Re: [Krang-general] Changing "View Story"

[d.brodale <dbr...@pl...>]

On 10 Aug 2006, at 23:32, Jesse Erlbaum wrote:

>> Different in that it doesn't look like an actionable form, or in some
>> other manner?
>
> Different in every way.  Do input_form()s even render in view mode?
> Nope!  That means effort made in the *element libs* (not even deep 
> Krang
> development) to make the UI easier are lost in "View" mode.  (For
> example, propagating up the title of a story for a Lead-In so that you
> can see it without clicking "Edit".  Something we've been asked to do
> many times.)

The disconnect here is that I'm approaching this from the direction
of the visual interface, and you seem to be approaching it from that
of the programming interface (more or less).

I may have been in error to take your initial inquiry as questioning
retention of a different display of View..., where it seems clear(er)
to me that the question comes from binding View... and Edit... as two
modes to the same underlying programmatic strata.


>> Does this view also suggest doing away with the "View Media", "View
>> Site", and "View Template" screens [...] ?
>
> That's a good question.  I'm very focused on stories, but we have these
> screens littered elsewhere.

I wouldn't necessarily call them litter, but the View Story interface is
not an isolated instance, and should it be moved into closer relations
with Edit Story, I would hope that it would be carried off somewhat
consistently with regard to sibling View... interfaces. The degree of
that consistency would depend on the nature of the relationship 
introduced.


> I guess my priority is Stories because they are so much more 
> complicated
> than Media and Templates.

This is only because Media and Templates are -- with respect to Stories 
--
woefully underdeveloped in terms of asset management. My opinion only.


> Also, Stories are customized via elements, where Media and Templates 
> are not
> -- so their "View" screen is not going to differ much from the edit 
> view.

See above. Sites, however, do make use of the Element Editor, so there 
is
presently a stronger resemblance between View Story and View Site than
between the former and View Template or Media.


> I guess I'd say, no, changing view stories does not imply media
> or templates.

And I would suggest contrarily that if binding View and Edit in Stories
leads to visible interface alterations, that they similarily carry 
across
to sibling View... interfaces -- at least on the visual level -- lest
things become disjoint.


> Assuming is it possible to have one code path to view and edit stories,
> and that we can disable editing in "view mode", what is the down side
> of overloading the story/element editor as I have described?

I see the upside of things programmatically. Personally I'm mixed on
what it might mean in terms of visual impact. I don't believe that
uneditable things should look or act editable (e.g., recycling form
controls as a framing context) and that there ought to be greater
indication that one is inspecting (rather than editing) data apart
from dropping off a few buttons.

Are there side-effects to consider in terms of permissions? I don't
know enough about the guts of Group management within krang, but I
guess I throw out this topic out as one for consideration, as well.

It's also not clear to me whether this means that it would no longer
be possible to inspect data without checking out an asset. This, at
least in many cases where I've utilized View..., would be a terrible
loss, as it would necessitate grabbing things away from others in a
disruptive fashion where (currently) that's not needed.

I'm also wondering how cleanly this would work with mildly sophisticated
addons such as rich text editors, or the impact a changeover in View...
mechanics would have on existing krang installs that look to keep apace
with krang development -- but I guess that's more a question of whether
your suggestion is one for core krang, or could be adopted as an addon
itself.

-don