|#1flipFeb 25, 2004 10:50:57||So, I've been toying with moving to a CMS system for athas.org. Various reasons, including the fact that I'm a little tired of the concept of reimplementing the same thing that's been done a gajillion times over.|
So, I was poking around the field, and found two that might serve my purposes. Now, I'm still playing with theming the sites, and with backfilling content into them, but I'd like to see what the general opinion of them is ...
Neither one provides me everything that I need or want, and if I want to do anything particularly specialized -- such as putting together a Spell database -- I'm going to have to learn the module system. And neither of them seems to want to let you embed things from one section in another (for example, embedding an image from the photo gallery into a page, instead of uploading the image all over again) ...
|#2xlorepdarkhelm_dupFeb 25, 2004 12:48:02||Sure you can do that in phpWebSite - just find out where the image is stored, and then link to the URL.|
The spell database - well, if you have something that can work with it, use the "skel" option in the administration section of the control panel to build the module with your database in it. look at the muggles website for pointers
And - how'd you get the wizards RSS feed on your page? I haven't found it yet. All the feeds I have found phpWebSite doesn't like.
|#3zombiegleemaxFeb 25, 2004 13:28:59||the mambo version has a better layout... php is a bit cluttered. However, its visually dry... it could use some decorating as it were. =] function over form is preferable though.|
|#4KamelionFeb 25, 2004 13:55:42||The mambo is smoother, quicker and seems to show more of what's on offer. I'd go for that one. The php is prettier, so I\d also agree that the mambo version could do with some eye-candy|
|#5nytcrawlrFeb 25, 2004 14:09:45||Mambo is smoother and prettier, but I think I like the overall feel of phpwebsite more.|
The theme and prettiness of it can be adjusted later I think.
I wouldn't mind doing the RSS feed from WotC either, but PHPNuke doesn't like to place nice in that regard sometimes.
One of these days I'll put the time into upgrading PHP on my server, but that's going to be a huge undertaking for me.
|#6xlorepdarkhelm_dupFeb 25, 2004 14:25:23||Nevermind about the RSS feeds.... I finally got it working. must have had a space or something where I wasn't supposed to. I didn't put the feeds on my homepage directly, but rather set them up in their own menu, since some of the feeds are..... long.|
|#7flindbarFeb 25, 2004 14:31:25||Like others before me ......|
Mambo site much slicker but needs a few design touches.
mambo get my vote.
|#8flipFeb 25, 2004 14:54:56||Don't get too hung up on the general formatting elements; at it's basic level, both are the same:|
A templated site, using a three column layout. The content specifies which column (and where in the column) it ends up in, and is dropped there when a page is rendered. I could probably manage to use the same (general) template for both sites without too much hassel.
|#9xlorepdarkhelm_dupFeb 25, 2004 14:59:57||Well, I'll have to admit, my preference for you going to phpWebSite is partially selfish. It's in the hopes that maybe we could pass some customized modules back and forth between each other hehe|
|#10zombiegleemaxFeb 25, 2004 15:08:57||GAAAAAHH!!!!! I wanna look but am proxied out of gaming websites since last nasty virus hit|
|#11GrummoreFeb 25, 2004 15:20:19||AAARRRGGGLLL !!! THE WHITE IS BURNING MY EYES !!!!|
I like better the phpwebsite than the mambo. Sound less dry to me and everything I need to see in not soooo small that I have to squeeze my eyes to see it.
Btw, I think It's easier to work with php than with mambo.
I vote php.
EDIT : Hum. just toyed with both version in different sized windows and it seem that php suck! It superpose all the colums!
|#12flipFeb 25, 2004 16:22:46|
Originally posted by flip
And, as a case in point, I just translated the theme from the mambo site to the phpwebsite site.
|#13flipFeb 25, 2004 16:25:29|
Originally posted by Grummore
It shouldn't do that anymore. The superimposing has to do with the way I did the layout on that first theme -- pure CSS, no tables. The side columns had a set width, and when you reduce the page below those widths ... trouble strikes.
But it's not set up that way anymore, at the moment.
|#14nytcrawlrFeb 25, 2004 16:36:27||I still like the phpwebsite, but the RSS from WotC looks better on the right than as a posted story like it is now.|
|#15flipFeb 25, 2004 16:43:51|
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Easy enough to move.
My major gripe with that part though, is just that the RSS module in phpws has no way to (short of hacking the code) limit the number of stories shown. So, it takes up quite a bit of page ...
|#16flipFeb 25, 2004 16:53:40|
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Which is generally a plus in my book. The code reuse thing is sort of why I'm moving to a system developed by a group of people, rather than just something cobbled together by little old me.
The phpWS code seems to, generally, be a bit more clean than the other, but I'm not totally solid on that assesment yet.
|#17zombiegleemaxFeb 25, 2004 16:55:26||You still need to adjust the table settings for the php site. I still get superimposed cells all over.|
I rather like the slick, uncluttered nature of the mambo site. Its visually easier to glance at sectional text over the page and understand the information.
The php site, while having a splash more color (and ignoring the cell overlapping), is a bit more distracting. Color schemes have the negative effect of drawing the reader's eyes to one or two various sections, while drawing away from others. Since its not always the same for each reader, its impossible to design a comprehensive color scheme for any readership. You'll notice that, of the websites that receive the most traffic, most of them are stark, using more negative spacing to draw reader attention to sectional information rather than color schemes. That, and the sidebar is a waste of good space :P.
As was said earlier, function of form.
Still, it boils down to which one allows you the most freedom to do what you want to do, so, ignore us retards and do what works.
|#18flipFeb 25, 2004 17:57:54|
Originally posted by Mach2.5
I wasn't really sure what you were talking about. I spend most of my time in linux, and things looked fine.
Just fired up Internet Exploiter, and I see what you mean. That's not intentional. I think mozilla registers '//' as a comment string in stylesheets, while IE doesn't.
Shall be patched up in a bit.
|#19zombiegleemaxFeb 26, 2004 0:29:30||The penguin must die . . .|
|#20xlorepdarkhelm_dupFeb 26, 2004 1:38:46|
Originally posted by flip
|#21jon_oracle_of_athasFeb 26, 2004 2:50:57||Speaking of Internet Explorer/Exploiter/Exploder, this site is funny: www.microsith.com|
Sorry about the distraction.
|#22zombiegleemaxFeb 26, 2004 8:33:07||Even though I like php, I have to admit that the mambo site seems the better of the two. Which one better allows for future ideas and expansion and is more user friendly? Thats the one I'd go with.|
|#23xlorepdarkhelm_dupFeb 26, 2004 12:59:35||Something I think many of you aren't necessarily getting is - phpWebSite uses PHP. Mambo also uses PHP. They both also use a MySQL database backend,|
The appearance of those sites can drastically change. I cn make my own website, which is powered by phpWebSite look like a variety of different styles, the current one I'm using is just what I thought would be most pleasing to the eye, until I can draw up my own style.