[theme-reviewers] Question about removing default widgets
Justin Tadlock
justin at justintadlock.com
Fri Mar 1 14:47:12 UTC 2013
No, not really. I just figured we'd wait since we generally add
guidelines when WP is updated. I don't see any reason why it couldn't
go in right now though.
On 3/1/2013 8:43 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
> That is clearly an oversight from a previously held
> discussion/decision, and should be added. Is there any particular
> reason to wait until 3.6 to do so?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Justin Tadlock
> <justin at justintadlock.com <mailto:justin at justintadlock.com>> wrote:
>
> I would be on board with that too (enhancing but not combining
> widgets).
>
> We should nail out a guideline for this for the 3.6 guideline
> updates. Here's the text from our original guideline for this
> that was never added to the theme review page:
>
> Themes may OPTIONALLY unregister core Widgets
> If unregistered, Themes are REQUIRED to replace these Widgets with their own (extended) version
>
> I think that should cover it.
>
>
> On 3/1/2013 8:14 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>> I agree with Cais that *enhancing* core Widgets is one matter,
>> and inherently acceptable, and that *combining" core Widgets is a
>> separate matter, and not acceptable.
>>
>> From the end user's perspective: changing the active Theme should
>> not change the list of default core Widgets. If the user sees
>> core "Archives" and "Recent Posts" Widgets listed with Theme A
>> active, the user should still see "Archives" and "Recent Posts"
>> Widgets listed with Theme B active.
>>
>> This conversation has motivated me to push my Category and Tag
>> Widget improvements back upstream, along with Oenology's "Post
>> Formats" widget. If they are accepted into core, I'd love to be
>> able to remove them from the Theme. (Less code to maintain FTW.)
>>
>> As for cluttering up the Widgets screen: well, IMHO it's already
>> a huge mess. What would a few extra Widgets matter? :)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Edward Caissie
>> <edward.caissie at gmail.com <mailto:edward.caissie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Although I did agree with the idea of replacing default core
>> widgets with "enhanced" versions of the same widget, given
>> this conversation I believe this can be expanded upon.
>>
>> First, I do not agree with multiple "default" widgets being
>> replaced with a single "enhanced" widget. As far as I am
>> concerned this is not acceptable.
>>
>> Second, if the default widget is going to be "replaced" it
>> should be in the sense the new "enhanced" widget is simply
>> extending the default widget.
>> Lets take the default "Categories" widget as an example, an
>> extended version should provide exactly the same
>> functionality as the default version when it is initiated.
>> The enhanced version then may add on top of that
>> functionality additional options such as an include or
>> exclude option, again just as an example using the Categories
>> widget, there are much better enhancements that could be
>> implemented, such as RSS feeds (h/t Chip)
>>
>> That being said, I also happen to agree with Otto on why lose
>> out on the opportunity to self-promote with a custom widget
>> that may be exclusive to the theme ... even adding in three
>> or four theme widgets will not really clutter up the widget
>> window that much; and, if they are prefaced with the theme
>> name (IIRC this is not covered in the guidelines) they will
>> also naturally be grouped together as well.
>>
>> Edward Caissie
>> aka Cais.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dane Morgan
>> <dane at danemorganmedia.com <mailto:dane at danemorganmedia.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-02-28 22:50, Otto wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Justin Tadlock
>> <justin at justintadlock.com
>> <mailto:justin at justintadlock.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It can be an archive widget, posts widget, or
>> something like that. Another
>> good example is a combination of the tags and
>> categories widgets into a
>> super-cool taxonomy/terms widget. That'd be neat
>> to see.
>>
>> Those should be *entirely new widgets*, labeled with
>> the name of the
>> theme in front of them..
>>
>> Why would you be intentionally incompatible *and*
>> ignore freebie
>> branding opportunities? I just don't get it at all.
>>
>> -Otto
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think Otto has this one right. Maybe some users don't
>> agree that your enhancement is an enhancement. Give them
>> the option and let them try you out, don't confuse them
>> and take away default choices.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130301/03249ec3/attachment.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list