[TYPO3-dev] pages of type "shortcut" in TMENU not having proper item states?

[Joerg Wagner [DigiLog]]

 > The problem is not, if a shortcut can be CUR or ACT, but if two pages 
can be CUR at the same time.
 > By definition a "shortcut" is no page you can be "on", so IMHO there 
is no reason for CUR being a state of a shortcut page.

I would say that this does not depend on definitions, but on the 
intended usage. In most of my projects I would not be interested in 
shortcuts showing the status of the target page - as I explain in my 
previous posting, it can be quite confusing for the visitor if multiple 
discontiguous menu items are marked as active at the same time.
But there surely are scenarios that absolutely require exactly this: 
shortcuts that follow the status of their target page.

So the cleanest solution would be to make this configurable. Either 
globally (which would be very easy to implement) or - definitely the 
king's road - on a per shortcut basis.

Cheers, Jörg.



schrieb JoH asenau am 10.06.2010 20:19:
>>> No, it does not. But it at least respects the access options of the
>>> target page: shortcut hides if target page link hides (e.g. due to
>>> access restrictions of the target page).
>>> Anyhow in most to all of my implementations it would be confusing for
>>> the user to have the shortcut show an ACT or CUR state in addition to
>>> the target ACT/CUR. Two menu items hilited at the same time in
>>> different locations of the menu is IMHO not very intuitive.
>>
>> IIRC I created a patch for this once. Should be in bugtracker I think.
>> But Joey and I disagreed at the point if a Shortcut can be CUR or ACT.
>> I'd say yes, as the target page is relevant in this case, but he said
>> no IIRC.
>
> The problem is not, if a shortcut can be CUR or ACT, but if two pages can be CUR at the same time.
> By definition a "shortcut" is no page you can be "on", so IMHO there is no reason for CUR being a state of a shortcut page.
>
> Of course a shortcut might be ACT when it points to a subpage or another page in the branch below this particular shortcut.
> But this is already the case, so we would be talking about a shortcut pointing to a certain page of a completely different branch .
> IMHO the expected result should be: Shortcut has NO state while the target page is CUR. Anything else would be misleading.
>
> Just my 2 cent
>
> Joey
>