Because how the thing are called shapes the way we think about them and how we use them I purpose Content Type to be renamed Content Workflow. I know that there are historical reasons to not do so but I will try to represent some argument at least to start thinking about it this way.
I am using Backdrop CMS for a while and for some time I have come to the conclusion that Content Type is actually Content Workflow. It is a way to distribute content but not a structure of content. It is the way the content behave.
I will explain my particular useage of Content Type and will be happy to see if there are other people who might think like me.
I have an educational website where the content types are Post, Math, Science and History. I do not need different structure for every single content type. But in my particular example I need some difference in the behavior. I want:
- every Math content to be published under example.com/math and to be maintained by "math team"
- every Post content to be published under example.com/posts and to be maintained by "editors"
- every History content to be published under example.com/history and to be maintained by "history team"
- every Science content to be published under example.com/science and to be maintained by "science team"
I created separate Content Types to have customized behavior:
- different URL pattern
- different publishing options
- [THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE] different permissions - I can have different teams for every single content type
The actual "content" is managed by Paragraphs. Every Conent Type has only one field (which I called "content") of a Paragrapgh Type. Inside the Paragraph Type it is a dynamic choice between Text, Image or Video which can be added indefinitely and in any order.
Now when I am writing this I consider to include in this "content" (which is Paragraph Type) cover image, teaser and tags.
This way when in future I need to add some other "content type" with the same structure but with different behavior I will add Content Type with only one field - this of my Paragraph Type - which hold everything I need as a structure.
Also if I want to change the structure of my content type I will only need to change it in one place - in the Paragraph Type.
I hope there will be somebody who finds this approach interesting and helpful.
Raicho Nikolov
@paucku
And now to write in response to questions posted by you.
1. I think everything you want to do on your site is achievable with existing tools, modules, taxonomy, views and setting up user roles and permissions. Even without Organic groups. It is a matter of ingenuity, test trials and experiments. In Backdrop, as in Drupal before, almost any functionality can be done in at least a few different ways.
2. I do not think that changing the name of Content types will help in any way to resolve the issues raised. The idea may be interesting, but not everything that is interesting is also useful.
One of the things I like about open source software is the preservation of tradition and continuity in the user interface. The accumulated knowledge of working with the system is gradually and smoothly upgraded, but not canceled.
An important reason I like Backdrop are the principles of her philosophy:
https://backdropcms.org/philosophy
Let me recall some of these principles:
• Intuitive user interfaces are more valuable than extensive flexibility. When options are presented in the user interface, they should be made as clear and concise as possible.
• Simplicity: Write code for the majority. Backdrop will aim to be easy to learn and build upon, even for those with a minimal amount of technical knowledge.
Let me recall an old principle: do not change what works well and how people are used to doing it.