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.
Add the description as a column to the table on the Taxonomy page.
This is a UI change to improve usability.
before:
after:
N/A
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 commentedIm looking into this issue.
Comment #3
pixelmord commented@pashupathi nath gajawada : I guess you did not have time to get to this issue, I created a patch.
Comment #4
pixelmord 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
jcnventuraIt 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 commentedassigning
Comment #10
chandeepkhosa commentedI have added descriptions to the tests.
Here is my patch & interdiff from the last patch
Comment #11
yoroy 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