Where to put B&M module links in the information architecture. [#844256]

I see currently B&M puts it's main admin link under the Structure section.
The UX principle behind the 'Structure' section is that it contains all regularly accessed tools for *building your site*: Views, panels, ubercart maybe. those kind of tools. I propose that the backup and migrate admin link moves out of Structure and into the 'Development' section on the configuration page. B&M is important functionality, but not part of the 'creating a site' routine.

There's more suggestions to make for optimizing, maybe simplifying the B&M interface and align it even better with core interaction patterns. On first glance I especially like the interface texts, they are short and to the point.

I'm not very good with patching, somebody else up for it?

Comments

Comment #1

dave reid

he/him

English

Nebraska USA

commented 9 September 2010 at 00:19

I'd probably agree with moving it under 'Development'

Comment #2

ronan commented 9 September 2010 at 19:04

I guess Configuration -> Development is looking like the best place for the module. I don't love it though. 'Development' doesn't really describe what this module does for most if it's users and 'Configuration' definitely doesn't. Will users think that that's the place to configure B&M rather than the place to use it? Seems like a sub-optimal IA.

Does anybody know where all of the other refugee modules from the 'Content Manangement' section ended up? Did they all just migrate their way over to the configuration section? Is there no longer a good home for content management modules?