading, success, and failure states.
Use CopyDoc to export the relevant text layers into a spreadsheet. Add columns for surface, component, current string, role or permission referenced, user audience, triggering condition, proposed copy, owner, review status, and implementation key when known.
This is not a general terminology audit. The closest broader process is terminology audit workflow in Figma. Permission copy needs an extra test: every phrase must accurately describe authority and consequence.
Write labels around actions and scope
Prefer labels a user can map to real outcomes. “Can edit” is ambiguous if editing applies only to content but not settings. “Manage workspace members” is clearer when the control actually covers inviting, changing roles, and removing members.
For every control, ask:
- What action becomes possible?
- Which resource does it affect?
- Does it apply to this project, workspace, or organization?
- Can access be delegated or inherited?
- Is the action reversible?
- Who is affected and notified?
Keep role names consistent, but do not force one short label to carry all detail. Use supporting descriptions where the consequence needs explanation. Confirmation dialogs should name the person or resource, describe access being changed, and explain irreversible effects without vague warnings.
Improve requests and denial states
“You don’t have access” is a diagnosis, not a recovery path. A useful denial state says what the user attempted, the relevant scope, and what they can do next. Depending on the model, that might mean requesting access, contacting a named role, switching workspace, upgrading a plan, or returning safely.
Do not reveal private resource names or membership information to unauthenticated users. Security should review messages that could expose whether an account, workspace, or document exists.
Access-request copy should tell the requester what is being requested and tell the approver who asked, for which resource, at what access level, and why. Expired, denied, canceled, and already-granted states need distinct language.
Re-import and stress-test the designs
After reviewers approve the spreadsheet, re-import the copy with CopyDoc and inspect it in context. Use long real-world role names, translated strings, several workspace levels, and both singular and plural cases. Check radio groups, menus, tables, tooltips, banners, dialogs, toasts, and narrow screens.
Spreadsheet approval does not prove that the hierarchy is clear. Read each screen as a new user and as a cautious administrator. The primary action, affected scope, and consequence should remain obvious. The UI character-limit review workflow can help with layout stress, but do not shorten a security-critical explanation until it becomes misleading.
Reconcile design with implementation
Create a mapping between approved Figma strings and implementation keys or backend states. Run the implemented flows with test accounts representing each role. Verify that visible actions match actual authorization: hiding a button is not the same as enforcing permission on the server.
Check direct URLs, stale sessions, downgraded roles, removed memberships, inherited access, and simultaneous changes by another administrator. Copy review cannot prove the authorization system is secure, so track functional and security defects separately from wording defects.
Support should review the final matrix and update help material or macros that use retired role names. Product analytics and audit logs should also use terminology that operators can reconcile, while avoiding sensitive text capture.
Make the audit repeatable
Store the approved glossary and permission matrix beside a named owner. Trigger a focused copy review when a role is added, a permission changes scope, a billing tier affects access, or a new sharing surface ships.
Before signoff, confirm that every role has one definition, every permission names an action and scope, denial states offer a safe next step, destructive changes explain consequences, and implemented authorization was tested independently. CopyDoc reduces the extraction and re-entry work; product and security owners remain responsible for what the access model permits.
Read as Markdown Related resource index Site index for AI agents
Pro Bundle