-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[UX] text cleanup on new block administrative label/description #4600
Comments
I've filed a PR that makes the above changes to the text, but it also changes the text block class to alter the block class admin info fieldset, rather than overwrite it entirely. (This will prevent us from having the same text strings in two places, so if we need to make changes in the future we won't need to remember to get both locations.) |
Yup, I like that 👍 ...but the same applies to the If we added that bit to the fieldset, we'd end up with this:
That's basically what I proposed in #4558: that we move all text that applies to both the label and description in the fieldset instead (except for the allowed HTML tags for description). Slightly tweaked from my proposal there:
|
Interesting, I was thinking that the label was the identifier for the block, but not the description. I guess it could be interpreted either way... I liked having the description text on the label field so that I'd know what to put in it. But I could be convinced that it's self explanatory... :) |
This should be 1.17.0 since the feature was added there. |
Are both elements only used to identify a block on layout pages? If they're used nowhere else, we wouldn't need the quite abstract term "administrative interfaces". |
@olafgrabienski would you prefer "the layout administrative interface"? It's more specific, but also more verbose. |
My idea was to omit the whole "administrative" part. Something like this:
|
The problem I have with How about something like |
I like the direction but there are still some issues:
Understood! However, I still think a noun would be a good fit. It just seems we don't have a good name for pages like |
Yeah, the name we have for all these pages is "administrative interface" but that's quite verbose.
|
Two points to bring up:
The wife said "the first one makes no sense to me". "The second one uses lingo I can understand". In regards to asking about interface vs options, she said: "I have no idea what it means by interface".
|
Sidenote question: is there an API where core and contribs can call on this "admin interface" so it is uniform across all of Backdrop? |
I like uniformity/consistency with what we have in views. How about this?:
|
I find it confusing as there is no specific definition for "site visitors". It's also redundant because "This text will only be used to identify the block when configuring layouts." already states the opposite. its like saying "the switch is on, it is not off". You don't really need both to get the point across, and since less text creates a less overwhelming experience, I opted to remove the one that was more confusing. I will rebase :) |
This is a follow-up to #4558 where we introduced the shiny new admin label and description setting for all blocks :)
Current text is as follows:
Admin label
Admin label
Used to identify the block on layout pages.
Admin description
This text is used only in administrative interfaces. It will not be shown to site visitors. Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
Proposed text for each:
Administrative interface
This text is used only in administrative interfaces. It will not be shown to site visitors.
Administrative label
Used to identify this block on layout pages.
Administrative description
Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
Reasoning:
Administrative interface
Administration
instead ofAdmin
wherever possible.This text is used only in administrative interfaces. It will not be shown to site visitors.
applies to both fields, so move it into fieldset description?Feedback?
PR: backdrop/backdrop#3287
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: