field_ui
AFAIK,

Title, Body, Tags are Fields.
"Term reference, Image, File, String .." are Field Types.
Field UI describe its column as "Field" column is confusing users..

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#15 field_type.patch926 bytesdroplet
#9 reroll-2.patch966 bytesdroplet
#2 field_ui.patch950 bytesdroplet
field_ui.patch508 bytesdroplet
field_ui.jpg95.95 KBdroplet
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, field_ui.patch, failed testing.

droplet’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
FileSize
950 bytes
yched’s picture

Issue tags: +Needs usability review

Works for me, but this is probably for the UX folks to RTBC.

Bojhan’s picture

Sounds fine to me, I will wait for another few reviews before marking this RTBC.

webchick’s picture

Seems reasonable, but then should we not rename the Widget column to Widget type as well?

Bojhan’s picture

I am not sure, for consistency yes - for clarity I don't think its needed. I am fine, either way.

yched’s picture

@webchick: "should we not rename the Widget column to Widget type as well"
Strictly speaking, yes, but as @Bojhan said, I don't think this is needed nor really desirable.

The distinction between "field" and "field type" is crucial, but much less between "widget" and "widget type". That's because you don't really "create a widget of a given type" per se, you create a field and specify which widget [type] it uses, there is no such thing as standalone widgets, that would be important to differentiate from other standalone widgets of the same type.

jenlampton’s picture

Issue tags: +GoogleUX2012

Updating tags

droplet’s picture

FileSize
966 bytes
dixon_’s picture

One thing that we discussed during the entity representation format sprint was the introduction of #1346214: [meta] Unified Entity Field API. Everything (what we currently call fields and properties) would essentially be moved into one API - the Property API. So everything would be a property. I know that the term field has a long background in CCK and now in D7 as well. But technically speaking, property is a much more common word for what we are trying to describe here, IMO.

But maybe more importantly, since VDC is moving forward now, we have to avoid name collision and confusion between Field API's fields and Views' fields. They are not the same thing.

So maybe we should think about renaming Field API's fields to properties (which would go inline with #1346214: [meta] Unified Entity Field API) and let Views own the term fields.

Sorry to hijack the issue like this. Just wanted to highlight other discussions that is going on in parallell.

webchick’s picture

No, let's please not do that. To an end user, these are form "fields". they are not form "properties".

Bojhan’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Ok this is good to go.

@dixon Sounds like a pretty bad idea.

catch’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Committed/pushed to 8.x, thanks!

David_Rothstein’s picture

Version: 8.x-dev » 7.x-dev
Status: Fixed » Patch (to be ported)

This issue is tagged "needs backport to D7" and seems like it's reasonably safe to backport.

Especially since we're lucky and t('Field type') already appears in the codebase, so we aren't actually even adding a new string.

droplet’s picture

Status: Patch (to be ported) » Needs review
FileSize
926 bytes
webchick’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

NIce! The only reason not to do this in D7 is it would invalidate tutorial instructions (e.g. books, blog posts, documentation pages). But I think I would support it despite authoring one of said books. ;) This is pretty "duh."

Setting to RTBC since this is a straight-forward port. Will leave it a couple of days, unless David commits it first.

webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Ok, didn't see any objections, so committed and pushed to 7.x. Thanks!

David_Rothstein’s picture

Issue tags: +7.15 release notes

Thanks, sorry I didn't get to this one myself.

It occurs to me that since this is a UI change, it would probably be worth mentioning in the release notes.... and I went ahead and added it to CHANGELOG.txt also: http://drupalcode.org/project/drupal.git/commit/49e806f

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

Anonymous’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

typo