[development] Modules page rework
Frando (Franz Heinzmann)
frando at xcite-online.de
Sat Jul 29 17:01:34 UTC 2006
Earl Miles schrieb:
> Morbus Iff wrote:
>> * I'm not sure I "get" the links thing. Why should they be in here?
> Many (many many many) have said that they feel the most logical place to
> look to administrate a module is in the modules section. And it makes a
> great deal of sense to me as well. I consider this an additional set of
> links to a module's administration pages. It makes things easier to find
> by providing an alternate path.
+1 on the links. This can save so many clicks in some situations,
especially together with the reorganized administration. We just offer
another way to get where you want to get, without confusing people. What
can we want more than to make life easier for some people without
confusing others ;)
>> * I don't like the "required modules" section. It doesn't seem
>> important to have this bit of information break from the alphabetical
>> listing of the modules page. To some degree, I wonder if we even
>> should list these modules /at all/. If they're so important as to be
>> absolutely required (yes), then why should the user need to know
>> about them? They are as necessary as bootstrap.inc, so should be as
>> invisible as that. This can reduce the size of the page too.
> I'd never really thought about simply hiding the required modules
> entirely. I'm not sure that's completely a good idea, but I'm not
> against it, either. What are other opinions?
Hmm, I won't hide them completely. They could be in a table that is
collapsed by default, but I don't like hiding things that are there from
people. They are modules, they have their .module file, so they should
appear in the module listing. Becaue they're modules (and not .inc files
For example, it might be interesting to have them on the module table at
least to have the links to administration and help, and the description.
More information about the development