How to insert links to other pages on the same site?
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content. Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Hi Chris On 28/01/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
Depends how pretty you want the link. You can actually just copy the link and put it straight into the text editor. Alternatively if you mean links to navigate the site. I haven't worked that out myself yet! On my site at: http://cregy.net I am using blocks to create the links and manually inserting them using a href. -- Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:01:24PM +0000, Richard Brown wrote:
Hi Chris
On 28/01/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
Depends how pretty you want the link. You can actually just copy the link and put it straight into the text editor.
Yes, I know that works for external links, except that I would want it as you say 'prettier'.
Alternatively if you mean links to navigate the site. I haven't worked that out myself yet! On my site at: http://cregy.net I am using blocks to create the links and manually inserting them using a href.
Exactly! :-) Building a site one of the most important things is ease of creating links from one place to another on the site and (as you have found) there isn't an easy/obvious way to do this is Drupal. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:05 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
Exactly! :-)
Building a site one of the most important things is ease of creating links from one place to another on the site and (as you have found) there isn't an easy/obvious way to do this is Drupal.
One way is right there in core. Turn on the path module so your pages can have intuitive URLs. Create your pages giving them aliases. Add links to those pages in a menu. Activate that menu's block on your page. Done. Laura
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:36:19AM -0700, Laura Scott wrote:
On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:05 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
Exactly! :-)
Building a site one of the most important things is ease of creating links from one place to another on the site and (as you have found) there isn't an easy/obvious way to do this is Drupal.
One way is right there in core. Turn on the path module so your pages can have intuitive URLs. Create your pages giving them aliases. Add links to those pages in a menu. Activate that menu's block on your page. Done.
I don't want the links in a menu. OK, the main structure of the site is reflected in the menu but very often one wants to put a link to somewhere else on the site in the body of some text somewhere. The menus would rapidly become unmanageable if you put a lot of links in them. As I said just before the *total* separation of structure and content breaks some of the point of web pages to my mind. Simple, non navigational, links need to be embedded in the actual text, that's what HTML/web is for. I'm beginning to think that something wiki like is going to work better for us, even though we don't need the co-operative aspects of a wiki. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Quoting cl@isbd.net:
As I said just before the *total* separation of structure and content breaks some of the point of web pages to my mind. Simple, non navigational, links need to be embedded in the actual text, that's what HTML/web is for.
So you can't do <a href="foo">go to bar</a> in the page? I do it all the time. Path aliasing helps with this so that you can change node/<x> to about or what ever else. Earnie
Hi Guys On 28/01/07, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Quoting cl@isbd.net:
As I said just before the *total* separation of structure and content breaks some of the point of web pages to my mind. Simple, non navigational, links need to be embedded in the actual text, that's what HTML/web is for.
So you can't do <a href="foo">go to bar</a> in the page? I do it all the time. Path aliasing helps with this so that you can change node/<x> to about or what ever else.
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box. Drupal is an excellent and complete cms and I think a joy to use as you start to understand nodes, users, etc. but it is not simple. Wordpress however works well in its simplicity and probably does exactly what Chris wants. I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups. -- Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1
Richard Brown wrote:
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box.
This is of course great for people who want TinyMCE out of the box. WHich is a lot of people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't. Personally I can't stand TinyMCE. It gets in the way too much.
I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups.
Certainly. There will likely be a Wordpress-alike Drupal profile at some point, now that install profiles are doable. But they're still too new to be very effective. They'll get there as more people create profiles and work out the kinks in getting them available.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:06:52AM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box.
This is of course great for people who want TinyMCE out of the box. WHich is a lot of people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't. Personally I can't stand TinyMCE. It gets in the way too much.
I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups.
Certainly. There will likely be a Wordpress-alike Drupal profile at some point, now that install profiles are doable. But they're still too new to be very effective. They'll get there as more people create profiles and work out the kinks in getting them available.
I'm in a sort of 'in between' place. As regards data entry I'd be happiest using vi (or a clone), it's what I use all day and every day at work. What I was hoping for in Drupal (and similar CMS systems) was an easy way to create web page content, that doesn't *necessarily* mean a WYSIWYG editor. In Drupal when you use TinyMCE it's not remotely WYSIWYG, it's basically an 'HTML pre-processor' but what is typed in the textarea doesn't really resemble what you'll see on your web page at all. I think what I was hoping for (but doesn't seem to exist yet) is something like the report creation part of Access, or the Forms in Access. That isn't remotely WYSIWYG but it allows you to play about with the whole report/form in one window. Exponent *attempts* to be a bit like this but fails because it (like Drupal) has modules and stuff which you can't change or even get at easily when you're editing content. I know that the flavour of the moment is separating content from structure but when I'm designing a web page I want to be able to change both from somewhere near the same place. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm in a sort of 'in between' place. As regards data entry I'd be happiest using vi (or a clone), it's what I use all day and every day at work. What I was hoping for in Drupal (and similar CMS systems) was an easy way to create web page content, that doesn't *necessarily* mean a WYSIWYG editor.
In Drupal when you use TinyMCE it's not remotely WYSIWYG, it's basically an 'HTML pre-processor' but what is typed in the textarea doesn't really resemble what you'll see on your web page at all.
Personally I hate TinyMCE, so I have no defense for it. I don't use it, and I have trouble recommending it.
I think what I was hoping for (but doesn't seem to exist yet) is something like the report creation part of Access, or the Forms in Access. That isn't remotely WYSIWYG but it allows you to play about with the whole report/form in one window. Exponent *attempts* to be a bit like this but fails because it (like Drupal) has modules and stuff which you can't change or even get at easily when you're editing content.
What you ask is actually a very difficult thing to do in a browser. It can be done, and there are sites out there that do it, but it requires some *very* good javascript programmers and a lot of time and knowledge. To my knowledge there really aren't tools like this in opensource, at least not in the basic browser context. If that's what you want and/or expect, it isn't something you'll get, unfortunately. It's pretty easy to do at the OS layer when you have a lot of widgets and tools, but the browser is *very* limited it what it can present to you. Javascript can go an extra step and do a lot of it, but Javascript has browser compatability problems out the wazoo and the CSS required to place things accurately is tedious at best and outright impossible at worst.
I know that the flavour of the moment is separating content from structure but when I'm designing a web page I want to be able to change both from somewhere near the same place.
It's not really the flavour of the moment; it's the reality of the tools we have available. Believe me, if wysiwyg were easy, there'd be a lot of it. People really want it, it's a very common scenario. Heck, if you could make web page editing like Word...well you can but you get really really crappy output...and you don't do it in the browser, you do it in Word.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:02:15PM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I think what I was hoping for (but doesn't seem to exist yet) is something like the report creation part of Access, or the Forms in Access. That isn't remotely WYSIWYG but it allows you to play about with the whole report/form in one window. Exponent *attempts* to be a bit like this but fails because it (like Drupal) has modules and stuff which you can't change or even get at easily when you're editing content.
What you ask is actually a very difficult thing to do in a browser. It can be done, and there are sites out there that do it, but it requires some *very* good javascript programmers and a lot of time and knowledge. To my knowledge there really aren't tools like this in opensource, at least not in the basic browser context.
If that's what you want and/or expect, it isn't something you'll get, unfortunately. It's pretty easy to do at the OS layer when you have a lot of widgets and tools, but the browser is *very* limited it what it can present to you. Javascript can go an extra step and do a lot of it, but Javascript has browser compatability problems out the wazoo and the CSS required to place things accurately is tedious at best and outright impossible at worst.
I don't actually want/need it via the browser, I am very happy doing all the management and editing of my web site on my home machine. Some of the hosting is *also* on the home machine (personal stuff) and the rest I feel it's a good idea to test off the live site anyway. I have shell access to all my hosting too.
I know that the flavour of the moment is separating content from structure but when I'm designing a web page I want to be able to change both from somewhere near the same place.
It's not really the flavour of the moment; it's the reality of the tools we have available. Believe me, if wysiwyg were easy, there'd be a lot of it. People really want it, it's a very common scenario. Heck, if you could make web page editing like Word...well you can but you get really really crappy output...and you don't do it in the browser, you do it in Word.
But why aren't there good non-browser site management suites? Or are there some that I have missed? -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
But why aren't there good non-browser site management suites? Or are there some that I have missed?
That's a good question. I'm going to take a shot in the dark on the answers: 1) Web tools are inherently machine/OS agnostic; making non-browser tools that are machine/OS agnostic is difficult. Meaning that someone could come up with a fantastic package for say, MacOS, Windows or Linux but then there's difficulty porting the package. Though it's true that one could try to write something in Java which is much more portable. 2) The expertise to write such tools is quite different from the expertise required to write these web tools. They would need to be in a different language, to start, but really there is a huge separation between what Drupal currently uses and what something like this would require. 3) The tool would likely be complicated by the inherently interactive nature of this kind of website. The idea of a Drupal-based site is that multiple maintainers can do their thing, and that adds another layer of complexity. 4) While complexity isn't really a barrier if enough people are interested in the tool, there just isn't a huge demand for it. Most designers are ok with doing it on the Web. Yes, Drupal takes a lot of grief for its UI being 'behind the times' so to speak, and this is one area we've been addressing. But the demand for tools like this has to come from the people capable of writing them; that's the joy and sorrow of opensource. Just because people want something isn't enough; it has to be wanted by people capable of creating it.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:43:10AM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
But why aren't there good non-browser site management suites? Or are there some that I have missed?
That's a good question. I'm going to take a shot in the dark on the answers:
1) Web tools are inherently machine/OS agnostic; making non-browser tools that are machine/OS agnostic is difficult. Meaning that someone could come up with a fantastic package for say, MacOS, Windows or Linux but then there's difficulty porting the package. Though it's true that one could try to write something in Java which is much more portable.
True, but we don't seem to have a corresponding problem with other software, Firefox is avilable for several platforms. Apache is Linux only but the most widely used web server. There's absolutely no need for a site management tool to run on multiple OS's.
2) The expertise to write such tools is quite different from the expertise required to write these web tools. They would need to be in a different language, to start, but really there is a huge separation between what Drupal currently uses and what something like this would require.
.... and? There was far more expertise available in the past for writing a non-web version.
3) The tool would likely be complicated by the inherently interactive nature of this kind of website. The idea of a Drupal-based site is that multiple maintainers can do their thing, and that adds another layer of complexity.
Yes, but there are many, many applications for a non-multiple-maintainer software. It's only when you start saying 'blog', 'wiki', etc. that the need for multiple maintainers and contributors arises.
4) While complexity isn't really a barrier if enough people are interested in the tool, there just isn't a huge demand for it. Most designers are ok with doing it on the Web. Yes, Drupal takes a lot of grief for its UI being 'behind the times' so to speak, and this is one area we've been addressing. But the demand for tools like this has to come from the people capable of writing them; that's the joy and sorrow of opensource. Just because people want something isn't enough; it has to be wanted by people capable of creating it.
From what I have seen while hunting around for something that works for me I think there *is* a significant need for something like this.
-- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net schrieb:
In Drupal when you use TinyMCE it's not remotely WYSIWYG, it's basically an 'HTML pre-processor' but what is typed in the textarea doesn't really resemble what you'll see on your web page at all.
If you configure TinyMCE to use not its own but your custom stylesheet the content within the textarea should look the same as the saved result. And than you have a WYSIWYG-editor ...
cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:06:52AM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box. This is of course great for people who want TinyMCE out of the box. WHich is a lot of people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't. Personally I can't stand TinyMCE. It gets in the way too much.
I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups. Certainly. There will likely be a Wordpress-alike Drupal profile at some point, now that install profiles are doable. But they're still too new to be very effective. They'll get there as more people create profiles and work out the kinks in getting them available.
I'm in a sort of 'in between' place. As regards data entry I'd be happiest using vi (or a clone), it's what I use all day and every day at work.
Why didn't you say so? :p Use the mozex extension with Firefox. Then you can edit textfields in vi. Cheers, Gerhard, XEmacs user :p
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:12:37PM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:06:52AM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
Richard Brown wrote:
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box. This is of course great for people who want TinyMCE out of the box. WHich is a lot of people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't. Personally I can't stand TinyMCE. It gets in the way too much.
I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups. Certainly. There will likely be a Wordpress-alike Drupal profile at some point, now that install profiles are doable. But they're still too new to be very effective. They'll get there as more people create profiles and work out the kinks in getting them available.
I'm in a sort of 'in between' place. As regards data entry I'd be happiest using vi (or a clone), it's what I use all day and every day at work.
Why didn't you say so? :p
Use the mozex extension with Firefox. Then you can edit textfields in vi.
That's exactly what I do! :-) It still doesn't really address my issues with Drupal (and other browser based CMS systems). I'm beginning to realise that Drupal and others are providing something I don't want or need and that gets in the way of providing what I do need. I *don't* need:- Site management via browser/web. Dynamic HTML. I would like:- A 'visual' approach to editing everything together. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Quoting Earl Miles <merlin@logrus.com>:
I am not intending to start a flamewar by the way. I am simply stating that WP and Drupal probably have two different user groups.
Certainly. There will likely be a Wordpress-alike Drupal profile at some point, now that install profiles are doable. But they're still too new to be very effective. They'll get there as more people create profiles and work out the kinks in getting them available.
I don't know about the profiles but the themes are there plus a conversion utility to move the data from WP to Drupal. Earnie
Quoting Richard Brown <rich@cregy.co.uk>:
Hi Guys
On 28/01/07, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Quoting cl@isbd.net:
As I said just before the *total* separation of structure and content breaks some of the point of web pages to my mind. Simple, non navigational, links need to be embedded in the actual text, that's what HTML/web is for.
So you can't do <a href="foo">go to bar</a> in the page? I do it all the time. Path aliasing helps with this so that you can change node/<x> to about or what ever else.
I understand where you are coming from but look at it from the reverse side. i.e. Using Wordpress you click on a button and that brings up a url box. You insert the url required press enter. Now you are given a title box, which you enter, etc. Wordpress uses tidymce as a text editor. Obviously Chris could install tidymce but I think what he might be saying is he wants this out of the box.
Drupal is an excellent and complete cms and I think a joy to use as you start to understand nodes, users, etc. but it is not simple. Wordpress however works well in its simplicity and probably does exactly what Chris wants.
I found WordPress first and started with it. Then I found Drupal and switched because Drupal was more complete. Earnie
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:40:54PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Quoting cl@isbd.net:
As I said just before the *total* separation of structure and content breaks some of the point of web pages to my mind. Simple, non navigational, links need to be embedded in the actual text, that's what HTML/web is for.
So you can't do <a href="foo">go to bar</a> in the page? I do it all the time. Path aliasing helps with this so that you can change node/<x> to about or what ever else.
I can do the above if I play games with the content editor, but that's where it gets confusing - maybe I *don't* have to play games with the editor but I don't really know, it's not clear. The *content* entry bit is supposed to be non-html-aware user friendly, the above isn't. I've sort of dropped down the gap between the two. I can (and occasionally do) write raw HTML but I was hoping Drupal etc. would avoid the need. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
The *content* entry bit is supposed to be non-html-aware user friendly, the above isn't. I've sort of dropped down the gap between the two. I can (and occasionally do) write raw HTML but I was hoping Drupal etc. would avoid the need.
Aha, now I understand. Your assumption is incorrect. Drupal does NOT assume that the content entry bit is non-html-aware friendly. It does do some things to make it easier -- automating paragraphs and line-breaks, but it's still, fundamentally, HTML input, and you need to use HTML markup tags *or* some alternative to this. The belief that something that translates into HTML is 'fundamental' appears to be at or at least near the foundation of the problem here.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:48:40PM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
The *content* entry bit is supposed to be non-html-aware user friendly, the above isn't. I've sort of dropped down the gap between the two. I can (and occasionally do) write raw HTML but I was hoping Drupal etc. would avoid the need.
Aha, now I understand. Your assumption is incorrect. Drupal does NOT assume that the content entry bit is non-html-aware friendly. It does do some things to make it easier -- automating paragraphs and line-breaks, but it's still, fundamentally, HTML input, and you need to use HTML markup tags *or* some alternative to this.
The belief that something that translates into HTML is 'fundamental' appears to be at or at least near the foundation of the problem here.
So your saying basically that all that Drupal is doing (I realise that 'all' is a very great deal) is to separate the structure from the content and that the content is still the same as it every was. It ca be 'masked' behind something like TinyMCE but that really loses as much as it gains. OK, I can understand that but it isn't what a lot of CMS systems seem to be trying to sell me. *Lots* of them are saying that once you have set up your structure the 'designers' can relax and the non-techie members of staff can do all the data entry. What you're saying above is that the data entry is still really HTML and the non-techie users are going to have as much trouble as always (well, nearly, you have taken away the problems of creating a nice menu structure and a consistent look). -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
So your saying basically that all that Drupal is doing (I realise that 'all' is a very great deal) is to separate the structure from the content and that the content is still the same as it every was. It ca be 'masked' behind something like TinyMCE but that really loses as much as it gains.
OK, I can understand that but it isn't what a lot of CMS systems seem to be trying to sell me. *Lots* of them are saying that once you have set up your structure the 'designers' can relax and the non-techie members of staff can do all the data entry. What you're saying above is that the data entry is still really HTML and the non-techie users are going to have as much trouble as always (well, nearly, you have taken away the problems of creating a nice menu structure and a consistent look).
I wouldn't say as much trouble as always, for three reasons. 1) The 'content' generally doesn't need the positioning details that make working with web stuff hard. In general, CMS' expect the content stream to be just a stream. 2) The markup set you need for content is minimal, and if you look in the filter tips, there is some documentation to help non-techies understand what they can mark the content up with. I'm not convinced that "non-techies" can't cope with the few tags that are used, such as the <a>, <b> and <i> tags which are still very common within content. 3) A lot of the hard work is taken away. Titling is taken care of and paragraphs are dealt with. But yes, at some level there has to be, still, some kind of markup. TinyMCE can do some of this for you, if you can get it configured to work the way you like it, but things like TinyMCE are worlds away from the editors we are more familiar with. I'm not sure that CMS' are steering you wrong; I do feel you have a couple of errant assumptions about what you'll be getting, and certainly if you NEED those assumptions, you may be in the wrong place, but there may not be a right place. And on most sites, non-technical people do the data entry. But even non technical people have to learn a few technical things. Even in Word. Heck, I'm a technical person and I can't figure out Word most of the time. =)
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:18:10PM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
So your saying basically that all that Drupal is doing (I realise that 'all' is a very great deal) is to separate the structure from the content and that the content is still the same as it every was. It ca be 'masked' behind something like TinyMCE but that really loses as much as it gains.
OK, I can understand that but it isn't what a lot of CMS systems seem to be trying to sell me. *Lots* of them are saying that once you have set up your structure the 'designers' can relax and the non-techie members of staff can do all the data entry. What you're saying above is that the data entry is still really HTML and the non-techie users are going to have as much trouble as always (well, nearly, you have taken away the problems of creating a nice menu structure and a consistent look).
I wouldn't say as much trouble as always, for three reasons.
1) The 'content' generally doesn't need the positioning details that make working with web stuff hard. In general, CMS' expect the content stream to be just a stream.
Yes, I agree it is somewhat easier but I think I am arguing that the content (at least for the sorts of things I want to do) is actually *more* than a stream.
2) The markup set you need for content is minimal, and if you look in the filter tips, there is some documentation to help non-techies understand what they can mark the content up with. I'm not convinced that "non-techies" can't cope with the few tags that are used, such as the <a>, <b> and <i> tags which are still very common within content.
3) A lot of the hard work is taken away. Titling is taken care of and paragraphs are dealt with.
'Titling' is where I take issue with you, titling is part of the content. This I think is why this whole thread started with 'how do I get headings in the content?'. Someone entering content (well me anyway) *does* want control of titles and paragraph layout. It's the 'provided by the structure' headings that irritate me, OK, they're consistent but I simply don't want them! I know they can probably be removed but it's the assumption that they're provided by the structure seems strange to me.
But yes, at some level there has to be, still, some kind of markup. TinyMCE can do some of this for you, if you can get it configured to work the way you like it, but things like TinyMCE are worlds away from the editors we are more familiar with.
Yes, I know, however I use Mozilla (i.e. a previous incarnation of what is now SeaMonkey) for editing web pages at work and find it very good at what it does. That's a WYSIWYG HTML editor but it gives me a totally different feel of what I'm doing than TinyMCE does within Drupal.
I'm not sure that CMS' are steering you wrong; I do feel you have a couple of errant assumptions about what you'll be getting, and certainly if you NEED those assumptions, you may be in the wrong place, but there may not be a right place.
Quite agree, I'm not saying that Drupal is wrong, I'm saying that I don't think it's what I want. What I want is a non-browser based CMS that probably creates static HTML (I think!).
And on most sites, non-technical people do the data entry. But even non technical people have to learn a few technical things. Even in Word. Heck, I'm a technical person and I can't figure out Word most of the time. =)
I have that problem too! :-) However you may have greater insight than you think there, it's partly the similarities between Drupal (and many similar CMS) and Word that annoys and confuses me I think. It's the 'second guessing' of what I want to do and the (what feels like) its rules impopsing themselves on what I'm trying to do. It's like when Word decides to capitalise a word you don't want capitalised or turns something into a month superscript when you don't want it to. These things *can* be changed but the default is annoying/confusing. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
On 1/28/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
OK, I can understand that but it isn't what a lot of CMS systems seem to be trying to sell me. *Lots* of them are saying that once you have set up your structure the 'designers' can relax and the non-techie members of staff can do all the data entry. What you're saying above is that the data entry is still really HTML and the non-techie users are going to have as much trouble as always (well, nearly, you have taken away the problems of creating a nice menu structure and a consistent look).
How much "trouble" your "non-techie" users depends on many variables. In your case, it certainly seems that if: <a href="node/123">somewhere else</a> is beyond your users (or their ability to be trained) does mean that you're going to have to venture outside of Drupal Core. This should be expected; no one that runs a Drupal site uses Core and only Core, I daresay. Many have given fine suggestions, including one that I wrote (freelinking), which attempt to make it easier to link to other nodes. In the case of freelinking, the other nodes don't even have to exist at the time they're linked to. You should also *play with the system*. I've got lots of users that are definitely non-techie, and for the most part simple text is fine with them, once I've show them the <a> tag. For those that need more markup, and I don't want to teach them HTML, I find that Markdown works incredibly well. -- e www.eafarris.com
Quoting Laura Scott <laura@pingv.com>:
On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:05 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
Exactly! :-)
Building a site one of the most important things is ease of creating links from one place to another on the site and (as you have found) there isn't an easy/obvious way to do this is Drupal.
One way is right there in core. Turn on the path module so your pages can have intuitive URLs. Create your pages giving them aliases. Add links to those pages in a menu. Activate that menu's block on your page. Done.
And then there is the contributed module called frontpage that will allow you to adjust the home page content based on authenticated or unathenticated visitors. The point is you're trying to make a simple page looking at all the features of the CMS when you forget to look at the features that will make your project a breeze. Earnie
cl@isbd.net schrieb:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
Hi. Ähm, yes there is an "easy" way: <advertisment> I've created a module (http://drupal.org/project/linktocontent) which extends tinymce with a plugin that give you the ability to browse to your categories and insert links. Unfortunately it hasn't been ported to 5.x yet. </advertisment> If you don't want to use tinymce you can try wiki-like modules (for example: http://drupal.org/project/freelinking). hth, Stefan
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 05:04:07PM +0100, Stefan Borchert wrote:
cl@isbd.net schrieb:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
Hi. Ähm, yes there is an "easy" way: <advertisment> I've created a module (http://drupal.org/project/linktocontent) which extends tinymce with a plugin that give you the ability to browse to your categories and insert links. Unfortunately it hasn't been ported to 5.x yet. </advertisment> If you don't want to use tinymce you can try wiki-like modules (for example: http://drupal.org/project/freelinking).
You must be joking! All that hassle to do something fundamental to CMS (or at least the sort of CMS I want). I think my basic problem is that CMS isn't what I thought it was. I want to create a fairly basic/straightforward web site, no news, no blogs, no wikis, just some basic content to describe what a small business does, how to get in touch with us, etc. All of the mainline CMS systems (Drupal, Joomla, Plone, etc.) are providing a way to design and build a portal with news, blogs, forums and all sorts of things like that. They are strong in the areas of adding different sorts of modules, creating nice menus, etc., etc. but not very helpful when it comes to details of creating the actual content. I *can* write HTML if needed but what I'm looking for is something that provides me with a fairly simple (menus and other structure) framework and then makes it really easy to fill in the content. So far a wiki of some sort seems the closest to what I want except that I don't want any of the co-operative bells and whistles. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 05:04:07PM +0100, Stefan Borchert wrote:
cl@isbd.net schrieb:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
Hi. Ähm, yes there is an "easy" way: <advertisment> I've created a module (http://drupal.org/project/linktocontent) which extends tinymce with a plugin that give you the ability to browse to your categories and insert links. Unfortunately it hasn't been ported to 5.x yet. </advertisment> If you don't want to use tinymce you can try wiki-like modules (for example: http://drupal.org/project/freelinking).
You must be joking! All that hassle to do something fundamental to CMS (or at least the sort of CMS I want).
I think my basic problem is that CMS isn't what I thought it was. I want to create a fairly basic/straightforward web site, no news, no blogs, no wikis, just some basic content to describe what a small business does, how to get in touch with us, etc.
All of the mainline CMS systems (Drupal, Joomla, Plone, etc.) are providing a way to design and build a portal with news, blogs, forums and all sorts of things like that. They are strong in the areas of adding different sorts of modules, creating nice menus, etc., etc. but not very helpful when it comes to details of creating the actual content.
I *can* write HTML if needed but what I'm looking for is something that provides me with a fairly simple (menus and other structure) framework and then makes it really easy to fill in the content.
How about you write the html content in another application (even w*rd would do) and paste it into the textfield that Drupal provides? Depending on the chosen output filter, only the html elements that are allowed would be shown. I.e, <html>, <body> and what not would be in your document but not in the output. Cheers, Gerhard
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 05:20:47PM +0100, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
I think my basic problem is that CMS isn't what I thought it was. I want to create a fairly basic/straightforward web site, no news, no blogs, no wikis, just some basic content to describe what a small business does, how to get in touch with us, etc.
All of the mainline CMS systems (Drupal, Joomla, Plone, etc.) are providing a way to design and build a portal with news, blogs, forums and all sorts of things like that. They are strong in the areas of adding different sorts of modules, creating nice menus, etc., etc. but not very helpful when it comes to details of creating the actual content.
I *can* write HTML if needed but what I'm looking for is something that provides me with a fairly simple (menus and other structure) framework and then makes it really easy to fill in the content.
How about you write the html content in another application (even w*rd would do) and paste it into the textfield that Drupal provides?
Yes, it might help, but it rather begs the question doesn't it. I'm looking for a fairly simple integrated way of creating a web site and the solution to a significant part of it is a bit of a bodge. Not to mention it's a bit difficult to run Word on a Linux box! :-) It also doesn't address the issue of links within the content. I think part of the problem is that it really isn't that simple (or sensible) to separate structure and content quite so completely as Drupal does (so do others, it's what CMS 'does'). -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
It also doesn't address the issue of links within the content.
I think part of the problem is that it really isn't that simple (or sensible) to separate structure and content quite so completely as Drupal does (so do others, it's what CMS 'does').
I don't understand the issue here. Is the fundamental problem that the <a> tag is too difficult? That doesn't make sense since your basic complaint is that it is separating content and structure too much, which suggests you're having trouble getting it to embed links at all. Either way, perhaps this will help: http://drupal.org/project/pearwiki_filter
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:19:25AM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
It also doesn't address the issue of links within the content.
I think part of the problem is that it really isn't that simple (or sensible) to separate structure and content quite so completely as Drupal does (so do others, it's what CMS 'does').
I don't understand the issue here.
Is the fundamental problem that the <a> tag is too difficult? That doesn't make sense since your basic complaint is that it is separating content and structure too much, which suggests you're having trouble getting it to embed links at all.
Either way, perhaps this will help: http://drupal.org/project/pearwiki_filter
The trouble is not so much that it's particularly difficult to embed links but that what seems (to me at least) to be such a fundamental part of what the web is about has to be done with an add-on of some sort or another. ... and when you've done it you can't really see what the result looks like. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote:
The trouble is not so much that it's particularly difficult to embed links but that what seems (to me at least) to be such a fundamental part of what the web is about has to be done with an add-on of some sort or another.
I'm still confused. You don't need an add-on to use the <a> tag. Yes, you need an add-on to have some spiffy click-and-pick UI to add links into text, but you have to understand that there are a lot of use cases where we might not want a spiffy click-and-pick UI. Either that or I just don't understand what you're asking. You keep saying that "this is fundamental", but I think it's only fundamental to what you are trying to do in particular, and not necesarily fundamental to the concept in general. A lot of people will have that perspective about some particular feature or other, which is very important to what that person wants...but not necessarily what everyone wants.
... and when you've done it you can't really see what the result looks like.
Does the 'Preview' button not work for you?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:45:32PM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
The trouble is not so much that it's particularly difficult to embed links but that what seems (to me at least) to be such a fundamental part of what the web is about has to be done with an add-on of some sort or another.
I'm still confused. You don't need an add-on to use the <a> tag. Yes, you need an add-on to have some spiffy click-and-pick UI to add links into text, but you have to understand that there are a lot of use cases where we might not want a spiffy click-and-pick UI.
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
Either that or I just don't understand what you're asking. You keep saying that "this is fundamental", but I think it's only fundamental to what you are trying to do in particular, and not necesarily fundamental to the concept in general. A lot of people will have that perspective about some particular feature or other, which is very important to what that person wants...but not necessarily what everyone wants.
Entering links into the body of what you're writing is fairly fundamental to the idea of the web surely.
... and when you've done it you can't really see what the result looks like.
Does the 'Preview' button not work for you?
Probably! :-) I seem to have ended up a long way away from where I came in. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
cl@isbd.net wrote: I think there is a disconnect between these two quotes:
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
Entering links into the body of what you're writing is fairly fundamental to the idea of the web surely.
Entering links is easy...with HTML. But you want to both have HTML and not have HTML, which is to say you really want HTML lite, or something. The way Drupal's content entry system is set up, the HTML you need to know to enter content is greatly reduced, but there are a few tags you can't as easily get away from.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 02:04:13PM -0800, Earl Miles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I think there is a disconnect between these two quotes:
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
Entering links into the body of what you're writing is fairly fundamental to the idea of the web surely.
Entering links is easy...with HTML. But you want to both have HTML and not have HTML, which is to say you really want HTML lite, or something.
The way Drupal's content entry system is set up, the HTML you need to know to enter content is greatly reduced, but there are a few tags you can't as easily get away from.
Look at the way that SeaMonkey/Mozilla does it, no HTML shows up. But I think the 'how to insert a link' thing is just a symptom of what I find uncomfortable about Drupal and similar systems. I'm realising (with all the help here among other things) that Drupal isn't really aimed at what I want to do. I don't need dynamic content and I don't need browser based editing. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
On Sunday 28 January 2007 4:01 pm, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
I think a lot of this boils down to the question of what you mean by "content". If your "content" is a list of names, phone numbers, scores, or other small bits of content, then you are best served by using CCK to have lots of little fields of primitive content (plain strings, numbers, etc.). Then your uses aren't writing HTML, but get a stock layout that you define in the template. This is closest to the "Access forms" example. If you want them to be able to define "freeform blobs of text", then, quite simply, any program that claims to let you do that without HTML (either hand-written or code-generated like TinyMCE) is lying. It has to be HTML when it gets to the browser. Somewhere between the user's brain and the print statement that sends it to the browser later, it has to get converted to HTML. That can be something the user does himself or something TinyMCE (or any other markup assistance utility) does, but it has to happen somewhere. Even using something like the internal link module (which lets you specify a link to another page on the site by its path, like so: [node/5]) gets rendered down to HTML eventually. That is unavoidable, no matter what publishing system you use. If you want to format something, you need a formatting system and syntax and you need to know that system and syntax. That's the case even in word processors. Perhaps you can give a better example of what sort of content your users will be adding? That would make it easier to recommend something to you (Drupal or otherwise). -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:47:15PM -0600, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 4:01 pm, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
I think a lot of this boils down to the question of what you mean by "content".
If your "content" is a list of names, phone numbers, scores, or other small bits of content, then you are best served by using CCK to have lots of little fields of primitive content (plain strings, numbers, etc.). Then your uses aren't writing HTML, but get a stock layout that you define in the template. This is closest to the "Access forms" example.
No, it's nearest to the *result* of designing an Access form, I want to create my site with something like the forms design in Access.
If you want them to be able to define "freeform blobs of text", then, quite simply, any program that claims to let you do that without HTML (either hand-written or code-generated like TinyMCE) is lying. It has to be HTML when it gets to the browser. Somewhere between the user's brain and the print statement that sends it to the browser later, it has to get converted to HTML. That can be something the user does himself or something TinyMCE (or any other markup assistance utility) does, but it has to happen somewhere.
Yes, and I think my issues are fundamentally here. Creating the HTML in a textarea (which is fundamentally what you have to do in a browser based system) is inevitably rather feeble. I think what I'm after is a more integrated system where the HTML entry is part of a single web-site creation utility. This is *very* difficult in a browser because of the limitations of the web protocols. Take the browser/on-line requirement away and it becomes easier, what I'm after is a 'better NVU' if you like, an NVU which gives you more control over the site as a whole as well as the individual pages.
Even using something like the internal link module (which lets you specify a link to another page on the site by its path, like so: [node/5]) gets rendered down to HTML eventually. That is unavoidable, no matter what publishing system you use. If you want to format something, you need a formatting system and syntax and you need to know that system and syntax. That's the case even in word processors.
Perhaps you can give a better example of what sort of content your users will be adding? That would make it easier to recommend something to you (Drupal or otherwise).
I want to design a web site! :-) By that I mean I want a tool that will make it easy for me (and one other person probably) to create from scratch a small, static but professional looking web site. To my mind to do this I need control over all (or at least most) aspects of what the site looks like from one place. I want to be able to approach it something like as follows:- Add some blocks of text and headings to an empty page. Then do a bit of layout, e.g. change the background colour, maybe add some menus across the top or in a sidebar. Save these as site-wide defaults. Add some more text and sub-pages, tune the colours, menus, etc. as I go and as I find more thngs I need. Continue adding content and tuning the layout as the site develops. The requirement to go into totally 'other' areas of the CMS to simply change a background colour for example makes the above sort of incremental (and integrated) approach to creating a site rather difficult. Most CMS systems seem to be aimed at the situation where the creation of the site framework and structure is a sort of 'sysop' role and much of the content comes from lots of 'outsiders' (which may of course include the 'sysop' with a different hat on). This isn't where I am, there will be one, or two, or three people involved and they will all be doing a spread of tasks across the system. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Sounds like what you're looking for is a classic web publishing tool. Look at products of the Macromedia Dreamweaver ilk. Happy hunting. -----Original Message----- From: support-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:support-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of cl@isbd.net Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:23 AM To: support@drupal.org Subject: Re: [support] How to insert links to other pages on the same site? On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:47:15PM -0600, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sunday 28 January 2007 4:01 pm, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I was hoping to avoid HTML by using Drupal (or another CMS), I thought the point of the exercise was to make it easy for non-techie people to enter web content.
I think a lot of this boils down to the question of what you mean by "content".
If your "content" is a list of names, phone numbers, scores, or other small bits of content, then you are best served by using CCK to have lots of little fields of primitive content (plain strings, numbers, etc.). Then your uses aren't writing HTML, but get a stock layout that you define in the template. This is closest to the "Access forms" example.
No, it's nearest to the *result* of designing an Access form, I want to create my site with something like the forms design in Access.
If you want them to be able to define "freeform blobs of text", then, quite simply, any program that claims to let you do that without HTML (either hand-written or code-generated like TinyMCE) is lying. It has to be HTML when it gets to the browser. Somewhere between the user's brain and the print statement that sends it to the browser later, it has to get converted to HTML. That can be something the user does himself or something TinyMCE (or any other markup assistance utility) does, but it has to happen somewhere.
Yes, and I think my issues are fundamentally here. Creating the HTML in a textarea (which is fundamentally what you have to do in a browser based system) is inevitably rather feeble. I think what I'm after is a more integrated system where the HTML entry is part of a single web-site creation utility. This is *very* difficult in a browser because of the limitations of the web protocols. Take the browser/on-line requirement away and it becomes easier, what I'm after is a 'better NVU' if you like, an NVU which gives you more control over the site as a whole as well as the individual pages.
Even using something like the internal link module (which lets you specify a link to another page on the site by its path, like so: [node/5]) gets rendered down to HTML eventually. That is unavoidable, no matter what
publishing system you use. If you want to format something, you need a formatting system and syntax and you need to know that system and syntax. That's the case even in word processors.
Perhaps you can give a better example of what sort of content your users will be adding? That would make it easier to recommend something to you (Drupal or otherwise).
I want to design a web site! :-) By that I mean I want a tool that will make it easy for me (and one other person probably) to create from scratch a small, static but professional looking web site. To my mind to do this I need control over all (or at least most) aspects of what the site looks like from one place. I want to be able to approach it something like as follows:- Add some blocks of text and headings to an empty page. Then do a bit of layout, e.g. change the background colour, maybe add some menus across the top or in a sidebar. Save these as site-wide defaults. Add some more text and sub-pages, tune the colours, menus, etc. as I go and as I find more thngs I need. Continue adding content and tuning the layout as the site develops. The requirement to go into totally 'other' areas of the CMS to simply change a background colour for example makes the above sort of incremental (and integrated) approach to creating a site rather difficult. Most CMS systems seem to be aimed at the situation where the creation of the site framework and structure is a sort of 'sysop' role and much of the content comes from lots of 'outsiders' (which may of course include the 'sysop' with a different hat on). This isn't where I am, there will be one, or two, or three people involved and they will all be doing a spread of tasks across the system. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk) -- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
Would google search that topic myself, but here's the first link I came up with. http://www.thefreecountry.com/webmaster/htmleditors.shtml -----Original Message----- From: support-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:support-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of cl@isbd.net Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:29 PM To: support@drupal.org Subject: Re: [support] How to insert links to other pages on the same site? On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:20:20AM -0800, Metzler, David wrote:
Sounds like what you're looking for is a classic web publishing tool.
Look at products of the Macromedia Dreamweaver ilk.
Well, yes, maybe - but where are the free/GNU ones? -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk) -- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Metzler, David wrote:
From: support-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:support-bounces@drupal.org] On On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:20:20AM -0800, Metzler, David wrote:
Sounds like what you're looking for is a classic web publishing tool.
Look at products of the Macromedia Dreamweaver ilk.
Well, yes, maybe - but where are the free/GNU ones?
Would google search that topic myself, but here's the first link I came up with.
I had (amazingly enough!) also already done some Googling and the only 'serious' Dreamweaver-like applications for Linux seem to be:- Bluefish NVU (or the unofficial fixes in Kompozer) SeaMonkey ... but none of these is really anything more than an HTML editor. The site you've found above does seem to have some other avenues to explore though - thank you. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:50:31AM +0000, cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Metzler, David wrote:
From: support-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:support-bounces@drupal.org] On On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:20:20AM -0800, Metzler, David wrote:
Sounds like what you're looking for is a classic web publishing tool.
Look at products of the Macromedia Dreamweaver ilk.
Well, yes, maybe - but where are the free/GNU ones?
Would google search that topic myself, but here's the first link I came up with.
I had (amazingly enough!) also already done some Googling and the only 'serious' Dreamweaver-like applications for Linux seem to be:-
Bluefish NVU (or the unofficial fixes in Kompozer) SeaMonkey
... but none of these is really anything more than an HTML editor.
The site you've found above does seem to have some other avenues to explore though - thank you.
But it offers very little if anything that I don't already know about, nearly all the programs it lists (apart from Bluefish/NVU/SeaMonkey) are Windows programs. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
On Monday 29 January 2007 3:23 am, cl@isbd.net wrote:
No, it's nearest to the *result* of designing an Access form, I want to create my site with something like the forms design in Access.
*snip*
I think what I'm after is a more integrated system where the HTML entry is part of a single web-site creation utility. This is *very* difficult in a browser because of the limitations of the web protocols.
Take the browser/on-line requirement away and it becomes easier, what I'm after is a 'better NVU' if you like, an NVU which gives you more control over the site as a whole as well as the individual pages.
Perhaps you can give a better example of what sort of content your users will be adding? That would make it easier to recommend something to you (Drupal or otherwise).
I want to design a web site! :-)
By that I mean I want a tool that will make it easy for me (and one other person probably) to create from scratch a small, static but professional looking web site.
*snip*
Most CMS systems seem to be aimed at the situation where the creation of the site framework and structure is a sort of 'sysop' role and much of the content comes from lots of 'outsiders' (which may of course include the 'sysop' with a different hat on). This isn't where I am, there will be one, or two, or three people involved and they will all be doing a spread of tasks across the system.
You're right, you don't want a web-based CMS. You want Macromedia Dreamweaver. :-) I'm pretty sure with a little investigation of its feature set it would do what you want. Of course, if the site isn't that big than I don't know why NVU wouldn't be sufficient, but DW does offer things like master pages and templates, I believe. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:44:36PM -0600, Larry Garfield wrote:
Most CMS systems seem to be aimed at the situation where the creation of the site framework and structure is a sort of 'sysop' role and much of the content comes from lots of 'outsiders' (which may of course include the 'sysop' with a different hat on). This isn't where I am, there will be one, or two, or three people involved and they will all be doing a spread of tasks across the system.
You're right, you don't want a web-based CMS. You want Macromedia Dreamweaver. :-) I'm pretty sure with a little investigation of its feature set it would do what you want. Of course, if the site isn't that big than I don't know why NVU wouldn't be sufficient, but DW does offer things like master pages and templates, I believe.
Yes, I think I do, the only problem is that it doesn't run on Linux and I'm a very un-Windows person (both from an experience and from an inclination point of view). All I have found in the Linux/Unix world that are even remotely like Dreamweaver are:- NVU (and Kompozer) Bluefish SeaMonkey However a posting here has pointed me at a site with some other possibilities so I'm still looking. :-) -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Fundamentally, the Web requires links to be presented via anchor tags. Anchor tags are allowed by the default input format. If you want it to be pretty, add a class to your anchor tags and make the necessary adjustment to your style sheet. It takes only seconds to type out a typical anchor tag, and requires no hoop-jumping or additional modules. cl@isbd.net wrote:
The trouble is not so much that it's particularly difficult to embed links but that what seems (to me at least) to be such a fundamental part of what the web is about has to be done with an add-on of some sort or another.
... and when you've done it you can't really see what the result looks like.
-- Simon Swegles E-mail: simon@swegles.com AIM/YIM/MSN: sinfieldfripp ICQ: 18407898 Tel: (517) 410-5541
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:48:35PM -0500, Simon Swegles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
The trouble is not so much that it's particularly difficult to embed links but that what seems (to me at least) to be such a fundamental part of what the web is about has to be done with an add-on of some sort or another.
... and when you've done it you can't really see what the result looks like.
Fundamentally, the Web requires links to be presented via anchor tags. Anchor tags are allowed by the default input format. If you want it to be pretty, add a class to your anchor tags and make the necessary adjustment to your style sheet. It takes only seconds to type out a typical anchor tag, and requires no hoop-jumping or additional modules.
... and you want non-technical users to do this? Yes, I *know* that the 'designer' can do this and thus make it easy but to have something so ordinary need the designer to come along and edit 'techie' things seems all wrong to me. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Set up the internal link class ahead of time, and modify the help file to include an example of what the link code should look like when they add it to their text. cl@isbd.net wrote:
... and you want non-technical users to do this? Yes, I *know* that the 'designer' can do this and thus make it easy but to have something so ordinary need the designer to come along and edit 'techie' things seems all wrong to me.
-- Simon Swegles E-mail: simon@swegles.com AIM/YIM/MSN: sinfieldfripp ICQ: 18407898 Tel: (517) 410-5541
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 05:15:09PM -0500, Simon Swegles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
... and you want non-technical users to do this? Yes, I *know* that the 'designer' can do this and thus make it easy but to have something so ordinary need the designer to come along and edit 'techie' things seems all wrong to me.
Set up the internal link class ahead of time, and modify the help file to include an example of what the link code should look like when they add it to their text.
It can only be set up ahead of time if/when you know it's going to be needed. When you come to Drupal as a 'content enterer' you only find what extras you need from the more technical side as you try and do things. I think this is where I am, I'm being a 'content enterer' and finding that I need lots of extras that need me to put my 'techie' hat on and add before I can easily enter content as I want. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
Hi On 29/01/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 05:15:09PM -0500, Simon Swegles wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
... and you want non-technical users to do this? Yes, I *know* that the 'designer' can do this and thus make it easy but to have something so ordinary need the designer to come along and edit 'techie' things seems all wrong to me.
Set up the internal link class ahead of time, and modify the help file to include an example of what the link code should look like when they add it to their text.
It can only be set up ahead of time if/when you know it's going to be needed. When you come to Drupal as a 'content enterer' you only find what extras you need from the more technical side as you try and do things. I think this is where I am, I'm being a 'content enterer' and finding that I need lots of extras that need me to put my 'techie' hat on and add before I can easily enter content as I want.
I just had a thought. How easy would it be to create a module that files all pages, blogs, images and places a number next to them. Maybe 'all' would be to much. When creating the page, blog, image, etc a checkbox is displayed that if selected the item gets added to this list. Now when I next create a page, I can (instead of typing in the a href for a link or img src for a picture etc.) simply click on this list and type in something like [23]. This would then display the item associated with that number. Would that help Chris? Is it possible as a module? Linking to internal pages would be a breeze for all the. -- Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1
Quoting cl@isbd.net:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:48:35PM -0500, Simon Swegles wrote:
Fundamentally, the Web requires links to be presented via anchor tags. Anchor tags are allowed by the default input format. If you want it to be pretty, add a class to your anchor tags and make the necessary adjustment to your style sheet. It takes only seconds to type out a typical anchor tag, and requires no hoop-jumping or additional modules.
... and you want non-technical users to do this?
The ``non-technical'' user would need to be smart enough to be trained on an alternative. Why couldn't the ``non-technical'' user be trained on the <a> tag format? The ``non-technical'' can be trained on the ``technical'' things like the proper form of a link entry in the content. Earnie
use the freelinking module http://drupal.org/project/freelinking Then to create a link in the body of a node to any other node, you put [[name of other node]]. Follow the instructions in the readme and install docs. Simple as that. Victor Kane http://awebfactory.com.ar On 1/28/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
-- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk) -- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 03:13:16PM -0300, Victor Kane wrote:
Victor Kane http://awebfactory.com.ar
On 1/28/07, cl@isbd.net <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
Is there no 'easy' way to insert links into content.
Surely one wants the CMS to do some management of links, apart from anything else one wants a menu of possible internal pages to link to so one can avoid typos etc.
use the freelinking module http://drupal.org/project/freelinking Then to create a link in the body of a node to any other node, you put [[name of other node]]. Follow the instructions in the readme and install docs. Simple as that.
That sounds pretty straightforward, thanks. However I still think it should be part of the base system. -- Chris Green (chris@halon.org.uk)
participants (12)
-
cl＠isbd.net -
Earl Miles -
Earnie Boyd -
eric Farris -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Larry Garfield -
Laura Scott -
Metzler, David -
Richard Brown -
Simon Swegles -
Stefan Borchert -
Victor Kane