Thread

i think most would agree that renaming weblog is a good idea but i’ve always renamed it to “section” as it made the most sense to me and i’m sure many others did the same. since we can’t rename it anymore, can you explain why channel is better than section? the new EE looks great btw.

Now the terminology is clear, correct

Ummmm - I would disagree. “channel” is associated broadcast (tv, radio, cable, etc.) Websites are closer to the traditional print publishing model. I have never thought of any content as a “channel”, especially a specific content block within a site. It’s better than “node”, but not by much. Sorry Les.

I would open this up for better suggestions, channels just doesn’t cut it for me or the sites I’ve worked on. If you’re so married to it (that would be unfortunate) I request that you revert to letting us customize it to our specific client needs as I’ll actually have more explaining to do than when I could change weblog to just plain content.

Now the terminology is clear, correct

Ummmm - I would disagree. “channel” is associated broadcast (tv, radio, cable, etc.) Websites are closer to the traditional print publishing model. I have never thought of any content as a “channel”, especially a specific content block within a site. It’s better than “node”, but not by much. Sorry Les.

I would open this up for better suggestions, channels just doesn’t cut it for me or the sites I’ve worked on. If you’re so married to it (that would be unfortunate) I request that you revert to letting us customize it to our specific client needs as I’ll actually have more explaining to do than when I could change weblog to just plain content.

You don’t know this, you’re speculating (as are we). Of course, you know we’re always open to ideas, but this is one we’re going to test in the field first. We’ve been considering this terminology change for over 2 years now (we’ve wanted to change it prior to 2.0’s development, its been a long time coming) and we’ve thought it through quite a bit. At this point we’re very comfortable with it but understandably its new to everyone else. We know not everyone will like it, but again, until its out in the field we’re going to hold firm on this.

Section is tied to a visual component in a way that Channel is not. For how EE is used, this isn’t always appropriate. Section also gets complicated when you try to explain it.

One of the exercises we went through in choosing a new term was to put it in sample code, write sample documentation with the word, and talk to people about it. The word “Content” has similar snags with it.

i think most would agree that renaming weblog is a good idea but i’ve always renamed it to “section” as it made the most sense to me and i’m sure many others did the same. since we can’t rename it anymore, can you explain why channel is better than section? the new EE looks great btw.

I touched briefly on this in my previous post but wanted to answer you directly.

Section is tied to a visual component. When someone says “section” they think of a physical place, be it a building, a web page, or something else. Data doesn’t work like this. When its used as a method of explaining what’s possible with EE, this causes problems, especially when it comes to having good documentation.

Channel implies a transmission of data versus a physical space. Since, as PXLated points out, its used in broadcasting, people unfamiliar with web development are more likely to understand it. Its use in this field is a plus in our opinion, not a negative.

For example, when we need to explain that you can publish once, but have the information available in multiple places it gets confusing. You publish to a section but it can be in multiple pages? Just what is a section then? A part of a page? A block on a page?

“You can have multiple Sections published in this same area/page/place”.

v.

“You can have multiple channels in this section of your website.”

We think Channels provides a much clearer description of what’s possible and more accurately describes how EE works.

You don’t know this, you’re speculating (as are we)

Yes I do - for me, my clients, my experience. Your experience opinion may differ 😊

this is one we’re going to test in the field first

Cool. You have the EE forums, a great field test area. Maybe open a forum poll with yes/no on channel and request other suggestions with the reason why. I’m not 100% convinced a firm term that works for all the various types of sites EE can be used to create will ever be possible though.

We know not everyone will like it, but again, until its out in the field we’re going to hold firm on this.

It’s not whether I like it, it’s whether it’s a functional term for my clients and the sites I create. Channels is not. EE has been one of the most flexible CMS products out there, I’d like to see that flexibility applied to this and be allowed to change it. I understand where you need a starting term (weblog wasn’t it) so people new to the platform have something to hang on to. That’s a developer usually. I’m more concerned what my clients see and it’s never been weblogs and if allowed it will never be channels 😊

Section is tied to a visual component

Agree!

The word “Content” has similar snags with it

Yes, as does Channel.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing with the fact that you need to change from “weblog”, just arguing that “channel” isn’t much better for “me”. But, more importantly, if it’s not changeable it’s a step backwards that won’t make “me” happy 😊

The best term semantically is really “data” but it’s just incredibly lame and doesn’t have a tie to any specific source.  “Content” can come from your weblogs, templates, global variables, add-ons, etc.  “Sections” semantically fits templates better than weblogs.

And I can’t tell you the number of times an end user has inherited a site, and been frustrated because in an attempt to help them, our staff gave them navigation instruction to a location in their control panel (or they looked in the user guide), and they can’t find “Weblog Management”.  It really is bizarre to have such a major component of an application renamable as it is now, but we and developers were either losing business or complicating it by having to explain that “weblog” doesn’t mean “weblog”, because it already has a defined connotation in this industry.  Channel has no connotation in the web industry outside of feeds, and in that context, its use is harmonious.

{exp:rss:feed channel="concerts"}

And the context outside of this industry is quite analogous to how we’re using it as well.

I applaud the new terminology. It makes great sense to me and I look forward to getting it wrong several times 😊

i’m kind of with pxl on this. channel is better than weblog, but how much better, i’m not sure. having the flexibility to change terminology would be most appreciated by me and i’m sure by my clients.

i’m kind of with pxl on this. channel is better than weblog, but how much better, i’m not sure. having the flexibility to change terminology would be most appreciated by me and i’m sure by my clients.

But it’s difficult from a support point of view is what I’m hearing.

Here’s an idea - Is it possible to use Usability Keyboard Shortcuts to get the relevant section in the Admin panel?

That way it doesn’t matter what Weblog or Channels is renamed to and support can just say 1-3-5-2 for example.

Well, the more I mull over the term “channel”, the more I love it. I can really make the connection with the “stream of data” and I can see how the term could be very helpful to people, perhaps even to people with a broad range of experience on the Web. I’m comfortable making the switch from “section” to “channel” and I’m even more excited to hear about that standard from site to site. Not to mention the fact that EE template tags and system files will match the language of the control panel. That’s going to reduce confusion in supporting EE sites and help solidify the base.

And good riddance weblog! 😊

Or have a master preferences list, one item being content name. Tech support (and docs) point a person to that preference pane if there’s a question. Or the initial install name, and what’s in the docs, is always cross-referenced to whatever you’ve changed to. One can search for either term and get the same info. Point being, there’s ways around the tech support issue.

With a fixed term (word) that isn’t appropriate to my client and their content, I have the same problem as I did when “weblog” couldn’t be changed. I’m again explaining what the heck that term is/means.

This is just as much of an issue of continuity of product, documentation, and experience as it is to aiding support.  As Les said, we have spent an exorbitant amount of time thinking of how these terms are used, and where, and how it changes in individual contexts, how easy it is to spell, how many characters it contains, and on and on.  This is such a core application concept and has such a wide ranging impact that it only make sense that we control how it is presented.  If it bugs you that badly, you can always change your language files.

Or the initial install name, and what’s in the docs, is always cross-referenced to whatever you’ve changed to. One can search for either term and get the same info.

Your preference for this term in an arbitrary installation will affect what you see in the online docs and what Google indexes?  PXLated, as a fellow old timer from the pM Pro days, I really do value your opinion; what I’m hearing is that you don’t like it, and that’s fine, and noted.

Even though I don’t like or agree, I do understand that you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Since you have such an active, smart user forum, I just wish more opinions were sought earlier in the game 😊

great news - can’t wait to read more about 2.0!