Thinking about building an "easy" site profile

[onjegolders]

I'm currently trying to build a new profile but more for me than anyone else.

I like the idea of having certain fields, templates and modules already installed as a starting point.

Eg: a settings template with site_name, site_slogan, company_phone etc already built in.

Modules like email obfuscator, analytics alreadt built in and maybe a couple of stylesheets so a new project can be up and running much faster.

Any thoughts on what else to include?

[ryan]

Any thoughts on what else to include?

I think it just depends on the needs of the site. I'm guessing every site will have a little bit different needs. I tend to veer towards keeping no 3rd party modules installed for my starting point, and then install them as I need them. The ModulesManager might be the best candidate to have installed since it'll make installation and upgrades of any other modules a piece of cake.

[Adam Kiss]

I think the Modules Manager should be part of a core.

[Joss]

Just harking back to Ryan's earlier comment about responsiveness - I think it is a good idea to have PW responsive out of the box, at least in one version.

I know it is very easy to do oneself, but it is one of those things that can be a draw and can help pull people in.

For instance, if you had a profile version that had bootstrap front and back, an example of the Bootstrap carousel, and so on, just the fact that it had "Twitter Bootstrap" stuck all over it will tempt people to have a go.

I am just finishing my first site with ProcessWire (it will go up in a day or two once I have proof read it) and it uses Bootstrap to the full in the front end.

Joss

[OrganizedFellow]

Looking great. What do you guys think of the profile supporting mobile devices? Perhaps responsively. Also wondering if there might be value in building the profile from a framework like HTML Kickstart?

Kickstart looks like a great 'feature rich' framework.

I tried it but quickly dumped it in favor of something responsive.

I found this recently. It makes some good comparisons between Foundation[2/3], Skeleton, and Bootstrap.

http://responsive.ve...com/compare.php

[Martijn Geerts]

switchin between Skeleton & zurb. Depends on project. Love skeleton because it's tiny.

[ryan]

The blog profile uses Skeleton already. I'm going to make the basic profile responsive for version 2.3. The 2.3 default admin theme is mostly there (in terms of being responsive), and since it's so similar to the basic profile theme, I'm just going to copy the media queries over to do the same thing in the profile. Though I am thinking that the project and users might be better served by powering the basic profile from a widely known CSS framework like Bootstrap, so we will have to keep looking more into this. I'm thinking it might be good to have 3 starter profiles that do the same thing: one in HTML Kickstart, one in Skeleton and one in Zurb Foundation or Bootstrap (or both).

[onjegolders]

The blog profile uses Skeleton already. I'm going to make the basic profile responsive for version 2.3. The 2.3 default admin theme is mostly there (in terms of being responsive), and since it's so similar to the basic profile theme, I'm just going to copy the media queries over to do the same thing in the profile. Though I am thinking that the project and users might be better served by powering the basic profile from a widely known CSS framework like Bootstrap, so we will have to keep looking more into this. I'm thinking it might be good to have 3 starter profiles that do the same thing: one in HTML Kickstart, one in Skeleton and one in Zurb Foundation or Bootstrap (or both).

I think in some ways, PW needs to remain true to itself. A huge part of the joy of using is is that it's so intuitive to set things up. Something like Skeleton fits really well because it is simple and gives you a headstart. Having said that I use Bootstrap in most of my projects, so what do I know?!

I love the way PW seems to be growing every day but I just don't want to lose any of what makes it so special. Though I'm sure it won't!

[ryan]

Something like Skeleton fits really well because it is simple and gives you a headstart.

I agree, Skeleton is the most in keeping with PW style (and definitely the first one I'd implement). But I think it would be more competitive to provide different versions of the same profile each implemented in a different framework. I've found it's pretty easy to do this, as code written for one framework tends to translate pretty easily to another. I've switched from Foundation to Skeleton in a couple of instances (including the blog profile) and was surprised at how simple it was to do. That's because all these frameworks are based on similar strategies.

[antknight]

I generally use 960.gs and adapt.js. Although I do like Foundations use of

* { box-sizing: border-box }