Quick Proposal: support for weblog avatar and bio attributes

This is a reminder that I am planning to do this work pretty
soon and 
add it to the current trunk so it's part of Roller 3.2.

This will include adding 2 new weblog fields for
"icon" and "about".

-- Allen


Allen Gilliland wrote:
> 
> 
> Dave wrote:
>> On 1/25/07, Allen Gilliland <Allen.Gillilandsun.com> wrote:
>>> Dave wrote:
>>> >> anyone object to adding these 2
attributes for weblogs?
>>> >
>>> > Yes. Don't those belong on the user or a
new user-profile object? A
>>> > weblog has multiple users and could
therefore have multiple bios and
>>> > avatars.
>>>
>>> Doh, I meant to specifically address that in my
original email but 
>>> forgot :/
>>>
>>> I had the same initial thought, but I came up
with a few reasons why
>>> these items wouldn't be associated with a user
profile actually ...
>>>
>>> 1. with the many-to-many relationship between
users and weblogs there is
>>> really no reliable way to get to a user from a
weblog and more
>>> importantly there is no guaranteed way of
getting a single user for a
>>> weblog.  so it would be troublesome to figure
out which profile to use
>>> in group blog situations.
>>>
>>> 2. users may own multiple weblogs and may not
want to use the same
>>> avatar and bio on both/all of them.
>>>
>>> 3. users may also come and go from a weblog,
i.e. join and be owner for
>>> a while then leave it to someone else.  while
this isn't likely to
>>> happen very often, it would be a definite
problem if a user who was
>>> controlling the avatar and bio on a weblog and
that stuff wasn't
>>> available anymore.
>>>
>>> I also think that at the end of the day the
image and bio are really a
>>> property of the weblog and in most cases are
just being used to
>>> highlight the author.  However, in many cases
they can be used in a more
>>> generic way such as being an icon and a
tagline.  So I think it's
>>> easiest and most appropriate to have them as
properties of a weblog.
>>
>> In that case it makes more since to call the field
"about" instead of
>> "bio" -- it's a bit of text about the
blog, which could be used as a
>> bio or something else. And instead of avatar how
about "image" or
>> "icon"?
> 
> Good point, some more appropriate nomenclature would be
helpful.
> 
> 
>>
>> It would definitely be useful to also have those
fields in the user
>> object or a new user-profile object, that way group
blogs like The
>> Aquarium could include an about page that
automatically lists each
>> blogger in the blog and a photo of each and is
automatically updated
>> as member hip in the group blog changes -- you
won't be able to do
>> that with one bio and avatar for the whole blog.
> 
> Yes, I agree that there is definitely still a use for
tracking more info 
> at the user profile level, but there are also more
complexities with 
> that.  For example, we currently have no way to allow
attaching of 
> uploaded images to users.  All the current file uploads
infrastructure 
> is segmented by weblog, so doing uploads for users
would have to be 
> separate.  There are little things like that which
would have to be 
> considered.
> 
> -- Allen
> 
> 
>>
>> - Dave

My personal preference would be to stay simple and just let
users create 
their own About page as a template page and use uploaded
resource images as 
"icons".

I can understand many users would be happy with the level of
functionality 
being suggested and wouldn't have to bother to learn how to
write the 
template required.  Adding a page to the basic theme which
included 
instructions on how to edit it would probably do and be much
more flexible 
for users who need something just beyond what the text field
and icon would 
provide.

I feel we should have some idea of criteria for representing
some item in 
the db rather than in templates/resources.

Some example criteria would be that either the item figures
in business 
logic or it needs to be represented in multiple presentation
formats, feeds, 
etc. which would require some sort of duplication/extra work
otherwise.  In 
any case, it should buy you something that's hard,
impossible, or awkward to 
get otherwise.

I understood Dave's rationale for the user-level attributes
where the intent 
seems to be able to avoid duplication for users who
participate in multiple 
group blogs or to avoid the work to maintain things if
membership of a given 
group blog changes frequently.

I still don't quite understand the argument for adding these
attributes at 
all at the web log level (which might be due to my own
limited vision).

--a.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allen Gilliland" <allen.gillilandsun.com>
To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog avatar and
bio attributes


> This is a reminder that I am planning to do this work
pretty soon and add 
> it to the current trunk so it's part of Roller 3.2.
>
> This will include adding 2 new weblog fields for
"icon" and "about".
>
> -- Allen
>
>
> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On 1/25/07, Allen Gilliland
<Allen.Gillilandsun.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> >> anyone object to adding these 2
attributes for weblogs?
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes. Don't those belong on the user or
a new user-profile object? A
>>>> > weblog has multiple users and could
therefore have multiple bios and
>>>> > avatars.
>>>>
>>>> Doh, I meant to specifically address that
in my original email but 
>>>> forgot :/
>>>>
>>>> I had the same initial thought, but I came
up with a few reasons why
>>>> these items wouldn't be associated with a
user profile actually ...
>>>>
>>>> 1. with the many-to-many relationship
between users and weblogs there 
>>>> is
>>>> really no reliable way to get to a user
from a weblog and more
>>>> importantly there is no guaranteed way of
getting a single user for a
>>>> weblog.  so it would be troublesome to
figure out which profile to use
>>>> in group blog situations.
>>>>
>>>> 2. users may own multiple weblogs and may
not want to use the same
>>>> avatar and bio on both/all of them.
>>>>
>>>> 3. users may also come and go from a
weblog, i.e. join and be owner for
>>>> a while then leave it to someone else. 
while this isn't likely to
>>>> happen very often, it would be a definite
problem if a user who was
>>>> controlling the avatar and bio on a weblog
and that stuff wasn't
>>>> available anymore.
>>>>
>>>> I also think that at the end of the day the
image and bio are really a
>>>> property of the weblog and in most cases
are just being used to
>>>> highlight the author.  However, in many
cases they can be used in a 
>>>> more
>>>> generic way such as being an icon and a
tagline.  So I think it's
>>>> easiest and most appropriate to have them
as properties of a weblog.
>>>
>>> In that case it makes more since to call the
field "about" instead of
>>> "bio" -- it's a bit of text about the
blog, which could be used as a
>>> bio or something else. And instead of avatar
how about "image" or
>>> "icon"?
>>
>> Good point, some more appropriate nomenclature
would be helpful.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It would definitely be useful to also have
those fields in the user
>>> object or a new user-profile object, that way
group blogs like The
>>> Aquarium could include an about page that
automatically lists each
>>> blogger in the blog and a photo of each and is
automatically updated
>>> as member hip in the group blog changes -- you
won't be able to do
>>> that with one bio and avatar for the whole
blog.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that there is definitely still a use
for tracking more info 
>> at the user profile level, but there are also more
complexities with 
>> that.  For example, we currently have no way to
allow attaching of 
>> uploaded images to users.  All the current file
uploads infrastructure is 
>> segmented by weblog, so doing uploads for users
would have to be 
>> separate.  There are little things like that which
would have to be 
>> considered.
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Dave
> 

Anil Gangolli wrote:
> 
> My personal preference would be to stay simple and just
let users create 
> their own About page as a template page and use
uploaded resource images 
> as "icons".

I would like that too, but our experience on blogs.sun.com
has shown 
that template editing is too confusing for most people and
forcing 
people to do it has been hard.  There is also the fact that
blogging is 
supposed to be web publishing made easy, so we need to be
careful about 
where we draw the lines when it comes to user experience. 
At the end of 
the day we are supposed to be making things as easy as
possible for our 
users.


> 
> I can understand many users would be happy with the
level of 
> functionality being suggested and wouldn't have to
bother to learn how 
> to write the template required.  Adding a page to the
basic theme which 
> included instructions on how to edit it would probably
do and be much 
> more flexible for users who need something just beyond
what the text 
> field and icon would provide.

I agree that getting people to be able to edit templates
themselves is 
preferable, but I just don't think that's realistic.

Wysiwyg vs. templates aside, there is still the fact that
there are some 
things that themes should be able to do without requiring
hand editing 
and IMO allowing the blog owner to set a custom icon image
and a little 
about/bio text should be one of them.

To give an example, the need for this feature has come about
because we 
have some folks from the sun.com design team who are making
some new 
themes for us and their research and designs have these 2
components in 
every theme.  I personally don't think it's a stretch at all
to expect 
these 2 items to be controlled via the UI in a wysiwyg
fashion.


> 
> I feel we should have some idea of criteria for
representing some item 
> in the db rather than in templates/resources.
> 
> Some example criteria would be that either the item
figures in business 
> logic or it needs to be represented in multiple
presentation formats, 
> feeds, etc. which would require some sort of
duplication/extra work 
> otherwise.  In any case, it should buy you something
that's hard, 
> impossible, or awkward to get otherwise.

I agree, we need a criteria or justification for adding
things like this 
and I have tried to give that.  I *do* believe that adding
an icon image 
and about section to a theme is considered both
"hard" and "awkward" for 
most users who are not technical.

You've got to remember, many of the people who use blogging
tools are 
people who barely know enough about html to understand
<img> and <a> 
tags, let alone enough to feel comfortable editing a
velocity template 
full of obscure looking #showXXX() macros and loops and
conditionals.

And again, template hacking is part of the problem.  There
are some 
things that themes need to be able to do without forcing
users to 
actually edit the template.  To force people to edit
templates to do 
even the most rudimentary things is to make the whole idea
of themes 
useless.  My belief is that we want themes to provide users
with most of 
the things they want so that only users who are truly
interested in 
making a custom design have to edit their templates.


> 
> I understood Dave's rationale for the user-level
attributes where the 
> intent seems to be able to avoid duplication for users
who participate 
> in multiple group blogs or to avoid the work to
maintain things if 
> membership of a given group blog changes frequently.
> 
> I still don't quite understand the argument for adding
these attributes 
> at all at the web log level (which might be due to my
own limited vision).

Perhaps you didn't read these reasons posted in an earlier
email?

1. with the many-to-many relationship between users and
weblogs there is 
really no reliable way to get to a user from a weblog and
more 
importantly there is no guaranteed way of getting a single
user for a 
weblog.  so it is basically impossible to figure out which
profile to 
use in group blog situations.

2. users may own multiple weblogs and probably do not want
to use the 
same icon and about section on both/all of them.

3. users may also come and go from a weblog, i.e. join and
be owner for 
a while then leave it to someone else.  while this isn't
likely to 
happen very often, it would be a definite problem if a user
who was 
controlling the icon and about section on a weblog and that
stuff wasn't 
available anymore.

I also think that at the end of the day the icon and about
section are 
really a property of the weblog and in most cases are just
being used to 
highlight the author.  However, in many cases they can be
used in a more 
generic way such as being an icon and a tagline.  So I think
it's 
easiest and most appropriate to have them as properties of a
weblog.

And there are also challenges with attaching these items to
authors, the 
big one being that right now all of the file uploads
infrastructure is 
centered around weblogs and not users.  We have no way to
allow users to 
upload photos and so that would require quite a bit of new 
infrastructure to support.

-- Allen


> 
> --a.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen
Gilliland" 
> <allen.gillilandsun.com>
> To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog avatar
and bio attributes
> 
> 
>> This is a reminder that I am planning to do this
work pretty soon and 
>> add it to the current trunk so it's part of Roller
3.2.
>>
>> This will include adding 2 new weblog fields for
"icon" and "about".
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>>
>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/07, Allen Gilliland
<Allen.Gillilandsun.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>> >> anyone object to adding these
2 attributes for weblogs?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Yes. Don't those belong on the
user or a new user-profile object? A
>>>>> > weblog has multiple users and
could therefore have multiple bios and
>>>>> > avatars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doh, I meant to specifically address
that in my original email but 
>>>>> forgot :/
>>>>>
>>>>> I had the same initial thought, but I
came up with a few reasons why
>>>>> these items wouldn't be associated with
a user profile actually ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. with the many-to-many relationship
between users and weblogs 
>>>>> there is
>>>>> really no reliable way to get to a user
from a weblog and more
>>>>> importantly there is no guaranteed way
of getting a single user for a
>>>>> weblog.  so it would be troublesome to
figure out which profile to use
>>>>> in group blog situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. users may own multiple weblogs and
may not want to use the same
>>>>> avatar and bio on both/all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. users may also come and go from a
weblog, i.e. join and be owner 
>>>>> for
>>>>> a while then leave it to someone else. 
while this isn't likely to
>>>>> happen very often, it would be a
definite problem if a user who was
>>>>> controlling the avatar and bio on a
weblog and that stuff wasn't
>>>>> available anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think that at the end of the day
the image and bio are really a
>>>>> property of the weblog and in most
cases are just being used to
>>>>> highlight the author.  However, in many
cases they can be used in a 
>>>>> more
>>>>> generic way such as being an icon and a
tagline.  So I think it's
>>>>> easiest and most appropriate to have
them as properties of a weblog.
>>>>
>>>> In that case it makes more since to call
the field "about" instead of
>>>> "bio" -- it's a bit of text about
the blog, which could be used as a
>>>> bio or something else. And instead of
avatar how about "image" or
>>>> "icon"?
>>>
>>> Good point, some more appropriate nomenclature
would be helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would definitely be useful to also have
those fields in the user
>>>> object or a new user-profile object, that
way group blogs like The
>>>> Aquarium could include an about page that
automatically lists each
>>>> blogger in the blog and a photo of each and
is automatically updated
>>>> as member hip in the group blog changes --
you won't be able to do
>>>> that with one bio and avatar for the whole
blog.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that there is definitely still a
use for tracking more 
>>> info at the user profile level, but there are
also more complexities 
>>> with that.  For example, we currently have no
way to allow attaching 
>>> of uploaded images to users.  All the current
file uploads 
>>> infrastructure is segmented by weblog, so doing
uploads for users 
>>> would have to be separate.  There are little
things like that which 
>>> would have to be considered.
>>>
>>> -- Allen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Dave
>>
> 

Actually, I did see all the e-mail before about why a
weblog-level icon and 
"about" text are not the same as user-level ones.

What I was trying to say was that for the weblog-level ones
it isn't as 
clear why you need db storage (whereas if you wanted similar
attributes at 
the user-level it is clearer why you would want to represent
them in the 
db).

I also do understand that users shouldn't be expected to
have the skills to 
edit the templates.  I'm just less convinced that these two
attributes are 
somehow as "fundamental" as this would make them. 
It will only really be an 
issue if similar things proliferate.

Basically, I'm +0 on the proposal, but not against it.

--a.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allen Gilliland" <allen.gillilandsun.com>
To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog avatar and
bio attributes


>
>
> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>
>> My personal preference would be to stay simple and
just let users create 
>> their own About page as a template page and use
uploaded resource images 
>> as "icons".
>
> I would like that too, but our experience on
blogs.sun.com has shown that 
> template editing is too confusing for most people and
forcing people to do 
> it has been hard.  There is also the fact that blogging
is supposed to be 
> web publishing made easy, so we need to be careful
about where we draw the 
> lines when it comes to user experience.  At the end of
the day we are 
> supposed to be making things as easy as possible for
our users.
>
>
>>
>> I can understand many users would be happy with the
level of 
>> functionality being suggested and wouldn't have to
bother to learn how to 
>> write the template required.  Adding a page to the
basic theme which 
>> included instructions on how to edit it would
probably do and be much 
>> more flexible for users who need something just
beyond what the text 
>> field and icon would provide.
>
> I agree that getting people to be able to edit
templates themselves is 
> preferable, but I just don't think that's realistic.
>
> Wysiwyg vs. templates aside, there is still the fact
that there are some 
> things that themes should be able to do without
requiring hand editing and 
> IMO allowing the blog owner to set a custom icon image
and a little 
> about/bio text should be one of them.
>
> To give an example, the need for this feature has come
about because we 
> have some folks from the sun.com design team who are
making some new 
> themes for us and their research and designs have these
2 components in 
> every theme.  I personally don't think it's a stretch
at all to expect 
> these 2 items to be controlled via the UI in a wysiwyg
fashion.
>
>
>>
>> I feel we should have some idea of criteria for
representing some item in 
>> the db rather than in templates/resources.
>>
>> Some example criteria would be that either the item
figures in business 
>> logic or it needs to be represented in multiple
presentation formats, 
>> feeds, etc. which would require some sort of
duplication/extra work 
>> otherwise.  In any case, it should buy you
something that's hard, 
>> impossible, or awkward to get otherwise.
>
> I agree, we need a criteria or justification for adding
things like this 
> and I have tried to give that.  I *do* believe that
adding an icon image 
> and about section to a theme is considered both
"hard" and "awkward" for 
> most users who are not technical.
>
> You've got to remember, many of the people who use
blogging tools are 
> people who barely know enough about html to understand
<img> and <a> tags, 
> let alone enough to feel comfortable editing a velocity
template full of 
> obscure looking #showXXX() macros and loops and
conditionals.
>
> And again, template hacking is part of the problem. 
There are some things 
> that themes need to be able to do without forcing users
to actually edit 
> the template.  To force people to edit templates to do
even the most 
> rudimentary things is to make the whole idea of themes
useless.  My belief 
> is that we want themes to provide users with most of
the things they want 
> so that only users who are truly interested in making a
custom design have 
> to edit their templates.
>
>
>>
>> I understood Dave's rationale for the user-level
attributes where the 
>> intent seems to be able to avoid duplication for
users who participate in 
>> multiple group blogs or to avoid the work to
maintain things if 
>> membership of a given group blog changes
frequently.
>>
>> I still don't quite understand the argument for
adding these attributes 
>> at all at the web log level (which might be due to
my own limited 
>> vision).
>
> Perhaps you didn't read these reasons posted in an
earlier email?
>
> 1. with the many-to-many relationship between users and
weblogs there is 
> really no reliable way to get to a user from a weblog
and more importantly 
> there is no guaranteed way of getting a single user for
a weblog.  so it 
> is basically impossible to figure out which profile to
use in group blog 
> situations.
>
> 2. users may own multiple weblogs and probably do not
want to use the same 
> icon and about section on both/all of them.
>
> 3. users may also come and go from a weblog, i.e. join
and be owner for a 
> while then leave it to someone else.  while this isn't
likely to happen 
> very often, it would be a definite problem if a user
who was controlling 
> the icon and about section on a weblog and that stuff
wasn't available 
> anymore.
>
> I also think that at the end of the day the icon and
about section are 
> really a property of the weblog and in most cases are
just being used to 
> highlight the author.  However, in many cases they can
be used in a more 
> generic way such as being an icon and a tagline.  So I
think it's easiest 
> and most appropriate to have them as properties of a
weblog.
>
> And there are also challenges with attaching these
items to authors, the 
> big one being that right now all of the file uploads
infrastructure is 
> centered around weblogs and not users.  We have no way
to allow users to 
> upload photos and so that would require quite a bit of
new infrastructure 
> to support.
>
> -- Allen
>
>
>>
>> --a.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen
Gilliland" 
>> <allen.gillilandsun.com>
>> To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog
avatar and bio attributes
>>
>>
>>> This is a reminder that I am planning to do
this work pretty soon and 
>>> add it to the current trunk so it's part of
Roller 3.2.
>>>
>>> This will include adding 2 new weblog fields
for "icon" and "about".
>>>
>>> -- Allen
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/07, Allen Gilliland
<Allen.Gillilandsun.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> >> anyone object to adding
these 2 attributes for weblogs?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Yes. Don't those belong on the
user or a new user-profile object? A
>>>>>> > weblog has multiple users and
could therefore have multiple bios 
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > avatars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doh, I meant to specifically
address that in my original email but 
>>>>>> forgot :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had the same initial thought, but
I came up with a few reasons why
>>>>>> these items wouldn't be associated
with a user profile actually ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. with the many-to-many
relationship between users and weblogs there 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> really no reliable way to get to a
user from a weblog and more
>>>>>> importantly there is no guaranteed
way of getting a single user for a
>>>>>> weblog.  so it would be troublesome
to figure out which profile to 
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> in group blog situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. users may own multiple weblogs
and may not want to use the same
>>>>>> avatar and bio on both/all of
them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. users may also come and go from
a weblog, i.e. join and be owner 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a while then leave it to someone
else.  while this isn't likely to
>>>>>> happen very often, it would be a
definite problem if a user who was
>>>>>> controlling the avatar and bio on a
weblog and that stuff wasn't
>>>>>> available anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also think that at the end of the
day the image and bio are really 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> property of the weblog and in most
cases are just being used to
>>>>>> highlight the author.  However, in
many cases they can be used in a 
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> generic way such as being an icon
and a tagline.  So I think it's
>>>>>> easiest and most appropriate to
have them as properties of a weblog.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case it makes more since to
call the field "about" instead of
>>>>> "bio" -- it's a bit of text
about the blog, which could be used as a
>>>>> bio or something else. And instead of
avatar how about "image" or
>>>>> "icon"?
>>>>
>>>> Good point, some more appropriate
nomenclature would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would definitely be useful to also
have those fields in the user
>>>>> object or a new user-profile object,
that way group blogs like The
>>>>> Aquarium could include an about page
that automatically lists each
>>>>> blogger in the blog and a photo of each
and is automatically updated
>>>>> as member hip in the group blog changes
-- you won't be able to do
>>>>> that with one bio and avatar for the
whole blog.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree that there is definitely still
a use for tracking more 
>>>> info at the user profile level, but there
are also more complexities 
>>>> with that.  For example, we currently have
no way to allow attaching of 
>>>> uploaded images to users.  All the current
file uploads infrastructure 
>>>> is segmented by weblog, so doing uploads
for users would have to be 
>>>> separate.  There are little things like
that which would have to be 
>>>> considered.
>>>>
>>>> -- Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dave
>>>
>>
> 

Anil Gangolli wrote:
> 
> Actually, I did see all the e-mail before about why a
weblog-level icon 
> and "about" text are not the same as
user-level ones.
> 
> What I was trying to say was that for the weblog-level
ones it isn't as 
> clear why you need db storage (whereas if you wanted
similar attributes 
> at the user-level it is clearer why you would want to
represent them in 
> the db).

Where could they be stored if not in the db?


> 
> I also do understand that users shouldn't be expected
to have the skills 
> to edit the templates.  I'm just less convinced that
these two 
> attributes are somehow as "fundamental" as
this would make them.  It 
> will only really be an issue if similar things
proliferate.

I dunno, from my experience these seem to be 2 of the most
common weblog 
attributes.  Of course they won't be required, it would
merely give a 
template writer an easy way to include them in a blog.  i.e.
someone 
writing a theme can do this ...

#if($model.weblog.icon)
    <img src="$model.weblog.icon"/>
#end

... and allow a user to pick an icon for their weblog via
the UI rather 
than forcing the user to customize the theme and hack the
templates to 
insert an icon image.

-- Allen


> 
> Basically, I'm +0 on the proposal, but not against it.
> 
> --a.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen
Gilliland" 
> <allen.gillilandsun.com>
> To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog avatar
and bio attributes
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Anil Gangolli wrote:
>>>
>>> My personal preference would be to stay simple
and just let users 
>>> create their own About page as a template page
and use uploaded 
>>> resource images as "icons".
>>
>> I would like that too, but our experience on
blogs.sun.com has shown 
>> that template editing is too confusing for most
people and forcing 
>> people to do it has been hard.  There is also the
fact that blogging 
>> is supposed to be web publishing made easy, so we
need to be careful 
>> about where we draw the lines when it comes to user
experience.  At 
>> the end of the day we are supposed to be making
things as easy as 
>> possible for our users.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I can understand many users would be happy with
the level of 
>>> functionality being suggested and wouldn't have
to bother to learn 
>>> how to write the template required.  Adding a
page to the basic theme 
>>> which included instructions on how to edit it
would probably do and 
>>> be much more flexible for users who need
something just beyond what 
>>> the text field and icon would provide.
>>
>> I agree that getting people to be able to edit
templates themselves is 
>> preferable, but I just don't think that's
realistic.
>>
>> Wysiwyg vs. templates aside, there is still the
fact that there are 
>> some things that themes should be able to do
without requiring hand 
>> editing and IMO allowing the blog owner to set a
custom icon image and 
>> a little about/bio text should be one of them.
>>
>> To give an example, the need for this feature has
come about because 
>> we have some folks from the sun.com design team who
are making some 
>> new themes for us and their research and designs
have these 2 
>> components in every theme.  I personally don't
think it's a stretch at 
>> all to expect these 2 items to be controlled via
the UI in a wysiwyg 
>> fashion.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I feel we should have some idea of criteria for
representing some 
>>> item in the db rather than in
templates/resources.
>>>
>>> Some example criteria would be that either the
item figures in 
>>> business logic or it needs to be represented in
multiple presentation 
>>> formats, feeds, etc. which would require some
sort of 
>>> duplication/extra work otherwise.  In any case,
it should buy you 
>>> something that's hard, impossible, or awkward
to get otherwise.
>>
>> I agree, we need a criteria or justification for
adding things like 
>> this and I have tried to give that.  I *do* believe
that adding an 
>> icon image and about section to a theme is
considered both "hard" and 
>> "awkward" for most users who are not
technical.
>>
>> You've got to remember, many of the people who use
blogging tools are 
>> people who barely know enough about html to
understand <img> and <a> 
>> tags, let alone enough to feel comfortable editing
a velocity template 
>> full of obscure looking #showXXX() macros and loops
and conditionals.
>>
>> And again, template hacking is part of the problem.
 There are some 
>> things that themes need to be able to do without
forcing users to 
>> actually edit the template.  To force people to
edit templates to do 
>> even the most rudimentary things is to make the
whole idea of themes 
>> useless.  My belief is that we want themes to
provide users with most 
>> of the things they want so that only users who are
truly interested in 
>> making a custom design have to edit their
templates.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I understood Dave's rationale for the
user-level attributes where the 
>>> intent seems to be able to avoid duplication
for users who 
>>> participate in multiple group blogs or to avoid
the work to maintain 
>>> things if membership of a given group blog
changes frequently.
>>>
>>> I still don't quite understand the argument for
adding these 
>>> attributes at all at the web log level (which
might be due to my own 
>>> limited vision).
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't read these reasons posted in an
earlier email?
>>
>> 1. with the many-to-many relationship between users
and weblogs there 
>> is really no reliable way to get to a user from a
weblog and more 
>> importantly there is no guaranteed way of getting a
single user for a 
>> weblog.  so it is basically impossible to figure
out which profile to 
>> use in group blog situations.
>>
>> 2. users may own multiple weblogs and probably do
not want to use the 
>> same icon and about section on both/all of them.
>>
>> 3. users may also come and go from a weblog, i.e.
join and be owner 
>> for a while then leave it to someone else.  while
this isn't likely to 
>> happen very often, it would be a definite problem
if a user who was 
>> controlling the icon and about section on a weblog
and that stuff 
>> wasn't available anymore.
>>
>> I also think that at the end of the day the icon
and about section are 
>> really a property of the weblog and in most cases
are just being used 
>> to highlight the author.  However, in many cases
they can be used in a 
>> more generic way such as being an icon and a
tagline.  So I think it's 
>> easiest and most appropriate to have them as
properties of a weblog.
>>
>> And there are also challenges with attaching these
items to authors, 
>> the big one being that right now all of the file
uploads 
>> infrastructure is centered around weblogs and not
users.  We have no 
>> way to allow users to upload photos and so that
would require quite a 
>> bit of new infrastructure to support.
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --a.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen
Gilliland" 
>>> <allen.gillilandsun.com>
>>> To: <roller-devincubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Quick Proposal: support for weblog
avatar and bio 
>>> attributes
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a reminder that I am planning to do
this work pretty soon 
>>>> and add it to the current trunk so it's
part of Roller 3.2.
>>>>
>>>> This will include adding 2 new weblog
fields for "icon" and "about".
>>>>
>>>> -- Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allen Gilliland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/07, Allen Gilliland
<Allen.Gillilandsun.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> >> anyone object to
adding these 2 attributes for weblogs?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Yes. Don't those belong on
the user or a new user-profile 
>>>>>>> object? A
>>>>>>> > weblog has multiple users
and could therefore have multiple 
>>>>>>> bios > and
>>>>>>> > avatars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doh, I meant to specifically
address that in my original email 
>>>>>>> but forgot :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had the same initial thought,
but I came up with a few reasons why
>>>>>>> these items wouldn't be
associated with a user profile actually ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. with the many-to-many
relationship between users and weblogs 
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> really no reliable way to get
to a user from a weblog and more
>>>>>>> importantly there is no
guaranteed way of getting a single user 
>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> weblog.  so it would be
troublesome to figure out which profile 
>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>> in group blog situations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. users may own multiple
weblogs and may not want to use the same
>>>>>>> avatar and bio on both/all of
them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. users may also come and go
from a weblog, i.e. join and be 
>>>>>>> owner for
>>>>>>> a while then leave it to
someone else.  while this isn't likely to
>>>>>>> happen very often, it would be
a definite problem if a user who was
>>>>>>> controlling the avatar and bio
on a weblog and that stuff wasn't
>>>>>>> available anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also think that at the end of
the day the image and bio are 
>>>>>>> really a
>>>>>>> property of the weblog and in
most cases are just being used to
>>>>>>> highlight the author.  However,
in many cases they can be used in 
>>>>>>> a more
>>>>>>> generic way such as being an
icon and a tagline.  So I think it's
>>>>>>> easiest and most appropriate to
have them as properties of a weblog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case it makes more since to
call the field "about" instead of
>>>>>> "bio" -- it's a bit of
text about the blog, which could be used as a
>>>>>> bio or something else. And instead
of avatar how about "image" or
>>>>>> "icon"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, some more appropriate
nomenclature would be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would definitely be useful to
also have those fields in the user
>>>>>> object or a new user-profile
object, that way group blogs like The
>>>>>> Aquarium could include an about
page that automatically lists each
>>>>>> blogger in the blog and a photo of
each and is automatically updated
>>>>>> as member hip in the group blog
changes -- you won't be able to do
>>>>>> that with one bio and avatar for
the whole blog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree that there is definitely
still a use for tracking more 
>>>>> info at the user profile level, but
there are also more 
>>>>> complexities with that.  For example,
we currently have no way to 
>>>>> allow attaching of uploaded images to
users.  All the current file 
>>>>> uploads infrastructure is segmented by
weblog, so doing uploads for 
>>>>> users would have to be separate.  There
are little things like that 
>>>>> which would have to be considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Allen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dave
>>>>
>>>
>>
>