WEBVTT 00:08:21.000 --> 00:08:26.000 Welcome, this is the Drupal Usability Meeting for October, 27, 2,023. 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:33.000 I'm Benji Fisher sharing my screen and moderating. And also present are Aaron Mchale, Hoff or Shell. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:38.000 Ralph Kohler, Simo Helston, and Thomas Hell. Thank you all for coming. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:46.000 I guess the issue for today's meeting just for the sake of the recording is 3 3 9 5 3 9 8. 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:56.000 I want to start off with a quick update on this issue that we talked about last week. Possibly 2 weeks ago, use modules in field creation flow. 00:08:56.000 --> 00:09:08.000 And that is issue 3 3 8 6 7 6 2. And in the last week there's been a lot of work on this issue. 00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:23.000 Mostly to fix bugs in the current implementation. And to get the automated tests to pass. I know that Simo added a comment and Christina agreed with that. 00:09:23.000 --> 00:09:29.000 Kind of hard to find them with. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:39.000 All the other comments, I guess, Sima, your suggestion was that at least in some cases the radio buttons should be arranged vertically rather than in the grid. 00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:50.000 Yeah, I think in every case. So I used reference. I was referencing, US web design system, they have a like, different options for. 00:09:50.000 --> 00:10:02.000 Radio buttons and I don't like having radio buttons inside that kind of boxes, but it's in US, web design system. 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:10.000 And so I think they have done. A bit of research there so it's kind of I would expect it works in some cases. 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:17.000 And but they even they they have a rule that it should always be vertical so I was referencing that That's a rule. 00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:26.000 Okay. Okay. So I guess Christina. Harshly agreed with that. I think I saw coming from her. 00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:31.000 Here it is. 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:41.000 Although I guess she's the one who suggested, especially when there aren't very many items. Erin, go ahead. 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:52.000 Thanks and, sorry, I'm in a noisy place so I might not talk very much, but I would also, in addition to the, vertical, I'd like to see them as, as not radio about things. 00:10:52.000 --> 00:11:06.000 There's, there's, there, having this, this may be a little bit, less, maybe a little bit, you know, could be a little bit, less, you know, could be a little bit better for what we're trying to do here. 00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:15.000 Okay, your audio is choppy. So I think basically you're saying that, instead of using radio buttons, we should use links. 00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:21.000 And then the rules for radio buttons don't apply. 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:29.000 I'm a little afraid, that at this point now that tests are passing. And, bugs been worked out. 00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:39.000 There's a chance it will be committed. And unless we can find someone to implement other suggestions, I'm not sure. 00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:55.000 That any additional work is going to be done on this issue. The good news is that our main complaint about the previous issue combining field storage and field instance forms. 00:11:55.000 --> 00:12:02.000 No, I'm sorry, not that one. The previous issue was grouping. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:17.000 The fields into field groups. Our main complaint about that is that when you maybe I'll demonstrate. 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:26.000 Structure content types. Manage fields. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:35.000 So this now opens in a modal. Previously it opened in a regular window. And when you clicked on something that had options, it showed up. 00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:36.000 Below the grid. 00:12:36.000 --> 00:12:42.000 I'm Benji and the issue is still shown. On the video. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:44.000 She was really. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:46.000 Yeah. 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:47.000 Let me stop. 00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:50.000 Not shown on the side. 00:12:50.000 --> 00:13:04.000 Let me stop the screen share and then start again. Aaron, your hand is still up. Is that because you have something new you want to say or set left over? 00:13:04.000 --> 00:13:11.000 Sorry, that was left in behind. 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:14.000 Okay, so now do you see my admin screen? 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:17.000 Yes, thank you. 00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:35.000 Thanks for letting me know. As I was saying previously when you, chose one of these field groups, the list of fields would show up below the grid possibly below the bottom of the screen. 00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:42.000 And that has been fixed by the modal workflow. We now get a new modal window. 00:13:42.000 --> 00:13:52.000 With the choices here. And it's now vertical, so maybe someone has addressed that feedback. 00:13:52.000 --> 00:14:02.000 So. It seems to me that it's better than it was. 00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:08.000 And, I'm sure there's still room for improvement. 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:14.000 That's all I wanted to say. Go ahead, Ralph. 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:32.000 Just one brief edition and it's also mentioned in comment number 20. One general problem with the mobile dialogue in general for screen reader users link there turn overall issue. 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:38.000 And it's definitely applies to that issue as well. So basically all the elements from behind. The model are not excluded from the access to the object model. 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:50.000 So, they are announced as well. And available like in particular with the rotor. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:56.000 Right. So you opened a new issue to address that and I really think it deserves its own issue. 00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:04.000 With an open dialogue modal make only elements within the modal. Available to screen readers and that's issue. 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:18.000 3 3 9 5 3 5 5 yeah, just this matter of controlling issue scope by I think that should have its its own issue and not necessarily block. 00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:25.000 Good work going on. Go ahead, Aaron. 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:26.000 Much better. 00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:45.000 Thanks. Can you hear me okay or is the audio still choppy? Oh, good. Yeah, just gonna say that I think, to be fair, I think the, the radio button thing I would be happy to leave to maybe a follow-up issue to sort of explore even if you know if that's a good idea because certainly what we have now is an improvement and to the point about the issue, What is interesting 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:59.000 is now in in the latest frozen to be have a sort of invaded dialogue element in HTML so it might see that it be worth testing with the native dialogue if that's still a problem because I know there is a desire to eventually move to that. 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:07.000 So that could be something if you haven't, the need to throws a dialogue about something that could address that issue. 00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:12.000 Can you walk me through seeing that in, the page markup? 00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:31.000 So we, I don't think because Driple, using the, I don't think we can use that, we can see it, but if you were to go to something like the, you know, missile site or, something like that, you know, Missile site or something like that. 00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:32.000 Okay. 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:36.000 They probably have examples of of the new the new native HTML dialogues. And unfortunately, yeah, we don't have them in Korea, I think. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:42.000 So that might be an appropriate comment on this issue. But maybe we should. 00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:59.000 Yeah, definitely. So. 00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:00.000 Oh, perfect. 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:06.000 It's already included in the issue. It that issue in the issue summary links in the short term fix would be I'm going with the ARE modal attribute and the long-term fix would be referring to the at native dialogue elements to eventually deprecate the check where UI one and there the in the, access that the office hour, the consensus was. 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:14.000 For use for one the dialogue element if the support is broad enough and in combination with the ARE model. 00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:30.000 And, all, and as, in the meeting. Only the edge cases fixed with some JavaScript and then, that out as soon as, proud support gets better by the time. 00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:36.000 Oh, here and I see there's. Already. Related issue for the dialogue element. 00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:37.000 Yep. 00:17:37.000 --> 00:17:42.000 Yeah, that might have some screenshots in there possibly or resources, but no, that sounds great. 00:17:42.000 --> 00:17:48.000 I'm glad you've already sort of shaped that role. So yeah, definitely. 00:17:48.000 --> 00:17:54.000 We can ultimately see that's the ultimate building. Yeah, sounds good. 00:17:54.000 --> 00:17:55.000 Hmm, this is. 00:17:55.000 --> 00:18:00.000 For the short term is definitely the role dialogue in combination with ARE model. Good enough. 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:01.000 Yeah, sounds good. 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:07.000 This one. This one, add a native dialogue element to eventually deprecate the J query UI one. 00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:16.000 It's issue 2 1 5 8 9 4 3. Who opened this knob. And marked it critical. 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:27.000 And 10 years ago. Yes. Okay, anything else to say on this? 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:29.000 A collection of issues. 00:18:29.000 --> 00:18:38.000 Well, with that, like, a lot of said that, trying to get rid of that, from the modules and I also, find one. 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:55.000 One issue against that. Model because of the breakpoints like cutting off information in certain So I see it's what she said that they're it's like they're trying to fix that by replacing the modal thing. 00:18:55.000 --> 00:18:57.000 Okay, Ralph. 00:18:57.000 --> 00:19:08.000 I mean just one question regards of the field creation flow. In regards of the pack patterns should that also move to a follow-up issue. 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:12.000 Because they are still. 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:23.000 I don't know what the label was the using currently. 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:24.000 Yes. 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:27.000 Hey, and that change field type. A change field type button. So should that move to follow up? 00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:28.000 Probably. 00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:35.000 I'm not sure we have much choice there. I'd I'd like to get it fixed on the issue, but. 00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:44.000 We'll see what happens. It's certainly not a disaster if it gets moved to follow up. 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:51.000 And, and same goes for the steps in the title. To provide some context. 00:19:51.000 --> 00:20:00.000 Yes. All that is feedback that we, we provided last, time we looked at this. Aaron, go ahead. 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:13.000 Thank you. And yeah, I'd be more than happy to see that. Like when I follow and also because I think it would be good if we could define some kind of the common standard of pattern for war. 00:20:13.000 --> 00:20:25.000 You know what what the appropriate terms are to use in it in some multi-step model form like this so I think, you know, like we want to get this. 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:42.000 And you know get things committed, keep moving forward in this world of all of us. The only other thing I would add is that I, as, as we all have to do upon just to kind of Relax and recharge and the So I haven't actually yet created the issues. 00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:53.000 Yeah, actually, this afternoon or this weekend, they'll have time to create this. 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:59.000 Okay, thanks. Your audio is Graded to bed. Okay, so let's. 00:20:59.000 --> 00:21:06.000 Stop talking about that. And I think I suggested next we go to Sima's issue. 00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:11.000 Are you ready to share your screen or shall I? 00:21:11.000 --> 00:21:20.000 If you have it ready, it's you can do it also. I have it in local, so it's if you have it, have the patch or that, brand somewhere where others can access. 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:23.000 On. No, I don't have the patch available. 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:30.000 Yeah. Okay. 00:21:30.000 --> 00:21:31.000 Okay, just a minute. 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:40.000 Okay. Oh, and I forgot to, paste this into the. Zoom chat, but I'll get you the. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Link to the site I've been looking at. And it has the the issue we've been discussing is what's currently. 00:21:54.000 --> 00:22:09.000 Apply it on this copy. 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:19.000 And I haven't done a very good job of keeping up with the meeting chat, but. I think all of those comments. 00:22:19.000 --> 00:22:24.000 Got mentioned, oh, and, and, Molgol joined the meeting. 00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:31.000 Thanks for coming. 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:54.000 Hi, Benji. 00:22:54.000 --> 00:23:14.000 Okay. 00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:20.000 Right, and in the chat, Ralph suggests adding the issue tag. That, that needs follow up. 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:34.000 And I think that's a good idea. 00:23:34.000 --> 00:23:43.000 So the next issue is. Issue number 330 no, this is not the correct one, sorry. 00:23:43.000 --> 00:23:52.000 This is the meeting for today. And the link is here. 00:23:52.000 --> 00:24:03.000 So the issue is number 3 3 2 5 5 5 one. Add disable image resource setting to image fields. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:12.000 So. The current behavior of the image field. 00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:18.000 We just. 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:35.000 Set maximum in image resolution. Which means image dimensions in pixels is that the the image if the image is larger than the, maximum dimensions. 00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:41.000 It will be resized. To those. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:49.000 And. The proposed change is that 00:24:49.000 --> 00:24:54.000 There will be a setting. 00:24:54.000 --> 00:25:04.000 To hello. But, that the user. When defining the field settings can. 00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:22.000 Use checkbox to disable that image resizing and after that checkbox Is set then if image is larger than the maximum dimensions, then the image will be rejected. 00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:35.000 So, if that, disabled image resize. Checkbooks is checked, then the behavior will be the same with minimum image resolution. 00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:48.000 And, yeah, so that's basically the thing. Very simple. Change. Through the current default behavior or allowing to change the default behavior. 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:54.000 Any questions on that? 00:25:54.000 --> 00:25:58.000 Is the issue clear? 00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:03.000 Makes sense to me. Anyone else? 00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:07.000 Thumbs up from Thomas. 00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:15.000 Alright, is the checkbox the right user interface? Element for this? 00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:26.000 I think it's, And also, it the checkbook only appears if there are dimensions set on that maximum image resolution. 00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:38.000 Yeah, I think checkbox is good because it's disabled disabling something. We could also use a toggle but we don't really have toggles in. 00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:51.000 So it's kind of a, it's yeah, so. From kind of a physical world connection, a toggle would be nice but check book is also Good for this one. 00:26:51.000 --> 00:26:55.000 Okay. Thomas, what's your idea? We're coming. 00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:06.000 It's a question more than anything. So imagery sizes, if it's larger than the maximum, why wouldn't it resize if something was smaller than the maximum? 00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:12.000 Is it not possible or? Question. 00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:24.000 I think, this is something that Usually, resizing. Upwards causes a lot more problems than resizing downwards. 00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:29.000 Bye, but this it's also. Another question. 00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:37.000 But, I think, from I would hope, like for me, you're usually for such I buy 2. 00:27:37.000 --> 00:27:46.000 The best Best action would be to have default as reject. And that possibility to configure. 00:27:46.000 --> 00:28:01.000 To allow resource both fields. But I think this one is something that currently that current behavior is that it manifests the image that is uploaded. 00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:09.000 And then, this solution, this issue is to allow to, prevent that. So this is a single solution. 00:28:09.000 --> 00:28:18.000 It would be okay to have both options. I think it's setting kind of thing for also minimum image resolution. 00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:23.000 But with minimum image resolution that behavior is already defaulted. 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:24.000 Okay, first of all, I just noticed how many taps you have open. That's incredible. 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:34.000 Thomas, does that answer your question? 00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:59.000 It does, but based upon that answer and I do agree with it, I might change, I might suggest that we change some of the wording to make it to move maximum into, I guess, the title of the checkbox rather than forcing people to read through the helper text. 00:28:59.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Okay. 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:08.000 Yeah, I agree. I have also, I think we should change a lot of that text here. And also also it was suggested to have separate issue for changing that term resolution. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:11.000 I think Aaron was next. 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:20.000 Thanks. Yeah, I, what I'm thinking is actually, so, Simo, if you can be able to show up, please. 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:24.000 It's on with the. 00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:27.000 I'm sorry to catch that. 00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:28.000 Do, could you bring the screen show up? 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:32.000 Show us the other screenshot. 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:48.000 Yeah. 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:51.000 So this one. This is the current. Right. 00:29:51.000 --> 00:30:08.000 That the one with the 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:24.000 Good morning. Okay. Okay. Are, are you able to, you know, you make the, You open that. 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:34.000 How we still see that you're on the issue. Maybe this is the same problem I had earlier that that Zoom didn't switch to the other tab. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:38.000 Are you currently looking at the screenshot? 00:30:38.000 --> 00:31:01.000 Yeah, just a moment. I'll try to open that. 00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:08.000 I'm hoping other people voice their opinions first, but when I asked whether the checkbox was the right. 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:14.000 User interface element, I had an alternative in mind. 00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:19.000 Yeah, so I guess probably we have a similar bring that able to be able to bring the screen shop. 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:24.000 What I was gonna say is basically, check the labeling right now is, you know, disabling. 00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:34.000 Something. So if you check the checkbox, it disables the thing. I'm thinking if we invert that some that The checkbox is on by default. 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:46.000 And by turning all you enable this feature. That would be a little bit more sense. Even if it's, even if that's, that the deeper behavior, that's probably gonna require like. 00:31:46.000 --> 00:32:00.000 Little bit more work like an update hoop to update all existing fields to ensure that. But I think it would be a slightly It's like, like a double negative going on where you've got this, the channels like disabled thing. 00:32:00.000 --> 00:32:13.000 And then we can also show that the description takes so we don't need the words disable the description text. 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:14.000 Okay. 00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:20.000 Sima, why don't you let me share my screen instead? Okay. I don't know if it's zoom or the fact that you have so many taps open, but that might easier. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:34.000 Thank you. 00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:42.000 There we go. So you all see the issue. 00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:44.000 Yes. 00:32:44.000 --> 00:32:48.000 And now I'm switching to this screenshot. Did that work? 00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:49.000 Okay. 00:32:49.000 --> 00:32:50.000 Yes. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:52.000 Yep. 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:57.000 So Aaron, did you already have your say or do you have more? 00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:19.000 No, I think that was just basically saying like, yeah, if, if we change the, enable and and you check the chat, I think that would just be slightly easier to work with than right now where it's like, if you check, go through disable in something, it's kind of like a double negative. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:23.000 Yeah, I think that's a good point. 00:33:23.000 --> 00:33:27.000 And Ralph, what's your? Comment. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:41.000 In regards to Aaron's suggestion, then the checkbox wouldn't be, Some sort of procressive to scotcha anymore, but you would have to show it all the time. 00:33:41.000 --> 00:33:52.000 Otherwise, it might be confusing. And one. On the comment. I would to suggest is for the error message. 00:33:52.000 --> 00:34:04.000 There I would at. The reason why the error message happens so that the image resize is disabled that isn't. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:07.000 Currently written there. 00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:12.000 Okay, let's hold off discussion of the error message. We haven't looked at that yet. 00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:19.000 Offer has to leave thanks for joining 00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:26.000 Okay. So can you say again what your suggestion was for this form? 00:34:26.000 --> 00:34:38.000 In that context. I was just referring to Aaron's suggestion and then At the moment, if. 00:34:38.000 --> 00:34:42.000 Oh yes. 00:34:42.000 --> 00:34:43.000 Right. 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:46.000 No value is ended in the maximum image. Resolution fields then The checkbox is hidden. And that. 00:34:46.000 --> 00:34:56.000 Making the checkbox also enabled. The default would be then having it hidden. Would be problematic and that way you would have to change. 00:34:56.000 --> 00:35:00.000 The whole behavior behind that as well. 00:35:00.000 --> 00:35:12.000 I'm not sure why you say that. If the checkbox is enabled by default, then it can't be hidden. 00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:13.000 Is that what you're saying? 00:35:13.000 --> 00:35:27.000 Once. 00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:35.000 Hey, it would, it would be necessary to show it all the time. I think. In that case. 00:35:35.000 --> 00:35:41.000 Is that a technical restriction or a usability restriction? 00:35:41.000 --> 00:35:50.000 Hi. It seems to me that it's possible to have. Enable checkboxes. That are hidden by default. 00:35:50.000 --> 00:35:53.000 Simo. 00:35:53.000 --> 00:36:04.000 This is, another thing. It's about if checkbooks is the best one. 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:12.000 So I'm thinking. It would take more space from the screen but another option would be to have a radio button. 00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:18.000 Wait, users choose between. Pre-size and reject. 00:36:18.000 --> 00:36:28.000 Yeah, that was my thought. Rather than Help text that says what the alternative is at the end of the message. 00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:34.000 It makes more sense to me to have 2 radio buttons and and use the labels on the radio buttons. 00:36:34.000 --> 00:36:46.000 Aaron's giving a thumbs up. And so is Thomas. 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:59.000 So we could have some text like. If the image is larger than the maximum, then Radio button one. 00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:08.000 Resize the image. Radio button 2. Reject the image. 00:37:08.000 --> 00:37:18.000 Exactly. Aaron is your hand still upper or again up 00:37:18.000 --> 00:37:24.000 I'm sorry, it was a lifetime day. Zoom on mobile really needs to be clear when 00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:39.000 Okay. So I got a couple of thumbs up as I was talking. So, So I guess people like that idea, shall we make that recommendation? 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:46.000 Yeah, I think it would be. That would then we. Kind of should we. 00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:57.000 Allow the default to be. Resizing. That's still needs to be saved through the fields. I think so it still needs. 00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:03.000 It would need this. Update. 00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:07.000 Yeah. 00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:14.000 So for existing sites. 00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:21.000 I guess for existing sites we'd we'd have to make the default not change the current behavior. 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:34.000 It's possible. That we could make the alternative, the default for newly added fields. 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:49.000 And that would. Pass a possibly be a bad idea because people wouldn't expect it and possibly be a good idea because we think it's that better default. 00:38:49.000 --> 00:38:56.000 If we do that. Then I think we'd have to target. A minor version for this. 00:38:56.000 --> 00:39:11.000 It's possible that just adding a new option would be allowed. In a patch release. 00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:19.000 I kind of seems like, more of an implementation thing, be honest. I think the current approach. 00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:29.000 We definitely don't want to bring use the same place. So yeah, Going forwards, like, even be a follow up issues to be honest. 00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:38.000 I think I think right now the default on all sites is that you get this resizing behavior. To me, it doesn't, unless someone makes a strong business, the why that shouldn't be. 00:39:38.000 --> 00:39:46.000 It's a They did have something that you were to on nation itself. On this call. 00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:47.000 Okay, and Thomas, I think too. 00:39:47.000 --> 00:40:10.000 Hmm. But. Yeah, the use case for when resulting is a really bad idea if you have a like a 2 pixels to 2 large image and the user doesn't notice and it gets reduced into a certain percentage of Like, like it closes quality because of it has couple of pixels too much. 00:40:10.000 --> 00:40:18.000 So in that case it would make sense to have a Quite a to not notification that this is too big. 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:28.000 And then the user could just crop it. So there are cases where automatic pre-sizing could cause some issues for the content. 00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:37.000 Right, that's the whole point for the issue, but while adding the new option, we have to avoid changing the behavior. 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:40.000 On current sites. 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:44.000 So let's. 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:54.000 Sorry, just, you'll say, I just, have to drop off now. Yeah, if, yeah, it's good to talk to these things. 00:40:54.000 --> 00:41:03.000 Yeah, I agree the renewal button, it's a good approach, but also like, potentially, and triple or just, additional like resizing strategies in the future. 00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:06.000 So, sounds like a good good fun. 00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:14.000 Okay, thanks. So I think Ralph wanted to look at the other. 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:19.000 Screenshots on the issue. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:35.000 So if resizing is enabled and gets applied, you get a status message. The image was resized to fit within the maximum allowed dimensions of 10 by 10 pixels. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:43.000 The new dimensions of the resized image are 10 by 9 pixels. And then the error message if we don't allow. 00:41:43.000 --> 00:41:51.000 Resizing the specified file, banner underscore app. PNG could not be uploaded. 00:41:51.000 --> 00:42:01.000 Then as a bullet point, the image is too large. The maximum inventions are 10 by 10 pixels and the image size is 380 by 360 pixels. 00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:13.000 And then. The form element for uploading the file is highlighted as standard for for an error. 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:17.000 Ralph, is this what you wanted to? Bring up. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:30.000 Yes. Just am missing the detail that the image resized functionality is currently disabled and that is the reason. 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:42.000 Let the ever message comes up. So the person uploading it also gets also the clue. Why it's too large and where the person might look. 00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:52.000 To change things. Because perhaps it could be. Miss configured. It's also an option. 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:59.000 I think this would happen mostly to users who are not allowed to configure field, so it might be confusing to have that have it. 00:42:59.000 --> 00:43:04.000 As a default error message. 00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:12.000 Right, I guess we have to consider both use cases. The site maintained by a single person who does both the configuration. 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:23.000 And the content editing. And is a more complex site with with more people where one person has permission to configure. 00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:33.000 And a different person or or many people have content editing. So if you're not allowed to change configuration. 00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:49.000 Then I don't think it makes sense to talk about. Configuration. It's kind of complicated, but I guess we could show different error messages depending on whether people have the permission. 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Or we could make a minor change to the error message like the configured maximum dimensions. 00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:00.000 Yeah. 00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:21.000 That would not be too confusing for someone without permission to change it and would be a hint to a person who does have permission. 00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:48.000 I get a couple of thumbs up. Do we need that first sentence? The image is too large or should we just have the longer sentence? 00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:49.000 Okay. 00:44:49.000 --> 00:45:01.000 I like having it like short so It's immediately obvious that what is the issue and so the user doesn't need to read the details to understand what's going on. 00:45:01.000 --> 00:45:13.000 So, Timo Ralph would wonder both if you like to. Leave a comment on this issue. 00:45:13.000 --> 00:45:17.000 You're muted. Go ahead. 00:45:17.000 --> 00:45:18.000 Great. Thank you. 00:45:18.000 --> 00:45:20.000 Yeah, I can do that. 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:29.000 And we still have almost 20 min left. So, Ralph? Do you wanna leave the discussion at this point? 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:31.000 Do you wanna share your screen? 00:45:31.000 --> 00:45:43.000 Yeah, 1 s. 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:49.000 Which issue are you going to talk about? Explain modes or the field labels? 00:45:49.000 --> 00:45:52.000 The display modes. 00:45:52.000 --> 00:45:57.000 Okay, so at least bring up the issue. Let me know when you want me to release the screen share. 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:01.000 Oh, okay. Yeah, you can release. 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:07.000 Okay. 00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:14.000 Okay. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:15.000 Are you able to see? 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:17.000 Yeah. 00:46:17.000 --> 00:46:20.000 Okay. 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:30.000 We are looking at issue number 2 7 2 1 7 2 7. Allow user to add display modes from respect to field UI. 00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:42.000 That is the second issue. Out of 2 and, before that, a few other changes already went in. 00:46:42.000 --> 00:46:55.000 That are also in the scope of that. Just play modes. Page and I wanted to Take a look at a hole at that. 00:46:55.000 --> 00:47:08.000 And there are a few. Directly visible. Problems there and changes. As you can see, with here the content. 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:25.000 And if you move down, you see. The width of the different columns differs. And you also notice another new change is that the That is all those changes are not the scope of the issue. 00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:32.000 We'll take a look after that. But it's necessary to take a look at that of those as well. 00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:38.000 As you can see, you have the at view mode for content. Then you have the add view mode for content block. 00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:49.000 And so forth and also the width of the description field just to demonstrate is around 640 characters. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:52.000 And another change. 00:47:52.000 --> 00:48:07.000 That got in is basically you're able to enable. A view mode for certain content types. Those are the changes and. 00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:17.000 If we go now to the content type. Optical manage fields and go to manage. 00:48:17.000 --> 00:48:18.000 Yes. 00:48:18.000 --> 00:48:25.000 Actually, can I ask you pause for just a second? So I'm looking on my site and the inconsistent. 00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:26.000 Oh. 00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:29.000 Column width is already problem there. So that's not a new problem. 00:48:29.000 --> 00:48:31.000 Okay, okay, okay, okay. 00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:32.000 Okay, go ahead. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:43.000 And if we don't know down there. We have now a head new view mode link at the bottom. 00:48:43.000 --> 00:48:50.000 If you click that. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:59.000 Test. Being creative now. And then you're able to add a prescription. Okay. 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:03.000 Hey, description. 00:49:03.000 --> 00:49:09.000 Follow the test. And now. 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:21.000 Hey, able to select a few. And the description says this few mode will still be available for the rest of the content types if not checked here but will not be enabled by default. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:30.000 And if we save. Oh. 00:49:30.000 --> 00:49:38.000 And we get that. Oh, I forgot 1 Si do another round. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:47.000 Hey, PC. Just to demonstrate it. It's cumbersome. Oops. 00:49:47.000 --> 00:50:04.000 Demonstrate the size of the status message when more than 10 or 12. Content types are. Check that in place. 00:50:04.000 --> 00:50:08.000 And yeah, that's basically. 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:26.000 The changes. Any questions? 00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:34.000 So first of all, I guess I'm. Using the current 11 point X. So maybe those that inconsistent column sizes were added by the recent issue. 00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:47.000 The part that you said was already. Had already gone in. 00:50:47.000 --> 00:51:01.000 I think that this makes the few modes page. Much more useful than It used to be. 00:51:01.000 --> 00:51:22.000 I think that if you're configuring a the Display mode for content type. There's a link to this page. 00:51:22.000 --> 00:51:27.000 No. 00:51:27.000 --> 00:51:30.000 Where should that link be? 00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:36.000 Add new view mode. 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:42.000 And I 00:51:42.000 --> 00:51:53.000 And I guess before. Or these related issues. That, that was a normal link going to the, 00:51:53.000 --> 00:52:03.000 The main page. I always thought that was rather cumbersome. I, I like having this, this modal pop up. 00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:13.000 Which I guess is the point of the new issue. So the mobile, so if you go to the view modes page and then click add few mode for content that. 00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:21.000 The previous issue implemented that as modal. And what this issue is doing. Is. 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:22.000 Also bringing in the modal workflow. 00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:25.000 On the content. Right. 00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:32.000 Right. I like that. 00:52:32.000 --> 00:52:37.000 Other opinions? 00:52:37.000 --> 00:53:07.000 And are there things that we can do to make it better? 00:53:22.000 --> 00:53:27.000 Yeah, presumably the name is a required field. 00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:43.000 And should be marked as such. It's funny we've seen the same thing and in other modal forms. 00:53:43.000 --> 00:53:47.000 In fact, 00:53:47.000 --> 00:53:58.000 Ralph, can you slip into the form without putting in the name field? 00:53:58.000 --> 00:54:11.000 Okay, that's better than the behavior. Oh no. 00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:19.000 Okay, this this is the same form. Outside the modal context. 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:24.000 That seems like 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:36.000 Up to me, we should get the error message. Within the modal. Rather than. 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:43.000 I'm going to a regular page, having the same form as the modal. 00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:51.000 Also, it doesn't show. Machine redouble Napole here. Sometimes it displays it. 00:54:51.000 --> 00:54:56.000 Of the, message. But here about to even then. 00:54:56.000 --> 00:55:04.000 Right. And I think we had the same comments, when we were looking at the new field form. 00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:10.000 One or 2 weeks ago. 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:27.000 And I think. That this is pointing to an architectural problem. That Drupal has a standard way of building a multi-step form. 00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:39.000 It seems that Truple does not have a standard way of showing that multi-step form. In a modal workflow. 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:46.000 And I think that's what we need. Otherwise, we're going to run into these. Common problems. 00:55:46.000 --> 00:56:07.000 Every time a modal workflow is introduced. So. That's really an architecture problem, not not a usability problem, but but it creates usability problems. 00:56:07.000 --> 00:56:15.000 Would have one or 2 more. Observations I've made 00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:16.000 Go ahead. 00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:25.000 As ideas alignment issues. I wasn't aware that it's already. In consistent before. 00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:34.000 Then It probably justifies a separate issue, but One detail, I wonder 00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:47.000 Why at the add view mode for content button. Within basically the rows of content. Shouldn't be. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:56.000 Placed outside. So basically you have here the label, you might perhaps place the add button. Over here in a row. 00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:02.000 That way you wouldn't have to move. Cursor and would be a sort of separation of concerns. 00:57:02.000 --> 00:57:14.000 But again, on the other hand, on top you already have the overall button it would be one more click but Still. 00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:25.000 You would be able to get in there so I'm not completely sure. If the pattern. Would make sense. 00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:38.000 And on the other hand, if you are on A content type. 00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:45.000 Just play underneath. 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:55.000 In here it it's called view mode on top it's called display mode. And. 00:57:55.000 --> 00:58:08.000 Would it make sense to name it consistently and on the other hand again the same like on the other Page having the add button at the bottom instead of Right before on top. 00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:12.000 Might be. 00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:27.000 An idea and one detail is I consider that description underneath. Hard to read. This few mode will still be available for the rest of the content type. 00:58:27.000 --> 00:58:34.000 If the if for the rest of the content type, if not checked here, but it will not be enabled by default. 00:58:34.000 --> 00:58:36.000 That makes my spin. 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:41.000 Yeah. Go ahead Thomas. 00:58:41.000 --> 00:58:54.000 I find it a little bit confusing that from this page, you go to this modal and it isn't selecting this page content type. 00:58:54.000 --> 00:59:03.000 Automatically. Like I would have assumed that it would It would contextually assume I'm on this page. 00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:16.000 The reason I'm adding a new content view mode would be for this page. And if I want others to add them, it just is very strange that it's going to the generic form rather than something that's contextually aware. 00:59:16.000 --> 00:59:22.000 That's a great point and it should be too hard to implement. 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:27.000 And one others more detail. 00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:34.000 If you add a new view mode. 00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:47.000 Then the field set is auto, is collapsed instead of open so that way you're not able to make small adjustments. 00:59:47.000 --> 01:00:04.000 Additional ones necessarily. Oh, forget, forget it, sorry. Doesn't make sense. But yeah, I agree to Thomas. 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:05.000 Go ahead. 01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:16.000 I wanted to also say that, I agreed with what Ralph had been saying. 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:23.000 Trying to remember the specifics of it. But, Hi, I find that whatever possible language should match. 01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:45.000 So calling it display modes and then having it view mode. That, that's very like. It's confusing to me because view mode as language is already very Drupalistic. 01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:52.000 Right. It's a Drupalism. And so I question, well, is that the same thing? 01:00:52.000 --> 01:01:05.000 Like is a display mode of U mode and so it should be We should really emphasize that in all instances, all of the pages, we should be using the same language if possible. 01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:09.000 So within the same page as well as between pages. 01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:19.000 Yeah, I completely agree, but I think that's an existing problem. So, probably shouldn't be part of this issue just for scope control. 01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:29.000 But, I, always have trouble. Remembering I know that there are 3 different terms 4 mode view mode and display modes. 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:42.000 And one of those is the parent of the other 2. But, I can't remember whether display mode is the parent or view mode. 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:52.000 But in fact, if you look in the admin menu, you'll, You'll see which way it goes. 01:01:52.000 --> 01:02:03.000 And yeah, it's an obvious inconsistency. That we should fix. But again, it's an existing problem. 01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:13.000 It I I think. Ralph, it's really good of you to have a dozen or so. 01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:29.000 Display modes. Looking at the standard profile I see only 2 or 3. And. 01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:41.000 And it really. Make testing more more robust when when you consider That sort of case where there are lots of something and not just 3. 01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:49.000 One little improvement. Well, I shouldn't say little because maybe it would be hard to implement. 01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:59.000 But one thing that would be nice when you do have a dozen things here is if you could. Shift click on one of the. 01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:08.000 One of the check boxes and select a range. That's, that's the way, selection works in Gmail. 01:03:08.000 --> 01:03:19.000 And that's If that's hard, then it's out of scope for this issue, but it might deserve its own issue. 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:28.000 But go ahead, Ralph. 01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:37.000 One detail. But I'm not sure if it's, really an issue, but The only problem. 01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:44.000 I see. But it could be just I'm not used to it yet. But if you take a look here. 01:03:44.000 --> 01:04:01.000 And you have several content types, several. Display modes, new modes and so forth. One worry I have to have some sort of overview if if someone has a really sophisticated setup with Not everything selected, but. 01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:11.000 Dedicated and and the naming isn't proper and consistent than it might be difficult. 01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:21.000 Select the correct and set up the correct. Just play modes and content modes and and some sort of overview. 01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:38.000 It might be. Bike chatting, but it's just a feeling when when you think that that feature that always wasn't the background that I was missing some sort of feeling of control. 01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:49.000 That way it feels cumbersome to go into each single. View mode on all each content type to to get an idea what is selected and what not. 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:51.000 And, yeah, not sure. 01:04:51.000 --> 01:05:00.000 Okay, I'm afraid looking at the clock I have to cut off the discussion now. So I have no idea how to address that. 01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:02.000 Issue, but. Okay. 01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:16.000 Just one brief last question regards. Of the comment. What do you think about the position of the at view modes button as well as on the ad link on the content type everyone? 01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:23.000 Is the position okay or is it discussed? To move it somewhere else. 01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:32.000 I think it's not all that useful. I think as you said, it's just one more click to go to the button at the top. 01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:44.000 And I think it's confusing to have it styled differently from the button at the top. Or it's actually a link at the top. 01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:49.000 So you mean, removing those underneath? 01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:56.000 Yeah, I'm in favor of removing those. 01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:57.000 Okay. 01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:04.000 Probably needs more discussion. And it's already there from the previous issue. Okay. 01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:10.000 Okay. 01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:15.000 Okay, a couple of minutes over. Thanks all for coming and Ralph you'll post a comment on that issue. 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:19.000 Yeah, I leave a comment. 01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:20.000 Great, thanks so much. 01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:21.000 Thank you. 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000 Thanks everyone. 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:28.000 ByeThanks