MadeMyDay

Not exactly. It was coincidence that the very same day the award was announced. I was invited to the show to talk about PW and one of the residents brought up an example why he is disappointed by MODX lately. I use PW since april exclusively and talk about the reasons why. Exactly. I think everyone signs that This was a question of the resident. I said you'll never know but from the general architecture point of view I doubt it will take the same road. yes, the audience of that podcast is more tech orientated, they usually talk about cutting edge web technology like recently implemented APIs from the browser vendors. The show is recorded weekly, so it is quite up to date. I didn't say that What I meant is that from the first view one is perhaps missing a "sexy" template language. But is even more sexy once you understood the API, its power and flexibility. No doubt that PW is more sexy than all the others out there! It is the most heard german web technology podcast with 500-1000 listeners every week, which is not great but also not that unimportant Thanks Christoph for the summary!

New revision of WorkingDraft ist now available (german podcast, covering ProcessWire): http://workingdraft.de/99/

My suggestion: - Pub ("real" offtopic) - Web development in general (not PW related) -- Javascript / jQuery -- PHP / MySQL -- HTML / CSS -- Web design (nice sites, best practice, tools etc.) -- other - ProcessWire in the media (not one thread for all publications but one thread each, gets overcrowded otherwise)

Today the german "Webkrauts" published an article by Michael van Laar about PW in their advent calendar: http://webkrauts.de/...012/processwire I think by tomorrow the new revision of a german podcast called "Working Draft" will be published where I talked over 20 minutes about PW. And here it is: http://workingdraft.de/99/ [everything in german, sorry]

Fixed the link, sorry. This forum software drives me nuts.

Just wrote a little about why I am here and not there http://www.mademyday...-over-modx.html // fixed URL, sorry.

He means the field management in the settings view. I totally second that

While I agree that this could be integrated in the form builder, I don't think it is very urgent because you can do that already using Javascript. But one question comes to mind: What about dynamic fields? I mean ajax-requested content? Is it already possible to "inject" fields or values? Or do you validate the fields and their contents against the settings in the builder? I think one could work around that by defining hidden fields that are filled via Ajax... well, Ryan should answer this before I speculate too much

Sorry for the excuses that are annoying after that period of time. BUT: It is not abandoned, it was rather postponed because of a lot of work, holidays and moving to a new office. I use the dashboard already in several projects, but have to clean out a lot of things before going public. Already talked to Ryan because of a potential core change I believed was necessary, but turned out it isn't. Give me at least 'til the end of september and I will release something. More or less polished, promised! (will be my first release, so I want it to be good ;-) )

Great. But we would also need a file upload possibility for portraits, screenshot of PW sites... *hint* Please tell us how we can help. Design, markup, whatever!

@Ryan: No, this is not the right format. Not with knowing what's behind the "professionality" and how to achieve it. Erm. I think a section on the main site would be great. And for the beginning just a function where developers can register (I would not automatically connect it to the forum) and list them by country (at first). And I would recommend a possibility to describe oneself in two languages if necessary. Plus the usual fields (website, address etc.).

I like that Soma. But perhaps going a bit further: professionals.processwire.com "people" is a bit hobby-like? What do natives think? @Pete: I think putting it on the official domain is more trustworthy.

Why not with a colon? Like for ProcessWire-Directory?

ProcessWire-d.com ? edit: I also think this EE-thing goes beyond what we need here. The number of entries is important, not what everyone thinks he/she is capable at. As Pete said, if there is a search engine for that tags, everyone will try to be listed in the results. At first a simple list, divided into regions is enough and can grow functionally over time.

Exactly. In my case they are already using open source software (MODX). Their main concern is more the fact that this is a pretty big project with a lot of custom work and they fear that no one else can handle it if I am not able to anymore. I think a directory like the above could reduce this fear, because it shows that there are others who know PW and understand what I have done in this project. So, okay. Let's build a directory

I am preparing a quote for a customer for a big website (actually 4 websites of a similar kind). After several years of using MODX, I want to build that site in ProcessWire (of course). The client has no problem with switching the system because he trusts in my judgement. The only thing he fears is what if I am not available anymore (accident, sudden fabulous wealth etc.). While there is a good visibility of MODX folks around even in Germany, ProcessWire is new, is young and the common customer doesn't know it. So how can we convince doubtful people about the reliability of PW, how can we - especially in the local market - form as a network of people using PW which are are able to step in if someone can't handle his project anymore? I think perhaps we could start forming local user groups, starting with countries, later perhaps even cities / regions. The goal could be a listing of people using PW with a small profile (specialized in Backend, Frontend, contact data, hourly rates etc.) so we can show our customers: "Look, these people are using PW every day. These people can step in if I am not able to manage your project." Some kind of assurance and argument against the opinion that we are using a system no one else does. Opinions?

awesome. just awesome.

This is a pretty good idea! Will think about and try it (later today). But: On the other hand, Google recognizes anchors on long sites and routes visitors directly to them (for example if someone searches for "coworking karlsruhe preise" it is likely google will route to #preise). Hmm. Let's see.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand it is also a "what to expect on this site". Especially the "prices" are interesting I think, a lot of people will click on that right away. By the way: On the mobile version I already dropped the navigation.

Well, SiNNut was the second (of a few hundreds yet) ;-) And the first one also read "Horst" because he looked on an iPhone and the logo was not readable. But honestly: I don't think someone really will blame us. And even if, he/she wouldn't be the right one for us. We are so far from being Nazis or whatsoever, it would be a ridiculous assumption ;-)

Came back from holiday, moved in a new office where we want to share the available space with others. So our little coworking project was founded and it needed a website. I started it on friday night and released it finally today (done beside the usual work). It was again a pleasure to use PW for that... http://adlerhost.net The name of the street is "eagle" which is "Adler" in german. And the eagle's nest is called "horst" usually, but we are a host, so we are the localhost in the "adler"street ... ;-) (Haven't even looked in IE, but should work, pretty basic and therefore made it more or less responsive in about half an hour)

Ralph, Which fields are empty and are you recognizing this while working with the admin pages? Your suggestions on GitHub are more cosmetic changes of existing fields, I am interested to see what in fact is missing.

Why not always returning an array? Don't know how it actually looks like but I think like this: imageField[0]['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField[0]['description'] = 'description1' imageField[1]['url'] = 'path/to/image2.jpg' imageField[1]['description'] = 'description2' and in case of a single image: imageField['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField['description'] = 'description1' right so far? Why not turn this field into an array like: imageField['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField['description'] = 'description1' imageField[0]['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField[0]['description'] = 'description1' imageField[1]['url'] = 'path/to/image2.jpg' imageField[1]['description'] = 'description2' or if only one image: imageField['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField['description'] = 'description1' imageField[0]['url'] = 'path/to/image1.jpg' imageField[0]['description'] = 'description1' so both, imageField->url and imageField->eq(0)->url will work and backwards compatibility will remain? Am I overseeing something in my lack of PHP? :-

Apeisa, you mean returning array even on single image, right?

I also recognized this effect when saving for web in Photoshop and got proven by this example from the author of retinfy.me. My only explanation is: On Retina displays you have a quadrupled amount of pixels on the same amount of space (twice in every dimension). So the effect of artefacts done by a JPG compression which usually only combines near and similar pixels is not so visibible (somehow). But areas of details where pixels show high contrast are not that much compressed, so the result on Retina is much sharper in the end. But this is only my explanation, perhaps I am totally wrong. But nevertheless, it would be nice to have an option to determine the quality for images