Document type name field is too small. How to change?
Hello there,
I was wondering if there was an easy way to change the length of the text box for the name field in our document types?
As it is not a custom field I am not sure how to go about changing that other than digging into the CSS, but perhaps there is something I am missing? (sooo much to learn).
If it is just the CSS to change, then I can figure that out, just wondered if there is a better way?
I find that the default one is much too short (who names ALL their nodes less than like 12 or so chars?)
I think John is referring to the "Name" field on the Properties tab of any content item - it's pretty short in width and doesn't allow you to see much of the name, is that right?
I suppose you could modify CSS to fix but like Jan I don't necessarily think that's a great idea...it shouldn't really cause any problems though. I suppose you could inject some CSS with ApplicationBase also. But, there is a workitem for this so definitely vote for it: http://umbraco.codeplex.com/workitem/30040
On a side note, I commonly use the jesper Easy Values package to give content editors easier control/view of the node name. It allows you to place a normal Textbox field anywhere you want that will synch with the nodeName. I typically have this as the first field called "Page Name" on the document. This might be a workaround for you if you are that concerned about it :)
Yes you are right , the 'name field in the properties tab of any content item' is what I was referring too (writing it like that first time would have been good!). So there is no option anywhere to change to textbox multiple.
I was reluctant to mess with backend CSS too....If there is a work item I will vote that up...I'd be fairly certain I'm not the only one who finds it too short....
I'll check out the jesper easy values as the fix for now.
Document type name field is too small. How to change?
Hello there,
I was wondering if there was an easy way to change the length of the text box for the name field in our document types?
As it is not a custom field I am not sure how to go about changing that other than digging into the CSS, but perhaps there is something I am missing? (sooo much to learn).
If it is just the CSS to change, then I can figure that out, just wondered if there is a better way?
I find that the default one is much too short (who names ALL their nodes less than like 12 or so chars?)
Thank you.
Hi John
In my ears it does not sound like a good idea to begin altering the CSS of the backoffice or any backoffice code at all.
If the text that is supposed to be written in the text box is too long for it I think you should consider using a textbox multiple instead perhaps?
(I'm asuming you're thinking when an editor needs to add content to this field in the content section).
/Jan
Hi,
I think John is referring to the "Name" field on the Properties tab of any content item - it's pretty short in width and doesn't allow you to see much of the name, is that right?
I suppose you could modify CSS to fix but like Jan I don't necessarily think that's a great idea...it shouldn't really cause any problems though. I suppose you could inject some CSS with ApplicationBase also. But, there is a workitem for this so definitely vote for it: http://umbraco.codeplex.com/workitem/30040
On a side note, I commonly use the jesper Easy Values package to give content editors easier control/view of the node name. It allows you to place a normal Textbox field anywhere you want that will synch with the nodeName. I typically have this as the first field called "Page Name" on the document. This might be a workaround for you if you are that concerned about it :)
-Tom
Hi guys, thank you for quick answers.
Yes you are right , the 'name field in the properties tab of any content item' is what I was referring too (writing it like that first time would have been good!). So there is no option anywhere to change to textbox multiple.
I was reluctant to mess with backend CSS too....If there is a work item I will vote that up...I'd be fairly certain I'm not the only one who finds it too short....
I'll check out the jesper easy values as the fix for now.
Thanks Jan and Tom
John
is working on a reply...