umbraco v 4.0.2.
In the Umbraco Content section when publishing nodes (under the Properties tab), its a bit confusing when you try to publish something at a set date (Publish At).
The way I see how umbraco works - "Save" will only save changed content in the CMS and to have the content go live - press "Save and Publish"
When I set a date to "Publish at" - I expect that when I click on "Save and Publish" - it will save and prepare the node to be published on the Publish At date - instead the "Save and Publish" overrides the Publish At date.
To make this work - I have to save the content for the Publish At date to work. Save content shouldn't go live - only content that has been approved for publish should - right?
The UI in the CMS contridicts itself when using this feature?
Shouldn't the UI do the following - "Save" only saves the content and "Save and Publish" notifies the user that the a publish date has been set with a simple message saying - "Content is ready to be published at <"Publish At" Date>"
Sorry for my rumblings - I'm just finding the "Save" and "Save and Publish" buttons confusing when using Publish At date and I'm constantly accidently publishing nodes when I'm meant to have it published at a certain time/date.
Hi Hamish,
I've not used the "Publish At" functionality but I do see your point :)
I've not tried it, but if you set the "Publish At" time and then save a revision, does it:
a) publish the previous revisionb) publish the newly edited versionc) delete the "publish at" instruction when the save occurs
Certainly something that would warrent a bit of thought and discussion for a future version.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris > The publishing routine looks for any unpublished document with a "Publish at" date that is before "Now". So any saved changes would be published.
I agree with Hamish that this behavior is not as logical as it could be. Better feedback could be given to the user. Maybe a sort of label at the top of the document telling the user if the document is scheduled for publishing.
Maybe add this to codeplex as an improvement suggestion?
Hi Morten,
Thanks for clarifying that, it's the way I thought it probably functioned, and like you I can see Hamish's point. I agree it would be a good idea to add this as a suggestion on Codeplex.