What am I really looking for?

[BobRoosth]

I am working on a site that has perhaps 100 pages of lectures given over the past several years. Each is a its own html file with site menu. I am revamping the entire site. I really do not want to edit all of those pages. It seems to me I should be able to dump the lecture portion of each page into a database, then generate a drop-down list of available items; or search the collection.

Easy to describe, but I have no experience with web-based databases and little with scripts.

From what I can tell, I do not want a wiki and probably not a cms. Where do I start?

[Richard Waller]

If they ain't broke don't fix them. If the individual files are readable then merely do a search and replace to put a standard heading and tail on each. Then put them all under one website and provide a heading. Google can provide a search foir that website as well as for the google world. But you will also need a list of items available, perhaps with the most recent item first.

Now, one of the things about any link is to put enough meat on a link description so you can see why you should go there. Say up to three lines of text highlighting the key conclusions of the lecture.

[Kelvyn]

This is the sort of thing that a CMS is good at as each lecture is really a datafile. Something like Joomla! would provide the ability to have extensive search functions, convert the individual lectures to pdf on the fly, or print or email the page.

But if it is only the one site you are likely to need a CMS for then maybe the learning process would outweigh the benefits.

An alternative which is being used by some old colleagues of mine is to publish the notes as Google documents and link them from a single web page. This means that most of the bandwidth is supplied by Google rather than your own server. Students can copy the lecture notes into their own Gdoc, change some words and add padding before presenting it as their essay......

[iamback]

slightly OT, Kelvyn, but what is the current state of Joomla!? I saw some Joomla!-driven sites recently that were riddled with HTML errors, and had bad accessibility, too. How good is it out of the box? How much work is it to make sure every page actually validates and is accessible?

[BobRoosth]

Every page is a table-based layout. I have totally reworked the site design to be table-free. So every page has to be extensively edited. Last night I figured (with the help of this website: http://www.dyn-web.com/tutorials/iframes/hidden.php) out how to use a small script to populate a div dynamically. Based on what I learned, I can strip each article/lecture down to basic html (with any head or body markup) and load it into a resizable div. The selection can be done with drop-downs. I'll see new items perhaps twice a month.

[Kelvyn]

what is the current state of Joomla!? I saw some Joomla!-driven sites recently that were riddled with HTML errors, and had bad accessibility, too.
Joomla! is progressively getting better, although the core still uses a table to hold the main content - which many see as data.... Table-less structures are out there, though, and the next main release, J!1.6 addresses this issue. It is predominantly third party developer addons that cause validation issues.

Two of my sites currently in development are valid for W3C but I would not say they are fully accessible, and both have issues caused by 3rd party modules. Our local council site www.above-derwent.org.uk (http://www.above-derwent.org.uk) is actually being managed by a gentleman who was a uni lecturer in IT and is registered blind. He uses a portal to magnify the text so he can add content. He is happy with the current accessibility.

The other current site is www.highadventure.org.uk (http://www.highadventure.org.uk) which is a complete rebuild for one of my long standing clients and is being set up to market his services as a mountain & ski guide. I'm also looking at possible ways to take feeds from him as he to the top of Mt Everest or to the South Pole, maybe using Twitter and live mapping his geolocation onto a Google Earth map.

[iamback]

Joomla! is progressively getting better, although the core still uses a table to hold the main content - which many see as data.... Table-less structures are out there, though, and the next main release, J!1.6 addresses this issue. It is predominantly third party developer addons that cause validation issues.Hmm - I guess I'd better wait with that then... Thanks for the info!

BTW, your first URL doesn't resolve.

The other current site is www.highadventure.org.uk (http://www.highadventure.org.uk) which is a complete rebuild for one of my long standing clients and is being set up to market his services as a mountain & ski guide. I'm also looking at possible ways to take feeds from him as he to the top of Mt Everest or to the South Pole, maybe using Twitter and live mapping his geolocation onto a Google Earth map.Have you looked at brightkite (http://brightkite.com)? Location-based, and it has an API, it might be leveraged for just that.

[Kelvyn]

BTW, your first URL doesn't resolve.
Ah that because the council decided not to have the hyphen in the domain despite that being part of the original plan - and I get confused dealing with them! www.abovederwent.org.uk (http://www.abovederwent.org.uk) ought to be right!
Have you looked at brightkite (http://brightkite.com)? Location-based, and it has an API, it might be leveraged for just that.Thanks, I will have a look. Feedback has to be on GPS co-ordinates, so that rules out systems like Latitude which depend on triangulation from phone masts, otherwise it would be too easy.... A satphone is used in the system I need to operate.

[iamback]

Ah that because the council decided not to have the hyphen in the domain despite that being part of the original plan - and I get confused dealing with them! :) That'd confuse me, too! Why not have both?

[Kelvyn]

:) That'd confuse me, too! Why not have both?
Because they are politicians, albeit minor ones. It is never a good idea to construct a site for a "committee" and far worse if they are all politicians.:(

[ktinkel]

Even more OT — does anyone use (or know anything practical) about Drupal? It sounds good, but I looked at the web site and it seemed downright proud of how tricky it is to set up.

Its own site is sort of a mess (stuff creeping out its container, for one thing), has some accessibility problems and doesn’t validate to boot, but it has devoted fans (can’t think of a more accurate word), so I wondered what the appeal is.

[iamback]

Even more OT — does anyone use (or know anything practical) about Drupal? It sounds good, but I looked at the web site and it seemed downright proud of how tricky it is to set up.

Its own site is sort of a mess (stuff creeping out its container, for one thing), has some accessibility problems and doesn’t validate to boot, but it has devoted fans (can’t think of a more accurate word), so I wondered what the appeal is.I tried it out for a bit. It actually is rather easy to set up. But I wanted to create a module for it, and quickly got lost in intricacies and only limited documentation about how to write a plugin, and a very big, helpful community - on a very busy website where an unusual request for help quickly gets drowned in the general hubbub). So I gave up on it - at least for that project.

So why all the devoted fans? Drupal is extremely powerful and flexible. The development team is seriously working on standards support and accessibility - they care. The forum (discussions - there isn't really a "forum" as such) is lively and helpful (it's just so busy a lone voice can get lost). There is quite a learning curve, but the learning has rewards. Etc.... From what I've seen the code (out of the box) is far more standards-compliant and accessible than that of Joomla! So if I'd had to choose between those two right now, I'd choose Drupal (and postpone writing that module).

(Meanwhile I'm looking at other CMSs - and I don't want to limit myself to one; currently, ocPortal (http://ocportal.com/) is a strong candidate: it comes with an awful lot of functionality, and a publicly stated commitment to web standards, including accessibility. I'm going to try it out, at least.)

[ktinkel]

From what I've seen the code (out of the box) is far more standards-compliant and accessible than that of Joomla! So if I'd had to choose between those two right now, I'd choose Drupal …Thanks. I lack your knowledge, but have to say that it seemed tricky just reading about it. (But so does Joomla!)

I really want to have two sites on a non-blog CMS — with WordPress it seems as if I spend most of my energy turning off comments and the other blog trappings. I have never found a theme that pleased me without a ton of modifications (which get me in messes), and trying to create my own theme did not work out especially well either. :(

(Meanwhile I'm looking at other CMSs - and I don't want to limit myself to one; currently, ocPortal (http://ocportal.com/) is a strong candidate: it comes with an awful lot of functionality, and a publicly stated commitment to web standards, including accessibility. I'm going to try it out, at least.)At least the ocPortal site is clean and readable, and what I read makes sense. I am thinking of trying it myself.

I am sure it will want adjusting; for one thing, I really like pages that flex to suit the browser window. But I should be able to omit functions that I just do not want — more easily than in WordPress, anyway, which always calls for much tinkering of page templates.

[Kelvyn]

(Meanwhile I'm looking at other CMSs - and I don't want to limit myself to one; currently, ocPortal (http://ocportal.com/) is a strong candidate:

That's one I have looked at, but it seemed to me to be really more suited to a tech site than a site with extensive graphics selling a product.

I have also tried Drupal, which once installed works quite well - until you try to add in extra functions and there, as you found, if a plugin is not already available, to write your own you need some sort of third eye to see how it is done.

I have used Joomla! extensively but even then I keep coming across hidden features which I did not know existed in the framework. I can install a standard Joomla! "site" in under 5 minutes, strip out what is not needed in standard plugins, install those which are needed for the site functions in another 20 minutes or so. If I already have a suitable template then I'll spend an hour or so getting some graphics sorted and uploaded. So In less than a working day a site is structured and ready for content to be inserted- and that is the bit that takes time! After that comes testing and checking.

That's OK if I already have a suitable template. If not then creating a new template can take me days. I have DreamWeaver plugins to make it easy, but somehow my mind goes blank when I try to visualise what the final appearance will be. It is a lot of trial and error and almost always I end up stripping out placeholders for modules, as when I test them they dont work in the overall structure.

What I am trying to say that a CMS is brilliant to use once constructed and running. But getting the site up and running even with no content yet can be a real challenge. Learning how to use the CMS software is only the first step.

[ktinkel]

Oy. Not so far from my perception.

All I know is that Joomla doesn’t seem accessible to me. I have learned a lot about WordPress — even to the point of trying to create a theme — but I am always fighting its native intentions. I do not want a blog; that is what WordPress wants most of all. Makes me nuts, especially with so many updates.

All I really want is to publish articles. l want to have TOC and index. Categories or other key-word search access. Opportunity to recommend other sites or off-web sources. Not particularly interested in advertising (though I might try that at some point); wouldn’t mind SE attention, but that is not the main point.

There seems to be no middle path that allows all that. But ocPortal seems to come somewhat close.

[iamback]

That's one I have looked at, but it seemed to me to be really more suited to a tech site than a site with extensive graphics selling a product.

I have also tried Drupal, which once installed works quite well - until you try to add in extra functions and there, as you found, if a plugin is not already available, to write your own you need some sort of third eye to see how it is done.Exactly. I haven't given up on it though - just not (to start with) for a site where I need to create my own module.

I have used Joomla! extensively but even then I keep coming across hidden features which I did not know existed in the framework. I can install a standard Joomla! "site" in under 5 minutes, strip out what is not needed in standard plugins, install those which are needed for the site functions in another 20 minutes or so. If I already have a suitable template then I'll spend an hour or so getting some graphics sorted and uploaded.Ah, but this is of course because you've already used it so much! How much time did that take you where you weren't so experienced with it?

What I am trying to say that a CMS is brilliant to use once constructed and running. But getting the site up and running even with no content yet can be a real challenge. Learning how to use the CMS software is only the first step.Yes... And finding one or two that feel good enough to spend the learning time with, is another time sink - but unavoidable.

What I'm really looking for is a "heavyweight" capable of doing nearly everything I'd want to throw at it (candidates: Xaraya, Drupal and ocP) and a small lightweight one to build small simple "brochure" site with (no candidates yet, but I'm bookmarking). ocP so far I've only looked at the "outside" but I've had fast and friendly help from the staff, and there's also a nice helpful community (though not, it seems, very large). We'll see where it takes me!

[iamback]

All I really want is to publish articles. l want to have TOC and index. Categories or other key-word search access. Opportunity to recommend other sites or off-web sources. Not particularly interested in advertising (though I might try that at some point); wouldn’t mind SE attention, but that is not the main point.

There seems to be no middle path that allows all that. But ocPortal seems to come somewhat close.Maybe - I haven't spent enough time with it yet - hardly any, mostly I've been reading on the site and asking questions. But it's a heavyweight: you get a whole big box full of goodies. That may be fine if you can just throw away what you don't need, or it may be you'd be better off with a small lightweight CMS. No recommendations so far - as I just told Kelvyn: I'm bookmarking.

[ktinkel]

Maybe - I haven't spent enough time with it yet - hardly any, mostly I've been reading on the site and asking questions. But it's a heavyweight: you get a whole big box full of goodies. That may be fine if you can just throw away what you don't need, or it may be you'd be better off with a small lightweight CMS. No recommendations so far - as I just told Kelvyn: I'm bookmarking.I tried a couple of non-database CMS programs. They were limited in other ways including the changes one could make.

I even considered learning enough PHP to achieve what I wanted with standard HTML pages and a bit of automation, but gave up on that wacky (for me) idea.

One of the things I like about ocP is that is was conceived of, designed, and built by a team. It hasn’t yet accumulated plugins, etc., from many sources. There is something clean about it. (Now I should download it and see whether it is all image or really true!)

Interesting thing: I have seen many lists of best CMS's, followed up recommendations in articles here and there, and until your message the other day, never ran across ocPortal.

[iamback]

I tried a couple of non-database CMS programs. They were limited in other ways including the changes one could make.

I even considered learning enough PHP to achieve what I wanted with standard HTML pages and a bit of automation, but gave up on that wacky (for me) idea.

One of the things I like about ocP is that is was conceived of, designed, and built by a team. It hasn’t yet accumulated plugins, etc., from many sources. There is something clean about it. (Now I should download it and see whether it is all image or really true!)I've been toying / fighting with it all day (the fighting mostly because I had trouble installing it, but that was due to server configuration - a whole other story). Based on that (just a day!) I'd say: yes, it is all true, it has an interesting structure that takes a little time to understand and then makes sense BUT the HTML & CSS code isn't all that clean. In fact, looking at the basic templates (which any custom themes are based on too unless you override them) the XHTML is chock full of inline styles and -worse- inline JavaScript and event handlers. The styles you could get rid of by replacing them with ids and classes and gathering the styles in a stylesheet; the inline JavaScript is harder to get rid of, you'd have to create all the event-handling stuff yourself and that would mean writing JavaScript code: much harder (at least for me) than moving some style rules around. There also seems to be a basic assumption the page is going to be left panel, right panel and central area (in-between a top area and a footer), and names reflect this. I'm sure it could all be restructured but I think I'm looking at more than a month's worth of work. Except forms, which seem to be totally generated from code - hard to get my head round, but I didn't see an easy way to define a new form or add an extra field to an existing one.

Mind you, it was just a day...
Each time I poked at something I got a pleasant surprise ("oh, nice! well handled! well explained! etc.") and then poking a bit deeper I seem to run into a wall. But I think if you're just accepting the basic templates, change colors and images, and stick to the structure, it's very powerful and has a lot to offer. But for me, who wants totally separate XHTML, CSS and JavaScript, it looks like it will be very hard to set up. Extra points in favor: all day I've had excellent and friendly help from one of the staff - even though they say they have paid support, they're actually all over the forum helping out.

But, for now at least, I'll let it rest. Tomorrow I want to look at a lightweight CMS.

Interesting thing: I have seen many lists of best CMS's, followed up recommendations in articles here and there, and until your message the other day, never ran across ocPortal.Quite likely that is because it didn't start out as Open Source. It was semi-commercial before where you had to leave their credits on the site or pay to remove that (or a scheme like that); but it seems to be taking off now that it's fully Open Source (with an official OSI-approved OSS license). And that's how I found it on http://opensourcecms.com/.

[ktinkel]

… it has an interesting structure that takes a little time to understand and then makes sense BUT the HTML & CSS code isn't all that clean. In fact, looking at the basic templates (which any custom themes are based on too unless you override them) the XHTML is chock full of inline styles and -worse- inline JavaScript and event handlers.
[ . . . ]
Each time I poked at something I got a pleasant surprise ("oh, nice! well handled! well explained! etc.") and then poking a bit deeper I seem to run into a wall. But I think if you're just accepting the basic templates, change colors and images, and stick to the structure, it's very powerful and has a lot to offer. But for me, who wants totally separate XHTML, CSS and JavaScript, it looks like it will be very hard to set up. Oh, ick. Although I do not have skill I have high standards, and would have to try to straighten out the mess and break the thing.

I will be interested in hearing about your experiences with a lightweight CMS. Does that mean, necessarily, no database? I rather like databases. <g>.

[Kelvyn]

Kathleen, go to www.opensourcecms.com and try the CMS Made Simple (http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=9&name=CMS%20Made%20Simple) demo. When I tested it last year it was a clean and simple system. Not suitable for my sort of use, but I found it easy to understand.

[ktinkel]

Kathleen, go to www.opensourcecms.com and try the CMS Made Simple (http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=9&name=CMS%20Made%20Simple) demo. When I tested it last year it was a clean and simple system. Not suitable for my sort of use, but I found it easy to understand.How clever you are! <g>

It is definitely on my list. I looked at it a few years ago, but at that time it was beyond me (and maybe it was not so good). But right now it looks pretty useful.

I have also marked BigAce and Concrete 5 to check out. (As you may note, I have not got deeply into the alphabet!)

[iamback]

Oh, ick. Although I do not have skill I have high standards, and would have to try to straighten out the mess and break the thing.I just summed up my templating frustrations in this forum post (http://ocportal.com/forum/topicview/misc/10858.htm?kfs234=0) (I'm "OpenSite" there, and there are other forum posts by me as well; you can also see how really helpful Chris Graham has been.)

I will be interested in hearing about your experiences with a lightweight CMS. Does that mean, necessarily, no database? I rather like databases. <g>.No, it doesn't necessarily mean "no database". And in fact, I want a CMS that uses a database - if it only uses "flat files", I skip it.

Currently on my list to look at are TinyPortal, Kajona, Micro CMS, Jaws, MonkeyCMS, concrete5 and ModX (I've looked a little at that already before). Definitely not all light-weight (I want "one of each", after all) and not an exhaustive list yet.

They're all found on http://opensourcecms.com/ - and I'm still going through the list. Another candidate in the "not light-weight" category is still Xaraya - I've been involved with it a little and pushed for valid XHTML (which it now has); I still like it a lot but it's been going through some hickups on the development side; it seems to be getting back on its feet now.

(A few that initially looked interesting turned out to have non-functional websites - reported - so I skipped them: I'd want at least something that is under active development.)

Meanwhile I'd like a lightweight to get started quickly with my business web site, but obviously I need squeaky-clean code for that.

[iamback]

Kathleen, go to www.opensourcecms.com and try the CMS Made Simple (http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=9&name=CMS%20Made%20Simple) demo. When I tested it last year it was a clean and simple system. Not suitable for my sort of use, but I found it easy to understand.I'll put that back on my list to look at; I looked at it a few years ago (October 2007, to be precise, I have bookmarks), but for some reason I didn't even download it (not sure why, I
didn't make a note of that); but I didn't put a "minus" against it either.

[iamback]

How clever you are! <g>

It is definitely on my list. I looked at it a few years ago, but at that time it was beyond me (and maybe it was not so good). But right now it looks pretty useful.

I have also marked BigAce and Concrete 5 to check out. (As you may note, I have not got deeply into the alphabet!)Actually, I looked at concrete5 and it definitely looked interesting; so I've kept it on my list, but as "Open Source" goes, it isn't very "open": the source code has an almost complete lack of comments: if you'd want to change anything at the source code level, you'd have a lot of interpretation to do and a lot of headaches as a result. (ocPortal does have a reasonable amount of comments in the source code, making it a lot more approachable in that respect.)

[ktinkel]

Interesting thread you began on ocPortal. The developer seems competent enough (to the extent I can judge) — but doesn’t seem to agree that the software needs at least to be flexible enough to meet your standards. From that I guess they expect their users to be relatively unambitious.

I searched on “powered by ocPortal” and found several sites, most of them unfinished or under-used. Only a couple of those I visited flex in width (one is this one: Fishing in the USA (http://fishingintheusa.com/)). Several ocP sites have an identical error — underlined text with the underscore out of sync with the text, including the Fishing one. Imagine that is a CSS error, but it is odd. Most of the ocP sites have nearly identical layouts and details.

Also spent some time poking around at CMS Made Simple and looked at some sites created with it. Its users also produce a lot of similar-looking sites, whether from lack of interest or difficulty, I dunno. Extensive documentation.

Seems that Joomla, Drupal, and WordPress have the majority of users.

[ktinkel]

Are you familiar with Website Baker (http://start.websitebaker2.org/en/introduction.html)? Their own site is attractive, but I see they are/were having problems retaining a team for future development.

On the Open Source CMS site, garners a lot of praise.

[iamback]

Interesting thread you began on ocPortal. The developer seems competent enough (to the extent I can judge) — but doesn’t seem to agree that the software needs at least to be flexible enough to meet your standards. From that I guess they expect their users to be relatively unambitious.I had the same feeling: that most users will leave the templates alone, are happy with the basic three- or two-column layout and maybe just create a new "theme" with the stylesheets and related images (one forum member has a site just for themes). Users like that really don't need to write new templates: maybe the developers are just used to that and have never encountered someone who comes with different baggage, has used several templating systems, and has some strict requirements about the generated (partially templated) code. That's OK.

But I feel a bit ambiguous now: ocPortal really has a lot to like about it - not least the developers' commitment to standards compliance and accessibility. In fact, in one thread I started, another user jumped in who is totally blind, has been using ocPortal for years, and is happy with it. He's also very active on the forum, helping others. If I had all the time in the world, I feel I'd just jump in and see how far I would get with the templates - but I don't: I need to get up a business site fast and I need software that I can use for clients and be confident that it does conform to Dutch accessibility standards.

I will keep watching ocPortal, though, and I'd recommend it to those who don't feel the need to change the actual templates but are able to work within the framework that is there (including stylesheets), maybe just use a different color scheme and matching images. You can relatively easily make a two-column layout: If you don't put "blocks" in one of the side panels, it will "collapse", and you can move blocks from one to the other via the user interface (not the templates): that's confusing, but it works.

I searched on “powered by ocPortal” and found several sites, most of them unfinished or under-used. Only a couple of those I visited flex in width (one is this one: Fishing in the USA (http://fishingintheusa.com/)). Several ocP sites have an identical error — underlined text with the underscore out of sync with the text, including the Fishing one. Imagine that is a CSS error, but it is odd. Most of the ocP sites have nearly identical layouts and details.And I'm sure most of that is due to how hard the templates are to change. The idea is that it's all based on XHTML - but in practice, most of it is actually "template code", with a syntax that isn't all that easy to learn, and it's fragmented in lots and lots of little templates. There are good reasons for that, but it doesn't make things any easier to grasp. If someone who isn't familiar with both XHTML and some programming concepts needs a template change, they'd need to hire someone to do it for them. (BTW, “powered by ocPortal” is no longer required, so searching for that you won't find all sites.)

Also spent some time poking around at CMS Made Simple and looked at some sites created with it. Its users also produce a lot of similar-looking sites, whether from lack of interest or difficulty, I dunno. Extensive documentation.Yes, and very clearly written, too: since I had looked at it before, I decided to start with this to review next. A pity I didn't make a note of why I didn't even go as far as to download it back in 2007, but I have a vague memory that it looked unfinished. If that was the case, it isn't now. I was going to install it tonight but got sidetracked by a documentary...

Seems that Joomla, Drupal, and WordPress have the majority of users.Maybe not "the" majority but they're certainly very well known. But there is more and I want at least to have a look at more. (And Joomla! is out for me for now, as is Drupal for very different reasons. And there's still Xaraya.) Lots of options. It's late now, but I'm going to install SMSms now - or at least get started on it - I have some other things to do tomorrow...

[iamback]

Are you familiar with Website Baker (http://start.websitebaker2.org/en/introduction.html)? Their own site is attractive, but I see they are/were having problems retaining a team for future development.

On the Open Source CMS site, garners a lot of praise.I'd never heard of it, but poked around the website a little. Lots of templates, but otherwise not many addons; clear and well-organized documentation (though it seems a little less-detailed than CMSms, but the downloadable PDFs are a nice touch); but the feature list (http://start.websitebaker2.org/en/features.php) seems a bit meagre: if there's more, why not list it? Bookmarked, but I don't feel compelled to try it out. Let me know if I should. ;)