At the usability study, users found themselves in "Configuration Management" which sounds more important and appealing than it really is. User went there hoping for more.
Relabel the "Configuration Management" section and update the description accordingly. Suggestions:
Here's a screenshot with the last suggestion, and an updated description:
None.
None.
None.
None.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #10 | relabel_configuration-2513568-10.patch | 534 bytes | cilefen |
| #6 | relabel_configuration-2513568-6.patch | 541 bytes | cilefen |
| #3 | relabel_configuration-2513568-3.patch | 2.2 KB | cilefen |
| Configuration___drupal8.png | 29.65 KB | ivanstegic |
Comments
Comment #1
mtiftComment #2
cilefen commentedAt a glance, this is easy enough for a novice to try.
Comment #3
cilefen commentedI agree! It seems like when I am on the 'admin/config' path I am managing my configuration. And in HEAD when you click on 'Configuration management' you come to a page whose title is 'Synchronize'. I am going a step further and saying the titles of the sub-pages are so short as to be misleading. I have changed them in this patch too:
Synchronize => Synchronize site configuration
Export => Export full site configuration
Import => Import full site configuration
Single import => Import single configuration
Single export => Export single configuration
Comment #4
ivanstegic commented@cilefen There is a related issue to improve the usability of this part of CMI: #2247291: Reorder tabs in configuration UI
I think we'd be better off in this case just keeping it to the top level nav, the thing which we identified in the study. I've added a reference to the other issue here too.
Could you re-roll the patch please if you agree?
Comment #5
ivanstegic commentedComment #6
cilefen commentedComment #7
Bojhan commentedJust wondering if we need the "site" part here. Given that its pretty clear what you are building is a site?
Comment #8
eli-tAre there any viewable results from the usability study? If so can we link to them in the issue description?
Comment #9
ivanstegic commented@Bojhan I think I'd agree, removing site would be fine with me.
@Eli-T this issue is the direct result of the study, in this particular item. I'm pretty sure the videos are available, but I don't have the link to them. @Bojhan can supply that I think. Here's the spreadsheet that we were working from: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iCcj2E4F4Nsns_HkDUnutCgEKWQc7kEu...
Comment #10
cilefen commentedComment #11
Bojhan commentedLooks good to me.
Comment #12
ivanstegic commented+1
Comment #13
webchickLooks good here, too. It would be nice to get a configuration subsystem maintainer sign-off first, though, since this is their primary UI.
Comment #14
xjmAssigning to alexpott for that signoff.
FWIW +1; I have always thought this would be a better name for the link.
Comment #15
tim.plunkett+1 for RTBC (I'm actually in MAINTAINERS.txt for config.module, but I'll leave it for @alexpott)
Comment #16
alexpottInterface strings and not frozen in beta. Committed 6f97344 and pushed to 8.0.x. Thanks!
Comment #18
Bojhan commentedWhoo, first UMN 2015 fix