Concept for different return types of the link picker

[juliusknorr]

The link picker would also be useful for other results than links, e.g. text snippets or images. It would be nice if we could have:

• A way to specifify which result types an app wants to receive when launching the picker
• Standardise different result types
  • Link (current way of doing it)
  • Text (plain text, also works currently but could be more specific)
  • Image (as base64 encoded)

We'd need some discussion around wording and naming of this as currently we use the "Add link" / "Pick link" terms but we can probably just adapt that to "Insert link/text/image". For apps that support multiple (like text) we should though have a combining term.

cc @julien-nc as we talked about this idea

cc @jancborchardt @nimishavijay for a first design input on this.

[nimishavijay]

Great point, also came up in the design review call for the link picker in Mail. We decided to keep "Add link" for now, but only because most of the items that are supported as of now return links. Indeed if there are more return types we could change it. Possible choices:

• Insert link, text, or image
• Insert item
• Insert object
• Insert element (Confluence)

We could also think about a 2 level structure like:

• Insert File Link More items

I too think "Insert link, text, or image" sounds the nicest. Are there plans of supporting more return types? If yes, maybe "Insert item" works better, since it's generic enough to cover everything? @jancborchardt

Also what we talked about was using a different icon. Currently, the link icon is being used, but we could switch to something like the MDI category icon

What do you think? @jancborchardt as well as @hamza221

[jancborchardt]

@nimishavijay agree on your point about wording as well as the proposed icon. :)

[juliusknorr]

Moving to server as it is a cross repo effort and this repo will be archived