Cookbook Modules and Themes page needs work

Hey, jhodgdon can you come on Drupal-Docs and send me a message so that we can collaborate on this?

The reason why it was worded as "shouldn't worry a lot about adding modules and themes at first" is because a lot of newbies browse the modules downloads pages in search of solutions for which they have no problems. That means they end up polluting their site with garbage left over from those modules for which there is no easy clean up. The clarification comes in the next sentence: "Work on the basics of your site first, then worry about add-ons."

If you are adding images, then you need Image or something like it. The intent was to discourage the downloading of modules for which there is no identifiable need, simply because someone else says it's slick or you might need it or it's popular. For example, how many times have you see someone say, "You must have Views." I have several sites that don't use Views simply because it is unnecessary. I actually had a simple 5.x site that could run in 8MB; had I enabled Views, it would have gone to at least 16MB (in 6.x it is even worse). There is nothing wrong with Views and it indeed fills many needs, but there are many sites for which you don't need it.

"Themes are largely a matter of taste. ... are pretty much independent of your content." Can anyone argue with that? I have switched themes many times on my sites. I agree the the "fixed width" statement might be considered a bit opinionated, but it is my opinion, and it was intended to make the reader think about what they are doing. Many site users are not going to be browsing in a full screen, therefore the risk if cut-off is greater. I prefer to let the site user have the ability to do what they prefer on their screen, including font sizes.

If there are this many "issues" with the Cookbook, I will be happy to host it only on my site and have it removed from DO. Just give me time to download all the changes that have been made that I have not brought back to my site.

The original intent of the Cookbook, and for which I have had many positive comments on its original form, is to help the new Drupal user wade through all the other opinionated articles and extraneous stuff to get a site going. Making it perfect and exactly correct detracts from its usefulness rather than adds to it.

If I am being defensive it is only from the standpoint of the intended audience: beginners. I agree that it should be "accurate" but not excruciatingly so; complete detail and absolute adherence to internals can be, and usually is, more distracting and off-putting than a loose accuracy. One thing I do not like (and it has already happened) is an expansion into areas that are more advanced than the book was intended to cover; one example is the mention of additional contributed modules that most beginners have no business getting worked up about.

So, I guess in summary, what I am saying is that when anyone is updating the Cookbook, they need to remember that it is for newbies, not experienced Drupallers. If there is a possibility that someone might need more advanced detail, link to it, don't include it.

That's a good start, Jennifer. I'd also like to be proactive in stating that "Because a module is popular or someone tells you that 'every site needs it' doesn't mean yours does. There are good sites that have been built with absolutely no contributed modules at all."

I updated the page.

Sorry, still needs work... Some of the changes on the main page where in first person, and needs to be changed to third person.

@NancyDru when I originally read your response to this ticket I was taken aback by it. It came out as you taking ownership of the handbook. Members who take too much ownership over aspects of Drupal scare me. We are here to help, not to deny you the credit you deserve.

However, I gave/give you the benefit of the doubt and figured that your comments were improperly written to convey a true sense of caution over editing the handbook. From what I see in your later posts this seems to be the case, however I wanted to make sure that there was not going to be conflicts if we edit these documents.

First, let me explain that the Cookbook originally resided on my site while I fought for the right to post it on DO (and where). There first person was probably more appropriate.

Secondly, let us remember the originally intended audience. This book was written to encourage all those who struggle to get their first site up and running. Therefore, the tone is deliberately a bit of a "hand holding" tone. Personally, I think it makes the Cookbook more approachable than the typical "insert tab A into slot B" type of pages comprising much of the handbooks. We need to keep the Cookbook friendly and encouraging as much as possible, even if it does end up differing in style some from the rest of the handbooks. It is, after all, designed for a different audience than most of the handbook pages.

We modified the front page and removed the first person. Then more modifications where made that had third person in.

BTW, when I mention "WE" in the above statement, I mean 5 different people within the Docteam worked heavily on that front page. We spent significant time pooring over all of the details. I have reviewed the revisions since our change, and see no problem in them, except the addition of 1st person. Something WE worked hard on removing.

You'll need to be more specific in your accusation because I don't see first person on the front page of the cookbook, except for a sample question that someone might post in an issue queue, and that should be in the first person.