[UX] Layout/block UI: Better field block summaries.

[klonos]

Describe your issue or idea

As it is currently, the description of any field block added to the layout has "Displays values of [field_name] field" as its description:

This does not give any other useful information, and in fact using plural "values" is misleading when the field has cardinality 1.

---

PR by @klonos: backdrop/backdrop#2261

[klonos]

...so the current PR does the following:

• Detects cardinality of the field of the block, and says "value"/"values" accordingly (using format_plural()).
• Adds "the" in front of "value"/"values", and in front of the field name for a more natural language.
• Removes the double quotes from the field name (using % within t()/format_plural() already renders the string in italics, which is sufficient).
• Appends the field type human-readable label to the description.

Here's what it looks like:

[opi]

The double parenthesis looks strange...

[klonos]

The double parenthesis looks strange...

I know, but it is coming from the default field type description in https://github.com/backdrop/backdrop/blob/1.x/core/modules/field/modules/text/text.module#L38. What do you propose we do instead?

Comment by @opi on Gitter:

what about removing the "Displays the" prefix ? seems pretty useless to me

I was going for natural language. I see now that some block descriptions use statements like "The default content of this page." or "The current page breadcrumb trail." or "A hierarchical list of links..." etc., but we then also have descriptions that use proper phrases, starting with verbs, like "Contains elements typical of...". and "Displays a link to ...". I don't mind either; I was just keeping what was already there.

[opi]

OK for this natural language thing, as I'm not that fluent in english, my opinion doesn't worth so much.

For the field type display, I made a test to print it in the summary part:

[klonos]

I was going for a simple PR/change, while adding setting labels in the summary will mean updating the _field_formatter_settings_summary hooks for all field types. Printing the field type along with the summary is not a bad idea though @opi 👍...here's how this would look with the labels of settings bolded (for better readability):

I will file a separate PR so people can decide.

[opi]

Updating hook_field_formatter_settings_summary will also affect the content type display setting page, which is not what we want (maybe I'm wrong).
Field type could be added into summary from the FieldBlock->getAdminPreview() method.

Also, bolding the label is nice, but will affect all existing translations... but why not.

[klonos]

Updating hook_field_formatter_settings_summary will also affect the content type display setting page ... Also, bolding the label is nice, but will affect all existing translations... but why not.

Yeah, I have thought of that, but I like uniformity/consistency, so I like how this looks:

I would like to get some feedback from others too before spending time on a new PR.

[olafgrabienski]

... will also affect the content type display setting page ... Also, bolding the label is nice ...

The bold labels of the field settings on the content type Manage Displays page seem too strong to me because -- in contrast to the Layout UI -- there the field names itself are not bold.

what about removing the "Displays the" prefix ?

I was going for natural language. I see now that some block descriptions use statements like "The default content of this page."

Yes, looks pretty inconsistent right now. In my opinion, repeated prefixes like Displays the are sort of distracting: they make it more difficult to scan the descriptions because all of them start with the same words. However, in this case of fields in Layouts, why don't we omit the description text if it "does not give any other useful information", and only display the field setting values?

[herbdool]

I'll just comment on one part: no need to insert "the". It sounds just as natural without the "the" because of the context. It's not unusual to omit the word on signs and messages since the space is limited and need to convey info quickly.

[quicksketch]

Did @opi file an alternative PR? Looks like it needs cross-linking (or better, put it in the original issue description).

+1 to comments by herbdool and olaf above.