diogo Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Revisiting this old thread to feature Fargo. This is a really nice online outliner that can be used also as a CMS. Amazing! Edit: just to put it in context for those that don't know what a outliner is. A outliner is a software that let's you organize info (thoughts, notes, to do's, text, whatever you want) in indented lists. Great examples besides Fargo are WorkFlowy and moo.do. Of course, these don't include a CMS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwired Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 great stuff 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostKobrakai Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Edit: just to put it in context for those that don't know what a outliner is. A outliner is a software that let's you organize info (thoughts, notes, to do's, text, whatever you want) in indented lists. Great examples besides Fargo are WorkFlowy and moo.do. Of course, these don't include a CMS If you're on a Mac have a look at Tree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogo Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 If you're on a Mac have a look at Tree. I saw all of those already. It's very interesting the variety of apps that you can do based on such a simple idea. Take a look at some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliner (Moo.do is actually missing there) Feels like doing the same with the pw admin tree, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuruMeditation Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 A couple I have been messing about with lately. OctoberCMS - Laravel based, currently in beta, but looks like it has a lot of potential. Bolt - Nice lightweight CMS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre-Luc Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I myself am a static man - I love Middleman, Jekyll, Stacey & Kirby. I'd really love it if there was some crossover, something where you'd write your website, build it and then upload it having some tiny PHP router for doing tiny bits of runtime changes, like including different files based on $ajax, sending forms, etc. Been trying out Middleman recently too, but I figured if I can generate a static site with ProCache and have all the power of PW if needed, why bother (that and nobody else at work knows Ruby..), and with Middleman clients absolutely need to go through us to update. I like static sites, but I got bit by them a few times, when the client eventually decides they need something dynamic added. PW looks kind of the best of both worlds there to me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre-Luc Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 [forms] This is one thing that ProcessWire does not do out of the box. In this regard, it starts from a security over flexibility model. It maintains a strong separation between what is public/guest and what is admin. Whereas with something like Drupal, you can blur the line quite a bit. In fact, I've actually used Drupal when I needed this quickly. But ProcessWire can certainly do it all just as well, if not better, but it'll take a good deal of code to implement it and make it secure. This is something I'd like to work on personally in the near future. It might not be full-fledged for a start but I'd be interested to know what are your thoughts on implementing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganizedFellow Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 ... I admit I quite like designing forms too - getting the layout really nice and logical so the user is easily walked through the process is really satisfying ... And I enjoy long walks on the beach after removing my toe nails with pliers. lol No one likes forms Joss, gosh!!! But yes, getting a nicely formatted form to play nice on my major browsers on my favorite OSes and screen widths ... here go the toe nails again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I'm currently thinking about how to manage achieving something like craft's "Live-Preview" feature in processwire. Having this would be so awesome 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Re @Adam Kiss like of static, I think (please correct me someone if I'm wrong) that PW ProCache effectively gets you some way (a long way?) toward nice fast static content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogo Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Guys, look at the date of Adam's post. This was even before ProCache was published—not long before, but still before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 @diogo Thanks for spotting that totally missed that this thread was old, just saw it pop up on an RSS feed and assumed it was new (my bad...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 If you're on a Mac have a look at Tree. Write is also very nice http://writeapp.net/mac/ Been trying out Middleman recently too, but I figured if I can generate a static site with ProCache and have all the power of PW if needed, why bother (that and nobody else at work knows Ruby..), and with Middleman clients absolutely need to go through us to update. I like static sites, but I got bit by them a few times, when the client eventually decides they need something dynamic added. PW looks kind of the best of both worlds there to me. I feel the same. All these static site generators look so cool and easy but essentially you're relying on someone adding a Markdown file in a special format. I don't know many clients (myself included ) who would want to do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I have to say that as someone who is using a few other languages to work on a few web apps on the sideline that I haven't found any CMS that offer anywhere near the level of productivity PW offers. Take Ruby for example - it's great using Rails but a CMS using it? They are so far behind it's crazy. I guess most people who veer away from PHP are looking at building things with frameworks anyway so maybe the point is moot. In the PHP world Craft does look great but it just can't rival PW's power (not to mention its Open Sourcenessness). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 A couple I have been messing about with lately. OctoberCMS - Laravel based, currently in beta, but looks like it has a lot of potential. Bolt - Nice lightweight CMS. Bolt does look like a nice lightweight CMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rockett Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 It's quite a good system, with a lot of contributions coming in since the v2 release a little while ago. I like the clear-cut separation of developer/designer/editor. Unfortunately, it doesn't currently support nested pages, so I only use it for some small sites. That said, I do commend the team on their work, they've done quite an excellent job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Kiss Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Guys, look at the date of Adam's post. This was even before ProCache was published—not long before, but still before. Hey, I don't mind necroing my posts if it coincides with my resurfacing on the forums Been trying out Middleman recently too, but I figured if I can generate a static site with ProCache and have all the power of PW if needed, why bother (that and nobody else at work knows Ruby..), and with Middleman clients absolutely need to go through us to update. I think (please correct me someone if I'm wrong) that PW ProCache effectively gets you some way (a long way?) toward nice fast static content. I feel the same. All these static site generators look so cool and easy but essentially you're relying on someone adding a Markdown file in a special format. I don't know many clients (myself included ) who would want to do that. The thing is, you all assume it's just about the speed of the site — the "staticness" of the content. But in my case — which I admit might be far from yours — is that I often deal with tiny, even time limited websites, like website for an event. They usually have just a few, maybe five totally different pages, are active/online for limited time, and I am probably the only person interacting with it. So when you take all of that into account, having both the data and the templates in the text editor, and not having to deal with neither database nor any kind of administration immensely speeds up my workflow. When adding a 'field' is a question of one YAML line versus multiple clicks in (even well designed ProcessWire) administration, there really is no question. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre-Luc Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The thing is, you all assume it's just about the speed of the site — the "staticness" of the content. But in my case — which I admit might be far from yours — is that I often deal with tiny, even time limited websites, like website for an event. They usually have just a few, maybe five totally different pages, are active/online for limited time, and I am probably the only person interacting with it. So when you take all of that into account, having both the data and the templates in the text editor, and not having to deal with neither database nor any kind of administration immensely speeds up my workflow. When adding a 'field' is a question of one YAML line versus multiple clicks in (even well designed ProcessWire) administration, there really is no question. Yes, I think we largely differ in the workflow there. If I was still a one man shop or working with other devs, I'd probably just use it the same as you. But I am the only really experienced dev with a supporting team of integrators, and it's faster/easier to provide them pages with fields they can insert html into (we have lots of those "brochure" websites too, with all pages all different), and not have them bother with inserting all the content correctly for meta (for example) and things that might be critical in terms of features or security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Hey, I don't mind necroing my posts if it coincides with my resurfacing on the forums The thing is, you all assume it's just about the speed of the site — the "staticness" of the content. But in my case — which I admit might be far from yours — is that I often deal with tiny, even time limited websites, like website for an event. They usually have just a few, maybe five totally different pages, are active/online for limited time, and I am probably the only person interacting with it. So when you take all of that into account, having both the data and the templates in the text editor, and not having to deal with neither database nor any kind of administration immensely speeds up my workflow. When adding a 'field' is a question of one YAML line versus multiple clicks in (even well designed ProcessWire) administration, there really is no question. Hi Adam, How do you deal with contact forms and the like on these sites? External URLs or don't use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Kiss Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 How do you deal with contact forms and the like on these sites? External URLs or don't use them? I mostly use Kirby, which is a lot like ProcessWire, just smaller and flat file. I remember experimenting with outputting PHP files from Middleman during build process, but do not remember if I was successful or not. Also, some contact forms were originally requested "just because people use them", so those are discarded, if not meaningful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwired Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The thing is, you all assume it's just about the speed of the site — the "staticness" of the content. But in my case — which I admit might be far from yours — is that I often deal with tiny, even time limited websites, like website for an event. They usually have just a few, maybe five totally different pages, are active/online for limited time, and I am probably the only person interacting with it. Glad you brought that up. Many ask for a 1 to few pages website just to present their services on the net without all the fluf. Are you going to say no because you only do serious projects, afraid for your reputation ?? It can be done quick and brings cash all the same. Many times I fell back to get-simple cms. Fast until a couple of hundred pages which covers 99% of your projects. Super easy to back up and migrate. Doesn't lack anything and active forum. http://get-simple.info/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Kiss Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 @pwired, I don't understand? I do small projects. As for Get Simple, I tried to use it few times, but it actually doesn't make sense for me: in smaller projects I do not want to deal with any administration or wysiwygs, just HTML, CSS and Markdown for content. For larger projects, PW is better. Get Simple doesn't have use case in my situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Adam, do you find this a big improvement over just creating static files (html) - I guess the file extensions being removed is the main one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onjegolders Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 One thing I do like about CMS like Kirby and Bolt are the configuration files in YAML. As I haven't really used these before extensively I couldn't say if they reach a natural sort of breaking point where things get difficult but there are times with PW when I would prefer to do more work in the text editor than clickety-click. (Never thought I'd say that ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwired Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Adam, I was referring to those who don't do small projects. I must have left my writing open for different interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts