On 2/22/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave wrote: > On 2/22/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> I would add that the only thing that kind of sucks about that is that >> expecting most users to understand content types is a bit of a stretch >> in my mind. So the benefit of the current solution where we just lookup >> the content type based on the file extension used in the "link" value of >> the template is that it keeps things simple for users. >> >> Having to see a field marked "Content Type" with a value of "text/css" >> on the template editing form for a css template may cause more problems >> than it will solve. If people start to hack at it without knowing what >> they are doing then they can break things. > > That's true and so we'll have to be careful how we expose it in the > UI. For example we might want a combobox with options like: > > Web page (text/html) > CSS file (text/css) > Custom... > > Where custom leads to popup that allows a custom content-type. That > could even be hidden away in an advanced settings area similar to > those on the edit-entry page. yep, those both sound like good ways to deal with it. > > >> So we may want to ask how often we think people need to create custom >> templates where they need to set a custom content type which can't be >> accomplished by using a file extension? > > Content-type is the standard and "right thing" to do here. You can't > rely of file extensions in general and I've got specific problems with > them. I'm creating pages that generate feeds so I need > application/xml+rss and application/xml+atom. And I need > application/json for JSON. My ISP controlled server is not setup to > map .atom, .rss or .json so file extensions are useless to me and I > think that's a pretty common situation for bloggers. gotcha. i agree that content types are the right thing to do, i just want to make sure we are thinking about the right way to introduce them. in the past i think we have all been guilty ( me included :/ ) of just dumping features into the app without developing good UX around them and i think that Roller is mature enough now that we really need to be better about that kind of stuff. there are still lots of good features to be added to Roller, but one of the things i know i want to focus on in the 4.x series (and hopefully others do to) is to really refine what we have now and make it as complete and mature as possible, and a lot of that will mean focusing on UX.
I agree. We need to focus on UI and 4.0 is the starting point for that now that we have Struts2 in place. There are way too many places where the UI is partial, inconsistent, ugly or all of the above. If you add in content-type, I'm willing to do the UI work to support it. - Dave
