Good afternoon,
I've been out of the Fluid loop for a little while, but wanted to
chime in on this issue. I am hoping that the criteria for assessing
any particular CMS for the site will include an assessment of the
accessibility of the CMS. This is not only important from a content
consumption, but also from a content creation perspective. It would
be disappointing if a CMS were selected with poorly accessible
authoring capabilities, as it may make it more difficult for persons
with certain disabilities to contribute to the project.
Thanks,
Everett
Follow me on Twitter
http://twitter.com/ezufelt
View my LinkedIn Profile
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt
On 17-Nov-09, at 2:32 PM, Jacob Farber wrote:
Is there a reason we're only thinking in terms of CMSMS or not
CMSMS? What about other, more powerful cms's?
Jacob
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Laurel A. Williams <[email protected]
> wrote:
Hi all,
For some time now, we've been discussing moving the website out of
CMSMS. I'd like to start a discussion of the pros and cons of doing
this and also talk about some techniques we could use for
accomplishing the task if we decide to do it. Here is the jira task: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3355
Advantages that CMSMS gives us:
1) The ability to allow various community members to post to the
website with specific roles such as editor, administrator, and
designer. We do not take advantage of this ability right now. The
only people who edit the website all have admin access and there are
very few accounts.
2) CMSMS allows us to use fixed templates for the header, footer and
other common code blocks so we don't have to edit and maintain
common code blocks on each page.
3) CMSMS provides some add ons, such as the news pages, breadcrumbs,
menu generation and rss feeds with very little work. It also
provides a maintenance mode for when we are doing upgrades (a site
down message is displayed.
Disadvantages:
1) Being constrained by CMSMS has made editing somewhat onerous for
experienced web app developers. The CSS is stored in the DB in one
place, the common code chunks in another, the content for individual
pages in another place. The interface for editing the pages is not
very user friendly for people who are used to tweaking html in text
editors or using their favourite html editing environment.
2) CMSMS continues to evolve and updates are tricky. There is always
a danger of breaking the site when we upgrade and not upgrading puts
the website at risk for security flaws.
3) Having the website in CMSMS does not allow us to version the site
or revert changes easily.
So, if we are merely using CMSMS because of advantages 2 and 3, we
should think about alternative techniques.
Some thoughts:
a) We are a javascript focused project - maybe we should use
javascript to tackle these problems. This could have the advantage
of allowing us to showcase the Fluid framework on our own website.
Colin suggested using something like Kettle to manage various
includes. Jess also suggested I develop a 'menu component'.
b) I've been doing a lot of PHP lately for the builder. PHP is
another option. I think its main advantage is that it would be quick
to swap over the current CMSMS site to PHP.
I am sure the community has lots of ideas to contribute on this
subject, so looking forward to your thoughts.
Laurel
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
--
Jacob Farber
University of Toronto - ATRC
Tel: (416) 946-3002
www.fluidproject.org
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
