Panels still has a number of criss-crosses in its terminology, both on the user-end and in the actual code itself. Sometimes the two are even related. This task is to discuss, work on, and track progress towards ameliorating some of these ambiguities. Top on my hit list are:

  1. 'Panels' - in addition to referring to this module as a whole, 'panels' also refer to the regions in which panes/content types are created. This ambiguity is probably the single worst. The issue currently exists in both the documentation and the code, and as such, a proper resolution is going to require pretty extensive and careful code reworking as well as diligent changes to documentation and any relevant handbook pages.
  2. 'content_types' - this one probably won't change till D6, but calling the data items that comprise panes 'content_types' is a pretty icky namespace collision with node types, as people generally use the two synonymously nowadays. I'm hoping to move over to 'pane types,' but it's certainly an open issue. Like 'Panels,' this is going to require changing both code and documentation.
  3. 'context.' - sorry, but 'context' as a term isn't going away, nor can I really imagine it changing very much on into the future. My problem here is with the fact that some variant of $context is used to refer to at least three different things in panels_page.module and panels_page_admin.inc, and it seriously needs to be disambiguated.

That's certainly enough to get us started. Please don't hesitate to raise questions about terminology that seems ambiguous, inaccurate, or misleading in Panels2, and we'll talk about whether or not a change is appropriate and possible.

Comments

sdboyer’s picture

sdboyer commented

Another good one, as pointed out by Gregory Heller in his blog post (http://www.civicactions.com/blog/one_week_with_panels_2_beta_3): "panels views" should really becomes "views panes."

pancho’s picture

pancho
Location UTC+2 🇪🇺 EU
commented

This is certainly very important, as the terminology definitely needs to be disambiguated and improved!

Ad 1: I'd propose either 'area' or 'region'.
Ad 2: 'pane types' sounds good, don't have a better idea ATM.
Ad 3. Sounds good. I'll take a look at what needs to be done.
Ad comment #1: 'views panes' makes sense as well.

Are your plans to commit these changes in Panels3 or within Panels2?

sdboyer’s picture

sdboyer commented

It depends on which change we're talking about as to when it'll go in, plus...well, some other factors, too:

  1. Regions and areas are the two terms that have come to mind for me too, but I've got misgivings about both. 'Regions' is a namespace that's already in use by the drupal block & theming system, so I'm not too happy with that one. My problem with 'areas' is that it's such a generic term, that I think we'd have to pretty much always prepend with 'panels' and call em 'panels areas.' If possible, my preference would be to have a one-word term that's unique if need be.
  2. 'Pane types' is probably the switch we're going to make, but at this point, we're only going to make the switch in the code; switching it in the documentation is only going to happen either with D6 or panels3. Content_types has just been out there for too long to change it now.
  3. The changes to 'context' in panels_pages variables are likely to be committed presently, as disambiguation is always good and it doesn't affect any of the way we've been talking about things publicly, nor does it affect the way client modules implement the API.
  4. This is almost certainly not going to go until a major version shift happens, as it is a big public-facing name change.
pancho’s picture

pancho
Location UTC+2 🇪🇺 EU
commented

Ad 1: I'm not so sure if it is a problem that block and themeing systems also use the term 'regions'. Maybe it is even better to use a term that folks are already familiar with, as we're talking about very similar concepts. In fact, panels has the potential to replace the block system, so it seems to make sense that panels is an alternative approach to provide 'regions'. 'Area' on the other hand implies all and nothing - we can't do much harm with that term but it will stay blurry.
Ad 2: The longer we use 'content types', the more people are used to it. I'm very much for a Panels 2.1 API in D6. The many changes in Drupal6 API require folks to update their custom Panels modules anyway, and this way we can clean up the code base and smoothly prepare the major changes to the Panels3 API.
Ad 3: Yep. Let's do it.
Ad 4: Too bad this new concept in Panels2 API can't receive a proper "re-branding" ASAP. Clear and noticeable documentation would IMHO suffice to avoid people get confused. Otherwise, as said above, I'd vote for 2.1.

joachim’s picture

joachim commented

Aha! An issue for terminology already open :) I was at the conference session in Szeged where it was mentioned terminology needed cleaning up -- finally getting round to giving my 2p worth...

- Regions: I agree with Pancho. The term 'region' already means 'an area into which you put items'. I think this is a case where it's safe and indeed helpful to reuse it, because it allows a user to use something they have already learned. On rare occasions where you might need to disambiguate, you can say 'panel region'.
- Panes: this is a single typo away from 'panel' and as such it's dreadful when getting support in IRC. It's not even a correct use of the metaphor, as a window pane would be a fixed portion (so a region...) rather than a thing you put in. Just 'items' will do, I think.
- That leaves 'Panels' for the module itself and for the top-level objects: panel pages, panel nodes, etc. This is fine.
- Context. This really needs changing. Even if it's stuck as is in code, something better surely can be done for the UI. The problem is that the word 'context' simply doesn't bend itself to being used as a concrete noun -- it jars horribly. Things HAVE context, or are IN context. The other problem is that I've yet to understand exactly what panels context is. For nodes at least it seems to be some kind of wrapper around a node. 'Wrappers'? 'Contextual items'? That last one has the advantage that it's near to what's in code, but sounds a whole lot more logical.

sdboyer’s picture

sdboyer commented

Indeed, open, but quite old :)

It'd probably be good if you could move your comment over to the Panels group on g.d.o, as that's where the Panels 3 (now 4, ish) UI redesign discussion is taking place.

merlinofchaos’s picture

merlinofchaos commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

With the release of Drupal 7, Drupal 5 is no longer supported.