Ber Kessels wrote:
On Fri, December 9, 2005 10:41, Boris Mann wrote:
I think it is important to know the audience and use. * Images as node == for galleries. 99% for photo's. * Images in any node == blogs, news, articles, manuals. Not nessecarily photo's, most just for "spice". Blogs, news, forum posts don't need power of placement of inline images (aka handled trough the theme) while manuals and articles will need this.
Ber, you are making broad sweeping statements which are frankly wrong. YOU may not "need power of placement"....but many, many others will.
Everytime this discussion came up I have asked people to prove my wrong. so far, no one has pointed me to a single professional site where images and / or media is placed all freely in pages. Nor to a book or document that explains how images and medai must be placed or why it should be placed freely. I have, however read numerous articles and books on why free placement is a bad thing. and why consistency and simplicity (aka not overwhelmin people with interface things to place media) is a good thing
I agree, and know from experience that people always have one or two pages on a website where they (want to freak out) with layout. I have clients who swear they really need wysiwywfu things. Thos are the pages that I dont even dare to mention in my portfolio, for indeed they do FU the site completely.
And I agree with the fact that al people *think* they need to place images freely. But the funny thing is, that (and that indeed is sweeping broadly) that people use the freedom to place images, to..... place images in the same location. Except for those cases where thye FU everything :)
So, yes, we definately need to keep the option to let people place media anywhere. And yes, that needs to hook into WYSIWYWFU interfaces. But, no, this is not as badly needed as Simple Inline Media Handling.
" We need both, we need the flexibility, but IMHO an automatic-no-clutter solution should be the default. In core. " Predefined page layouts like in OO Impress ? Ted