Versions: some suggestions on improvement
Permalink
Hi everybody,
Just wanted to post some ideas on possible improvement of the Versions in C5, based on my own experience (while I'm a site builder, sometimes I have to maintain content as well, or at least help my content managers to do so).
What I find inconvenient in current realization:
1) you can't rename versions (and if you create a clone of the current version, you can't give a title to it either. It will be automatically named "Copy of Version: <n>" - where n is always a number - even if the original DOES HAVE a title. I personally find it convenient to give meaningful titles to versions, sometimes when I start seriously reworking the content. Currently you can give a title only when you start a new version - but you can't rename any existing versions.
2) It's a pity that you can't switch versions. If you started a new version, there is no way to switch to an older one unless you create a new copy of the latter. I used to work with one old and obscure (but unbelievably well-thought of) CMS, where you could switch versions at any time - that was very convenient!
E.g., you could start working on a new page draft, adding a lot of new content, but say you can't approve the new version because the review from company CEO is still pending, but in the meantime you notice a typo in the current version. Well, you just switch to older version, correct a typo, approve/publish, and then switch to the new (still unapproved) version and continue your work on that.
Does anyone agree with me?
Just wanted to post some ideas on possible improvement of the Versions in C5, based on my own experience (while I'm a site builder, sometimes I have to maintain content as well, or at least help my content managers to do so).
What I find inconvenient in current realization:
1) you can't rename versions (and if you create a clone of the current version, you can't give a title to it either. It will be automatically named "Copy of Version: <n>" - where n is always a number - even if the original DOES HAVE a title. I personally find it convenient to give meaningful titles to versions, sometimes when I start seriously reworking the content. Currently you can give a title only when you start a new version - but you can't rename any existing versions.
2) It's a pity that you can't switch versions. If you started a new version, there is no way to switch to an older one unless you create a new copy of the latter. I used to work with one old and obscure (but unbelievably well-thought of) CMS, where you could switch versions at any time - that was very convenient!
E.g., you could start working on a new page draft, adding a lot of new content, but say you can't approve the new version because the review from company CEO is still pending, but in the meantime you notice a typo in the current version. Well, you just switch to older version, correct a typo, approve/publish, and then switch to the new (still unapproved) version and continue your work on that.
Does anyone agree with me?
My dear boy...always thinking ahead. Way to go Franz. That is a great idea I could use as well.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks for the insight.
Thx! Yeah weve totally run into that challenge before too...
Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz
Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz
I see your sig about mobile device...any thoughts or current solutions for browsing c5 via mobile device? I tried on the iphone but its small text and not formatted for mobile...at least not showing so on my phone. My droid phone isn't so bad because it has a 4.5" screen to view on.
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks for your swift reply!
Regarding the suggested workaround for 2), yes, I know that I can do it that way, but personally, for me this is what looks like a quite confusing way :) and it will create unnecessary clones of versions... Different forks for different folks, maybe ;)
Regarding the suggested workaround for 2), yes, I know that I can do it that way, but personally, for me this is what looks like a quite confusing way :) and it will create unnecessary clones of versions... Different forks for different folks, maybe ;)
would see there is source of truth type stuff... Fred made a horrible
version, knows hes going to get fired, and goes back to change
something in the past. I guess since we still know who did it and we
still have the actual version, the comment field isn't all that
important in that auditing sense.
2) you can get around this today. What you're really wanting is forked
versions, much like github has branches. That's more than we want to
do as it will add both a lot of confusion and overhead. However with
5.6 you can accomplish what you want. Say you have this version list:
Version 5
Version 4 (live)
Version 3
Version 2
Version 1
If your working on version 5, but it's not going to be ready to
launch, and you see a need to fix a typo on version 4...
You can select version 4, copy it as a new version (thats a new
feature in 5.6) and it will become version 6. Make your edits, and
launch what was version 4 as new version 7. Then copy version 5 as new
version 8, and proceed to do your work from there.
Sounds complicated but it would solve your challenge just fine and
keeps us from having to add all sorts of cruft and confusion.
Thanks for the questions!
best wishes
Franz Maruna
CEO - concrete5.org
http://about.me/frz