[theme-reviewers] Question about removing default widgets

[Chip Bennett]

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>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>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>wrote:
>>
>>>  On 2013-02-28 22:50, Otto wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Justin Tadlock
>>>> <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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://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/d8f85671/attachment-0001.htm>