[MTOS-dev] Looking for Feedback: Template Listing UI

[Mark Carey]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Matt Jacobs <matt at apperceptive.com> wrote:
> http://apperceptive.com/template-listing-mockup.png

I like this better than the "alpha sorting by type", which has UNlucky
sort in that archive comes first, when index template should be first.

And like the mockup that Anil posted to Pronet a little bit more.
Sorry for the crosspost, but here are my comments on that one:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Anil Dash <anil at sixapart.com> wrote:
> http://wiki.movabletype.org/images/0/07/Template-listing-mockup-ad.png
>  * URLs are one of the primary ways people who build templates understand
> how their sites are organized. So I wanted to make them a little bit more
> prominent in explaining where a template's output lives.

I like this concept.

>  * The primary area of distinction between sections on the page is templates
> that map to individual output files, templates that map to multiple files
> (archive templates), and templates that power includes like modules and
> widgets.

Fair enough in theory, though not quite true in the image (see below)

>  * I got rid of the dynamic icons, with the idea that the column should only
> appear if you *have* some dynamic templates.

I like this.

>  * I got rid of the "Publish with Indexes" icon. Instead, that concept is
> reflected in the listing -- in the vast majority of MT installs, templates
> that aren't published with indexes are the ones you'll never mess with.
> Those go below the dividing line in the primary template list.

I don't like this one. Using a "dividing line" is far less intuitive
than an icon in a column.  This one would lead to more confusion, IMO.

Instead, perhaps the icons on the left could be "status" icons,
indicating things like "not built with indexes", "disabled archive
template", "module/widget in use (or not)", etc.

>  * The concept of "system" templates goes away. Sure, there's some templates
> that don't have output files, but they're divided by whether they map to a
> single output or multiple, and go in the appropriate sections.

This adds confusion.  The concept of a "Comment Preview" archive
template just doesn't make sense.  The description of this section
above is "templates that map to multiple files (archive templates)"
simply isn't true for system templates.

>  * I renamed "Refresh Templates" to "Reset All Templates" because that
> always drives me nuts.

Good idea.

>  I didn't have time/the will to add it in, but I'd likely put a
> collapse/show control next to each section of templates, to reveal or tuck
> away parts of the listing that weren't immediately needed.

I like this too, and the hidden/shown choices should "sticky", remain
in the same states when you return to the listing.  This would
alleviate the "back button" issue from MT 3.3x.

Finally, the image shows about 30 templates in a single listing, and
that doesn't include widgets (would those be a separate listing?).  If
I understand correctly, each of these 30 templates would be loaded
into memory (including the full template contents) in order to display
this list.  And these are just default templates -- for sites who add
many custom templates / modules, the list could easily grow to 60 or
more.  I don't know whether or not this poses an issue for memory
utilization or page-load times, but I really hope this is measured /
benchmarked before going down this road.

-Mark