Problem/Motivation
The Field list
and Used in views
pages list all fields with a link to the entity or views that uses them. The Views plugins
page links to all the views that use them.
Both are useful resources for users working with fieldable entities or views. With the exception of user accounts, these are all located under Structure in the admin menu, but the list pages are are located under Reports.
Other report pages are more about the kind of changing information that is required on a production site (status, log, errors etc.), while these list pages are a tool during site-building.
Users might not expect these site-building resource under reports, and therefore miss out.
Proposed resolution
Move those pages in the admin menu form Reports to Structure.
Remaining tasks
User interface changes
Before
And scrolling way down...
After
API changes
Data model changes
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#40 | interdiff_38-40.txt | 3.06 KB | sourabhjain |
#40 | 2895832-40.patch | 11.93 KB | sourabhjain |
#38 | interdiff_37-38.txt | 8.07 KB | Akram Khan |
#38 | 2895832-38.patch | 11.88 KB | Akram Khan |
#37 | 2895832-37.png | 818.07 KB | Nikhil_110 |
Comments
Comment #2
ifrikComment #3
xjmYes, let's move them!
The only downside is that it's even more menu items (well 1) in the already overloaded Structure section. But I think it' a worthwhile tradeoff because it's actually the answer to accidentally clicking on comment types when you want content types.
Comment #4
ifrikI'm working on it.
Comment #5
ifrikI've moved both the Fields list as well as the Views plugins.
Comment #6
xjmThe paths are still
/admin/reports/fields
and/admin/reports/views-plugins
. Maybe/probably they should change to reflect the new parents in the IA?I think the "Views plugins" link should probably go under "Views" (or maybe be a tab on "Views") rather than being a first-level item under "Structure". Not sure if we want that one in the same scope here or not since I think it's of a different level of relevance (related only to Views) vs. the field list (related to every fieldable entity type).
Added some before screenshots to the summary. Here's the current "after":
Comment #7
xjmEditing to make the screenshots not giant; forgot to fix the high-res thing.
Comment #8
ifrikSorry for forgetting about the paths. I already thought that this was much less work then expected...
I've now corrected the pathes, and while I was on it also made the page and tab titles a bit more consistent which each other, because a page title like "Used in views" is not very clear in itself. I've also changed the help text that refers to it. See screenshots.
I also realized that the existence of these views pages and the views settings pages are missing from the help so I make an issue for that as well.
Comment #9
ifrikComment #11
ifrikI've also fixed the Views_UI test. The Field UI does not seem to have a test that checks for the pages.
Comment #13
ifrikI'm not quite sure what happened there, but the last patch had so much in there that shouldn't be there.
Comment #14
ifrikOkay, this now should have all tests.
The screenshots in #8 are still correct.
Comment #16
ifrikComment #17
bendev CreditAttribution: bendev commentedI work on this issue in Vienna2017
Comment #18
bendev CreditAttribution: bendev commentedOkay I have tested the patch against 8.5.x and it is working fine
Screenshots in #8 are still valid (checked)
Paths and titles look ok.
Comment #19
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy at Roy Scholten commentedI agree that it would be useful to bring these listings closer to the interfaces where they are most useful. I don't think adding them to the Structure page is necessarily the best way to connect these dots. The structure page is already too much of an undifferentiated mix of primary, heavy use items (content types, views, menus) and less often used items like comment types, contact forms. (And what are Views plugins anyway?)
I don't think these items should be presented on the level where you can still choose between working on (for example) your content types, navigation or views. These lists would ideally be linked only on screens where they are relevant. Similar to what #2721727: Allow user to add display modes from respective field UI's. wants to do.
Can we look into other ways to connect these related screens? I'm thinking about #1440678: New users have difficulty finding where to adjust the content model for example. Another route would be to get busy with #2518960: Emphasize the most important items on the 'structure' page.
In it's current state of alpha sorting whatever links are on this page, adding more items to this list, where those items only *support* *parts* of the functionality on offer there is not the better trade-off.
Comment #20
Ivan Berezhnov CreditAttribution: Ivan Berezhnov as a volunteer and at Drupal Ukraine Community for Levi9 commentedComment #22
xjmPlease only tag string changes after the issue is actually committed. Thanks!
Comment #23
mohit1604 CreditAttribution: mohit1604 at Google Summer of Code commentedI applied patch #14 manually for version 8.4.x and observed that Views plugins is not showing in structure after applying the patch !
Before applying patch
After applying patch
Comment #24
savkaviktor16@gmail.com CreditAttribution: savkaviktor16@gmail.com at Skilld commentedAdjusted the patch, 'Views plugins' link has come back
Comment #25
kpolte CreditAttribution: kpolte commentedSeems like a screenshot is already uploaded.
Comment #26
ifrikThe patch works as intended.
Thanks a lot!
Comment #27
larowlan#19 was not addressed
Comment #37
Nikhil_110 CreditAttribution: Nikhil_110 at Srijan | A Material+ Company commentedAttached patch against drupal 10.1.x
Comment #38
Akram Khantry to fix CCF #37
Comment #39
sourabhjainI am working on fixing #38.
Comment #40
sourabhjainTried to fix the #38 error. Please review.
Comment #41
larowlanFolks, please don't work on this until we get buy in from the UX/product team
In #19 they expressed that they didn't support it.
I would recommend taking it to the usability team via the #ux channel
Comment #42
larowlanFWIW I don't agree with this change either