Serendipity Forums

I just realized something about these meta fields. Because they are "custom" fields, they can only be created/edited on static pages using the "Simple Template", ie /backend_templates/default_staticpage_backend.tpl. They cannot be accessed when editing static pages using the backend template "all fields".

I have been using the "Simple Template" for so long, that I had forgotten the "All Fields" option exists!

How bad! Don, do you know if the ALL fields template is build without Smarty in the event plugin hardcoded?

"All fields" is not emitted using a tpl. Is that what you meant?

Garvin enabled this about 4 years ago. See this blog entry. He writes "For our veterans, the old list-style view is still available, of course." This is the "All fields" view. To get these new fields into that view, I believe they will need to be defined in the plugin's php file, which should probably not be done until/if that plugin can actually emit these fields without the need to modify index.tpl.

I don't think its a big deal - I'm sure few, like me, even notice the "All Fields" option. The simple template is much better organized and easier to use.

Hi!

Yes; I wouldn't find it bad to have meta fields only in the template view. However "All Fields" may be a bit misleading. How could we call it? "Core view"? "Compatibility View"?

Regards,
Garvin

"Old Spice"
"Veteran View"
"Non-Smarty"

Timbalu wrote:"Old Spice"
"Veteran View"
"Non-Smarty"

Veteran View sounds as if I would need to view a World-War 2 album of people. Bad association.

When writing that (not seriously meant) I thought of Dons note about you writing: "For our veterans, the old list-style view is still available, of course."

Hi!


Ah, I missed that reference. It's funny, I agree.

However, seriously, how should we name it?

Regards,
Garvin

"Non-Smarty" should be the best, as it tells the truth, IMHO.
"Core or Compat View" would imply it is more recommended than simple.

Hi!

But "Non-Smarty" is not clear for normal editors, they would wonder "What is Smarty? Am I smarty? Yes I am! But why should I be not smarty? WHAT THE HELL IS THIS I DON'T EVEN...".

So we should avoid using technical terms on editing interfaces that are often used.

Regards,
Garvin

Then say "No Template" or just plain "Old"!
or wait until a user gives us a hint...

I for myself would simply leave it away!

I don't know how many people are actually using custom static page fields. The idea was that those fields would be template-specific. I wrote about it on my own blog a few years ago using these exact fields, custom <title> meta description, and meta keywords. But as "custom" fields, they will not appear on this alternative view. They don't work at all unless a template is modified to include them. Instead of wondering what this old/traditional/all fields view should be named, should we reconsider whether or not to include these fields in the static page plugin???

I have a custom <title>, meta description, and meta keywords developed in the staticpage plugin as non-custom fields.... they display on both the "simple template", and "all fields" template. It correctly injects a custom <title> element if defined for that static page, or reverts to the standard headline - blog title. Same is true for <meta name="description"> and <meta name="keywords">. No template index.tpl modifications necessary.

I have not committed it for a few reasons: I've only tested on one of my sandboxes.... I do not know if this is universally desired functionality.

So,
1) Do we want custom <title>, meta description, and meta keywords available in every static page?

2) If yes to #1 above, do we want this enabled in the core plugin, as I have just done, or leave it as a "custom property" which requires the admin to modify their template's index.tpl to actually use?

Your input appreciated, but I will be 8 hours behind everyone else replying!

EDIT: p.s. I have one other question. Ian recently collapsed a few of these static page "sections" using javascript. At any given moment, I like it, but also dislike it.... I try to think of this stuff from a multi-user perspective.. and I think that users who rarely create/edit static pages might be confused by the collapsed sections. Thoughts on this would also be appreciated.

Well, Staticpage Meta Fields without the need of changing index.tpl would surely be the best. But what do you do with all those who have read you blog post during these years and changed their default_staticpage_backend.tpl and index.tpl to use [custom][meta_*]?

I personally wouldn't mind to just have them in the simple/default template, according to Garvin:

Garvin wrote:Yes; I wouldn't find it bad to have meta fields only in the template view. However "All Fields" may be a bit misleading. How could we call it?

In that case the name of the OLD hardcoded stuff needs to be cleared to see which one is recommended. The best would be a rename to "simple"->default and "all field"->old template.

Don wrote: Ian recently collapsed a few of these static page "sections" using javascript. At any given moment, I like it, but also dislike it.... I try to think of this stuff from a multi-user perspective.. and I think that users who rarely create/edit static pages might be confused by the collapsed sections. Thoughts on this would also be appreciated.

Multi user perspective?
I am using this collapsable tweak for ~3 years now and everytime using it I was happy for not to see every option all the time. I wanted to concentrate to the object of my work; in my view simplicity is beautiful. I did this for hiding the meta section, while I recognized, that I didn't need that every time I created a new staticpage. Same and even more goes for the Structure-Section. That is in most cases static, and you don't need to see it! This applies for all free templates I know.

I have no idea how many people actually modified created their own backend template to add custom fields. But the fact that they might have is no reason to not add this in the core plugin - afterall, they are in there now, but unusable unless a template is modified to include them. I was merely creating a way to make them usable without the need to modify index.tpl, and also show the fields on the "old" static page template too.

As far as the collapsible section names, I like them a little, and I don't like them a little! What I don't like is that some users will simply ignore the fields/options that are collapsed.