[aur-dev] RFC: create link for account registration and account information next to the login.

[Loui Chang]

On Fri 29 Oct 2010 16:23 -0700, Justin Davis wrote:
> Hello aur-dev!

Hello Justin.

> My suggestion, which I am willing to write a patch for, is to create a
> registration link near the login/password input boxes. When logged in
> this registration link is instead a link for viewing/editing account
> information. These links would be next to where the "[Forgot
> Password]" link is now. Or where the "[Logout]" link is when logged
> in. When an unprivileged user is logged in there is no "Accounts" link
> in AUR's little toolbar on the left. Only TUs and Devs have that link
> in order to edit accounts.

> This change of location creates a greater contrast between the normal
> AUR toolbar links and user account links. Often links that manipulate
> a users account are grouped closer together and away from links that
> basically get work done and are used more commonly. This also removes
> the generally confusing "Accounts" link from people who do not realize
> that it serves a dual purpose for account administration as well as
> personal account editing... oh and account registration.
> 
> The only downside is that new translations would be needed for the
> registration link and for the account information viewing/editing
> link.

Sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't worry about translations. They can
always be updated later.

> As I side-note I would also like to move the account form printing and
> processing code out of acctfuncs.inc and into a template/controller. I
> would also make a new template/ file for the account info/edit form
> which would then be used from the account info and registration, and
> the TU's account admin. This would leave the low-level account login,
> password, etc code inside lib/acctfuncs.inc, move the html printing
> code into a template/ file, and the form checking code... somewhere
> else.

Moving html to template is good. I think it would be fine to keep
functions in acctfuncs.

> Anyways, what do people think about those simple changes in design?

Thanks for your input and interest!