[development] image node type

Boris Mann boris at bryght.com
Fri Dec 9 16:50:28 UTC 2005

On 9-Dec-05, at 8:30 AM, Earl Miles wrote:

> Sebastian wrote:
>  > Frankly I feel all images should be a node. Even if an image is  
> included
>> in a content node just for spice or illustration, very likely  
>> these images could be thumbnails that link to a larger version.  
>> Same story if I include a true photo in a content node, it will  
>> most likely also be a thumbnail linking to the full image node.
>> So I see no reason to build two frameworks for handling images  
>> when one will do. Why the arbitrary separation? They should all be  
>> nodes, and if we need organizational separation of "photos- 
>> available-in-galleries" vs "spice-and-illustration-images", that  
>> should be handled via taxonomy, and only the desired terms made  
>> available in menus/galleries.
> As an admin, I'm afraid I disagree. For people who write articles  
> on my site, I find simplicity to be the absolutely most important  
> issue. They want to be able to attach an image to a node and be  
> done with it. If they have to set up an image node and then figure  
> out how to link that image node to their article, they're going to  
> have a lot fewer articles with images.

You're right, simplicity is needed...but you're presupposing a UI/ 
implementation. If they click on an image insert button, and an image  
manager pops up that displays existing images that they have access  
to, as well as a simplified "upload an image" process directly from  
that manager screen...voila!. Whether an image node is created or not  
is actually secondary, except in terms of re-use and management.

Boris Mann
Vancouver 778-896-2747 San Francisco 415-367-3595
SKYPE borismann

More information about the development mailing list