20 Comments

  1. Kevin Hoffman

    If installing Gutenberg results in a full-screen takeover of existing posts (as is the case with Gutenberg 1.5), then meta box support should be a requirement. My experience with installing 1.5 resulted in a blank editor that had previously been fully populated by ACF meta boxes. That cannot be the first impression for the general public.

    Report

    • Jeff Chandler

      hmmm, I didn’t think of that angle but yeah, how important do you think the first impression is towards Gutenberg’s success or willingness to adopt it?

      Report

      • Kevin Hoffman

        First impression is critical, especially if Gutenberg is being encouraged in a production environment. Those users aren’t interested in testing experiments that break or otherwise inhibit the workflow they are used to. We have already seen negative reactions from developers who understand what a beta test involves; the public will be even less forgiving.

        Report

    • Andrew Duthie

      An initial pass at implementing meta boxes was included in Gutenberg 1.5. A Firefox-specific bug preventing meta boxes from displaying correctly was later resolved by the 1.5.1 patch release. In my own test environment, ACF meta boxes are shown correctly in Gutenberg 1.5.1.

      Report

      • Kevin Hoffman

        ACF meta boxes with a High position (appearing after the title) do not display in Gutenberg 1.5.1.

        In addition, just because some of the meta boxes technically function in the Extended Settings drawer doesn’t mean that implementation is anywhere near good enough to ship in production. The first impression is still an empty editor where a full UI is expected.

        Report

  2. Matt Mullenweg

    I think a better measure of Gutenberg’s progress won’t be the number of sites it’s installed on, but the number of posts made through it (even though that’s a bit harder to track). We’ll still target getting it on as many sites as possible, but the publishing activity is a better North Star metric.

    Report

    • Eugene Kopich

      The first impression matters so showing half-baked product can really spoil it

      Report

    • George

      I think a better measure of Gutenberg’s progress won’t be the number of sites it’s installed on, but the number of posts made through it

      Changing our minds again aren’t we?

      Report

      • Matt Mullenweg

        Yes! I try to approach even my strongest held beliefs with a very open mind. I’m interested in the best results for WordPress and the broader web, not being “right” by sticking to an idea or belief just because I previously believed it.

        If we continue to learn, I’m certain there are other things we previously thought were true that we find a better answer to.

        Strong opinions, weakly held. :)

        Report

      • Matt Radford

        I’m certain “try” would have resulted in a lot of “fail” for many of the sites my agency runs, because meta boxes and other custom field customisations are critical. Clients would have been drawn to the new shiny and been quite upset when it didn’t plan out as expected.

        So I’m very grateful that Matt and the core team have listened to feedback. I was a Gutenberg sceptic but the Ship of Thesus post I read recently convinced me that this it is the way forward – it just needs to be carefully rolled out once it’s really solid. One of the main reasons our clients love using WordPress is the ease of adding and editing content. Anything that changes that process needs kid gloves.

        Report

      • Aaron Jorbin

        “In the presence of good rationale, maintainers should be willing to change their mind often.” – https://codex.wordpress.org/Release_Philosophy (like much of the WordPress philosophies, originally Havoc Pennington)

        Report

    • Eugene Kopich

      Haha, maybe we’ll even see WordPress running on NodeJS)) never say never)

      Report

  3. Mike McCallister

    Aren’t people discouraged from using beta releases of Core on production sites already? Adding a beta plugin to a beta Core doesn’t seem like that big a stretch, with appropriate additional cautions.

    Report

    • Jon

      I was thinking the same thing. It’s beta software not meant for live sites.

      Report

    • Kevin Hoffman

      I think you’re misunderstanding what was being proposed. The notice to encourage Gutenberg installation was added to WordPress 4.9 Beta 3 with the intention of it appearing in the official release of 4.9. That is the decision that was rolled back given it’s not ready for that kind of exposure.

      Report

      • Mike McCallister

        Ah, that does make a bit of a difference! That was not clear in the story, thanks for clarifying.

        I still think that it’s a good idea for beta testers to test Gutenberg now (as I’m sure you’d agree), but certainly don’t ask ordinary users to do that without several “don’t do this unless you know what you’re doing” messages.

        Report

      • James DiGioia

        That said, I think Mike’s original understanding would be a good approach: only show the promo on sites that are running beta versions of the software. Although I suspect the number of WP core beta testers who don’t know about Gutenberg is low, people who are already testing beta software can and should be encouraged to test this beta software as well. The expectations of breakage and non-production use are similar for both.

        Report

  4. Rick Gregory

    I wonder when or if there is a right or responsible time to advertise installing beta software onto a live site. What do you think?

    There isn’t. Naive clients should never be encouraged to try beta software just because and that goes 10x for something that takes over and drastically alters the core reason for WordPress’ existence, creating and managing content.

    This is actually the hardest part of this and why I think Gutenberg should live as a plugin for longer – it changes something so central to site operation that it’s unlike almost any other feature rollout. Training will be needed, possibly theme updates, etc. At the same time, we absolutely should want Gutenberg used in a wide variety of installs.

    That tension (“test widely vs make sure you aren’t breaking existing content process”) will likely slow any wide rollout. I’d never deploy this on a live site for a client until it was feature complete, stable, worked with things like ACF that I have widely deployed and I could spend some time with the client to walk them through the different workflow.

    Report

  5. Peter

    It is a really ambitious challenge to improve on the content editing workflow of WP, however i just wonder how this whole Gutenberg story evolves. In my opinion it will be an epic fail. There are at least a dozen of other ways to improve on WP that are actually since long asked for…but no, no way will they get implemented. And here comes Gutenberg. Nobody ever asked for that again, has been hyped for months now and there are 3k sites using it…out of millions of WP sites.
    Maybe the idea of releasing it in 5.0 should be reconsidered as well. At least a usage statistic like that should really warn those who are responsible making the decision about merging it into core.

    Report

    • Kristian

      You can’t use the 3k sites as a reliable number for Gutenberg. As beta software which is specified to not be used on live sites the number will be low.

      Gutenberg isn’t ready for core before there isn’t a good meta solution in place and the system for creating boxes hasn’t been ironed out and stabilized, but for now what they’re showing is great stuff.

      Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: