Problem/Motivation

Triptych is not widely understood. Bartik uses this term to name some of it's regions. This causes a usability issue.

Proposed resolution

Replace all instances of "Triptych" with "Featured Bottom" and since bottom goes with top rename "Featured" to "Featured Top".

Look at bartik.info.yml to see the regions.

triptych_first: 'Triptych first'
  triptych_middle: 'Triptych middle'
  triptych_last: 'Triptych last'

The name "Featured Bottom" was chosen for reasons described in #92.

In addition to that overall change, the patch here also changes the designation of the component regions within the (former) Triptych area from first/middle/last to first/second/third (in other words, "Triptych middle" becomes "Featured bottom second" and "Triptych last" becomes "Featured bottom third". The argument in favor of this change is that it introduces consistency with other existing regions (for example, "Footer first/second/third/fourth column"). The argument against it is that it makes the region names less meaningful, because with a 3 column region like this one it is possible to use "first/middle/last" to give a better verbal hint of how the regions actually appear on the page. This change has not been reviewed by the usability team.

Remaining tasks

  • Replace Regions name with the new selected one.
  • Write a patch. Done. #133
  • Add change record. Done. #138
  • Review the patch.
  • Done. #134

  • Add screenshots to show patch does not break anything visually. Done. #134

Follow up

#2392361: Bartik theme: “triptych” and footer-columns classes added to body but never used in CSS

User interface changes

Yes - text changes wherever this region is referenced, particularly in /admin/structure/block

API changes

Original report by @raytiley

Beta phase evaluation

Reference: https://www.drupal.org/core/beta-changes
Issue category Bug because the uncommon and inaccurate naming may left people confused and discourage the use of the region
Issue priority Normal because it affects only one piece of functionality
Unfrozen changes This is primarily a theming change; however, because it changes the name of regions, it will affect configuration that depends on these region names (including block placement). So it ideally should be completed before the beta-to-beta upgrade path is provided since it would require update hooks.
Prioritized changes The main goals of this issue are usability and themer experience, since the region name 'Triptych' is not necessarily recognized or understood for many people.
Disruption Disruptive for core/contributed and custom modules/themes because it will require renaming for things previously addressed as 'triptych'. Some disruption for existing sites because any blocks placed in these regions will no longer be displayed and will need to be reconfigured.
CommentFileSizeAuthor
#161 rename-triptych-1164784-161.patch14.39 KBemma.maria
#158 rename-triptych-d7-1164784-158.patch866 bytesluco
#152 1164784-148-152.txt937 bytesDickJohnson
#152 rename-triptych-1164784-152.patch14.14 KBDickJohnson
#149 interdiff-1164784-147-148.txt394 bytesDickJohnson
#148 rename-triptych-1164784-148.patch13.75 KBDickJohnson
#147 interdifff-1164784-144-147.txt384 bytesDickJohnson
#147 rename-triptych-1164784-147.patch13.75 KBDickJohnson
#144 rename-triptych-1164784-144.patch13.6 KBDickJohnson
#134 Screen Shot 2015-02-01 at 02.13.48.png535.29 KBemma.maria
#134 Screen Shot 2015-02-01 at 02.01.32.png90.7 KBemma.maria
#134 Screen Shot 2015-02-01 at 02.01.11.png101.31 KBemma.maria
#134 Screen Shot 2015-02-01 at 02.01.17.png33.57 KBemma.maria
#134 BackstopJS-Report-Triptych.pdf716.58 KBemma.maria
#133 rename-triptych-1164784-133.patch14.98 KBtadityar
#129 rename-triptych-1164784-129.patch14.95 KBtadityar
#125 rename-triptych-1164784-125.patch12.79 KBvermario
#122 rename-triptych-1164784-122.patch12.79 KBvermario
#115 rename-triptych-1164784-115.patch12.76 KBvermario
#115 interdiff-1164784-101-115.txt7.06 KBvermario
#101 interdiff-62-101.txt1.63 KBtadityar
#101 rename-triptych-1164784-101.patch14.35 KBtadityar
#95 Screen Shot 2015-01-20 at 12.17.11 pm.png399.8 KBkattekrab
#65 1164784-manualtest-RTBC.png59.03 KBkattekrab
#62 rename-triptych-1164784-62.patch10.08 KBtadityar
#60 interdiff-48-60.txt499 bytestadityar
#60 rename-triptych-1164784-60.patch9.94 KBtadityar
#57 rename-triptych-1164784-57.patch20.52 KBtadityar
#51 1164784-triptych-blocklayoutlist-51.png18.48 KBkattekrab
#51 1164784-triptych-tertiary-blockregions-51.png199.88 KBkattekrab
#51 1164784-triptych-selectregion-51.png29.33 KBkattekrab
#51 1164784-triptych-filled-51.png37.21 KBkattekrab
#51 1164784-triptych-blocksplaced-51.png297.32 KBkattekrab
#48 rename-triptych-1164784-48.patch9.88 KBtadityar
#46 rename-triptych-1164784-46.patch10.18 KBDickJohnson
#29 Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.08.34 am.png18.21 KBkattekrab
#29 simplytestme-1164784-manualtest.png216.58 KBkattekrab
#29 Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.15.16 am.png37.98 KBkattekrab
#29 Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.03.50 am.png12.06 KBkattekrab
#29 Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.02.01 am.png27.13 KBkattekrab
#29 Screen Shot 2014-12-14 at 8.00.55 am.png15.97 KBkattekrab
#26 Screenshot_1164784_23.png158.25 KBvermario
#23 Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at 5.19.40 PM.png185.95 KBtadityar
#23 rename-triptych-1164784-23.patch9.07 KBtadityar
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Well it does have some meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triptych

I take it you mean just the region name, not the variables? As in:

regions[triptych_first] = Lower panel first
regions[triptych_middle] = Lower panel middle
regions[triptych_last] = Lower panel last

etc?

dcmistry’s picture

Yes! Participants from the study did not understand the meaning of "Triptych" and hence did not understand the working of it.

Replacing with a common/ regularly used word would be helpful, in fact needed :)

JohnAlbin’s picture

Title: “Tryptich” has no meaning. » “Tryptich” term is not widely understood
Status: Active » Needs work

I'm all for using more understandable terminology. However, let's not repeat the Taxonomy renaming fiasco.

"has no meaning" is definitely the wrong issue title. :-\

Tri-fold? *sigh* That's probably equally jargony. Can anyone else tell I have printing background? i.e. tri-fold brochures. :-p

Before we go renaming it, we need a detailed description of what actual problems the naming caused. Just because people didn't understand the region name doesn't mean they had problems using the region? Explain, please.

JohnAlbin’s picture

Status: Needs work » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)
dcmistry’s picture

Title: “Tryptich” term is not widely understood » “Triptych” term is not widely understood

@JohnAlbin

Changed the issue title :)

Let me try to paint a more clear picture what the actual issue is. Region behavior and names led the user to think that the different regions were dependent on each other. Not understanding what "Triptych" is, participants had a gap in grasping how to place a block.

One potential solution is to do a terminology evaluation exercise (done online) and solicit ideas from actual users.

Bojhan’s picture

Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Active
webchick’s picture

This is not the same as the taxonomy debate, IMO. If you look up taxonomy, you get a definition like "the practice and science of classification. " Taxonomy is where you set up your site's classification/categorization mechanisms, so there's a 1:1 correlation there.

Tryptich, on the other hand, is "is a work of art (usually a panel painting) which is divided into three sections, or three carved panels which are hinged together and folded." Bartik is using Tryptich to describe "a footer region in a theme with three columns." The correlation is cute and clever, if you're an art major. But if you're not, it's utterly baffling. Especially if you navigate to the region list at a block configuration page before you've found the "Demonstrate regions" link (which about half of our participants did).

webchick’s picture

As an aside, it probably makes sense to have a recommendation for block regions to attempt to cue where they'll appear on the page using their names only. (e.g. *Sidebar* something something, *Header*, *Footer*, etc.) That fared much better.

dcmistry’s picture

+ 1 to have very simple region names

alberto56’s picture

Perhaps this could thought of in conjunction with an overall standardization and improvement of regions names throughout Drupal: #1136436: Standardize region names based on popular contrib theme patterns

Cheers,

Albert.

jenlampton’s picture

Can we remove the triptych regions from Bartik completely, instead of renaming them?

We're also facing the problem that the sheer number of regions in the Bartik drop-down on the blocks interface is overwhelming, why not eliminate three of them and solve this problem, all in one fell swoop? *takes cover*

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Hi Jen! Probably not since this would create a pretty big wtf for people upgrading. *Hopefully* the entire block configuration UI gets a whacking great make-over and the "way to big select list" issue we all face will evaporate...

jenlampton’s picture

I was thinking we could do something smarter with the footer regions too. Rather than having a "1st footer" "2nd footer" etc - we could make those columns zen-like - and give them the ability to realize how many columns are being printed on the page. If only one column was being used, it could be 100% of the width of the area, if only two of them are used, they could have widths at 50%. If three are, 33%, and if all four are used they could be 25% wide.

If we did something smarter with the regions we had, we wouldn't need to provide three triptych columns, as well as four footer columns. If we did a re-work like this, then the update could move all the triptych content could go into footer columns 1 2 and 3.

bertstruik’s picture

oh my @#$%.
So triptich panels are in the footer!!!!!
where does it say that in the structure?

Triptych I understand. I studied art. Drupal assumptions about what a first time user knows, I don't understand.

My confusion stemmed from my perception of a tryptich in art; it being the full work of art divided into 3 hinged panels such that the two side panels could be closed over the larger centre panel. So I figured it refered to the primary working space on a Drupal view; the important part where the main body of work would be displayed. And therefore not the footer; or what I think of as the footer, since it is at the bottom and contains explanatory and subsidiary information. It never occured to me that a great master's work would be a footer.

drupalshrek’s picture

I think the title: "Triptych" term is not widely understood, is a bit of a bit of an understatement. A better title would probably be "Most people haven't got the faintest idea what the term "Triptych" means. I consider myself to have a pretty educated grasp of English and I hadn't the slightest idea what was meant by the term (which is why my search brought me here). I do not remember ever hearing the term in my life. This thread doesn't make me much clearer where it is, but I would suggest something using words like: pre/post, above/below, left/right in relation to wherever it actually is, e.g. "pre-footer", "post-content".

emma.maria’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Issue tags: +frontend, +Needs usability review

I agree the Triptych regions need to be renamed, I had no idea what they represented from just their names until I read through this issue.
But we still need a decision on what the names should be. I am going to ping @Bojhan to get fresh eyes on this.

Bojhan’s picture

I am not sure what to review here? We need some suggestions on better labels, I guess?

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Common template level naming (what a front end developer might choose) would be something like:

  • Postfix
  • Tertiary

More user friendly naming might be something like:

  • Sub features

The latter is close in the vernacular of the theme, i.e. "Featured", "Sub Features". It's bad though because it could be inferred that they are right below Featured, however I have not myself had this complaint when I've used these names for very similar layout.

LewisNyman’s picture

I think tertiary works quite well, because we have the main region (primary), the sidebar (secondary) then the tertiary columns.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Sure, I've used the primary, secondary, tertiary (aka goldilocks) approach for many years and it always served me and my users well.

webchick’s picture

Title: “Triptych” term is not widely understood » “Triptych” term is not widely understood - use "tertiary" instead.

Make it so.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Issue tags: -Needs usability review +Novice
tadityar’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
FileSize
9.07 KB
185.95 KB

Replaced 'triptych' with 'tertiary' and the added screenshot is from when I put all elements inside the tertiary block.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

+++ b/core/themes/bartik/bartik.theme
@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ function bartik_preprocess_html(&$variables) {
+    $variables['attributes']['class'][] = 'tertiary';

Just a general comment, Bartik adds two classes to the body based on active regions - footer-columns and triptych, but then never uses those classes anywhere in the CSS afaict.

We should consider removing these in a followup.

LewisNyman’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs manual testing
vermario’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community
FileSize
158.25 KB

Patch reviewed:

- no more instances of "triptych" found
- block administration page has the new "Tertiary" names
- content gets correctly assigned to those new regions.

See screenshot.

vermario’s picture

I have created a followup issue for the problem Jeff Burnz refers to in #24: #2392361: Bartik theme: “triptych” and footer-columns classes added to body but never used in CSS.

Wim Leers’s picture

I agree the Triptych regions need to be renamed, I had no idea what they represented from just their names until I read through this issue.

+1!

I thought it was a random word or perhaps a dinosaur fossil — it somehow makes me think of the word "pterodactyl" :P

kattekrab’s picture

RTBC +1

Manual test with simplytest.me

Added an article, a comment, and a custom block, and placed a couple of other default view blocks in the tertiary regions.

Showing empty tertiary labels at /admin/structure/block

Showing tertiary in drop down menu for placing a block

Showing tertiary is selected region

Showing tertiary labels in Display block regions

Showing populated tertiary regions at /admin/structure/block

Homepage after placing blocks in region

kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Issue tags: -Needs manual testing
kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Bojhan’s picture

@WimLeers @vermario You didn't study art? Tss... :P

xjm’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work
Issue tags: +Needs change record, +D8 upgrade path

Nice work! I think this should probably have a change record for those using these regions. Also tagging as upgrade path deadline since this will affect block placement configuration for existing sites.

Also, the summary should include a beta evaluation to make it clear what the change is, why it's still a good change to make during the beta, and what specific disruptions this change will have for existing modules, themes, and sites. Thanks!

kattekrab’s picture

Draft change record...

The three Bartik "Triptych" regions found between the main content and the footer have been renamed to "Tertiary".

During a usability review undertaken in 2011, "triptych" was highlighted as an example of the kind of Drupal terminology users often find confusing. Tertiary was proposed as an alternative because it more accurately represents the hierarchy of content likely to be placed in these three regions.

  • Triptych first becomes Tertiary first
  • Triptych middle becomes Tertiary middle
  • Triptych last becomes Tertiary last

This will also have an impact on any Bartik subthemes, and be most apparent on admin/structure/block, and in the configuration settings for placing individual blocks in regions.

As for the Beta evaluation, I'll leave that to someone else.

tadityar’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Needs work » Needs review

Is that how the beta evaluation should be? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

alexpott’s picture

A Triptych is a panel which is divided into three. The only primary and secondary things we have are menus - are we introducing something else confusing?

Also the beta evaluation is slightly incorrect - this is not only changing css and markup - block placement configuration will change.

webchick’s picture

I agree it's a shift in definition, but since only about 0.000005% of Drupal users (the ones who were art majors ;)) understood the original "cute" meaning of tryptich I'm not that fussed, personally.

alexpott’s picture

I'm +1 to changing the name. Just pondering whether tertiary is correct.

xjm’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Per #18, #19, and #20, "tertiary" is a label for this type of template region that frontend developers would recognize and use. Updating the summary to clarify where the name came from.

And thanks @tadityar, looks pretty good! I tweaked the beta evaluation a bit. @alexpott and I noticed that this issue falls into sort of a gray area in terms of the beta phase because it's primarily a theme change, yet affects configuration for block placement. For example, if an existing site had blocks placed in these regions, and they upgraded from beta3 to whatever beta this change lands in, their blocks in these would disappear. That said, I think we should go forward with this issue as that is not a terrible disruption during the beta (and discuss this borderline case a bit more among the release management team).

xjm’s picture

Oh, can someone add a draft change record node from @kattekrab's text in #35?

tadityar’s picture

@xjm added the draft change record! It's in https://www.drupal.org/node/2393897

emma.maria’s picture

The draft change record looks good.

LewisNyman’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

The change record looks good, I updated the title to:

The Bartik region 'Triptych' is now called 'Tertiary'

xjm’s picture

Thanks everyone!

DickJohnson’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs review
FileSize
10.18 KB

Tried to reroll after CSS -> SMACSS split in Bartik.

LewisNyman’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work
  1. +++ b/core/themes/bartik/bartik.info.yml
    @@ -16,14 +16,13 @@ regions:
       page_bottom: 'Page bottom'
    -  highlighted: Highlighted
       featured: Featured
    

    Looks like we are removing the highlighted region by mistake?

  2. +++ b/core/themes/bartik/css/components/media.css
    @@ -134,12 +134,12 @@
    +  /* ------------------ tertiary ----------------- */
    
    +++ b/core/themes/bartik/css/components/tertiary.css
    @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
    +/* ----------------- tertiary ----------------- */
    

    This should have a capital letter

  3. +++ b/core/themes/bartik/css/components/media.css
    @@ -134,12 +134,12 @@
    +  #tertiary h2 {
         font-size: 1.714em;
         margin-bottom: 0.9em;
       }
    -  #triptych .block {
    +  #tertiary .block {
         margin-bottom: 2em;
         padding-bottom: 2em;
       }
    

    It weird that this stuff is in media.css when it should be in teriary.css? This is weird, because the identical selectors would override each other depending on order. We could probably just delete the CSS here because it is would be overriden by tertiary.css

tadityar’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
9.88 KB

Updated the patch with suggested changes from #47

DickJohnson’s picture

On #47.3 I thought that it's out of this issues scope. We do know that the SMACSS split is not perfect, but f.ex. getting rid of media.css (or at least most of it) is one of the issues we should handle separately. 2 others are stupid mistakes and the latest patch is fixing those.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Issue tags: +Needs screenshots

Had a look through the code changed in the latest patch. Having duplicate CSS within the theme is a bug in my eyes, so the CSS in media.css is a good spot and it should be cleaned up as we go along, we might forget later. So the patch in #48is spot on.

I have updated the issue summary and tags with the remaining steps.

The main priority now is that we need some fresh screenshots to test #48 as all of the CSS files in the theme have been split up since the last screenshots.

kattekrab’s picture

Took a bunch of screenshots using simplytest.me again - still looks good to me.

kattekrab’s picture

Issue tags: -Needs screenshots

removing needs screenshots tag, see #51

kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

updated IS steps.

kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

Point 3. in #47 that was removed within the patch in #48 needs to be put back in. Reviewing the code in dreditor did not show that the "duplicate" code in media.css is actually wrapped in a media query so would override tertiary.css and is needed to exist as part of the design.

Here is the code for the full section the current triptych code in media.css is part of.

@media all and (min-width: 520px) {

  /* ----------------- Featured ----------------- */
  #featured {
    font-size: 1.643em;
  }
  #featured h2 {
    font-size: 1.174em;
  }

  /* ------------------ Triptych ----------------- */
  #triptych h2 {
    font-size: 1.714em;
    margin-bottom: 0.9em;
  }
  #triptych .block {
    margin-bottom: 2em;
    padding-bottom: 2em;
  }
}

Can a new patch with the corrections of 1. and 2. from #47 but not 3. be created please.

tadityar’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
20.52 KB

Updated per #56

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 57: rename-triptych-1164784-57.patch, failed testing.

Status: Needs work » Needs review
tadityar’s picture

Something was wrong with the last patch and this is the repaired version.

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 60: rename-triptych-1164784-60.patch, failed testing.

tadityar’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
10.08 KB

seems like git reset HEAD --hard wasn't enough so I did git pull origin instead.. I hope this one apply. There's no new change so for interdiff please see the previous interdiff file.

The last submitted patch, 60: rename-triptych-1164784-60.patch, failed testing.

kattekrab’s picture

FileSize
59.03 KB

Patch looks good. Interdiff looks good. Fresh round of manual test screenshots in simplytest.me show it still works!

Thanks @Tadityar & @DickJohnson - I call this RTBC!

I'll update the issue summary.

manual testing screenshots

kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

RTBC

suggested commit credit:

Issue #1164784 by tadityar, DickJohnson, kattekrab, vermario, emma.maria: “Triptych” term is not widely understood - use "tertiary" instead

kattekrab’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
alexpott’s picture

  header: Header
  primary_menu: 'Primary menu'
  secondary_menu: 'Secondary menu'
  help: Help
  page_top: 'Page top'
  page_bottom: 'Page bottom'
  highlighted: Highlighted
  featured: Featured
  content: Content
  sidebar_first: 'Sidebar first'
  sidebar_second: 'Sidebar second'
  triptych_first: 'Triptych first'
  triptych_middle: 'Triptych middle'
  triptych_last: 'Triptych last'
  footer_firstcolumn: 'Footer first column'
  footer_secondcolumn: 'Footer second column'
  footer_thirdcolumn: 'Footer third column'
  footer_fourthcolumn: 'Footer fourth column'
  footer: Footer

Here are the list of current regions of bartik - so Tertiary to what? The only primary and secondary in the current list are about menus. #18 says that "sub features" works but then in #20 suddenly tertiary has been used for years.

We are substituting a term Triptypch which says exactly what is (a three column panel) for one that does not say much unless the user somehow thinks, with no indication, that content is primary, sidebar is secondary, and this region is tertiary - but why is that not the featured region? header? page_top? page_bottom?

Yes triptych is arcane and not good for usability / discoverability and everything - but is tertiary the best we can come up with?

tadityar’s picture

@alexpott #18 also listed 'Tertiary' as an option an the downside of 'sub-features' being that people might mistakenly thought it's below 'featured'

I also want to ask what kind of content are usually present in the triptych region? Or is it content-agnostic?

Asked dawehner on irc and got one more alternative that is 'pre-footer' because it appears before footer.

DickJohnson’s picture

I think pre-footer is not a good name because we have already a lot of regions where word footer is mentioned and that are actually part of footer. This is the kind of question where we don't have exact and right answer, but I'd say tertiary is best of what has been proposed.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs review

Looking at the block demo page and the markup, I can agree with @alexpott.

Triptych is currently a standalone region in the markup. The main wrapper (containing the sidebars, main content etc), triptych wrapper and footer wrapper are all on the same level. Triptych currently sits separately and is not supposed to be associated with the main content or the footer.

There is no clear purpose for this region out of the box, it's just a nice thing to provide for content unknown for users to decide, we can't predict what that will be from this standpoint.

We should keep it in Bartik for legacy and design purposes. But I think maybe we should shift it's place in the markup, so it's no longer standalone.
So far we have names that still leave it sounding vague with no understanding to the user of what it does, or we have suggestions to associate it with other elements on the page. HTML5 also does not help us here to name it as a standalone element.

How about making it an actual part of the footer or the main content? So the grey region still exists but belongs in the main content or footer as a footer-top or something-to-do-with-being-the-bottom-of-the-main-content. Then pre-footer etc would make more sense.

That is my very basic solution to what has been raised recently. More opinions please :)

PS. apologies for the late bikeshedding.

emma.maria’s picture

Eurgh I don't like what I said above, I didn't want to kill momentum. I was told that once you become a maintainer you end up disagreeing and arguing with yourself a lot and here it is.

I agree that "Tertiary" amongst all of the other current region names is still pretty ambiguous. We do not use primary or secondary anywhere for specific region naming. Also we have many more regions then just sidebar and content, there's no defined hierarchy to make triptych more prominent than say featured, it's just a region included as a nice to have.

Ignore my ramblings about changing markup in the previous comment for now. From the markup (if it's still the original hierachy?) it looks like Jen built it as a purposeful separate region from everything else. This means we shouldn't define a name relative to something else on the page. Also we have no clues to what content this region will be used for so we can't easily use this method for naming it either. We can however change it to be more associated with the main content or footer which might help with naming it.

Also we can't keep the name Triptych now that Bartik is responsive. Triptych implies 3 columns, well on a small screen the region is 1 column not 3.

The more people we can get chiming in on this the better, we need some form of consensus that the core committers agree with.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

#68, sure, we know its not perfect, but tertiary is technically not wrong, better than triptych and quick buy in avoided an epic bikeshed, which we all know these naming convention issues have a habit of becoming.

What I said, or at least meant, is that I have used both types of naming conventions - hierarchies such as primary/secondary/tertiary and more human-friendly naming such as Features, Sub-Features, Main Content for these three sets of regions. Please note I am not talking about for specific themes for one client - I mean on a grand scale of thousands of users, indeed tens of thousands of users in some cases.

IMHO the issue is less about the pattern or the actual word, it's more about a catchy, easy to remember term that the user can mentally map either to a location on the page or a very obvious chunk of content, such as the "Primary" menu, or "Feature" which stands out pretty clearly when used.

In this case the word "tertiary" can do that, despite its meaning (to rank third), you could just as well infer immediately that its not going to be at the top, or in the middle, but somewhere further down the page.

It could possible be improved by using it as a pre-modifier like the menus, i.e. "tertiary-content".

"pre-footer" sounds a mouthful, I tend to agree with #70 that we already have too many footer-esque regions, if we did pre-footer we then have 8 footer regions - that is kind of nuts.

#71 - moving to #main-content is really trivial (it only has a min-height and clearfix), and we could use something like "sub-content".

So that would be my entire input to the bike shed:

1) use tertiary-content OR
2) do #71, move into #main-content wrapper and call it sub-content.

nathanlawsn’s picture

How about "appendix"?

emma.maria’s picture

Appendix could work, I can actually visualise it's intent and didn't have to look it up, here are the official definitions for it too.

appendix (plural appendices or appendixes)

1. Something attached to something else; an attachment or accompaniment.
2. Specifically, a text added to the end of a book or an article, containing information that is important to but is not the main idea of the main text.
...

tadityar’s picture

Awesome! So we have something new here, should I re-do the patch right away or wait for some more to agree with Appendix?

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Hmm interesting, when I think of appendix I think of something added at the end of a book that includes supplemental or explanatory information. I wonder if users might think it means a totally other section of their site, e.g. "the appendix"?

emma.maria’s picture

If we want the region to be a supplementary area to the main content, that provides more content to go after but along with the main content then it makes sense to me.

kattekrab’s picture

Hrmm. I quite like appendix.

I'd also thought Triplet could be a "3" related word that doesn't imply hierarchy the way tertiary does.

Literally, "a set of three".

Or perhaps Trio.

Another option is Bottom.
bottom-first, bottom-middle, bottom-last
And it also kinda describes where it appears - at the bottom of the content.
see: https://www.drupal.org/files/project-images/panels_bootstrap_layout_buil...

And final thought... Postscript.

Postscript A, Postscript B and Postscript C.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Oh, I just thought on one I have used in the past also: "spotlight".

I don't think we can do a "where it is" sort of name, but rather more of a one-to-one rename along the lines of "what it is":

  • spotlight
  • appendix
  • postscript
  • triplet

etc.

tadityar’s picture

hmm but won't spotlight sounds like something featured? e.g "getting the spotlight"

emma.maria’s picture

Yes I don't think we should have spotlight and featured, they can be interpreted the same.

davidhernandez’s picture

It might be best to rename all the regions, so they make sense as a collection, but I'm sure we're not going to do that. :-)

When I make a theme, I usually call that area footer_first and the bottom area footer_second, because they both tend to contain footer type content. (menus, graphics, but not large amounts of text or page specific content) However, I don't think that would work given the region naming that already exists.

Think about what content will go there. It is currently a stand alone region, but that doesn't negate the visual flow of the page. Given the background color, and low placement on the page, users aren't likely to put just anything there. And, looking at the screenshot, it comes across as a counterpart to the "Featured" region.

If it is footer content, its naming should probably be inline with the other footer regions. If it is main content, its name should probably reflect that instead. I can't think of anything perfect for that, but I also first thought of "postscript".

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Lets keep building our list, I'm sure we can come up with something :) Appendix doesn't do it for me because in all the thousands of themes I have worked with over the years I do not recall ever seeing anything like it, i.e. it's a real anomaly.

Edit: #83: yeah for sure, it would be great to rename all the regions :)

emma.maria’s picture

Let's not a build a huge list, we will never get anywhere. Also I don't think this region will end up with a regular region name looking at it's history and how we need to treat it.

We need to now make a consensus from what we have so far.

Or further discuss the existence of this region as an independent region. We seem to be holding onto it because of it's history and it's someone might use it maybe reasons. If we can't decide on a regular name for it to be a standalone region, isn't that a sign? :)

davidhernandez’s picture

@emma, I'm a bit confused between the email and your post, so it looks like you edited it quite a bit. Are you now saying you want to completely remove the region?

emma.maria’s picture

Yes I didn't like what I originally posted. I'm getting too emotionally invested into this rather small issue in the grand scheme of Bartik cleanup.

We either:

- Rename it as a standalone region : risky as it might not be accepted, as we are essentially giving it another name that isn't automatically understood.
- Combine it into another region and rename it based off that : so footer-top etc, (the whole footer is getting a code overhaul currently).
- Scrap it altogether: If we can't define a useful purpose/reason to keep it and if we can't actually name it easily, isn't that a sign? There are 4 columns available in the footer below the 3 columns for triptych currently, there are so so many column options.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

I don't think we can remove them, they're part of the original design, highly likely to be used in production D7 sites, and you can't just move blocks and have them look the same (like Highlighted).

I'd go for option 2, I think its a good idea.

Bojhan’s picture

Title: “Triptych” term is not widely understood - use "tertiary" instead. » “Triptych” term is not widely understood

These labeling issues are often quite a challenge, since there is no "ideal" solution. Alex is right in stating that tertiary might not be much more clear, but our end-goal is to move away from a truly confusing label -> not to find a perfect fitting replacement. Scope wise its probably not smart for this issue to rename all the labels.

I think option 2) would actually work quite well. This does require a visual change I imagine, or would it simply be tied to a particular location?

FYI, changing opinion after review is often a sign of actually listening to other contributors :) So I don't think thats bikeshedding or wrong at all - it means reason and ideas triumph.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

#89 - shouldn't mean any visual changes, actually you can drag the markup inside the #main-wrapper div and make no other changes and it looks the same. If it went inside the #footer-wrapper it needs a bit of jiggling with the padding on that wrapper.

davidhernandez’s picture

I'm also fine with option 2.

emma.maria’s picture

Here's an idea...

@davidhernandez showed me a site yesterday that had this type of region included and it was main content type content http://newbrunswick.rutgers.edu/.
@LewisNyman mentioned somewhere that the content for Triptych might not always be footer content, we have all the columns in footer for that too.

So if we decide triptych moves into main content I think we should name it Featured Bottom First, Second, Third. Hear me out :)

Looking at the real life examples, this kind of region tends to include featured "main content" content, it's part of the main content region and usually only shown on the front page. Triptych has the same styles (colour, full width) as the existing "Featured" which we could make "Featured Top". Then the user can see that there is two places to put their featured content, one row at the top and 3 columns at the bottom.

We are trying to not visually change Bartik, only small cosmetic things.

So that was my lightbulb moment from this morning. Please can I have your thoughts on the name, placement suggestion.

jacob.embree’s picture

#68 makes sense.

Tertiary indicates third in placement, not a container of three. Without a primary and secondonary, tertiary is misleading.

"Triptych" fits because its layout is likely to be three-column and it's obvious from context and the fact that it starts with "tri" that is has some relation to three.

BrightBold’s picture

#92 makes great points. I have only ever seen this region used for front page main content. So "footer" isn't necessarily applicable, but as mentioned in #93 and elsewhere, "tertiary" doesn't make sense. Where's secondary? So I think "Featured Top" and "Featured Bottom" would be more applicable to the real-world uses and are much more intuitive than either Triptych (which I happen to like but you can't argue with user testing!) or Tertiary.

kattekrab’s picture

How about Featured beneath or Featured below or Featured after?

I'm not sure why, but I'm not liking bottom. Maybe, it's too... anatomical? It's not a strong objection though.

I also found an example of an "after the main content" area on http://www.abc.net.au/

tadityar’s picture

So, it seems that no one have objection for naming it "Featured-something". IMO of the on on the top is named "Featured Top" then the one below should be "Featured Bottom" but I'll wait @emma.maria to decide Finally we're moving toward a conclusion for this issue :D

davidhernandez’s picture

I'm fine with featured bottom first, featured bottom second, featured bottom third. The longer names are a little annoying, but I don't think it really matters. It is fairly clear what they are. And at this point what do we gain by trying to be more clever?

Jeff Burnz’s picture

at this point what do we gain by trying to be more clever?

Probably not much, featured bottom sounds like a plan.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

Thanks all! I just wanted to simplify it as much as possible.

Setting this to Needs Work so work can commence on Featured Bottom first, second and third.

tadityar’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » tadityar

I Would like to take the honour of finishing this issue :)

tadityar’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
14.35 KB
1.63 KB
tadityar’s picture

Assigned: tadityar » Unassigned

.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

@tadityar That was quick! I have one small thing to raise. Can we have the newly named featured bottom regions using first, second and third instead of first, middle and last? Thanks.

David_Rothstein’s picture

Can we have the newly named featured bottom regions using first, second and third instead of first, middle and last?

Why? That doesn't seem related to this issue, and "middle" (the existing terminology) provides more information than "second".

-  featured: Featured
+  featured_top: 'Featured Top'
....
-  triptych_first: 'Triptych first'
-  triptych_middle: 'Triptych middle'
-  triptych_last: 'Triptych last'
+  featured_bottom_first: 'Featured Bottom first'
+  featured_bottom_middle: 'Featured Bottom middle'
+  featured_bottom_last: 'Featured Bottom last'

Pretty sure these should all be sentence-case (for example, "Featured top").

Overall, +1 on the change to "Featured bottom" - it makes a lot of sense. When I first read it, my only concern was that I pictured "Featured top" and "Featured bottom" would be stacked one on top of the other (it's not completely clear that one is at the top of the page and one at the bottom). However, this is a minor concern, and it's mitigated by the fact that they won't be listed one right above the other on the blocks administration page.

emma.maria’s picture

@David_Rothstein We also want the region names to be more consistent in Bartik. Drupal 8 is a chance to make things more consistent for frontend, so this is my input to that.

Sidebars use first and second.
Footer columns also use first, second, third, fourth.
We are also improving all footer regions here to make more sense now Bartik is responsive and they will use first, second, third etc... #2402639: Rename the footer regions in Bartik.

So the re-named triptych regions should follow those naming conventions.

davidhernandez’s picture

First, second, third is in keeping with making Bartik responsive, and the naming used with the other ordered regions.

I agree with the sentence-casing. That should be changed.

David_Rothstein’s picture

My thought is just that the inconsistent naming was probably deliberate - when there are 2 or 4 columns, first/second/third/etc is about the best you can name them, but for 3 it's possible to name them in a way that gives the site administrator more useful information.

Not sure what responsiveness has to do with this - "first", "middle", "last" makes sense regardless of whether the layout is responsive. (On a one-column mobile layout the names don't provide extra meaning beyond "first", "second", "third", but they do provide extra meaning for desktop.)

davidhernandez’s picture

Because 'middle' is not often used when something is vertical. As emma.maria pointed out this follows the sidebars and footer. Why introduce a different ordering scheme here when the other multi-column sections are going to be numeric?

DickJohnson’s picture

Totally agreed with previous messages. If we have sidebar first, sidebar second, footer first, second, third etc I see absolutely no reason to use inconsistent logic here.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

+++ b/core/themes/bartik/bartik.info.yml
@@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ regions:
+  featured_bottom_first: 'Featured Bottom first'

Agree with #104 to make these sentence case, in my experience users have an easier time reading sentence case in select lists.

With regards to first, second etc, I agree, thats the way we've been moving towards since D7 times when we started to take RTL much more seriously (no more sidebar-right/left etc). Good to be consistent in the theme and use it everywhere.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs change record

Ok so the last two improvements to the patch in #101 are:

  1. We need to change the region names to print in sentence case, eg. Featured top, Featured bottom first etc
  2.  

  3. We need to change the names of the Featured bottom regions to be, Featured bottom first, Featured bottom second, Featured bottom third.
  4.  

  5. Update the change record in #42 to reflect the new region names.
  6.  

As soon as there is a new patch I will review it. I want to get this issue out the door asap, something so small in the grand of scheme of things has taken the most work :)

tadityar’s picture

Sorry I'm sick atm so I can't do a patch for now. For the change records should there be 2 with 'Featured -> Featured top' and 'Triptych -> Featured bottom' or just one change records?

emma.maria’s picture

@tadityar I think we need one change record. We are doing this work all in one issue and an issue should have one change record :)
If I am wrong someone let me know.

davidhernandez’s picture

You can have two change records on an issue, but only do so if the difference is important enough that you want people to be alerted to it separately from the other change. The changes here don't qualify.

vermario’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
7.06 KB
12.76 KB

Hi! I have added what emma talks about in #111 in the patch. Attaching an interdiff as well.

Needs review :)

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 115: rename-triptych-1164784-115.patch, failed testing.

emma.maria’s picture

Oh no what happened!
@vermario can you check your patch in #115 to check you haven't included something odd that shouldn't be in there. The patch does not apply. Thanks!

The last submitted patch, 101: rename-triptych-1164784-101.patch, failed testing.

vermario’s picture

After pulling the latest changes, now the patch in #101 also cannot be applied. Strange! I have queued that one for retesting.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs reroll

I think the safest bet is to try to reroll your patch in #115. Something has changed in Core that's stopping these patches working. https://www.drupal.org/patch/reroll

vermario’s picture

Ok, let's try again!

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review

go testbot go! :)

davidhernandez’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work
Issue tags: -Needs reroll
+++ b/core/themes/bartik/bartik.info.yml
@@ -21,14 +21,14 @@ regions:
+  featured_top: 'Featured Top'

featured_top should have the same sentence casing as the others.

vermario’s picture

Thanks @davidhernandez, here's a reroll.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
David_Rothstein’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

I tested this patch and it seems to have broken the styling for all the affected regions (gray background disappeared, etc). Looking at the code here's a couple possible reasons for that:

  1. -  if (!empty($variables['page']['featured'])) {
    -    $variables['attributes']['class'][] = 'featured';
    +  if (!empty($variables['page']['featured-top'])) {
    +    $variables['attributes']['class'][] = 'featured-top';
    

    Pretty sure the first line should be using 'feature_top' not 'featured-top'.

  2. --- a/core/themes/bartik/css/components/featured.css
    +++ /dev/null
    ....
    --- a/core/themes/bartik/css/components/triptych.css
    +++ /dev/null
    

    These files are being removed (along with all their CSS) but I don't see a replacement added back anywhere...

One other comment (not related to the above):

+ * - page.featured_bottom_first: Items for the first featured bottom.
+ * - page.featured_bottom_second: Items for the second featured bottom.
+ * - page.featured_bottom_third: Items for the third featured bottom.

This reads very awkwardly. I think the word "region" probably belongs at the end of each of those?

David_Rothstein’s picture

Beyond the above, I think this is probably RTBC.

I'd be interested in seeing some feedback from the usability team on the "first/middle/last" => "first/second/third" change before commit, though. It's not obvious to me that more consistent region names is better than more meaningful region names...

But overall, the "Triptych" => "Featured bottom" change should mean this patch is a usability improvement either way :)

tadityar’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
14.95 KB

Okay, I tried to do all the suggestion. Please tell me if I missed something.

tadityar’s picture

Sorry for not adding an interdiff somehow it returns blank..

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 129: rename-triptych-1164784-129.patch, failed testing.

davidhernandez’s picture

Bartik's info.yml changed earlier today so the patch will have to be rerolled.

tadityar’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
14.98 KB

Okay, re-rolled that.

emma.maria’s picture

From looking through the code in the patch, everything mentioned in #127 has been fixed.

Here are some screenshots of the newly named regions in action...
 

 

 

 

 

I also ran a CSS regression tool to compare before and after patch and all tests pass comparisons, see attached file.

The patch is RTBC but we still need a new draft of a change record to represent the changes we have made in the patch.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

Setting to needs work until we have the new change record.

kattekrab’s picture

I'll have a crack at the change record now.

kattekrab’s picture

Assigned: Unassigned » kattekrab
kattekrab’s picture

oops Tadityar beat me to it!

https://www.drupal.org/node/2393897

Looks good!

RTBC!!!

kattekrab’s picture

Assigned: kattekrab » Unassigned
Status: Needs work » Reviewed & tested by the community
webchick’s picture

Title: “Triptych” term is not widely understood » “Triptych” term is not widely understood; add "Featured top" and "Featured bottom"
Assigned: Unassigned » alexpott

Awesome; looks like a really nice compromise was reached here!

Since Alex had a lot more reservations here than I did, sending to him.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Thanks @webchick! I also cleaned up the issue summary of old content also.

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 133: rename-triptych-1164784-133.patch, failed testing.

davidhernandez’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs reroll
DickJohnson’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
13.6 KB

Tried to reroll.

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 144: rename-triptych-1164784-144.patch, failed testing.

emma.maria’s picture

For the patch #144 you have missed out renaming the featured region to featured top in the info file.

DickJohnson’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
13.75 KB
384 bytes

Whoops.

DickJohnson’s picture

Ok, lets try once more.

DickJohnson’s picture

FileSize
394 bytes

Also an interdiff for that to make life a bit easier.

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

Just noticed the featured bottom regions in the info file have all got the same label "Featured bottom first".

Is a manual reroll necessary for this issue? we seem to be getting further away from what we had in #133.

DickJohnson’s picture

Erm, ok, now, this is really my bad. I didn't do the reroll from #133 for totally unknown reason. It came somewhere before it.

DickJohnson’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
14.14 KB
937 bytes

And yes, we do need manual reroll on this as the media.css split up affected all files we're handling here, except for bartik.theme. The failure on info.yml was just stupid find and replace error, sorry about that. We were also missing stuff from admin.css due old patch I used while rerolling. I tried to double check manually that everything is okay now, but tbh I've looked this code for too many hours now. :)

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, 152: rename-triptych-1164784-152.patch, failed testing.

DickJohnson’s picture

Previous patch was valid, but I think that renaming footer regions again got just commited and it doesn't apply anymore. I'm not working on this in next 24 hours.

David_Rothstein’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Updated issue summary to mention the first/middle/last => first/second/third change also.

emma.maria’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs usability review
emma.maria’s picture

Assigned: alexpott » emma.maria

I am going to reroll, tidy up the issue summary and assign back to @alexpott afterwards.

luco’s picture

here's a patch to backport this for D7. you can thank Blake Hall and Drupalize.me for pointing me here. ;)

Bojhan’s picture

Issue tags: -Needs usability review

Responding to David's comment from #128. I think that it's very important to note that, we are dealing with a very fundamental flaw in Drupal here. This patch is basically a result of this. We dont provide the blocks interface in the context of the actual front-end, this means there is a huge disconnect between the interface that allows you to control and the interface that allows you to see. This is a problem that has been identified over and and over again in various usability studies, dating back to 2009 and one of the studies that various people in this thread also attended.

This patch is simply removing the most confusing way of labeling a region, the replacement is at best a stop-gap until we fix the core problem. However fixing core UX problems in the sitebuilding experience, is sadly something we do very very rarely.

Your basically asking users to choose between a hint (middle) and then figuring out where the other two are placed. It can be more useful to call out "middle", but I am honestly not sure if outweighs the confusion it creates by having to decipher "first" "second" and having to decipher how it compares to the footer labeling (column 1,2,3,4). It looks like we are creating two relatively heterogeneous groups and using the same level of labeling you bring some homogenous relationship to the concepts. But again at the very core, you can't solve this with labeling. It's flawed by virtue, because the regions don't have a location specific purpose (like featured, footer) and we lack any visual block concept. The real way to solve this, which is out of scope for this patch is to attack either one of those angles.

At the end of the day, any patch that removes Triptych is to me an improvement - I don't think we should spend a lot of collaborator time over this - as most users need to see the result to make sense of it. No matter what we label it :)

David_Rothstein’s picture

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like we should just go ahead with the wording from the current patch, then, since no one thinks it's a big problem and everyone agrees the patch is overall an improvement.

But again at the very core, you can't solve this with labeling.

Somehow I had a feeling this was going to be your answer :)

emma.maria’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
Issue tags: -Needs reroll
FileSize
14.39 KB

Woop finally rerolled. Let's see if that worked had to deal with more than one commit affecting this.

alexpott’s picture

+1 to the new names - looks like a clear improvement to me. And inline with the recent footer changes.

idebr’s picture

Issue tags: +CSS

Added the appropriate tag for CSS.

There are followups available for to bring these files in line with our CSS coding standards:
#2419475: Clean up the "Featured bottom" component in Bartik
#2398469: Clean up the "Featured-top" component in Bartik

DickJohnson’s picture

Assigned: emma.maria » Unassigned
Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Run some tests with BackstopJS and it looks like visual elements are okay after this patch. I'll try to figure out how to get the test to decent format.

Minor thing that should be fixed is that libraries.yml is no longer in alphabetical order. That can be fixed on follow up issues also, as there's a small chance that something gets broken.

The last submitted patch, 158: rename-triptych-d7-1164784-158.patch, failed testing.

DickJohnson’s picture

No idea why the #158 was being tested, but it's not the latest patch anyways.

luco’s picture

@DickJohnson sorry! #158 was me, trying to backport to D7.

davidhernandez’s picture

Wait until the issue has been committed before adding a backport, because the version number has to be changed. Testbot tried to test that patch against 8.x.

webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Awesome. Sounds like everyone is happy with this direction! Makes total sense to me as well. Change record looks great as well (ooooh, pictures!)

So long, Triptych. Don't let the ianua hit you on your clūnēs on the way out. (That was my attempt at Googling other Roman words. :P)

Thanks so much for everyone's continued perseverance on this long-standing UX issue!

Committed and pushed to 8.0.x. YEAH!

I don't actually know that this patch can be back-ported to D7, so leaving it as fixed for now. And if it can, probably better to try it in a non-169 reply issue linked from here. ;)

  • webchick committed a7c37e0 on 8.0.x
    Issue #1164784 by emma.maria, kattekrab, tadityar, DickJohnson, vermario...
Jeff Burnz’s picture

You can't back port this patch, it will break sites on D7, we can't smash peoples sites without very, very good reasons for doing so. There are far more innocuous patches that have not made it into D7 for years because of the mere hint they might cause damage, this will absolutely break peoples sites, so it's an absolute non-starter.

webchick’s picture

Well. My thinking is the patch would need to be very scaled down, and only change the labels, not the actual region names. That wouldn't be too invasive, though it may invalidate some documentation.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Good idea, we could change the labels.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

David_Rothstein’s picture

Yeah, changing just the labels would be acceptable for Drupal 7.

Although I wonder if that's a good idea because then we'll have themers (who are usually looking at the machine name of the region) refer to this with completely different terminology than end users? I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Anyway if someone wants to discuss backporting this they can certainly reopen this issue.

quietone’s picture

Publish the change record