The distinction between 'Add new field' and 'Add existing field' does not seem to be large enough. The user did not associate 'Add existing field' with the re-use of a field already added to the system and did not know where the existing field "image" had come from. They did not wish to use it and created a new image field.
By renaming the title of that section of the field ui (the only few words we have to clearly express what is going on) to 'Re-use existing field', or 'Clone existing field', we may be able to reduce some of the confusion.
Another thing that could be changed might be add some help text to the top of that page, but as sun pointed out in IRC, no one reads the help text even when they're lost and don't know what is going on.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#8 | 1430670-rename-add-existing-field-to-reuse-8.patch | 12.92 KB | izus |
#5 | 1430670-rename-add-existing-field-to-reuse-5.patch | 13.11 KB | ELC |
#1 | 1430670-rename-add-existing-field-to-reuse-1.patch | 10.59 KB | ELC |
Comments
Comment #1
ELC CreditAttribution: ELC commentedThis patch just does a text replacement on 'Add existing field' to 'Re-use existing field'. The patch affects field_ui.module and taxonomy.module, where the field ui operation scores a mention.
It does not alter the machine names of any of the field ui forms - these are left as '_add_existing_field', although it doesn't look like the anything would fundamentally change if this name were to be changed. The javascript does not seem to reference the the name directly at all.
Comment #2
tstoecklerTempted to RTBC this, but as the Manage Fields page has been the product of intense usability work, this should have a lookover from the Usability team
Comment #3
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commentedSounds like a good improvement, I think from a UX perspective this is good to go. It would be good to get a review that double checks that we found all instances.
@yched Is this good to go?
Comment #4
Bojhan CreditAttribution: Bojhan commentedComment #5
ELC CreditAttribution: ELC commentedI did a 'grep -R "Add existing field" *' from the docroot to find all the instances I did change, which is how I found the one in taxonomy.
Ah, but if I look for all instances that are also around irrespective of case, then things are a bit different. There are another 6 mentions in comments. This new patch deals with those changes, and is based off the new HEAD since things have changed a fair bit in there.
I could replace all instances of the form key "_add_existing_field" too, but I was afraid that changing that much might screw up any modules that relied on that form key. Does that matter if this is Drupal 8 though? The form key change (if it was done too) probably should not get back ported to D7 for that reason. There are 20 instances which look like they could be changed, but I have a feeling that some of the tests rely on the field name being "edit-add-existing-field-field-name" so they would have to be updated too.
Comment #6
jenlamptonUpdating tags.
Comment #7
SuperHeron CreditAttribution: SuperHeron commentedI can't apply the patch on a fresh D8. Could you please rebase it?
Comment #8
izus CreditAttribution: izus commentedthe patch in #5 was just having the old test file field_ui.test, that's why it couldn't be applied.
I generated i new patch that applies with last code base.
Comment #9
tstoecklerCode looks good. Could probably use someone trying this out locally, though, before RTBC.
Comment #10
tomogden CreditAttribution: tomogden commentedCode looks good. Patch runs correctly in field management for both Content Types and Taxonomy. Test file runs correctly and displays all the correct terms.
Comment #11
schnippy CreditAttribution: schnippy commentedReviewed and tested patch at #8 against fresh copy of Drupal 8 -- everything looks good and can see how this does improve the UI over the old language.
Comment #12
tim.plunkettThis was committed already?
http://drupalcode.org/project/drupal.git/commit/8035c50