[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 242: Move manage-portlets link to site actions

[Danny Bloemendaal]

On 9 okt 2008, at 11:29, Martin Aspeli wrote:

> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I did mention that on the web-version of the PLIP. Site actions  
>> works since it mostly contains rarely-used items, which includes  
>> manage portlets. But you are very correct in that document actions  
>> would technically be more correct.
>
> Not all views include document_actions, though.
>
> As mentioned, I'm -1 on moving it anywhere (visually) other than  
> where it is currently in a 3.x release.
>
> Martin
>

Well, first of all: we really have to be restrictive for doing -1's  
just because there is documentation describing it. That will nearly  
always stop progress and we won't that to happen.

Second: there is really a problem with how it is done now. It's not  
only ugly but it is also showing all the time while in 99% of the page- 
visits you don't need to see that link at all. How many times do you  
want to change the config of the portlets? Also, when you do, why have  
these manage links shown twice? Once you enter the manage page, you  
can control all column configurations, not just the one you clicked  
on. It adds unnecesary noise. It is like always leaving that flap on  
the front of your tv set open that allows you to configure your  
channels. It's annoying and distracting.

I tend to agree with Wichert in this in that moving it away from the  
main parts of the page makes it ends up in a place that is... well..  
out of the way. Semantically of course it is not a site action so yes,  
that is a valid point against it and document actions seems like a  
good second alternative but if they aren't always showing then you  
have a problem as well.  So, then how would you solve this issue then?  
How can we close the flap when we don't need it to be open? I think  
that eventhough it is not a site action (which user does know what a  
site action is anyway??) it best fit with them. It is configuration  
and manu links that have a relationship with configuration are found  
there (prefs,  site setup,  etc). From that point of view it is not  
strange to have it there.

So, until in 4.0 where this may not be an issue anymore, I'm +1 on  
this one.

Danny