backdrop-issues icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
backdrop-issues copied to clipboard

[UX] - Change visibility condition from Node:Type to Node: Content type

Open stpaultim opened this issue 11 months ago • 5 comments

Description of the need

The option to set a visibility condition based upon content type, using the terms "Node:Type". It has been suggested that we change that to "Content type" or "Node: Content type"

I'm now leaning in favor of the second option.

(One of many issues raised here: https://github.com/backdrop/backdrop-issues/issues/2620)

image

stpaultim avatar Mar 25 '24 01:03 stpaultim

Since the name of the other node conditions starts with Node:, changing from Node: Type to Content type makes harder to understand that is not a global condition like URL path. I would rather change that if also the other are similarly changed (for example, Node ID, Account role, and account ID).

avpaderno avatar Mar 25 '24 08:03 avpaderno

I would rather use Node: content type which seems redundant, but makes explicit it is a node condition, and not a condition for another entity, which happens to have a reference to a content type.

avpaderno avatar Mar 25 '24 08:03 avpaderno

@kiamlaluno - I see your point. In the original issue, it was recommended that we break each change into it's own issue. Maybe that was a bad idea, because at least some of them should probably be changed together.

stpaultim avatar Mar 25 '24 20:03 stpaultim

@kiamlaluno - I'd like more feedback on this. I've changed the issue title to reflect your second suggestion, which I think would allow this issue to proceed on it's own. But, I'm also happy to try and accomplish more than this in one PR if helpful.

I'll put this on the agenda for a design/UX meeting. But, welcome additional feedback in the issue queue (here).

stpaultim avatar Mar 25 '24 21:03 stpaultim

The other issue was about changes completely different from each other, like allowing to enter more than one user ID. It makes sense to use different issues for different suggestions in that issue.

I am fine with keeping the current scope, or changing it for other condition labels. In the latter case, it would help to discuss what to use instead of User: UID, Node: NID, and Node: Type on the same issue because at least we would agree on the same naming schema for all those condition labels.

avpaderno avatar Mar 26 '24 07:03 avpaderno