[development] Body and teaser as fields
ronald at istos.it
Wed Feb 11 17:16:36 UTC 2009
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...
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
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Syscrusher <syscrusher at 4th.com
> <mailto:syscrusher at 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,
> Syscrusher <syscrusher at 4th.com <mailto:syscrusher at 4th.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the development