Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
[wiki] Where to put links to external content
Els’s link posted here was the first I’d seen of this excellent Txp tutorial. My immediate reaction was, “this needs to be on TextBook”. The tutorial includes a download link for templates, stylesheets, and plugins, so I don’t know if it fits with the usual TextBook format. Hence I am wondering how to include a link to this on the Category:Orientation page. Maybe add a tutorial page called “External links” or something similar?
Edit: Or give it a normal Tutorial page, containing a summary and link?
Last edited by jsoo (2010-09-16 17:49:00)
Code is topiary
Offline
#2 2010-09-16 19:25:33
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
jsoo wrote:
Maybe add a tutorial page called “External links” or something similar?
Edit: Or give it a normal Tutorial page, containing a summary and link?
Hi Jeff, I’ve been thinking about that before. On the Category:Tutorials page it says:
Since this category organizes wiki pages only, we encourage you to link to external tutorials from wiki pages that are contextually related, rather than creating a list of external links here.
‘Here’ being the Tutorial index page, but I guess the same goes for a separate page ‘External links’. This page has a ‘mininav’ template Related reading with a list of external links, which is fine the way it is now, but the list can easily become too long and is not really ordered.
So I find your second idea, though it will involve a little bit more work, a much better alternative. Such a page (preferably with the exact external article’s title) will be included on the category index page, which as far as I’m concerned is exactly where it should be. I don’t think it would be very efficient if Textbook users have to click their way to a sub-sub-page called ‘External links’ (with no certainty that they will find there what they are looking for).
Last edited by els (2010-09-16 19:27:14)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
Thanks Els, I’ll have a go at it. It’s a pretty comprehensive how-to; do you think Orientation is the best category? Should it be in multiple categories?
Edit: Added. She has two other tutorials too.
Last edited by jsoo (2010-09-16 20:02:38)
Code is topiary
Offline
#4 2010-09-16 20:24:51
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
jsoo wrote:
do you think Orientation is the best category? Should it be in multiple categories?
Not sure. Orientation and Site Design/Architecture crossed my mind. Maybe both?
Edit: Added.
Yes, I definitely think this is the best way, thanks!
These could go under Site Design/Architecture, don’t you think?
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
Els wrote:
Orientation and Site Design/Architecture crossed my mind. Maybe both?
That’s what I was thinking. But I think at present all tutorials are under one category only? If so, would this be an acceptable precedent?
These could go under Site Design/Architecture, don’t you think?
Agreed; I’ll see about adding them later, unless someone else gets to it first :)
Code is topiary
Offline
#6 2010-09-16 22:06:17
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
jsoo wrote:
But I think at present all tutorials are under one category only? If so, would this be an acceptable precedent?
To me, yes. The more categories (if relevant of course) the more likely people will find it.
unless someone else gets to it first :)
I’ll leave it to you, your English is better ;)
Last edited by els (2010-09-16 22:13:51)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
Added the extra category to the first one, and added the other two tutorials.
Code is topiary
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
I like topics on content structure and organization. :)
That copy that Els points out suggesting to add external links in context with related content sounds like something I would have written because I agree with it 100%. (Seemingly the case.) I agree with that because information that’s not in context with a task or need is less likely to be found, and therefore not much use.
This is where the Related reading mininav came from; it provided one way of putting those links in context, and probably the easiest way for people here working collaboratively.
However, Els makes a good point about the potential for a given mininav to get overly long, so another way to deal with it would be to move the links from the mininav to a section at the end of the tutorial page, headed as “Related Reading”. Just like a list of references.
The nice thing about the mininav is that the links are higher up in view and more likely to get seen. On the other hand, the mininavs were originally intended as internal navigation aides (e.g., how they function in the Admin-side pages), and using them in two different contexts could be misleading and they end up becoming nav hacks for whatever someone sees fit. That wouldn’t be good for consistency/clarity.
Thus, it might be smart to just make it a standard now to add the Related Reading section to the bottom of pages. In those cases we could use another wiki template for an attention-grabbing note in the mininav location that makes it clear there’s related reading links available. I went ahead a setup an example using the Textpattern Semantic Model page. The different color is simply to help distinguish it’s function from a mininav.
I still need to get that template documented in authoring help, and the styles on the template moved to the CSS, but it’s a start. Maybe would could use a lightbulb icon in the heads-up box or whatever.
Lastly, about new categories, a couple of thoughts…
First, on a technical note, we should probably avoid giving wiki pages/categories, etc, names that include non-alphanumeric characters. They may work now, but who knows what that might do in future upgrades and so forth. I’m looking at the Category:Site Design/Architecture in this case.
Second, and perhaps a solution to the first, is to make more categories that provide more clear/specific topic organization. E.g., instead of Design/Architecture, which conceptually covers a lot of ground, why not break design down into categories like:
- Layout
- Presentation
- Models
- or whatever
“Architecture” might stand on it’s own. That might be easier than trying to break it down into finer structural concepts.
Just thinking out loud.
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
Related reading: fab idea, nice one.
More specific categories: likewise, although we may then start getting into the murky depths of semantics; for example, defining the difference between Layout and Presentation. Yes both you and I know there’s a difference, but do we need to be mindful we don’t hinder other people from finding stuff because they don’t know the distinction?
Although I am vociferously against free-form tagging, structured tagging (like unlimited categories; yet structured in their definition and scope) seems to have merit. I guess in MW this is categorisation? I agree with Els that putting articles in more than one related category (e.g. Layout and the catch-all categories Architecture and Design) is the way to go so more people can find it if they don’t know our specific terminology. Failing that, maybe tagging them in some other way so the search picks them up as more relevant to the search terms?
I’m no content king so if that’s not the way it’s done in the real world, forgive me for opening my text-based mouth in an area I know little about.
Last edited by Bloke (2010-09-27 10:06:29)
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: [wiki] Where to put links to external content
You’re no doubt right, Bloke. Semantics could be a bugger for sure. Maybe the first and easy step, then, is just make Design/Architecture two categories: Design and Architecture. Let those fill up for a while before hitting the rock with a sledge again. Wiki content moves glacially anyway.
Offline