[development] image node type
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
>> 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.
Vancouver 778-896-2747 San Francisco 415-367-3595
More information about the development