MKSnMKS

Hi Tom,
Thanks for replying.

Re

“anything (either custom code”

do you mean customcode introduced by the MMM plugin, or custom code entered by the user within the MMM menu plugin, or custom code intruduced elsewhere?

Re

“Re – “added to menu items”
is that the original theme menu, or the Max Mega Menu,
that is having the Javascript removed”

Is it possible to be more specific with the word “menu” by using a term that is more fully accurate, such as;
a) “any menu”
b) “all menus”
c) “original theme menu”
d) “MMM menu”

The additional information you have provided here about suitable default/recommended settings and best choice for situations, would be a useful addition to the text beside this setting option. A suitable location may be on the right hand side of the checkbox.

Thanks for your help.

Hi,
The plugin details page has the following;

“

SEO expertise is NOT required to utilize this Plugin

”

”

FAQ
No, SEO expertise is NOT required to utilize this Plugin and optimize your website for Local Search. With the Step by Step Local SEO Guide we will walk you through the entire process.
…
we can only cover everything necessary in a detailed SEO guide plan.

”

And above, you say
“

Furthermore we advocate creating all the foundational links first as described in our Premium SEO guide

”

I haven’t had this plugin activated for a good while, so can not remember all the details of how it works, but ;
Is the Premium SEO Guide or :detailed SEO guide plan” the same as the Local SEO Guide?
Is either guide actually needed because no SEO expertise is needed? or is the best SEO Guide needed so the user can learn their SEO expertise as part of the need in order to use this plugin?

If “creating all the foundational links first” is important/necessary for proper operation of this plugin, but is only available in something extra feature, then the plugin is at risk of placing the user in a susceptible situation.

The wording of the details sounds like a complete kit is included and does not require a high level of expertise to use.
It is understandable that perhaps a high degree of expertise is essential for operation of the plugin, but it would be handy if this is not a confusable matter in the text of the details, so is it possible to make the situation clearer on plugin details page please?

Thanks for your help.

As an aside there is a small Typo
re – “literally to many tools and features”,
“to” should be “too”

Hi Oguido,

Thanks for your comment.
I’m just wondering if Sujin has noticed.

Hi Diana Koenraadt (@anaid),

Thanks for replying, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
backwards compatibility is a good thing (as I see it).
The other way of seeing it is that forwards compatibility, is good so one knows they can advance to newer systems.
Either way – this is good.

It’s good that you have a separate file for PHP5.2 .

I am not sure if there is a standard way for WP plugins to structure their files so that it is possible to automatically figure out which PHP version it is for.
I see that you file name has 52 appended on the right end of the name.
This is sensible and obvious, but is it a standard or convention?
If it is not a convention, and if there is no convention, then it would be handy for WP to have such a similar convention.
This would help PHP compatibility checker to know whether it is checking a relevant file for the PHP version it is checking.
It would also be possible for users to choose which PHP versions they would like their plugins to be compatible with. This means they could delete the ones they do not need. It also means they would be able to control the ones they do need, especially when wanting to upgrade, while keeping the option to revert back to earlier PHP versions.

I did a scan a few days back and the same problem exists.
I’ll send a link to this Topic to the PHP Compatibility Checker plugin, so they can add this false detection to their list.

Thank you for your help.
I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the convention/standard system above?

Hi

I did a scan a couple of days ago, all plugins were up to date at the time.
The result for Version 1.11.5 is below;

FILE: /home/UsersSite/public_html/wp-content/plugins/broken-link-checker/includes/utility-class.php
————————————————————————————————–
FOUND 0 ERRORS AND 1 WARNING AFFECTING 1 LINE
————————————————————————————————–
42 | WARNING | INI directive ‘safe_mode’ is deprecated since PHP 5.3 and removed since PHP 5.4

I hope this is helpful.

Hi Kimberly (@amiga500),

Yes. It looks like at the time you started the Topic, that this plugin was not fully compatible with PHP.
If the plugin has had this problem fixed, then it might be informative to let it be known here, and then mark the problem as resolved.

You can try PHP Compatibility Checker plugin to scan all your plugins for compatibility, to be more sure of avoiding problems.
There may be some modules in PHP that need to be turned on.

Hi James,

The uses for modlook there to contact a moderator, seem to be for more drastic reasons, than just suggesting that a topic might be better relocated to another forum.
Is there some way to qualify the request/suggest relocation, so that it is not treated like a situation of some concern.

The aim of this is to try to help the topic author connect with the people (readers, writers, searchers, moderators, etc) who are interested in the similar topic, and to help them know where they can continue on that line of topics.

examples of concept of modlook qualifiers modlook-nonurgent, modlook-moveforum, modlook-review .

Thanks

Do they copy paste points in to a list for future consideration too?

Is there a formal/standard process to this, or is more organic/freeflow?

I am thinking that it might be handy to have some feature that could display ;
a) that (some) points have been added to future considerations
b) where the downstream incorporation project is
c) how to follow progress, get involved, test/debug/refine
Much of this could be automated.

It would help connect between users and developers, and the process could allow for mutual consent of both –
i) if the topic author is interested in being involved in downstream processes
ii) if the developers are willing to work closer with interested users, especially if the users are willing to test initial concepts (before things look pretty).

Comments

Hi jordibares (@jordibares),

I am inclined to agree with your thoughts on integrated plugins.
I also like the ability for options, as it frees up the user to customize they way they want to do various tasks.

Every time somebody new sets up their site, they are having to repeat similar decisions that many others have made. They look for features they don’t even know the names of. In the end they make choices.

If the plugins are fully built into WP, then (guessing), that would make it difficult to have a range of alternatives.
However, an easy way to achieve a close to satisfactory situation (in terms of getting the functions included), is to have kits of plugins available for installation in bunches, at once. (I have made suggestions on this to the “Plugin Manager” plugin, but I don’t know if they will advance on that.)
Another option would be to have the WP installation, automatically install a collection of useful plugins at the start. This could possibly include similar options for the site admin to try out and compare.

You mention “fragmentation“. I am not quite sure what you mean by this, other than “generally not held together”. There are several ways in which plugins can be accessed to adjust their settings and use them, and it seems largely up to the plugin creator to choose which way they want.

Such methods of access to plugin functions include;

Left Side Menu => Tools => Actual Plugin
Left Side Menu => Settings => Actual Plugin
Left Side Menu => Actual Plugin
Top Bar => Actual Plugin
Other Plugins and Admin sections get inserted in to by the Actual Plugin

These are all useful, and some make more sense than others in some types of use, while other are more sensible in other types of use.
But there seems to be no uniformity to how these methods are used.
The main uniformity is that very few if any (I’ve not seen any yet), use all methods for the one plugin.

Both yourself and Masimies, sound like you’re interested in “work flow” process, and easy/intuitiveness of use.
There may be some way that workflow could be standardised to encourage the uniformity of menu access within groups of plugin types.
The objective being ; to be able to incorporate plugins (as needed) into the system, using methods, that to the user, give a greater sense of an integrated workflow environment.

For example
Menu managers get put in a “Menu” holder on the left side.
similarly for Performance, Maintenance, Media, Shop/Commerce, membership/community,
and other holders as the user needs (possibly able to create and assign plugins to these holders).
The top bar seems to be an ideal location for “process/work flow by the site”
e.g. quick menus for Author’s tools, Admin Tools, Analytics and Reports, etc .

I think you are right on the button about being “a CMS game”.
It’s been an adaption process too.
It’s the “ability to adapt”, which has got WP so far, that will prove to be a defining edge as the future gets ever closer (somehow tomorrow never actually gets to be today – except for the cusp of midnight).

Things may seem a bit hotch potch at the moment, but at least things can be done, and more things added. With the plugin system, the system need not be any more complex that what the user wants.
But we can aim for easier use.

A quote attributed to Einstein goes something like

“Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler”

Hi Sabinooo (@sabinooo),

Sounds like something worth considering.
I have had a similar experience.
Some of the WordPress site management features use “save”, and “cancel”, or “confirm” buttons to either set the adjustments you’ve made after you have completed them, while others such as widgets do it live.
It’s kind of exciting to watch the changes using the “live preview”.

But as you have pointed out, if something goes awry then there is no “cancel” button to press, or “Save” button to not press (and the restart the task again).
It is done as soon as its done.

Your suggestion, does not mean that the live edit function needs to be removed, nor does it mean that the present process of doing things needs to change.
What it does mean, is that there is an additional option to “undo”, “revert” or “restore” the previous settings.

Probably all that is required to do this is to do something like on starting a widget edit session, save the settings, update the settings to a new set.
If the “revert” button gets pressed, then the new set gets deleted or not used, and the old settings are used.

As with other undo type functions, there could be multiple reverse steps.
The user might be allowed to choose how many undo steps/sessions they’d like to have the system remember.

As an aside;
This same system could be used to save settings of widget sets. This would enable the rapid switching from one layout, to another.
For example “Christmas mode, Competition Mode, Promotional offer mode”.
Just a few clicks and the site is reconfigured.

Inspirational Idea.
Thank you.

Hi James,
I can understand where the confusion caused by underlining comes from.
What I have noticed though, is that the confusion is due to the titles being a similar color to the links.
The confusion tends not to arise when the underlined text is similar in color to the main body text.

The user used to be prompted to a link by both color and an underline.

(Maybe the day will come, when a person picks up a book and starts poking the page with their finger – trying to activate the link under the title).

There is a lot of feedback, that is asking for both the underline and full justify back, or saying that the two should remain as options for the user to use.

However it must be noted that the editor in that article is for wordpress 4.7, and it not specifically about the editor on this site (which can be adjusted to avoid confusions).

This is an example of the organic approach to meeting the balance between usability and functionality.

The keyboard shortcuts are good and most people that comment about those like them. They detract little from performance, and greatly aid adaptive learning of the editor, for improved efficiency of use.

Thanks for your help.

Hi James,

Would the team working on the search engine function have noticed this topic?
and may be added the points to some list for future consideration?

Thanks

Hi James,

Is it possible for a non-moderator to request a topic be moved to another forum by a moderator?

Thanks

Thanks James,
Sounds like that’s on its way to being sorted.
I’m happy to set or have this status to resolve.
Are you both happy to, too?

If there are no more comments, or if you both say okay, then I’ll this to “resolved” after 48hours.

It sounds like the images are large in size, for the benefit of those with big screens, at the expense of bandwidth and time for all those with smaller screens.

Something to consider dreaming of (and it might then begin to happen);

Responsive systems that do for PCs (and TVs) with large screens compared to older/normal screen PCs, what responsive systems do for tablets and smartphones.
We just add a 4th setting for responsive themed sites, for the step up to the bigger pixel count screens.

Just a thought, but it would keep a lot more people happy, and possibly save bandwidth.
At the same time, the 4th step would allow websites (that use WordPress) to really improve their appearance on huge screens, without making the site impractical for the viewers on older equipment.