Another thing probably too late to fix in D7, but yeesh.

1. Create a content type, just two clicks away (Structure > Content types) - Yes!
2. When finished configuring it, click the "Save and add fields" button to be taken directly to the fields page for that type - Yes!
3. Configure that new text field you want to add right there, watching as the drop-downs are LIKE EFFING MAGICAL UNICORN PONIES pre-populated with sane options - YES!!
3a. Also note that "Widget", which no one in their right mind can understand, is now called "Form Element" - Yes!
3b. It's a little bit of a bummer that I have to manually enter the machine name, when that was taken care of for me automatically with the content type, but hey, we can't all be perfect. And I'm too damn excited about "Form Element" to let that kill my high.
4. And now! Now... you're taken to... a weird... settings page... with... only one... value? - Uhh?

Help me I'm lost.

5. Ok whatever. Click the button. And now! Now... now I'm taken to... another settings page... with ... LOTS of values.... including the one I just set on the previous page. But... but... why...? :(

Aw. Another settings page.

Especially fun is explaining to someone in text how to just accept the default values. "Enter the following values for the field (blah blah blah) and click Save. At the settings form, click "Save field settings". At the second settings form, click "Save settings". Finally, at long last, you will be able to add your second field in the same manner." :P~

Presumably, the fact that I could conceivably navigate away from that first settings page without ever saving anything means that under the hood, Field API is initially instantiating this field with some semblance of sane values. So why am I forced to go through not one, nay, but two settings pages, if I am cool with just the default values which, a fair amount of time, I am?

Can we add both a "Save" and a "Save with default settings" or... something? Hrm. It's problematic because that "save" button affects not only adding new fields but also re-ordering. Or just redirect back to the field listing by default automatically, and let enterprising people dig into the settings if they want/need to ?

Comments

Bojhan’s picture

Bojhan commented

Let me first state, that Field UI is fundamentally broken from any usability perspective. We are trying to mold a Database model into a UI rather then building a UI for the conceptual user model.

I feel there have been several issues on this topic, most related is #553328: Streamline field UI workflow and #552604: Adding new fields leads to a confusing "Field settings" form
(*cough* that issue looks strangely a lot like this one). Trying to add some clarity to this discussion on actual steps that need to be taken.

1. Correct indicators, where you are in the process of creating a field.
2. Correct labels moving between pages, ie.. "Save and continue" , "Create field"
3. The actual widget settings page is not designed, but pulled together there is no coherence to its hierarchy and ignores most Drupal core UX standards.
4. There are two setting pages [postpone - unless we can easily get it done]

I would suggest if you want to actually move this before we release Drupal 7 is to create individual issues for example those outlined above. We have known about these issues even before the Field UI got in so I am not sure what you want to happen, obviously its not important enough for people to write patches for - I am not really happy to fix a fundamentally broken UI but will try to help anywhere I can.

Onto your suggestion, I highly doubt we want to introduce two states of saving - it should always be saving + next action, or saving not saving + state 1 or saving + state 2.

webchick’s picture

webchick
she/they
Primary language English
Location Vancouver 🇨🇦
commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

Looks like the earliest instance of something related to this is at #552604: Adding new fields leads to a confusing "Field settings" form (with a patch, even), I'll go head over there instead and mark the thers as dupes.

Hilarious that I made almost exactly the same issue almost a year ago, though. :P~