Can you include a filter so that whole section can be disabled altogether? That would be great!
I like it, it makes sense. However, have you tested this with plugins that add more fields to see how they behave? For example, Classic Commerce.
Yes, I tested it on a site with CC and WordFence. The extra fields are still added below as usual.
Well I can’t because it goes beyond my Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V skills, but I’m sure someone else could.
Hmm, just taken a look at the code and all that is hard-coded, so it would need a bit of re-writing to add a filter. But it might be doable. You make your PR first, and then I’ll see about a filter afterwards!
OK, I’ve done the easy bit.
I don’t know how to edit your PR, but I’ve added an explanation of how to modify what you’ve done so as to add the relevant filter. Perhaps you’d like to try it out?
This petition is for rearranging the fields - hiding them should be done separately!
However I will note that this is already possible using a bit of custom CSS added to the admin screen. A previous PR added classes to all of these fields for this very purpose.
I’m updating this petition to pull-request status.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Petition to center lost password/back links on login page
Is anyone aware of a reason not to do this, or does anyone have a concern that hasn’t been raised yet?
Otherwise I am inclined to merge this for inclusion into version 1.4.0:
- This is technically a simple change with no risk of breakage that I am aware of or can think of.
- The functionality of the user profile screen is not affected at a fundamental level.
- There is a relatively high number of votes especially since this is a very new petition.
- A workable and production-ready implementation exists.
It’s not “instantly familiar”. And it shows the confusion of what is important on this page. The stuff you never change is at the bottom, below the fold. The “important”, most used options are first. It doesn’t make any sense to move them, and while that is not a reason not to, to me the petition should be about making it easier for plugins to customize the page instead of simply moving one chunk below another chunk.
It’s not as if it is a page that is used very often, but when it is, you want those things that are currently at the top.
The more I have fiddled around with this page since the change was first suggested, and tried out potential CSS and filters and things, the more I have come to this conclusion. It’s the approach we have expressed with everything else in the CP admin, and I think it’s the right one. More hooks are the answer, not moving things around.
I am not in favor of adding hooks to allow rearranging the user profile page in any order. This is excessive flexibility with the goal of pleasing everyone, which is impossible.
This will hurt consistency across CP sites, and it is a more complicated solution than moving some options that are perceived to be less-frequently-used to the bottom. No other admin page has a hook like this (nor should they).
For me personally, the “Personal Options” settings are the settings that I also use least often, so this petition made sense to me as originally structured.
I suppose these pages don’t use the Settings API, but I thought that at least some admin pages do. Using that would allow flexibility for plugins (one person wanted to hide most everything).
Huh? So, you are saying you should never change your password? And that people never update their biographical information? Or change their email address? Or their profile picture?
And if the admin colour scheme is so “important” then why did 50 people vote to remove it completely? This PR was a compromise solution that came out of that petition.
Yes, this is true. And I guess if we are going with not changing anything lest it confuse ex-WP users then this petition can be closed and the PR dropped. It doesn’t really bother me because I hide all this with my utility plugin anyway. And I’d be happy for hooks to added to make it neater to remove stuff as it’s currently a messy solution. But that’s a job for someone else.
This is why this would all be better handled by a filter.
Yes, I do think that would be a better solution. I guess I was just working within the limits of my own technical ability. If someone wants to do that then by all means go for it.
Ah, just saw that @timkaye will be doing a PR for the filters. That’s good. Happy to have this petition closed as I see that as a better long-term solution.
The PR for the filters is started, thank you Tim: https://github.com/ClassicPress/ClassicPress/pull/817
This is a fairly simple change that can also be finished (adding proper documentation to the new filters, and other polish) and merged with 1.4.0. We have so far been operating under the standard that new filters don’t require a petition since they are a minor change that is essentially invisible unless they are purposefully used, but from what I’m seeing the new filters are still considered a viable alternative to this petition.
So I am setting this to “declined” and marking to close in a week. Unless there is further debate then let’s move forward with the understanding that we’ll adopt the new filters instead.
This topic was automatically closed after 6 days. New replies are no longer allowed.