heldercervantes

HAH! Nicely spotted. It's the opposite use of negative space however. And PW's is a cleaner design that's better than Pinterest's

Great project, and a very interesting example of what can be done with a platform that lets you do anything

Nah I think it had something to do with the allowed domains in config. I only had 'supertiny.agency' and not 'www.supertiny.agency'. Google webmasters forced me to add the www version, I didn't update config to allow it too, and there must have been a mixup of some kind with open sessions. Don't know how it got the /2018, but after closing and opening everything again it seems to have fixed itself.

Hey guys. During development of supertiny.agency, I've initially published the site under /2018/ to test, adjust, and later moved it to the root to publish it. What's happening now is that the top menus of the admin (pages, setup, modules, access) still point to /2018/processwire. I click, get a 404, remove /2018/ from the url, and go on with whatever I'm doing. From there on, editing a field, template, managing a module, all works fine. Only the top links still think the site lives in the old directory. Where can I fix this? By the way, version 3.0.84 Thanks

You caught me. That was an error. It's what you get when you leave translations to the last minute Thanks for pointing it out.

Glad you do. Each content block there is a reusable "module" that can be repeated and sorted as it's fit. I may later on add more if future case-studies require it. I've also made a little JS thingy that detects if an element comes into view as you scroll, adding an `is-visible` class. Then that's used to trigger an appearance transition that varies according to the element type. Really simple but makes it look nice and polished.

HAHA I knew it! Ask 50 people to test, and everything's ok, then someone comes along from some third world country to ruin the fun. Let me get an IF statement there somewhere. EDIT: JK there with the third world bit. Canada is cool.

Hello fellow ProcessWarriors. https://supertiny.agency Just a minute ago I've launched a new instalment of the SuperTINY website. It's hard to believe the first version is almost 2 years old now. So here are some highlights on this one: Powered by v3.0.84, which is delightful; Https and way more SEO conscious; Added Portuguese language; No frontend framework, all hand-made, avoiding even the slideshow plugin I normally use and trimming down libraries to the minimum; New blog, where we'll regularly (hopefully) post not so technical stuff directed at the companies the hire people like us; Modular content in the portfolio and blog articles, using the repeater + type options approach I've mentioned in other threads; Other than that, a really simple installation, with AIOM+, MarkupSEO, MarkupSitemapXML, Imagick, and that's about it. In due time I'll re-release the old version in an archive so I can later pour myself a scotch and remember the old days.

I think it's just the minification style. I already export my SVGs minified, but there's something there, like unnecessary metadata, that Google detects and immediately flags it.

Thanks for your input. @psy: your idea of downloading their version of the images and uploading those did cross my mind, but hell, are our clients supposed to go through all that trouble after we hand over the keys? @dragan: no wysiwyg field images. Only controlled rendering of image fields. <rant> In this particular case I've added a condition for displaying the analytics chunk for everyone except Google, cause it was complaining about me not caching the file that's on their server. It also complains about the font that I'm loading from Google Fonts. The inline critical CSS thing is another insanity. We're already minifying, caching and gzipping everything and STILL need to overengineer our frontends to appease the beast. So to make them happy our users will have to see fonts changing for a split second after page loads and a whole bunch of other weirdness. Then there's the 200 byte SVG that can be reduced by 20% if compressed. </rant>

Hey there brothers in arms. I'm doing some pagepeed optimizations on my site (very close to cracking open a new version of SuperTINY). And damn, this thing is complaining about almost every image I've got that comes from the CMS. I've already experimented with the default compression setting in the module, reducing the quality from the default 80 all the way down to 50, but still Google insists that they need compression. Does anyone have any tricks to handle this?

They have. And I think I left it at 5.6 My concern is because I have another site parked on the same account, and that one uses v2.5. Didn't know if jumping all the way up to v7 would risk breaking it.

Yup, my server noobness is showing. Looking at how I could disable eAccelerator, I saw that this particular account had PHP 5.4 selected. Turning eAccelerator off didn't do the trick but switching to PHP 5.5 did. Thanks for pointing in the right direction guys

A little more info, from my CPanel's error log:

Hi gang. I'm working on 3.0.84, built the site fine, tested locally and everything works. I've published it. Used the zip here, upload, extract there method. Imported the DB, tested, works. But then I went to add content on the server and when I add an image to a field that lives inside a repeater, BOOM! I can change anything, upload images in other places, everything works. But two of my templates have repeaters that allow images (different repeater fields), and both crash as soon as I try uploading to them then save the page. Going back, the field appears with the image there, so the upload was complete, but I can't save the page. Locally everything works. I've used similar repeaters with image fields in the past, in the same server even, but this installation is crashing there and I don't even know where to look. Any ideas? Thx

IMO, the padding is fine. If anything, I'd add a bit more on the page tree list items. But that may be because I'm looking at it on a 24" mac.

This is what I'd try. I've had this problem in the past, but honestly never did anything about it. The next time I see this happen, I'm going to try imagemagick. It seems that GD makes colour bands when it processes the image, which sucks. It depends on the image, if there's a smooth gradient, you'll see it.

Just tried out the latest dev version and experienced the new admin area. Damn, this is a beautiful CMS. Can't wait to see how my clients react to this.

I usually go for a modular layout. You take a repeater, and add all the fields you'll need for all types of content block: body, title, images, etc. You add another field called type, make it an options field, and get in there all the types of block you need. Text, image gallery, video... whatever. Then you customise each field's visibility to appear only when type=1, for example. That will allow the admin to freely add a chunk of text, then a gallery, then more text... No weird tags to remember, simple and straightforward. On the frontend, you make include files for each type (remember the options field) to keep it neat and tidy, foreach the repeater, and include() the correct block template file according to the value of the type field. Generate away.

Awesome! I've just read it (translated by the browser) and you make solid points. Most of these benefits I've experienced first-hand.

https://camel.com.do http://ccalfandegaporto.com/en/

There's no limit. You don't even choose languages from a list, so you can add Martian if you want to. You can also translate the CMS itself for that truly immersive Martian experience.

This is an awesome subject. I've wondered about this, honestly never needed it and don't expect to anytime soon, but it's probable to come up down the road.

From 2000 to 2015 I had a company that ran its own servers, and I can tell you that either you put yourself in the middle with clients that buy premium service and pay hundreds per month, or its just not worth the hassle. Our tech guy spent his days resetting email passwords and telling clients to check if their wifi was on. If you're taking a 5€ profit, one call is enough to burn it. For me the best deal is to talk to the hosting provider, show them how much business you're bringing them, and use that to negotiate free hosting for yourself.

Damn that hurts. Like Robin says, check your colour profile on the original image. Also, I've been handed JPEGS in CMYK instead of RGB, and 24 bit instead of 16. These are weird, I haven't seen many, but Trump got elected, Brexit won and the far-right is gaining ground in Europe so... You can also try using ImageMagick for your image processing needs instead of the default GD: https://modules.processwire.com/modules/image-sizer-engine-imagick-cli/ By the way... $featured_image->size(854,0)->url is the same as $featured_image->width(854)->url