Problem/Motivation
Vocabularies by default have a Description field. In the case of other entities this descripition is displayed on their overview pages such as Content types admin/structure/types
or Comment types admin/structure/comment
, but the Vocabulary description is not displayed on the Taxonomy page where users would expect it.
Adding the description to the table on admin/structure/taxonomy
would improve usability by allowing users to see which vocabulary was meant for what, and it would provide consistency between core modules.
Proposed resolution
Add the description as a column to the table on the Taxonomy page.
Remaining tasks
User interface changes
This is a UI change to improve usability.
before:
after:
API changes
N/A
Data model changes
N/A
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#10 | interdiff-3-10.txt | 1.37 KB | ChandeepKhosa |
#10 | display-vocabulary-description-on-taxonomy-page-2752849-10.patch | 2.29 KB | ChandeepKhosa |
#7 | vocabulary-before.png | 15.43 KB | ifrik |
#3 | display_vocabulary-2752849-#3.png | 91.44 KB | pixelmord |
#3 | display_vocabulary-2752849-3.patch | 816 bytes | pixelmord |
Comments
Comment #2
pashupathi nath gajawada CreditAttribution: pashupathi nath gajawada as a volunteer and at Melity commentedIm looking into this issue.
Comment #3
pixelmord CreditAttribution: pixelmord at Wunder commented@pashupathi nath gajawada : I guess you did not have time to get to this issue, I created a patch.
Comment #4
pixelmord CreditAttribution: pixelmord at Wunder commentedComment #5
ifrikThanks pixelmord,
this does exactly what I envisioned. This patch simply makes the list of vocabularies consistent with list of content types etc. by just adding a bit to the UI, as shown in the screenshot.
It doesn't change any existing functionality, so I don't think it need an extra usability review so I'll RTBC it.
Comment #6
jcnventura CreditAttribution: jcnventura at Wunder commentedIt does what it says.. Just tested and saw the description column added to the vocabulary list page.
Comment #7
ifrikScreenshots
before:
after:
Comment #8
xjmThis is an extremely straightforward user interface improvement. Since this is adding text to the page in a new column, I asked myself three questions:
I also discussed the issue aloud with @Bojhan and he thought it was a fine improvement. Great work!
One thing we do need is added test coverage to ensure the descriptions are displayed. Marking needs work for that (and maybe we can file that followup issue too).
Thanks everyone!
Comment #9
ChandeepKhosa CreditAttribution: ChandeepKhosa at 2Toucans commentedassigning
Comment #10
ChandeepKhosa CreditAttribution: ChandeepKhosa at 2Toucans commentedI have added descriptions to the tests.
Here is my patch & interdiff from the last patch
Comment #11
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy at Roy Scholten commentedCan somebody verify the added tests are ok? Thanks!
Comment #12
dawehnerThese tests look perfect for me
Comment #13
xjmIt occurred to me that we did not really have a precedent in core for whether a vocabulary description should be markup or plain text (since it does not use any text filter). The closest analogy is content types. I compared it to the content type list builder and confirmed they support markup for the description.
I tested manually and it looks great, including in a narrow window. I also confirmed that descriptions are XSS filtered but not escaped.
Committed 46e89b9 and pushed to 8.3.x. Thanks!
Comment #15
ifrikThanks so much to everybody!
Comment #17
Gábor Hojtsy