Standardizing Module Position Names

Hi Everyone,

I started a forum thread back 2009 ( http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=466&t=444773 ) to see about gaining some consensus about module position names. I feel that this is an important topic as it lessens user confusion. Is this something that interests anyone else?

Best,

Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server

Yes yes yes.

I'm in favor of putting together a list of almost always used
positions, naming them semantically, and then it would be great if the
demo content and template was patched to utilize them. To me, this has
to be fixed in the core and then developers will follow. That is why
user1-4 is still popular in 1.5 template, even though it means
nothing.

In the base form, it should be the common modules practically every
template uses.

Positions Suggestions (names can be changed but to give an idea of the
most common module needs)
- topmenu (most sites have a top nav)
- mainmenu (all sites have a main menu position)
- breadcrumbs (obvious)
- abovecontent (to be a module between the header and content area)
- belowcontent (to be a module between the content and footer area)
- column1 (rather than right/left, but indicating columns next to the
main content)
- column2
- header (the top, often between the top menu and menu in the logo
area)
- footer (the bottom, where copyright, etc might be also)
- debug (before </body>)

Other platforms make do with fewer than this in their equivalent to a
module. Template developers for Joomla have embraced the flexibility
of modules, which is great.

My solution to this would be to submit a feature patch for 1.7, to
help set standards for the future, once we come up with a good list.
> I started a forum thread back 2009 (http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=466&t=444773) to see about gaining
> betweenbrain <http://betweenbrain.com> | Construct Unified Template
> Framework <http://joomlaengineering.com> for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and
> Nooku Server

I'll update and post my list soon, but overall I'd suggest that we follow HTML5 semantics as closely as possible. There is a great article at http://jontangerine.com/log/2008/03/preparing-for-html5-with-semantic-class-names that suggests such a move for CSS classes (which reminds me another post to write)

This page should be a great resource for names http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/elements.html

What do you think?

Best,

Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server

I am not a template developer by trade, so feel free to ignore me.

What I think templates often fail to consider is how they can use the
same module position instead of 3 'rows' of say header1, header2, etc.
Using modChrome, there are a lot of possibilities to arrange modules.
On the other hand sometimes someone wants 3 rows of modules in the
header, which I would argue is not the norm and therefore not part of
my list. If your header modules stack, then using one header module
position will get you as many 'rows' as you want, just flip their
order based on the module ordering. On the other hand if you want to
have 3 rows of modules that have multiple modules in each row, the
easier way is to make an additional position (or get creative again
with modChrome, but risk confusing customer = more support).

Perhaps we need a list of what any Joomla template *should* have, and
then finish the list off with additional module names that templates
*may* have. I think my list could very well be the minimum, and other
positions that people use regularly can be part of the second list. I
agree with Daniel, anytime a position needs to be duplicated into rows
or something, adding a number sounds most logical. However here is the
rub, if we think a position will be replicated like this, then the
default should be header1 not header, so that sample content can be
sure to match.

I am also vehemently opposed to 'user#' and most of the 1.6 positions.

I am happy with the defaults all being ABC1  then others being 2,3,...

Or the 1 could be implied - header, header2, header3,....

Either work for me, and both have precedent in other areas. But I am not a template developer so my vote isn't worth very much.

This is a topic that I've been wrestling with for some time, and find it hard to resolve with one best solution. One thing we face is that many user are somewhat pre-conditioned to what has been included in the core software, which we seem to agree isn't optimal.

I think some best practices are in order and I feel that it will be extremely important to follow the semantics of HTML5 whenever possible. I propose the following basic set of position names, including the specialized ones that seem to be widely used:

analytics
article
aside or column
breadcrumbs
content (-main, -top or pre-, -bottom or sub-)
debug
footer
header
nav
offline
search
sub-header
syndicate

From a purely semantic point of view, "aside" seems to better suited than "column", however I don't know if it makes better sense in this case as not everyone may think of it as an aside.

I agree with Jeremy about the use of user# and most of the 1.6 positions, as they have no real meaning. Unfortunately, as I directly experienced when creating my template framework, users tend to be pre-conditioned to expect these, and almost demanded them from me.

I'm also adamant that we need to start encouraging better readability by using hyphens / dashes instead of smashing everything together. For example, aside-1 is generally easier to read then aside1.

I'd suggest that we encourage using numbers for all positions if more than one exists in that category.

Hi Jeremy,

I agree that we'll never find a perfect solution that works for everyone, but I think this is a good start. I do need to clarify the intent of 'sub-header' vs 'header-2'. In any template, you can have multiple module positions within the header, i.e. header, header-2, header-3...etc. However you may also have modules below the header, so you'd need a way of designating that. So, sub-header, sub-header-2, sub-header-3... etc makes sense to me. You can see what I mean at the top of http://joomlaengineering.com/what-module-positions-are-available-in-construct

If we were to find a common way of designating above and below / before and after common elements such as the header, I think that we can expand an easily accepted standard for others to adopt. Implementing this with basic common positions would give us good coverage. What do you all think?

> Framework <http://joomlaengineering.com> for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and

Article isn't so tricky a concept as that article manager is already well known, and referring to content items as articles is also fairly standard. While you are right that it is associated with com_content, I don't think it is too much of a stretch of the imagine to associate it with other components. Certainly not significantly more than the word content is. 

Sorry for the double post. I just wanted to add that Getting things like this back into the core (be it Joomla, Nooku Server, Molajo etc) is definitely the preferred course of action if possible, and something we should keep in mind when working on our standards.

Hi Everyone,

I've been mulling over this for the last couple of days and have come to some conclusions.

First of all, although "aside" is probably more semantically correct, it doesn't always translate well in other languages and may not make sense if you have more than one. However, "column" does translate well and makes sense if you have more the one.

"Article" is also a tricky one and its meaning seems to be one of context, therefore I think it may be better to avoid it if we can.

Therefore, I am proposing a revised scheme devised around the more universal features of content, header, nav, footer... etc. These scheme can be expanded along the same lines to allow template developers to add more positions while preserving meaning. I have intentionally named these so that they appear in a more user friendly order when listed alphabetically, while still retaining their meaning internationally.

analyitcs
breadcrumbs
debug
footer
footer-above-1
footer-above-2
footer-above-3
footer-above-4
header
header-above-1
header-above-2
header-above-3
header-above-4
header-below-1
header-below-2
header-below-3
header-below-4
header-below-5
header-below-6
column-1
column-2
column-3
column-4
content-above-1
content-above-2
content-above-3
content-above-4
content-below-1
content-below-2
content-below-3
content-below-4
nav
nav-below-1
nav-below-2
nav-below-3
nav-below-4
offline
search
syndicate

Best,

Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server

Should we swap syndicate for social-media as I mentioned above?

In fact, do we need either? Generally, syndication and social media is done with a module, that doesn't need any special treatment like breadcrumbs or debug may, and it could be positioned anywhere on the page (i.e. in footer-above-1)

Hi Everyone. i am here to chime in:) I agree with you Matt, No syndication should be inlcuded. Some people might want an RSS feed at the bottom, other at the top. Why not just let them pick what position they want to put it in?
I am a template developer and just adopted the Construct Framework. I do think we should have a standard. It makes total sense. it would make life so much easier. The biggest issue I see in deviating from core joomla positions is the lack of knowledge many people have on how Joomla works. I don't know how many support tickets I have answered where some one says,
 " I installed the template, but my menu does not display, etc"

 I then have to explain that every template has different positions.

"You need to look at the position map and publish your module to the correct position. In your case, publish the main menu module to the menu position."

In our case we used menu as our main navigation position. Construct uses nav. It just depends on the template and the developer. If we could adopt a universal "core" set of positions that the Joomla core used as well, much confusion could be avoided. Most newbiews install sample data. If we want our templates to display correctly with no configuration, we would all need to adopt the same naming convention as the core uses, specifically Rhuk for 1.5 as this is default. I haven't compared 1.5 and 1.6 default templates. Do they have the same positions? If not that is just silly. I think the thing to remember is our goal is standardized naming, with the main goal of avoiding user confusion. Semantically correct would be nice too, but for me its about the users.

Dan

I want to second what Daniel said.

No, template positions in 1.6 are position-1, position-2, position-3, etc.

I am fine with the philosophy of calling your divs sidebar1, sidebar2, position-1, position-2. Only developers have to understand that.

I am not OK with module positions called by these names. If you do not know the tp=1 trick (and face it, most people don't, particularly users), then the end user who gets to take over the website must now remember that position-7 is the left column while position-3 is the right column. And who is really going to remember that?

Please use meaningful names for module positions. In the end, some poor business owner who just wants to post some content has to take over the website, and the fewer barriers we can put up to that process, the better Joomla will be viewed.

Jen

Hi Jen,

Thanks for the input. What do you think about the naming scheme I proposed a few messages ago https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-3pd-extension-standards/rCcBuhTQ9ks/zU9uWc8eUCYJ ?

Do you think that it would satisfy the needs of both developers and end users?

I am not sure I would say "generally", though it is definitely often in a regular module position. But I think that is usually because of a lack of options. If given a choice between a regular module position and something specially designed to maximize exposure for those links, then I believe most people would choose the latter.

Template developers could then style those links and icons so that they fit in with the template more.

If not a module position, then perhaps a module class suffix of "-social-media" would be more appropriate.

 I just know that at least half the custom sites I look at (i.e. not a stock template) treat their social media links differently to everything else that could be considered a module.

@Daniel - do you think you could please put your surname into your "Nickname" for the group so there is no confusion over which of us is which (I just read your post myself thinking, huh when did I say that??)

You are right that some people might want their RSS in different positions, but wouldn't you as a template developer like the ability to customise how that RSS and twitter look? You might also want to be able to design a specific place on your template for them.

Yes some people may not use it, but it actually gives you a bit more creative freedom if you can define where and how the RSS, Twitter and FB links are going to appear.

@Jen - I think it is unanimous that the 1.6 positions are not semantic at all and not useful at all.

100% agree that a good set of semantic names would make everyone's life easier. Even if some developers choose to extend them.  Our ultimate goal is to get a lot of the standards we work on here back into the core of various CMS projects, which becomes more likely the more support we have for them. e.g. if 75%+ of the main template companies supported our positions we would have a very strong case to present for having the defaults changed.

Yes, right now this means we don't quite the current Joomla default positions, but there are technical and social ways around that. e.g. a link in the template params screen to reset the modules from the sample content (or create new sample modules), warning messages on install etc.

If we do nothing however, then we risk being stuck with position-1 to position-50 forever.

Just want to +1 to semantic names...

Hi Marco,

Thanks. Can you explain why you are against numbers? It would be great to hear your reasoning.

Sorry If I was too short on the message..

End user who gets to take over the website must now remember that position-7 is the left column while position-3 is the right column. And who is really going to remember that?

Hi Marco,

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, the numbers are definitely meant as an increment. Maybe figuring that part of the naming scheme is the final step to having a proposal.

Is it specifically the numbers associated with "column" or all of them? Does "header-above-a" make more sense to you then "header-above-1" ? How do we increment a module position 6 or 8 times? Sorry for all of the questions.

I'm glad that you like the "above" and "below" and HTML5 inspiration. I think we're getting close.

Adding a number to the end doesn't (in my opinion) change the semantic
nature for the worse. Let's take an example. You have three rows of
modules above the header. You could header-above-top, header-above-
middle, header-above-bottom or header-above, header-above-2, header-
above-3. The example is to show once you start stacking in certain
ways, names become as confusing, or more so than numbers. The only
problem I see is with RTL languages, where if a row of modules is
position1-6, they will have to think backwards. However it is also
just as possible to make horizontal layouts with just one module
position, eliminating this problem.

I want to say again, I don't think this needs to become overly
complicated with a list of 50 modules. 10-12 is plenty in my opinion
for the core, with basic conventions for naming. I think a standard
will only work if the base is solid, and guidelines are set for the
most common issues. Simpler means more folks will follow, and while 50
module positions are a nice selling point, nobody needs them and I'd
rather focus on the core 10-12 positions that will hopefully get into
the core.

There is another issue, we have not yet figured out when to close a
discussion and take action. For example, anything we want to get into
1.7 probably needs to be done in the next 4-6 weeks. It took a few
days for me to get a branch setup to do some work on the installer, so
this is something we need to be working towards in the next week. The
questions are: 1) Who will take the lead on this task 2) Who will make
the final call, based on all input from this thread and 3) How do we
decide who it is?
> Framework <http://joomlaengineering.com> for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and
> Nooku Server

We should settle on some 'base' names for positions, and recommend numbers be used to add additional positions in an 'area' that's been named.

While I understand that numbers can often be misleading from the viewpoint that they can represent some sort of hierarchy, I think that as with anything that has it's own nomenclature, it shouldn't be too hard to catch on after working with it for a while. The key here is that we're setting a standard that will hopefully become used by all, and if adopted by all will eventually lead to a much clearer use of module position names than is currently in place .. which is for the most part just a bunch of 'user positions' mixed in with some logical 'left, right, footer' etc, names.

I would love to see the adoption of our work added into 1.7, so as Jeremy's pointed out we should probably finalize this soon.

Can we settle on 10 base names, with recommendations on how to add more using numbers to differentiate?

Would a diagram be helpful?

Thanks for all of the great opinions and thought put into this ...

Cheers,

tj

Hi TJ,

What do you think about the scheme suggested at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/joomla-3pd-extension-standards/rCcBuhTQ9ks/zU9uWc8eUCYJ ? It seems to be fairly well received and should be fairly understandable as it follows the semantics of HTML5.

Best,

Matt Thomas
betweenbrain | Construct Unified Template Framework for Joomla! 1.5, 1.6, Molajo and Nooku Server

@Jeremy - the answer to your question is in one of my first posts here- https://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!topic/joomla-3pd-extension-standards/smoLKPCGH1M

oh, and I would still like to see a social-media position (to replace syndicate.)

I like the naming that you presented, with one exception... I don't think we should name so many positions.

We might even take this a bit further and say that any of the 'main named areas', such as 'footer, nav, header' can have an 'above and below', and that each additional position added should be numbered.

I like your idea of :

The only numbers I can see being in the 'core' would be for the columns, and since 3 column layouts tend to be the 'norm', I think that columns are the only standard items that should get numbers assigned, eg, column1, column2.

Ok, so the remaining issues we need to resolve are:

Actually letters wouldn't be so much different than numbers, Matt has a point there. 

But that's exactly my point! :)

sidebar and column have no difference really, both are just as good. Unlike "left" which is limited to one side.

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

we probably need to keep above-content and below-content  as "content" isn't a core module position. 

Does anyone else have any thoughts or input regarding this? I'd be happy to start writing a proposed standard in the coming weeks. I will also use this naming convention for the templates that will ship with Molajo and Nooku Server, as well as convert Construct Unified to follow it as well. Hopefully that will demonstrate it's usefulness.

Well, somebody needs to start a draft spec, and then we can refine it from there.

Otherwise we could just keep going rounds and round forever.

Hi Matt and fellow group members

Hey @ll,

Nicholas K. Dionysopoulos
Web Development & IT Services
http://www.dionysopoulos.me

Hi Kyle,

I'm ok with nav and banner instead of Bootstrap-specific navbar and hero.

I'd like to +1 Matt's ideas and semantic naming.

I'm glad that we seem to be on the same page. Standardization for the win!

It would take updating the default template(s) and sample data. I'd love for this to happen, what's the final list that everyone's happy with?