Hi,

syscrusher: I was simply giving an example - as I said more thorough usability testing will give these answers. If "content" is the way to go then that's great.

victor: As for having default content types I think there are two levels - Drupal as a system/framework should not assume anything but a fresh installation should give a user(especially a new one that is probably just exploring the system) some types to work with, even if it is just a way to illustrate that different types that are possible. If the first thing a new user has to do is actually create a content type then we lost them right there...

Best,

Ronald

Victor Kane wrote:

If there are any improvements at all to be gained here, it is that there should be NO default Drupal content types, except maybe by way of example.

Therefore, _nothing_ should be assumed about sub-class terms, they will be up to the end user in each case.

So rather than argue in favor or against "post" as opposed to whatever, something like "content" (i.e. generic) is what should go.

Victor Kane
http://awebfactory.com.ar

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Syscrusher <syscrusher@4th.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 06:41 +0100, Ronald Ashri wrote:
> For example a page could be a Title and Content, but a story would be
> Title, Post (a more blog-like name),

I respectfully disagree. "Content" is a nice generic term, and I think
that the same field should be called the same thing across all the
standard Drupal-default node types. Also, many Drupal sites are not
blogs nor blog-like sites, so we should not assume that blog-ish
terminology will be familiar to all Drupal content creators.

Kind regards,

Scott
--
Syscrusher <syscrusher@4th.com>