WBCE CMS Forum

jambo

Mitglied

Feature discussion

I had a short(!) look to the Beta (PHP 5.4.7)

No Errors ...
Maintainance Mode: very good Idea
OPF Dashboard ... I am not firm with it ... but I did not found a dashboard on Admin-Tools -- Frontend Output Filter
Class to manage global settings: very good Idea ... do you plan a better documentation for such things?

Special: Filename != Menutitle - I am not a user here for the moment, but I believe this change is done too fast without thinking about the end ... it make use more complicate without necessity even cause an editor now has to handle with three instead two fields ... better way should be: developers should learn to handle with easy and reduced (and working!) posibilities than easy (minded) editors had to learn to handle more fields even as two fields are for most of them are hard to unterstand yet ... I would prefer to keep it simple ... an optional use could be a (wonderful and) better solution ... jm2p ;-)

Over all I belive: you are on a good way :-)

Post edited by florian: I've moved your post here, these are features of WBCE and NOT WB SP5!.!

Beitrag geändert von florian (12.11.2015 13:29:13)

florian

Administrator

Re: Feature discussion

Regarding your critic about the option to change the filename: this is afaik an often wanted feature, and it's just an option. The field for the filename has as default value the filename which is generated from the menu title, so you do not have to enter anything. There are some reasons when this field is valuable, f. ex. when using umlauts or special signs in the menu title, which often ends in ugly URLs, or for SEO reasons.

---

Wir Benötigen: Cents, Euros... jetzt spenden!

jambo

Mitglied

Re: Feature discussion

Thx for moving the posting. As I am not a user here please do not understand this as critic but as a polite hint given by chance only ... ;-)

The problem from my former WB using experiences and feedback from especially my(!) editors will be: added new page, mistake in filename, now there are three fields to correct instead of two ... and three different names for a single page ... which has to be controlled ... :-( And further more the difference between this fields ... simple editors think simple ... and WB is simple because there are not to many options like i.e. Joomla ... the reason I used it for a long time ...  ;-)

Possible, more easy, important simple and better solution: optional use. Just let it empty if a new page is created. (At the moment the field is autofilled when you create a new page ...) If needed the editor can add a different filename there ... So: If there is no content WBCE take the name traditional from the menu(?) field ... if there is an (active given) additonal file name ... take it from the new field.

I myself indeed would prefer a really optional field you can switch on/off ... but this way could be an easy solution for all this guys who are afraid that a relevant number of visitors are really looks to the url and are upset about all the complicate looking and crypted parameters in the url ... ;-)

And please: this is just a hint ... jm2p ... not a critic or something which has to be done this way ... some ideas which seems to look good at the first glance are not as fine when you are going forward ;-) Once again: good work at all. And a really BIG THANK YOU for your engagement. Maybe the best work WB has seen the last two years :-)

norhei

Developer

Re: Feature discussion

@ jambo
1. Many pepole asked for this feature, as it was just a matter of copy and paste from my old fork it could be easyly implemented .
2. We need to add a few more features to the page settings like connecting pages whith images .
3. There have already been discussions in the old WB forum about complexity in the backend.
4. I know the problem whith clients that play whith settings and can do a lot of harm whith this. 
5. The Backend really needs some rework !!

The only possible conclusion i see is to offer a switch for advanced settings, as it is done in many other CMS. Maybe its even an idea  to have a switch to turn advanced settings on and off in a global scale.  Or maybe to find a nother place for  this setting ? As the backend will get a review sooner or later we need to think about this issue when doing the actual rework.
If you got a good precise idea for a structure , we are open for most ideas.

jambo

Mitglied

Re: Feature discussion

Well ...

The only possible conclusion i see is to offer a switch for advanced settings, ...

Indeed this is that what I meant ... advanced settings to switch the possibility on/off. You can do it a global way or individual for every page what maybe is the better way. But combine this solution in this special case with an (optional) empty field on standard ... all ohter wil lead to struggle ... ;-)

Page-Pictures ... was this not an item the wb managers promised last year for the end of the last year? I realised something like this (page and area pictures) in a little template script with a picture-config-file in the very first beginning of my work with WB. More a snippet than a big function.

Main structure of the backend: I think it is ok and especial this structure is the reason why WB is as simple why I (and many others) liked to work with it. Much more importand would be to prepare a base that modules look unique ... something like an html-css-js-api ... elements and functionalities modules can use ... so they look and work the same way. And much more than this I missed an easy way to ad standard elements like columns, arccordions, rollover-areas ... even if this modules exists ... the worked all different. (A multislider I missed too.)

But please: really only jm2p ... as an actual none-user this are hints and ideas only ... ;-)

florian

Administrator

Re: Feature discussion

Personally I don't think we need this picture-link-thing as a default feature. An image based navigation is not very timely.
I think it's more important to make it easier to build the menu in general - a kind of point-and-click-show_menu or something like this. There was some discussion about this some weeks ago.

The backend of WBCE has some disadvantages. Nevertheless it's still better than the backend of Joomla, Wordpress, Contao and so on, although there are parts which have to be optimized, i.e. the general options and the admin tools overview - maybe this will find its way in the release 1.2, and the media management is another part which should be reworked urgently, but this may become really a huge thing so I don't see this in one of the next releases.

A unique look for modules would be great indeed, but this would merely be relevant for new or WBCE-exclusive modules, because if we offered some classes for module design these classes would not be available in WB classic, so these modules would not work there. Furthermore many old modules still work but are not maintained anymore, so somebody would take the time and rework them... it's all not so easy as it seems.

Beitrag geändert von florian (12.11.2015 17:50:59)

---

Wir Benötigen: Cents, Euros... jetzt spenden!