Ticket #6250 (closed defect (bug): fixed)
Timestamp editing is confusing
| Reported by: |
|
Owned by: |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 2.6 |
| Component: | Administration | Version: | 2.5 |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | has-patch |
| Cc: |
Description
- The "Edit Timestamp" checkbox is redundant. The clicking of the "Edit" link implies that you want to edit the timestamp.
- The "Edit" link functions as a way to hide the date-editing fields -- the text should change to reflect this when the panel is open.
- Canceling and hiding the timestamp editing fields should cancel the timestamp edit.
- The time interface is confusing with its "@ FIELD FIELD" interface and because 24-hour time is left for the user to figure out
Attachments
Change History
comment:1
markjaquith — 4 years ago
- Keywords has-patch added
- Owner changed from anonymous to markjaquith
- Status changed from new to assigned
- Milestone changed from 2.6 to 2.5
better-date-editing.diff does the following:
- No more "Edit timestamp" checkbox. Hidden form fields track whether or not the date/time has been changed
- "Edit" link turns to "Cancel" after being clicked
- Clicking "Cancel" link resets the date fields (synced from the hidden ones)
- Re-worked the text in front of the date to be more accurate. Future-dated drafts are given "Publish on: DATE" ... future-published posts are given: "Scheduled for: DATE" ... past-published posts are given: "Published on: DATE," and drafts that will be published immediately when the Publish button is pressed just say: "Publish immediately"
- Added the "by Username" to the "Last edit" portion, per HC mockup and at Ryan's suggestion.
- inserted manual line break before @ HOURS : MINUTES, for better readability
- inserted a comma between the day of the month and the year for better readability
Changed the "Last edit..." text to look more like the mockups. I'm not sure how I feel about "Publish immediately". I think a timestamp needs to be there to better indicate the purpose of the edit link.
After r7338, Firebug spotted this error when changing the month of the timestamp: edit_date is not defined
comment:6
markjaquith — 4 years ago
comment:7
markjaquith — 4 years ago
comment:8
markjaquith — 4 years ago
comment:9
markjaquith — 4 years ago
The problem with having a timestamp is that after one minute, the timestamp is out of date, and it implies that hitting "Publish" will publish the post in the past. Clearly the point of having the current timestamp up there is to indicate that it will be published "now." What better way to represent an ever-changing "now" than with a word like "immediately" ?
I just think that if someone is publishing without scheduling, they don't care what the time was when they started editing... that's just cruft that makes them look at the clock to make sure it represents the current time, minus how long they spent editing.
comment:10
stevish — 4 years ago
Found a typo in the diff file (but I don't have shell access therefore I don't think I can add patches myself... So one of you other spiffy people will have to do it).
In comments.php, the foreach() that was added to see if anything has been changed doesn't check if 'mn' was changed. Instead, it checks 'mm' twice. The second 'mm' simply needs to be changed to 'mn'.
This typo is causing the timestamp not to be edited if you only edit the minute.
-
attachment
7596.diff
added
Fixes the mm typo so that changing minutes triggers edit_time
comment:11
stevish — 4 years ago
Alright, Now that it's uploaded, I think I went about this wrong... But regardless, I just uploaded a patch to fix the typo. If I did it very very wrong, and you'd like to yell at me for it (I wouldn't mind), direct your comments to stevish@… so that this article is not bogged down.
comment:12
ryan — 3 years ago
- Status changed from assigned to closed
- Resolution set to fixed
- Milestone changed from 2.9 to 2.6

