🌍
English
Announcement
- [2024-12-20] Piwigo 15.3.0 : same as 15.2.0 but compatible with PHP 7
- [2024-12-19] Piwigo 15.2.0 : better user activation and many fixes
- [2024-11-11] Piwigo 15.1.0 : small fixes and what's new popup
- [2024-10-22] Piwigo 15
- [2024-09-23] Piwigo 15.0.0RC1, almost there
#1 2010-01-28 19:35:37
- mathiasm
- Former Piwigo Team
- 2006-02-06
- 2650
Category : to be or not to be ?
The menu displays categories (this is how the menu block named it, though). But people want to display more than virtual or physical cat in this block (e.g. : [Forum, topic 11527] Categories'link).
We have a problem with categories. A category has not a unique namespace: a physical category is a folder containing pictures, a virtual category is a manual selection of pictures.
I propose to call a spade a spade:
a physical cat is a folder, a virtual cat is a category.
But some other things can be categories.
Categories could be : a redirecting link, a tag-filtered page, an "additional page", a manually-selected pictures set (oh, something like an old-fashioned virtual cat :-).
Handling that natively could be smart, IMO.
Offline
#2 2010-01-28 19:39:31
- mathiasm
- Former Piwigo Team
- 2006-02-06
- 2650
Re: Category : to be or not to be ?
More over, on the admin part, we actually mix virtual and physical categories, and that's confusing, mostly when you only use virtual cats to display your pictures.
Added Note for previous post: Physical cats will be virtual cats where you assign all the folder contents to.
Offline
#3 2010-01-28 20:50:02
- plg
- Piwigo Team
- Nantes, France, Europe
- 2002-04-05
- 13877
Re: Category : to be or not to be ?
First, I would like to rename "Category" into "Album". I know this is a BIG change, but I think that Piwigo needs to fit into the photography language (on piwigo.com I've already rename category into album, I know rvelices also did on his gallery).
Now concerning the rename of physical category into folder. I think it's a good idea (even if I haven't used a physical category for a long). I agree at administration level. The issue is at gallery level. My original idea to keep the same name when I introduced virtual categories was to make it absolutely invisible at gallery level: the visitor should not know if the category is virtual or not.
Offline
#4 2010-01-28 21:42:19
- mathiasm
- Former Piwigo Team
- 2006-02-06
- 2650
Re: Category : to be or not to be ?
plg wrote:
First, I would like to rename "Category" into "Album". I know this is a BIG change, but I think that Piwigo needs to fit into the photography language (on piwigo.com I've already rename category into album, I know rvelices also did on his gallery).
Now concerning the rename of physical category into folder. I think it's a good idea (even if I haven't used a physical category for a long). I agree at administration level. The issue is at gallery level. My original idea to keep the same name when I introduced virtual categories was to make it absolutely invisible at gallery level: the visitor should not know if the category is virtual or not.
Do you agree to distinguish folders management from album management ?
Offline
#5 2010-01-28 22:50:00
- plg
- Piwigo Team
- Nantes, France, Europe
- 2002-04-05
- 13877
Re: Category : to be or not to be ?
mathiasm wrote:
Do you agree to distinguish folders management from album management ?
No at gallery level (I just want to see a category tree at gallery level).
Yes at administration level (I want to see a category tree and it may be useful to see only folders).
Anyway, I think the future for Piwigo is "only virtual categories" and that we maintain the FTP+synchronization for legacy purpose. Changing something in the "physical or not physical" categories sounds like a waste of energy to me. The good old system works well, is documented :-)
Beyond the rename of "physical categories" into "folder" how would you see things change in the administration? and in the gallery?
Offline
#6 2010-01-28 23:20:47
- mathiasm
- Former Piwigo Team
- 2006-02-06
- 2650
Re: Category : to be or not to be ?
plg wrote:
mathiasm wrote:
Do you agree to distinguish folders management from album management ?
No at gallery level (I just want to see a category tree at gallery level).
Yes at administration level (I want to see a category tree and it may be useful to see only folders).
Anyway, I think the future for Piwigo is "only virtual categories" and that we maintain the FTP+synchronization for legacy purpose. Changing something in the "physical or not physical" categories sounds like a waste of energy to me. The good old system works well, is documented :-)
Beyond the rename of "physical categories" into "folder" how would you see things change in the administration? and in the gallery?
synchronization becomes the home of folder management. You select the folders in the multi-select list, then choose what to do with pictures in (associate with a virtual category named from the folder, put photos in the caddie, define a "mapping" category name for each folder selected, etc)
cat management becomes more powerful: define a name and a content : real: manual selection, tag-related, search-related, rate-related, etc or virtual : external link, additional page, some advanced techniques many users already use.
This implies we force the use of virtual cat, even if they are mapped from the folder names.
Offline