We have three ways to title sections — headers, open/closed view inclusions, and titled view inclusions. Would be nice to have more harmonization in their graphic design and functionality (e.g. when inclusion titles are acting like headers, one wants them to appear in the ToC).
Something like label:|alternate title| (where the alternate title replaces the actual name of the card) might help.
This ticket is more for discussion and design, will probly end up being several, more concrete tickets.
A related issue to consider in this conversation is the default view for search/pointer inclusions - see the discussion.
Also consider how any integration might look as we generate feeds.
Sometimes you have multiple titled inclusions in the same context where you want varying sizes.
is the case that there are sometimes multiple titled inclusions in the same context where we want varying sizes? Or just that *all the titles in certain contexts are too big? If the latter, then this is best solved by skinning.
by the way, there is a "title" (note, no "d") view that just renders the title. Not always what you want, but useful sometimes.
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-27 15:50:58 +0000
"multiple titled inclusions in the same context where we want varying sizes"
--John Abbe.....2013-03-27 19:55:36 +0000
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-03-27 20:37:57 +0000
Looks like we wanted it on ICAH. I don't have another actual use case in hand.
--John Abbe.....2013-03-27 21:09:33 +0000
I'm not sure ICAH wasn't an example of the latter example. I think usually you want smaller titles in a more deeply nested context; I think that should be the convention for skins, fwiw. Afaict, we're still looking for a use case here.
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-02 22:32:56 +0000
Re default view for search/pointer inclusions, i went with item:link in a lot of the http://sandbox.wagn.org/wagn/RecentChangesCamp stuff just because i thought it looked cleaner (and the closed view didn't add much info anyway). I also did this with Tickets by kind on the assumption that it would speed up the load time, and remember there being other times that i've had to type a lot of "|item:link". One consideration is what view we want to 'suggest' by default (i don't have a strong sense of this yet). Another outcome i'm shooting for is minimizing markup, to make a gentler learning curve for potential Wagneers.
--John Abbe, 24 Nov 2008
titled and open are now done in extremely similar ways, and styling them identically would be a snap.
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-02-25 06:00:50 +0000