[wiki] Tags Reference

Destry · 2008-11-14 19:12:17

This should make some folks happy.

gomedia · 2008-11-15 00:43:24

Destry wrote:

This should make some folks happy.

A downloadable version of the Tags Reference makes me very happy – sometimes you just need it on paper!

It’s great to see the Textbook being given some well deserved attention.

A couple of suggestions/requests:

any chance the Alphabetical Tag Reference could be restored to the quick links?
with my browser width at 990px, text is jammed right up against the left edge and I get a horizontal scroll bar
- it would be easier on the eyes if there was a bit of white space along the edges
- changing all the widths from 984px to 800px (say) would give the pages some horizontal flexiblity & get rid of the scroll bar on smaller window widths

Your hard work is much appreciated. Thanks.

Destry · 2008-11-15 12:53:20

gomedia,

The side margins are certainly important for narrower resolutions, and I guess I just forgot them. Consider those coming.

The other two points, however, were not overlooked; decisions were made in these cases:

The new Tags Reference was intentionally created to replace the static Alphabetical Tag Listing so to gain the auto-alphabetizing functionality as well to make it possible to use things like the PdfBook extension easily (i.e., lower overhead and improved benefit). To my mind, it makes no sense to maintain a static, redundant list manually (and who is going to do it?) when the wiki category does it so much better now, thus the ATL should be phased out, not promoted. I was going to remove the page and just haven’t got around to it. (Ed. — However, if all you need is a printed page of the alphabetical listing, then you can still use the browser’s print feature to print the Tag Reference category page itself. There’s also another PDF extension we can try that downloads a single page PDF.)

It was also intentional and openly discussed to target the design to a 1024 resolution, for a couple of reasons:

It’s a fairly common target for designs these days, and we could point to many sites like ALA, Boxes and Arrows, UX Matters, and a slough of others that use this model, thus they too get horizontal scrolling.
More importantly that what the Jones’ are doing, we are talking about a wiki here having in some cases four columns (in grid terms) plus images in page context. If we narrow the design up even more, or make it flexible, then we likely make for ugly page content display in places like the Admin-side and Tag Reference pages; even cause complications where images and floated mininav boxes start overlapping each other. There’s also the consideration of making pre box content (i.e. block code examples) line wrapping more than they already do, which some people don’t like as it is (personally I think line wrapping is better than code busting out the right side of the main column or having many in-page blocks with horizontal scrolling). I wanted to go with something narrower than the default full-width, liquid design from before, but also add some finite limits to safely work with content types and layout.

We’ll see what kind of fixing and wiggling we can do, certainly, I promise, but I don’t want to get caught up in catering to every backstep request that comes up (like supporting IE5 on mac and whatnot).

Last edited by Destry (2008-11-16 11:03:48)

Destry · 2008-11-15 23:29:29

Pages have been started for these tags in TextBook: expires, if_expires, if_expired.

See:

The pages need completed details, and when 4.0.7 is released, their categorical assignment needs updated.

Destry · 2008-11-16 11:05:10

@Gocom: Nice work on the new ‘expires’ tag pages. (I think that was you. ) :)

Gocom · 2008-11-16 16:34:00

Destry wrote:

@Gocom: Nice work on the new ‘expires’ tag pages. (I think that was you. ) :)

Thanks :) Spotted’em, they were blank, thus decided to translate core’s source code to all-human readable docs.

Last edited by Gocom (2008-11-16 16:34:17)

gomedia · 2008-11-18 09:18:39

Destry wrote:

The side margins … Consider those coming.

Nice, thanks.

The new Tags Reference was intentionally created to replace the static Alphabetical Tag Listing …

I’m all in favour of automatically generated lists. I’d forgotten about the alphabetical list on the “Tags Reference” page as it was below the fold – I’ll use that instead, now you’ve reminded me.

It was also intentional and openly discussed to target the design to a 1024 resolution, for a couple of reasons:

I’ve got absolutely no problem with having a minimum width but some of my (eMac) 1024 resolution is taken up with the scroll bar on the right hand side and the (Mac) dock on the left. So a narrower width is a more reasonable minimum for me.

We’ll see what kind of fixing and wiggling we can do, certainly, I promise, but I don’t want to get caught up in catering to every backstep request that comes up (like supporting IE5 on mac and whatnot).

I must be out of date I never realised 1024 resolutions were now talked about in the same breath as IE5/Mac! Joking aside, even on my new 21st century 1680 width iMac I still tend to keep browser window widths to less than 1024. A message to all you wide-boys out there: screen size isn’t everything, it’s the width of the window that counts!

Gocom · 2008-11-18 11:05:52

gomedia wrote:

A message to all you wide-boys out there: screen size isn’t everything, it’s the width of the window that counts!

Yeah, I’m always reminding that to the designers at work. Ppl forget that some of us like to browser with small window, some don’t even use anything in full-screen, but instead like to run multiple smaller windows at once. And that small-window users range is larger when we get to those 24”+ monitors. It’s so large that it’s more usable to run smaller windows.

To speak truth, only half of ppl I know (IRL, confirmed by watching their browsing) use full-screen browser windows. And most of those dudes are non-geek, non-IT, regular ppl (could be Textpattern users). Most of those use windows in size that they defaultly open.

And I, me. I tend to use browser windows in full screen width, because it takes just one monitor, not all of them. And I like full windows, thus I’m not talking about my own shit, making facts from my own preference; But others.

Destry · 2008-11-18 15:06:20

@gomedia: I think we’ll have it covered for your scrollbar. I’m going to move the search to the top-right of the banner and then narrow the right column (which was wide for the search to begin with). I’ll use that distance and a little more to narrow overall. That might do it. The IE/mac reference was just a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration to thwart the would be outliers. :)

I know a lot of people use big windows or have wide screens. I’m not one of them. I have a 15” MacPro and the browser is about 0.7 to 0.75 of the screen wide ~~at all times~~ most of the time.

Ed. Actually, before I move the search box, I want to wait and see what the new masthead will be. I don’t want to make commitments to the masthead at this point if it’s going to be a problem later. Maybe wet or Matthew can give indication, otherwise we’ll have to sit tight on that part.

Last edited by Destry (2008-11-18 19:22:11)

els · 2009-08-28 22:52:00

Any suggestions in which category to place the new yield tag? I give up…

Bloke · 2009-08-29 06:00:39

Els wrote:

Any suggestions in which category to place the new yield tag? I give up…

Crikey Els, you’re on the ball! Nice work on Textbook, thanks :-)

As to the category, ummmm, ermmmmmm. If it’s any consolation, output_form isn’t categorized either. Maybe we need a new classification for them both. And where will the proposed scope tag go… eek!?

EDIT: Can you or someone bump the version number string {Txp current version} in Textbook? I don’t think I have rights to do it… or perhaps I just can’t find it. Ta!

Last edited by Bloke (2009-08-29 06:40:00)

els · 2009-08-29 10:52:32

Bloke wrote:

Can you or someone bump the version number string {Txp current version} in Textbook?

Done :)

And what the heck is that scope tag???

Last edited by els (2009-08-29 10:53:06)

els · 2009-08-29 12:05:24

Bloke wrote:

As to the category, ummmm, ermmmmmm. If it’s any consolation, output_form isn’t categorized either. Maybe we need a new classification for them both. And where will the proposed scope tag go… eek!?

Maybe we should just create a category ‘Other tags’? ;)

Bloke · 2009-08-29 16:41:20

Els wrote:

Maybe we should just create a category ‘Other tags’? ;)

Hehehe, the dreaded ‘misc’ ;-)

I dunno. Thinking about it more, I suppose output_form is ‘structural’ insofar as it allows you to group content and output it in one go. txp:yield goes hand in hand with output_form so I guess it should also go in Structural Tags? Any better ideas?

Oh, and I guess txp:scope will probably go in Programmer Tags. Stay tuned for more…

And thanks for bumping the version number.

Last edited by Bloke (2009-08-29 16:42:00)

els · 2009-08-29 17:20:40

Structural Tags it is then :)

And you’re right we should avoid anything like ‘other’ or ‘misc’, it will be full with all kinds of tags before we know it and have no additional value at all…

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#106 2008-11-14 19:12:17

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#107 2008-11-15 00:43:24

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#108 2008-11-15 12:53:20

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#109 2008-11-15 23:29:29

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#110 2008-11-16 11:05:10

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#111 2008-11-16 16:34:00

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#112 2008-11-18 09:18:39

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#113 2008-11-18 11:05:52

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#114 2008-11-18 15:06:20

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#115 2009-08-28 22:52:00

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#116 2009-08-29 06:00:39

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#117 2009-08-29 10:52:32

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#118 2009-08-29 12:05:24

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#119 2009-08-29 16:41:20

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

#120 2009-08-29 17:20:40

Re: [wiki] Tags Reference

Board footer