-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove the two click publish requirement #9077
Comments
Duplicate of #8744 I don't necessarily agree with the assumptions of preventing accidental publishing being more important than publishing efficiency, and would prefer we add the ability to hook and add a prompt rather than prompt by default, but it seems the decision has been made. |
I would close this issue, although I feel very strongly that the points raised in the above issues miss the core issue here which is requiring an additional click to publish something doesn't aid/prevent anything in a particularly meaningful way. It just adds extra clutter to an already difficult UI. |
I agree, which is why I didn’t close it either. It’s things like this that contribute to the overall perception that Gutenberg is “clunky” or “things take longer” to do. Any extra click or little step when viewed in isolation feels trivial, but when they are added up, it builds an overarching feeling of resistance. |
Two-step publishing seems a fine idea, even as a default, so long as there's an easy-opt out and any functionality in the additional step can be completed elsewhere. Potentially a decision that could be made as part of the NUX onboard? |
Having an additional step is not a good idea; you could even consider it a dark pattern. Additionally, providing options goes against WordPress' philosophy on 'Decisions, not Options'. |
I'm not against it per se, but just trying to think about it in the broader sense of what seems to me like the most common feedback since the Try Gutenberg callout—that its requirement of so many clicks gets in the way of writing/publishing and slows things down. I haven't looked into it enough to see, but if it's possible to disable/skip the extra step via a plugin, then it's probably fine. It would be kind of the opposite of the old editor, where it was possible to add an "are you sure" step via plugin, but it was not the default. Decisions like these where there isn't a "right answer" are impossible to make and have everyone be happy, but it's a much easier sell as long as the hooks are there to allow people to change the default functionality. |
Opinions diverge a lot on this and a consensus seems impossible, it seems that a lot are leaning towards the publish in two clicks especially because it adds more space for Plugins interacting with the publishing phase (pre/post publish panels are extensible). I'm going to closes as the decision seems final. |
@youknowriad I haven't looked into it yet, so pardon if this is obvious, but is there a way to intercept the click event on the initial publish button and bypass the pre-publish panel? If not, extending it to support that seems like a workable solution here that could satisfy diverging opinions. |
+1 to @earnjam's point -- consensus isn't needed so long as there's an applyFilter to handle the click event. |
Yes, it should be possible to monitor the |
Thanks! I'll look into that. |
You can use this |
This is more of a feature request as nothing is technically broken here, but the workflow to publish a post seems like a poor user experience. Currently, the workflow is to finish writing and building your post out and then click the blue publish button right in the top right.
Once clicked a panel slides out and asks you if you're sure you want to publish the post. Compare that to the TinyMCE experience where you click publish once (which is sort of inline with the content) and then you've publish the post.
My expectations here would be to remove this additional panel and have that button submit the changes there and then. This would also reduce the UI making it less complicated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: