Making PW more userfriendly

[diogo]

I feel we're running in circles...

I would give you 50 likes for that sentence if it wasn't for some passive-aggressive details in the rest of the post. I thought of just letting go, since your post seems to put a healthy stop on the discussion, but then, I don't feel like swallowing some things that I do consider unfair. I'm referring to these:

(although a lot of experienced PW users seem to disagree with this, but that is in hindsight, and many times people tend to forget or justify past struggles and efforts).

...(pseudo) coders

I felt that everyone was very honest in their comments in the thread, and most of them (me included) said that they were not coders and had to learn a lot in the way. We also welcomed you and tried to give a friendly push to become better in what you do for living, since you said you're not happy with your knowledge. In general we don't know each other personally in the forum, but we still expect that people are honest, cordial, truthful in their opinions, and I think this forum in extraordinary in that aspect. You didn't do anything wrong in giving your opinions, but in my opinion, you are wrong when being deliberately unfair.

[SiNNuT]

I feel we're running in circles... For the last time I will try to sum up my point of view. Not to keep "complaining", but to make myself clear, as I feel I get reponses that don't match what I said.

............

Should it be a CMS that even non-dev website builders coming from other CMS's can use for creating run of the mill sites without coding? Then it should have more or less ready to use regular content type thingies.

...........

Now it's a developer platform that suggest it's also a ready to use CMS, besides a platform. It's not. And that may lead to disappointment for some beginners, and also to annoyment for experienced users that see non-coding newbies enter the forums with questions and support requests that could have been prevented.

I do feel that most have a pretty good sense of where you are coming from. A lot of them just don't agree with you. Don't confuse this with misunderstanding.

"Now it's a developer platform that suggest it's also a ready to use CMS, besides a platform. It's not"

If maybe you would stop stating your opinion as a fact people would stop responding the way they do. I've seen many happy end-users without any technical knowledge use the default PW admin on a daily basis to manage content.

In the development stage of a site PW does assume some basic skills to get the most out of it, but i think this is pretty clear already, and in fact the same goes for any CMS.

The fact that you apparently are able to build sites without touching a line of code using WordPress, good for you, but this doesn't make PW a 'platform' only.

[argos]

Nope, other systems I worked with the last 12 years orso never forced me to code to use available content types. Only deviating from the default content types required coding sometimes. but most of the times plugins/modules/addons/snippets perfectly did what I wanted. The majority of my website work is frontend work, not database related coding stuff. That's why I use a CMS after all, to not be bothered with that:-)

As it turned out to be, PW is not the ready to use CMS with tons of extras for developers that I thought it was. It's a developers framework that may be used to some extent by some non-coders as well if they are willing to (learn to) use code.

That's not the same, and my only suggestion is make this difference more clear on the site. Or to do something to make it more usable for non-coders as well (without affecting the possibilities for coders). Nothing more, nothing less.

[argos]

Damn. does anyone else has problems with this forum software? I have lost a reply I was working on 4 times already today. Suddenly the screen only shows page not found type of error, and everything's gone. Going back with the browser button or reload doesn't help. Really annoying.

And also: how do you guys use quotes? When clicking the quote button nothing happens with me. No quotes are visible, just an empty field. I can enter manual quote thingies, but that doesn't have the users ID and time line, and the content of the quote itself.

OK, let's post this before it's lost too.

[diogo]

We are sabotaging your posts
 
Everyone has problems with the forum editor, I keep saying to myself that next time I will write my posts somewhere else and than paste here, but I never do it... But the quotes should work, I never had trouble with them, at least.
 
I'm even afraid to say this, but if you want you can click on the switcher on the top-left corner and write them in bbcode
The format of the quotes is:

[quote name="argos" post="73697" timestamp="1410883849"]
paste quote here
[/quote]

[totoff]

And also: how do you guys use quotes?

We all have some premade templates for this. But don't tell.

[Nico Knoll]

Sorry to interrupt but I finished another version of "GetStarted". I like it a lot more then he version before and got rid of the tooltips. Texts are copied from wikipedia and not final. What do you think?

GetStarted2.zip

Edit: fixed a minor install error.

[argos]

Now a real reply.

 

I seem to have stepped on some toes here and there. Sorry about that. I certainly don't mean to be "deliberately unfair" as Diogo says. I have the utmost respect for you non-coding guys to learn how to use PW and PHP along the way. However, it's a well known psychological phenomenon for people to justify past efforts as being neccessary. But having to learn a fair bit of coding along the way should not be a justification for possible unneeded difficulties in PW. That's what I meant. I certainly don't criticise anyone here. But I do feel PW could be more usable for non-devs, so that initial and basic stuff is indeed more low level. Leaving the coding for complex, higher level stuff. And yes, I know it's fair to say that learing low level stuff is needed before higher level stuff. So, every point of view has its merits.

 

I also appreciate all support that is given to me and other newcomers in this forum. But maybe I am unlike other newcomers who either become PW fans themselves, or are leaving without bothering any further. I try to tell my point of view in the hope that it will be of some use and PW will become more what I had expected, instead of just leaving. Maybe that's annoying to PW lovers, coming across like someone who is criitsizing PW without putting effort in it and expecting PW doing it the Argos way, instead of myself doing it the PW way I do understand that. So again: sorry for any "unfairness" you might feel from what I say or how I see it. Be assured it's not meant that way.

[totoff]

But maybe I am unlike other newcomers who either become PW fans themselves, or are leaving without bothering any further.

I suspect you are already a PW fan but would like to take the short route. That's not allowed, no. Sorry.

[diogo]

Point taken and accepted. Don't think you didn't contribute, because you did. I still don't agree with 99.9% of what you said but it did push some buttons of awareness in the PW team that will surely not be ignored. this doesn't mean things will change, but your concerns will be taken in consideration.

Now, lets get back to work!

[SiNNuT]

Point taken and accepted. Don't think you didn't contribute, because you did. I still don't agree with 99.9% of what you said but it did push some buttons of awareness in the PW team that will surely not be ignored. this doesn't mean things will change, but your concerns will be taken in consideration.

Now, lets get back to work!

+ a lot

[Peter Knight]

It strikes me that a more accurate topic of this thread could be "how to make PW more beginner friendly."

Not to make light of the OPs issue and invaluable insight but Ryan (and co) have already done an incredible job of making PW user-friendly.

Maybe thats just semantics (user-friendly Vs beginner friendly)  but I wouldn't say PW isn't user-friendly.

[Nico Knoll]

@peter:

I think that's a point we already had. Because there is somehow a misinterpretation of the word "user" in this whole topic. The user is the end customer, the person who is going to use processwire to add/edit content. And yeah processwire is user-friendly in that sense

But a user is not the person who programs the website (as long as it isn't for himself ). That's the programmer/coder/designer/whatever.

[marcus]

One aspect of this discussion, that derived from a very different meant thread of mine, is the difference in the definition of the word "developer".

For one party, this is equal to front-end, while the "other ones" are coders/programmers.

The other group defines development as both front- and backend.

So even the claim of being a "developer-friendly" system includes potential annoyance. The web development universe becomes more complex, more powerful and more amazing every day - but the words and titles do not catch up. I think one has to keep this in mind especially in discussions like this where one could easily generalize "...but a developer has to this and that".

[Peter Knight]

@peter:

I think that's a point we already had. Because there is somehow a misinterpretation of the word "user" in this whole topic. The user is the end customer, the person who is going to use processwire to add/edit content. And yeah processwire is user-friendly in that sense

But a user is not the person who programs the website (as long as it isn't for himself ). That's the programmer/coder/designer/whatever.

Ah. I was going to mention that I'd only read about 50% of the thread.

[argos]

Interesting. When I mention "user", I mean in fact the user of the platform, so the website builder. For me a developer=coder=programmer. So the user can be someone like me (good skills in HTML/CCS, decent skills in graphics and jQuery, minor skills in PHP, experience with all kind of CMS's), or a developer/coder/programmer, or someone who just installs a CMS for fun and tinkers around with it, etc. So a "user" is someone who uses the software to create a site, whatever his or her background and situation.

The person who just handles content, I would call an "end user", or "client". So the person(s) the site is built for, who hired the site creator (the "CMS user") to create it.

But I agree it's just as valid to call the end user (content admin) the "user".

Based on my experiences with other CMS's I have a feeling that end users will find the PW admin more confusing and difficult than WebsiteBaker (which has the easiest admin I know), and just as easy or confusing as Wordpress or Joomla. But I cannot make any valid statement about that since I never built a real site with PW.

But persoanlly, when I talked about usability and user friendlyness I had the sitebuilder in mind, not the end user.

[Nico Knoll]

Based on my experiences with other CMS's I have a feeling that end users will find the PW admin more confusing and difficult than WebsiteBaker (which has the easiest admin I know), and just as easy or confusing as Wordpress or Joomla. But I cannot make any valid statement about that since I never built a real site with PW.

No they don't. I did a lot of websites within the last 3 years using ProcessWire and everybody loved how simple and intuitive the backend is for them (they only see the page tree). I was never a big fan of the old admin backend. But I fell in love with the new Reno theme so me and my clients loving the backend now.

P.S.: My father's corporation website is made with WebsiteBaker and he never liked it. But he likes ProcessWire backend.

[hdesigns]

But persoanlly, when I talked about usability and user friendlyness I had the sitebuilder in mind, not the end user.

We already got that

Based on my experiences with other CMS's I have a feeling that end users will find the PW admin more confusing and difficult than WebsiteBaker (which has the easiest admin I know), and just as easy or confusing as Wordpress or Joomla. But I cannot make any valid statement about that since I never built a real site with PW.

That's a difficult one. In some way you contradict yourself in talking about your experiences but on the other hand you admit you never really built a site with PW.

For me personally I have the impression that PW is remarkably easy to understand for end users (based on real experiences). But I know this is not a valid argument as others may experienced it the other way around. So on this point we can only give our own impressions and because in the forum are mostly PW-lovers the result will not be representative...

[ryan]

Just wanted to throw in my two cents. If you come at it as a front-end developer that's a complete beginner to CMSs, then PW should be very easy to get going. It's built around working the same way that existing web technologies work… Pages map in the same way that URLs do… Template files are just plain HTML/PHP files… the API is largely the same as a front-end API (jQuery)… and so on. So if you know your basic web technologies outside of CMSs, then you won't find a simpler system than ProcessWire.  

The problem is most other CMSs don't work that way. So the line gets more blurry when you've become used to the terminology and approach of another CMS, because PW can be quite different. Sometimes you have to unlearn what you know from elsewhere in order to appreciate the simplicity of PW. People are always trying to find complexity that isn't there, especially those that grew up on other platforms. 

PW is a system that rewards you by being curious. We aim to show you how to fish so that you can catch the big fish. We're not here to catch the fish for you. You don't have to know anything about fishing, but you should know how to yell for help if you fall in the water. And you should be willing to learn by example. I learn best by example, so this is the way I tend to teach too (and I recognize not everyone learns the same way). PW is a CMS and CMF, not a website builder. If you are curious and willing to explore, you'll find it is very simple indeed. Certainly far simpler than even WordPress in creating a custom website. 

You do have to come from the point of view of "I want to create and have the system adapt to me" rather than "I will create something based on what the system provides." If you already know what you want to create and it's something unique, you won't find a simpler path to get there than PW. WordPress is a different beast, in that it's basically saying "YOU WILL CREATE A BLOG or modify this blog and call it something else." Some people like that underlying structure… "okay, we're starting with a blog, what can we do with it?" Others do not like that underlying structure. Our audience consists of those that want to have a system support their original creation rather than mash up an existing creation. 

There was a PDF posted earlier that I think hit upon some good points, and I appreciate the effort that went into putting it together. The fictional character being scripted in the dialog is not our target. I can go into specifics if anyone wants me to, but I was definitely left feeling at the end of it that we have to be careful about hand-feeding too much or else we'll start attracting people beyond our support resources. Folks that want the fish cooked and filleted rather than folks learning to fish. Perhaps in time we will want to attract more of the consumer-type audience, but currently I don't know how to support users looking to find all the answers in a sitemap file. Keep in mind that unbridled growth is not necessarily desirable. Most of us don't get paid for most of the work we do here and we do best if we grow in a more healthy manner, attracting more thoughtful designer/developers that are here to learn and also contribute. Obviously the author of the PDF is one of the thoughtful ones (and the PDF is a great contribution), even if his fictional character isn't necessarily, but we'll welcome him anyway. But we will definitely be going through the PDF in more detail to learn and improve from it where appropriate, while keeping our audience in mind. 

I think we're doing something right, because our audience is growing rapidly. I'm nearly full time on ProcessWire now, and it's still difficult to keep up with everyone. At present, I like that our audience is largely open-minded, curious and thoughtful designers and developers. Somehow we've attracted an incredible quality of people and that's what makes this place great. We could not ask for a better group of people here. I'm reluctant to lead PW towards a website builder direction because I think that's when the quality of the community could go down, as people come looking to eat fish rather than learn, catch some fish, and throw some back. 

The reality is that part of our long term goals include converting the rather large audience that has outgrown WordPress into ProcessWire users. I'm convinced that we do that by giving them more ProcessWire, and not more WordPress. But at the same time, we always have to keep an eye on WordPress and learn. They've been lucky no doubt, but they are also doing many things right. So we have been and always will be working to make the WP-side of users more comfortable in ProcessWire, while also trying to help them grow by distancing them from the limited WP mindset. 

[Nico Knoll]

Not sure if anybody else could have said that better in this objective way. <3

[diogo]

Better late than never

[ryan]

Code before talk. With 2.5.0 released Friday, and 2.5.1 dev released today, there's been a lot of code. 

[diogo]

I know I'm even surprised that you wrote such a long post. Did I ever tell you that you should keep a regular blog?

[Martijn Geerts]

I like fish... Can you cook Ryan?

[argos]

Yeah, I appreciate Ryan's feedback, as well as the others. Although I may sound a bit locked in my own vision to some people, it all actually makes me rethink me own expectations about this system, and more important: my current and future situation and livelyhood. So thanks for making me have a small existential crisis, LOL

BTW Personally I don't like Wordpress at all, so I don't hope anyone suspects me of being a Wordpress fan, heaven forbid.

 

@Nico: Did your father use the default or the Argos backend?