Problem/Motivation
In the linked meta issue the block items are getting reorganized in the administration menu. At first the moving and relabeling was initially done in #2987964: Move custom block types admin link to admin/structure and #2862564: Move Custom block library to Content. But there was a consensus to separate the relocation and the renaming of things.
Problems with Custom Block Types (https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2987964#comment-14764972)
- In #2987964: Move custom block types admin link to admin/structure Custom block types got moved to the same level like Content types, Comment types, and Media types. Due to the prepended word custom and the alphabetical sorting you have Block layout on top of the list then four other menu items and then Custom block types.
- If a person is scanning for blocks in the administration menu the word custom has to be processed first which decreases the readability.
- One could question him or herself if there are Custom block types are there also regular block types?
Problems with Custom block library (https://drupal.slack.com/archives/C1AFW2ZPD/p1666965008595329)
- the term "custom block" means different things to different people, to some people it means creating a custom block in code, while to others it means adding a block containing custom content to be placed on the site;
- Since the introduction of Layout Builder in Core, the use-case for custom blocks has changed, they are no longer just for adding into a region but can be used as part of content on any given page.
- The module itself is named content_blocks.
For the reference the issue was discussed and agreed on in the linked issue on Slack by @aaronmchale, @benjifisher, @rkoller, and @smustgrave
Steps to reproduce
Proposed resolution
- Even though the issue status is already set to postponed [P-4] move the changes for renaming
Custom block typetoBlock typealready done in #2987964: Move custom block types admin link to admin/structure over to this issue - Change the route from
/admin/content/block-contentto/admin/content/block - On
/admin/content/block(currently/admin/content/block-content) change the page title fromCustom block librarytoContent blocks - On
/admin/content/block(currently/admin/content/block-content) change the label of the tab fromCustom blockstoBlocks - Change the name of the module from
Custom blocktoBlock Content
Except the first point, moving over the already made changes, wait with any further work until #2987964: Move custom block types admin link to admin/structure, #2862564: Move Custom block library to Content, and #3318112: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance land. And it might be possible that more name/labeling changes might be necessary.
Remaining tasks
- Review and commit
User interface changes
API changes
Data model changes
Release notes snippet
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #29 | Screenshot from 2023-04-06 10-30-40.png | 84.84 KB | larowlan |
| #29 | Screenshot from 2023-04-06 09-19-21.png | 164.38 KB | larowlan |
| #29 | Screenshot from 2023-04-06 09-17-21.png | 29.6 KB | larowlan |
Issue fork drupal-3318549
Show commands
Start within a Git clone of the project using the version control instructions.
Or, if you do not have SSH keys set up on git.drupalcode.org:
- 10.1.x
compare
- 3318549-rename-blocks
changes, plain diff MR !3612
- 3318549-rename-the-blocks
changes, plain diff MR !3179
Comments
Comment #2
rkollerComment #3
rkollerUpdated the title prefix to
P-3- Only three steps necessary upfront instead of 4.Comment #4
rkollerI've presented the current plan for moving and untwining the block related pages in Core at the Drupal Dojo Austin to yesterdays attendees @rocketeerbkw and @arcticcheetah. The plan was as agreed in https://drupal.slack.com/archives/C1AFW2ZPD/p1666965008595329 to get some general feedback about the plan by a diverse number of users.
In addition to the general thumbs up for the different steps there were the following comments specific to the micro copy in the Custom block library screenshot:
content blocksin the page title it seems busier and redundant. why cant it be blocks in the block title as well? you can't generate regular blocks in the ui. the only place you need to distinguish between blocks and content blocks is the block layout page. therefore it would make sense to name everything in/admin/content/blockjustblocksadd content block” as the button label is ok. but the text, when no content blocks are added yet, should also be updated.:no content blocks available. add a content block->no blocks available. add a content blockcontent blockseverywhere or consistentlyblockinstead with the only exception for theaddbutton and theaddlink.Comment #5
rkollerI've presented the current plan for moving and untwining the block related pages in Core at the weekly Lean Coffee Table at the Drupal User group in Munich to @drubb, @franz-m, @it-cru, @jurgenhaas, @martin-mayer as well as to the Fox Valley Computer Professionals attendees Anthony E. Scandora, @bsnodgrass, Sally Gradle, @TBone242.
The page title on
/admin/content/blockcaused completely opposite reactions between meetups. the consensus in one meetup was thatcontent blockdoesn't throw anyone off at all. while in the other meetup everyone was uncertain about the terminologycontent block. as long as everyone has a difficult time differentiating the different types of blocks as described in https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2862564#comment-14789469 it doesn't make much sense renaming the page title tocontent block. everyone was leaning towards renaming the page title to plainBlocks. with regard to the suggestion that the custom block library should show each and every block naming the page title justBlockswould even make more sense.In the context of
/admin/content/and terminology it was also added that the termsnodeandcontentare very difficult to convey to less tech savvy project managers.in regards of the renaming of the
custom blockmodule toblock contentto getblockandblock contentclose to each other for easier comprehension and association it was also noted that there is a similar case withcustom menu linksandmenu ui. out of the scope for this issue but i don't wanted to let it slip through.And there was a consensus in both meetups that the title
Appearancehas to be at least revisited and discussed if it is still the best descriptive fit. Someone noted that for example the german translation uses forAppearancethe termDesigninstead.Comment #8
smustgrave commentedThis is still blocked but wanted to get what I could ready for when #2862564: Move Custom block library to Content lands
Replaced all occurrences of custom block type with block type
Replaced all admin/content/block-content routes with admin/content/block
Changed the name of the module.
Questions
Still need an update hook for the block view but should the title of the page match the tab?
Should we replace Custom blocks with blocks or content blocks?
Comment #9
smustgrave commentedThink the move block library is close to landing. Can we hammer out details of this one?
Comment #10
larowlanDown to one blocker now #3318112: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance
Comment #11
mstrelan commentedWondering if this is actually blocked by #3318112: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance or if we can unblock this? This is primarily about renaming "custom blocks" which is not so relevant for block layout.
Comment #12
mstrelan commentedI've merged 10.1.x in to the MR and manually resolved all conflicts. We'll need to deprecate and redirect the old path /admin/content/block-content like we did for /admin/structure/block/block-content.
Comment #13
mstrelan commentedShould we re-title this issue to expand the scope outside of just the administration menu? I think we need to replace "custom block" everywhere it appears, in help topics, in code, etc. It's everywhere.
Comment #14
larowlanAs
/admin/content/block-contentisn't in a tagged release, I don't think we'll have to worryComment #15
larowlanComment #14 was in relation to #12
Re #13 I think that's a good idea, but let's see what @rkoller and the UX team think?
Comment #16
smustgrave commentedI vote changing everywhere. Could add to the change record in the meta that we changed it.
For new people may be confusing to see two titles referring to blocks.
For existing people the change record should cover that.
Comment #17
aaronmchaleThis issue would cross both
block_content.moduleandblock.module. I suspect we need to separate this into two issues, one for each sub-system.Comment #18
rkollerin regards of #13 a +1 for changing everywhere. but for the renaming it would be good to have everything in place and untwined, meaning after "moving the block layout into appearance" also landed (ref #11). i think keeping this issue PP-1 might be the safer call?
and i had a conversation with @smustgrave already a few weeks back in the context of this issue in the #block-content channel (see https://drupal.slack.com/archives/C04AWT6FNEA/p1672344443803469 - i just forgot to post it in here). one suggestion that spun off in the thread was to change the title
Block layouttoBlock Placement. Block placement is slightly longer but from my point of view a lot clearer.the term layout in block layout one might associate with i am able to decide the actual layout of a block and its design. and if you take a look at the help text on the block layout page "Block placement is specific to each theme on your site. Changes will not be saved until you click Save blocks at the bottom of the page." the term
block placementand what the user is actually able to do on the page is directly used at the beginning of the sentence. On that page the user actually decides were to place a block in the different regions. it is describing the actual activity way better than "layout" does. might be worth a thought? what do others think?Comment #19
mstrelan commentedI agree that "block placement" is clearer.
I don't really follow the argument for blocking it on the move. Is there an example of a string usage that would be confusing if this got in first?
Comment #20
aaronmchaleI think it's just from a logistical perspective, when we were originally planning out all of the issues and the meta, it made sense to postpone the naming ones on the moving issues because it helps to focus the limited resource we have, rather than trying to do all of the issues at once and stretching the effort thereby meaning none actually get done. Also, because the MRs for the moving issues and the naming issues would touch the same code, trying to do them at the same time could get confusing and mean they need to be kept in step with each other.
Comment #21
mstrelan commentedFair points. It seems to me this one is ready to go whereas the other one is still pending a decision on where to move it. IMHO this needs to go in before 10.1 so it should take priority. We shouldn't release it with the new "Custom blocks" link in Content only to rename that it in 10.2.
Comment #22
aaronmchaleI reread the summary again, and actually there's nothing in the issue summary that blocks this issue on #3318112: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance. All of the required changes to the Block Content module have been done. That issue is specific to the Block Layout page, which is provided by a different module. Yes you can access Content Blocks from there, but all the proposed changes in the summary can go ahead with or without that issue being committed.
Also re-titling to be clearer, as I think it's important we recognise that
content_blockandblockare two separate modules, each with their own maintainers.Also, 100% agree with @mstrelan in comment #21, especially since we literally just changed Custom Block Library path to
/admin/content/block-contentin 10.1.x, and setup the redirect, if we change it again in 10.2.x and add another redirect and BC layer that's just going to get confusing for users. In addition to changing the title of the page and local task, so yes we really should get this done in 10.1.x.Comment #25
rkollerThere is one detail relevant to this issue that came up in the aftermath of the feedback sessions i've had at the weekly lean coffee table at the Drupal user group Munich the Tuesday before the last #3318112-25: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance via a slack conversation with @jurgenhaas. We've also touched the matter during the feedback session but Jürgen phrased and argued the problem more thoroughly in the follow-up:
What is currently called
Block layoutis being calledLayoutin the mockups @larowlan provided in #3318112-22: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance and #3318112-23: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance. The additional alternatives that were voiced and discussed during the coffee table wereBlock placementandPlacement. But @jurgenhaas suggests to go withRegionsas the label for this page for following reasons instead:Blockshould not be in the name. It is ambiguous as blocks are placed in regions as well as in layout builder.Layoutshould not be in the name. It implies that layout could be changed and adjust whereas it is fixed by the theme's geometry, i.e. the regions.Placementdoesn't catch it either, as placing blocks can be in various places, i.e. in regions as well as in layout builder.The label should be a clear indicator, such as layout builder is labeled "Layout Builder" regions should be named "Regions".
I have to admit i like the idea of the term
regionsin combination with approach 2 (#3318112-23: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance)for theme cards. i always disliked the termblock layoutand considered it imprecise/unclear and therefore was an advocate forblock placementorplacement- that term is used in help texts as well as when people are discussing block layouts in conversations. But Jürgen has a point. Even though going with just regions it lacks somehow the detail what the user is able to do in/with regions?Comment #26
smustgrave commentedThink the block layout changes should be moved to a separate ticket. We already moved block types and block library so 100% should tackle those renaming. But block layout hasn't been moved yet and even though it would be nice for 10.1 it's not top of the list of changes needed.
Comment #27
aaronmchaleAs I said in comment #22, I think changes to Block Layout are out of scope for this issue because this issue is specifically for the Block Content module and Block Layout is provided by a separate Core module.
To quote myself from #3318112-27: [PP1] Move "Block layout" from Structure to Appearance:
So I think Block Layout should not be renamed, yet.
Comment #28
smustgrave commentedThis is ready for review now
Question if we will need an update path for the view
Comment #29
larowlanManual testing
One of them looks to be coming from a view, the other from a list builder.
Here's the remaining places I found custom block or custom_block in core
Key
✅ Leave as is
❌ We should fix
the custom block was last edited.'))
custom block types.
type.
block types.
custom block types.
block type.
migrated a block containing a
migration.
migration.
$this->migrateLookup->lookup(['d6_custom_block', 'd7_custom_block'], [$delta]);
'a:3:{i:0;s:25:"block_custom_block_delete";i:1;i:4;i:2;i:5;}',
blocks',
custom blocks';
blocks' permission to edit an existing block.
custom blocks';
blocks',
{
and edit custom blocks'),
$this->currentUser->hasPermission('create and edit custom blocks'),
block_content_post_update_move_custom_block_library() {
page.
different permissions.
block_content_post_update_move_custom_block_library()
block_content_post_update_move_custom_block_library()
'd6_custom_block',
'd6_custom_block_translation',
'd7_custom_block',
'd7_custom_block_translation',
type: Edit custom block',
type: Edit custom block',
'block_custom';
$this->select(static::CUSTOM_BLOCK_TABLE, 'b')
block', $type_params),
$type_params),
$type_params),
history pages', $type_params),
revisions', $type_params),
revisions', $type_params),
edit custom blocks',
I think we should add a follow up to change the layout builder permission from 'create and edit custom blocks' to 'create and edit inline content blocks' - I think it's out of scope here
Huge work @smustgrave 🙌
This is our last must-have for D10.1 for block content, shaping up nicely
Comment #30
larowlanAdded #3352557: [PP-1] Change the machine name of the 'create and edit custom blocks' permission
Updating remaining tasks
Comment #31
smustgrave commentedEverything should be addressed and I updated change record.
Comment #32
rkollerApplied the latest patch to a fresh install of 10.1.x previous the site install without any other patches applied. and i've installed the help topics module. a few additional observations.
1. on
admin/content/blocki like the change on the tab fromcontent blockto justblock. it is just a bit inconsistent that the content block section is the only underadmin/contentwhich has differingh1andtabtitle. but i think it should be ok. aside that without any content block createdThere are no content blocks available.Add a content block.is missing a space after the first period.2. on
admin/help/topic/block.overviewit is not clear whatis referring to. i suppose the blocks overview is referring to the block layout page? Should that maybe clarified and directly named aka renaming blocks overview to block layout?
and the link
blocks chapter of the user guide(https://www.drupal.org/docs/user_guide/en/blocks-chapter.html) is probably needing a follow up adjusting the terminology there as well?3. on
/admin/help/blockthe linkonline documentation for the block module(https://www.drupal.org/docs/core-modules-and-themes/core-modules/block-m...) needs a follow up as well to adjust the terminology.4. on
admin/help/block_contentthe link onlinedocumentation for the block content module(https://www.drupal.org/documentation/modules/block_content) needs a follow up as well to adjust the terminology.5.
on admin/people/permissionsone permission titleAccess the Content block library pagerefers to the no longer existing titlecontent block library. To be in line with the titles for the node permissions and the recommendation in #1975064-215: Add more granular block content permissions the string should be changed toAccess the Content blocks overview page.6. and in regards of
in #29i would suggest to do that alongside #3318558: Adjust the block terminology in Layout Builder to align with block and block_content changes that both are in line.
Comment #33
smustgrave commentedThanks I’ll work on this.
If I don’t get to it in 3 days anyone else can jump on and remove my name
Comment #34
smustgrave commentedActually wasn't much to change.
#32
1 = being tackled in a separate ticket
2 = Changed to Overview for managing blocks
3 = Not sure where to place a follow up for https://www.drupal.org/docs/core-modules-and-themes/core-modules/block-m...
4 = same for https://www.drupal.org/documentation/modules/block_content
5 = updated
6 = sounds like a plan
Comment #35
rkolleruh that was fast thanks!
#34.1 do you have the link to the issue that is tackled in?
#34.2 hm also with "overview for managing blocks" i wouldn't be exactly sure to which page that part in the help topics section refers to. is it
/admin/content/blockor/admin/appearance/block. from a users perspective it would be helpful to use clear terminology.managing blocksis just a top level task in the help topics module. but for a user it would be helpful to know to which exact function or page that section is refering to. (and as i said even personally i am uncertain what it exactly refers to still)#34.3 & #34.4 i am also not exactly sure. i just wanted to point out those shouldn't be a blocker for this issue. but both pages definitely need an update. probably best would be to wait until the move block layout issue is in and then create documentation issues or directly edit both pages . the first link uses
custom block8 times and also has a few paths likeAdminister > Structure > Block Layoutthat have to be updated. the second link uses custom block/custom block types 13 times. there is also the question when those changes should go live? with the release of 10.1?Comment #36
larowlanRe #34.1 the issue is #3095893: Remove duplicate "add block" link from block content type view's "Results not found" message
Re #34.2 I agree, we should expand and fix that here - note also #3352550: Hook help for block content module is out of date after new permissions
Re #34.3 and #34.4 these can be edited post commit, tagged as such - I've also applied for smustgrave and I to be a maintainer of those pages
@smustgrave can you confirm you've resolved the ❌ We should fix items from #29?
We have 12 days until 10.1 alpha, this is the last piece we need for internal consistency with the other changes (and to avoid needing 2 BC layers for route name changes)
Comment #37
aaronmchaleThis is looking really good, thanks for all of the great work so far everyone!
Added a couple of comments to the merge request, one minor and one potential big one.
Comment #38
smustgrave commentedLeft some comments and yes @larowlan believe everything has been addressed.
Comment #39
acbramley commentedReviewed all issue comments and remaining threads in the MR. It looks like the only outstanding issue is the description of the menu item for the view.
It's currently reading as
Create and edit content block content., with a proposed change ofCreate and edit content blockswhich I agree reads slightly better.Otherwise amazing work as always :)
Comment #40
smustgrave commentedJust pushed up that change.
Comment #41
acbramley commentedIt looks like we're all happy with the wording. Marking as RTBC, great work :)
Comment #42
aaronmchaleThe discussion around whether to stay with
Block typesor go withBlock content typeshas not yet concluded, and whichever we choose will result in updates to the merge request.Comment #43
smustgrave commentedIt’s already been changed to block content types
Comment #44
aaronmchaleUsability review
We discussed this issue at #3352906: Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-04-14, that issue will have a link to the recording.
For the record the participants were: myself, @benjifisher, @rkoller, @BlackBamboo and @paulocs
The focus of the discussion was mostly centred around which term we should be using: Block types, Content block types or Block content types.
The recommendation is to stay with the shorter "block types". It was noted that for some users the words "content" and "types" seen together is strongly associated with content types, and so "content block types" or "block content types" could result in confusion, whereas simply "block types" ensures there is clear distinction between those and "content types".
We also noted that because the user is used to going to structure to create content or media types, which they can then use under the content area, simply referring to content block types as "block types" is enough context: as a user I can create blocks under Content therefor I can create "block types" under Structure.
"Block types" is also the shortest of the three options, and if the context is clear we can afford shorter terminology.
The group also noted that using the term "content block" on /admin/content/block is okay, as you are in the space of creating content and quite often blocks there will have a WYSIWYG text area.
We also discussed whether there could be any confusion between content blocks and blocks created by other modules (either in code or config). We observed that in the Block Layout area, when listing or placing a block, the term "Categories" is used and not "Types" to group the blocks there, and that content blocks are all grouped by a single category. We felt this created enough of a distinction between content blocks and blocks which are provided by code and config. We did note that in the Block Layout content blocks are still categories to as "custom", the group recommended changing the "custom" category to "content block".
Comment #45
aaronmchaleComment #46
smustgrave commentedReverted back the changes. Changed category but they will also be using the block types when #3153092: Set Block Category to Bundle in block_content module lands.
Comment #47
aaronmchale@smustgrave that's a really good flag, thanks for brining up that issue. I think it would be good, giving the context, to also bring that issue to the usability group, so I'll tag it for review. Hopefully we can prioritise it fro this coming meeting.
Comment #48
acbramley commentedFrom what I can tell, the last piece of feedback has already been addressed in the reverts, therefore this is RTBC again.
Comment #49
larowlanVerified that remaining items from #29 have been addressed, removing that from remaining tasks
These are either migrate or update hooks, so all good.
All items resolved in the MR so removing that from IS too
Updating issue credits
Comment #50
larowlanDidn't mean to change status
Comment #52
larowlanCommitted and pushed to 10.1.x, huge effort folks
See you in the other issues in the meta or #3352550: Hook help for block content module is out of date after new permissions
Updated change record.
We need to make documentation updates on Drupal.org, I'll go propose some now.
Comment #54
larowlanUpdated the two docs pages on Drupal.org
Comment #55
aaronmchaleFantastic to see this get in, thanks for the great work everyone 🎉
Comment #59
benjifisherI am belatedly adding credit for the participants in the 2023-04-14 usability meeting. (See Comment #44.)