Mike Rockett

Thanks Adrian, works just the way I wanted. Though, it seems to resize the row once it's been picked up - makes it thinner. When you put it back, it goes back to normal... Edit: Also, what event do I listen for in order to show a button (say, "Save New Order") when it is changed? (That is, not when the row is picked up, but when it's put down in a different place.) Update (row width): I've managed to get it mostly right with this: table tbody tr>td:first-child { width: 1%; } table tbody tr>td:nth-child(2) { width: 26%; } table tbody tr>td:nth-child(3) { width: 35%; } table tbody tr>td:nth-child(4) { width: 35%; } table tbody tr>td:last-child { width: 3%; }

Greetings I'm busy working on my first module (finally). Part of the module entails rendering the usual MarkupAdminDataTable on the module's admin page. Because of the nature of the module, I'd like to be able to re-order items in the table, by means of drag 'n drop, and perhaps save that order as an order field in the DB table for each item. Can't seem to find anyone who's done this before... Can anyone point me in the right direction?

It is correct to use template appending and prepending for your purposes. I use it to display my header and footer - it makes the code a little 'cleaner', as you do not need to manually import the files into a rendered template. What version of PW are you using? I am using 2.5.0, and everything works as expected.

Yeah, I can never decide on a decent, fully-featured online invoicing system. Also, many of the free ones just don't cut it for me. So I use QuickBooks. Does the job pretty darn well. (It's slow, but I'll let that slide... )

I've never used this functionality before, but surely you could call $page->createdUser in your template, and the custom fields will be available in the User object? Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong, though. What are the fields that you added to the system template?

That's what I thought - because one wouldn't just get rid of a whole bunch of settings. Thanks guys.

Greets For the site I'm busy developing, I'm about to get to the part where I need to use pagination. I noticed in PW 2.5 that $config->pageNumUrlPrefix no longer exists in config.php Any reason as to why this is the case? And I'm assuming it will still work, right?

Has this been fixed yet? I'm using inline editors all over the place for my new site, and I really don't want to convert them (unless someone can tell me how to stop the irritating border issue when the editor attains focus).

Okay wait - ignore my previous post. It does actually work (where you use the skin name first, and then the root-relative path to its folder), but it won't load because the following URLs are forbidden (403): /site/modules/InputfieldCKEditor/skins/office2013/?t=E6FDskin.js /site/modules/InputfieldCKEditor/skins/office2013/?t=E6FDeditor.css

Hi Pete, unfortunately that doesn't work... It just uses two slashes somewhere in the middle of the path... wire/modules/Inputfield/InputfieldCKEditor/ckeditor-4.4.3/skins//site/modules/InputfieldCKEditor/skins/office2013 See my post below. Also, I didn't realise before that you had to specify a skin name before the path. I tried without it, and it gave my the result as striked-out above.

Greets I'm using the dev-build of PW for one of my sites (obviously will upgrade to 2.5 when released). I'm not a huge fan of the default CKEditor skin, and would like to use the office2013 theme instead. How would I go about doing that? Update I have tried adding a skins directory in site/modules/InputfieldCKEditor and loading the skin via config.js, but it looks for the skin in the wire/modules/Inputfield/InputfieldCKEditor/ckeditor-4.4.3/skins directory... Any way to change that? Update (again) This works, but isn't so elegant: ../../../../../../../site/modules/InputfieldCKEditor/skins/office2013 Surely one could make it so that it looks in both the `wire` and `site` directories for skins?

Yes, this has been going around for quite a while. Everybody I know has made the switch, mostly to alternatives already mentioned by others. Personally, I never liked FancyBox anyway... just my two cents.

Haha! That's so brilliant!

In agreement with everyone else - start with the current dev. That's what I'm doing for two sites I'm busy building. When it's released, it's simply a matter of 'upgrading', as Ryan said. That's fantastic news indeed!

Very nice site indeed, and clean too! Simple always works best. With regards to Affix, it doesn't seem to be working for me, in any browser. I'm running 1366x768, and there's definitely enough estate for it to become fixed when I scroll (also, no bookmarks bar, and I'm using the small taskbar on Win8), but that's just visually-speaking. When I go fullscreen, it works. Most people use 1366x768 (laptops), and so I'd suggest making some kind of an alteration to make it work. Perhaps if you make Affix ignore the "Modify Search" heading, and only do the block beneath it? I'm busy building a site for a charity, and found myself in the same place with the home page slider - I'm just using repeaters, as they really are efficient. Edit: If you decide to use repeaters, be sure to set your image field to only accept one image. Then, when you call it in your template, you still need to call the first() method, like this: <?php print $slide->your_image_field->first()->description; ?> I'd like to make one comment with regards to the design: it feels almost too Bootstrap generic. If it were my site, it would be inclined to, at the very least, change the font, heading colours, and the bullet-footer (perhaps you could scrap the indent, remove the bullets, and split each link with a thin, light line). There's also a 1px white line at the bottom - I would definitely remove that. That said, the site, as it is, is very friendly, and easy to use - so kudos for that. I would only make the changes as the Bootstrap look is too generic - at least for me anyway...

ChiefPundit, welcome aboard! And such a great read It's really great to see content-rich sites built in PW, and so well-designed. As for load time, seems pretty good here in South Africa. Though, every now and then, the initial request-fetch takes a while.

Completely forgot that I posted this... Anybody?

I'm not going to make too many comments about responsive design at this point, and only because I haven't fully ventured into it myself (I'm only building my first fully responsive site on PW now...) That said, I do think it's a good idea. I'm based in South Africa, and it seems to be the trending thing with all modern designers. In addition, even my clients in Cameroon want their sites to be responsive. Otherwise, I do like the sites, @muzzer. One nit to pick: On the Uncharted Wilderness Tours site, it says "About Us page" in the footer. The word "page" should not be there. I am very sure that was a simple oversight. Yes?

Oh right. My bad indeed.

Does seem a tad slower though... Loaded up in just over 6 seconds this time around. Then again, yesterday's results were also a bit jumpy. First test was under 5 seconds, second test was as I mentioned before, and the third test was over 7 seconds... Nonetheless, load times are good enough, the way I see it.

You're welcome, reems Here are some snapshots: Browser resize: http://imgur.com/PbjrVzv Lumia emulation (confirmed with my own Lumia): http://imgur.com/y2eGp2J Galaxy S4 Emulation (I don't have a device to confirm this with): http://imgur.com/YYDajVr

@diogo - I see, great stuff Works great. In terms of speed, from here in SA, an initial complete reload took 5.92 seconds over 34 requests, including render-time. DOMContentLoaded (before assets) was 1.41 seconds.

Quite an interesting site, I must say. Love the fact that it's just different. With regards to the font, all my browsers are rendering just fine. The issue at hand is with regards to DirectWrite. If it's turned off, it doesn't look so good at all. But, as stated already, it should be on by default now, so the majority of Chrome users will see the correct rendering. With regards to the grey button, that's a silly IE thing that Redmond has never, ever bothered to change. Alternatively, it's the order of your CSS rules. By that, I mean that you are declaring a color for all buttons after you're declaring them for the menu in particular. Still, that seems to be an IE thing, because no other browser has an issue. I think adding !important to the rule for the menu button should fix it. I know, using that flag is bad. But sometimes, you just gotta use it anyway, because it does its job. I find it quite interesting that you chose to use a strike-out on the bottom menu links when viewing a page. Any particular reason why you chose to do that?

Very nice site I just have a few nits to pick from a user experience point of view: The top menus' anchor tags do not fill to the size of their menu blocks <div class="mymenu bn block">...</div> This means that I have to click on the actual anchor link. Whereas, you did this with the menu on the left, making it easier to click on each item. (Only thing I noticed with the left menu is that the anchor tag for "Luxury Honeymoons" goes past the length of the black parent container. Oh, and these links also don't seem to show which one is currently being viewed, i.e a 'current' class.) Same concept with the Top 10 drop down. I should be able to click on any part of that, instead of just the drop down arrow. I think more work could be done with how the site responds to different screen sizes. As soon as I scale down my browser, or use the device renderer, everything starts overlapping everything else. Unless, of course, you did not intend for the site to be responsive, which is what I've gathered. Despite this, I really do like the simplicity and usability of the site. It isn't overly complicated, and anything you need to click on is shown to you straight away, which makes it a friendly site. Kudos!

@DaveP: It seems that the breadcrumbs are only updating to show the parent of the current page being shown. So if you go to a specific event, it'll show "Home / Events". I think that's an oversight.