Only local images are allowed.

Reasons:
1. It's confusing: Workflow is a loaded word; and these features are paltry compared to modules like Workflow or Rules.
2. It's repetitive/unnecessary: It doesn't make much sense to have a collapsed set of configurations with only one group of configurations.
3. It's out of place: Workflows can make use of more than just node submissions.

Comments

mitchell’s picture

tagging for usability team

dmitrig01’s picture

Issue tags: +Newbie
karschsp’s picture

StatusFileSize
new3.17 KB

Here's a patch for this. I changed the text to "Publishing settings" to keep consistent with the other fieldsets on that form (Submission form settings, display settings, etc).

karschsp’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review

Changing status to CNR

moshe weitzman’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Oh yes - good one.

mitchell’s picture

Agree, RTBC.

(This idea came from the Rules BoF discussion group @ DrupalCON.)

webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

Since on the create content form this is called "Publishing options," should we should probably make the fieldset on the content types page consistent.

karschsp’s picture

StatusFileSize
new7.12 KB
new3.17 KB

good point. here's a patch (398068.002.patch) with the text on the "Content Types" page set to "Publishing Options"

although now that I look at the node/add form, maybe it should be "Publishing settings" there as well? We have Revision Information, Comment Settings, URL path settings, Author Information and Publishing Options. Options is the only one that doesn't fit...

So I'm also attaching another patch (398068.003.patch) that changes it to Publishing Settings everywhere. I feel like that makes more sense, but I don't know really know...

karschsp’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review

changing status to needs review.

cburschka’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

I like the second idea better due to the consistency argument. But they both look good.

Bojhan’s picture

Sounds good, indeed RTBC.

Bojhan’s picture

Issue tags: -Needs usability review

tag

sun’s picture

   $form['options'] = array(
     '#type' => 'fieldset',
     '#access' => user_access('administer nodes'),
-    '#title' => t('Publishing options'),
+    '#title' => t('Publishing settings'),

To get this committed, please create a separate issue requesting that $form['options'] needs to be renamed.

'options' was a weird form array key before already. Now it's completely off-the-wall, because not even the fieldset title matches 'options'.

dries’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work

Committed 398068.002.patch from #8. Thanks!

Marking this 'code needs work' so we can continue our conversation about naming.

sun’s picture

Status: Needs work » Fixed

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.