Hey guys RoR evangelists keep telling us that they have the #1 framework for developing webapps. OK, but show us something that works and is useful to many people out there. I could be wrong, but it doesn''t seem as if there is anything that qualifies, as yet? So I''ve got a little challenge for you: come up with a decent plugin WYSIWYG visual editor for CMS. There are several but all have faults - none do all the jobs they should, and all have bugs of some sort. This looks like the perfect job for you guys - if you can do what you say... More info here: http://www.a3webtech.com/index.php/cms-terms.html#ruby-challenge If you are genuinely interested in this, get in touch, and I''ll give you all the help I can. If you succeed, you will have an app with a large potential market in either the freeware or commercial worlds. There are, at a minimum, half a million CMS out there - and few or none have a 100% functional plugin editor. There''s a crying need for one. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 1/15/08, Chris Price <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> RoR evangelists keep telling us that they have the #1 framework for > developing webapps.Yes.> OK, but show us something that works and is useful > to many people out there. I could be wrong, but it doesn''t seem as if > there is anything that qualifies, as yet?Go have a look at Rubyforge. I''m quite sure it has "something that works and is useful to many people out there" many times over. I''m not sure how many of those packages are specifically built using Rails, but you can''t deny how many of them are being used _in_ Rails apps.> So I''ve got a little challenge for you: come up with a decent plugin > WYSIWYG visual editor for CMS. There are several but all have faultsSo rather than contribute bug fixes for faults only you seem to be aware of, you''d rather reinvent the wheel? Who is to say you or whoever takes you up on your challenge won''t run into those same "faults" ?> none do all the jobs they should,What impossible job do you need one of them to do? I know from experience TinyMCE allows you to add your own functionality, and the APi is very well documented. Every time I''ve ever installed it I found myself turning features off that I knew the client would have no use for.> and all have bugs of some sort. This > looks like the perfect job for you guys - if you can do what you say...I disagree. TinyMCE does way more than I would ever need it to do. And I''m not aware of any visible javascript errors it has. And so what if it does have an issue or two, that''s not reason enough to start over from scratch. And then why are you making this challenge to a bunch of Ruby on Rails coders? Your challenge calls for a Javascript guru, not a Ruby guru. Moreover, many of us here aren''t even Ruby gurus yet. Pointless challenge, but good luck all the same. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi Greg Thanks for the response. OK, basically I like to stir things up and get a lively discussion - you can have a boring one anytime, so why bother. Especially, I like to have a lively tech talk with someone who knows their stuff - like you. So, thanks again for coming back. Your points: Rubyforge stuff: OK, I had a look. Lots of stuff, as you say. Trouble is you can''t really tell what''s what in there, same as any forge - too confusing if you don''t know the apps. My areas are SEO/ CMS/ ecommerce, so if you know of anything in those fields that comes from Ruby, then maybe I''ve heard of it. WYSIWYG editor faults: well, the faults I had in mind are obvious feature holes, and things that just plain don''t work. So it shouldn''t be a massive task to avoid them. I''m thinking that a plugin app that weighs in at say a couple of megabytes or so isn''t going to be a lifetime''s work. And whoever does the job right will get a good rep and maybe some cash out of it. TinyMCE: I''m sorry, but I''m not impressed - it doesn''t do several things other editors do, and those it does, it''s merely OK at. It''s one of the first things Joomla implementers ditch, for example, because up against TMedit or FCKeditor it''s a poor choice (and neither of those are anywhere near perfect). Maybe you can add functionality - but why isn''t there a version out there, then, that has it? I''m not a dev, that''s why I''m asking - if I could do the job, I''d do it. We''d use TinyMCE for the lowest level of content editor, but no higher (basic news uploads maybe). For example: text - it doesn''t do full text formatting. You can''t choose your font. You can''t choose your font size (as TMedit can - often you want to go outside the CSS, for one reason or another). Images: it doesn''t do image uploads (as FCKeditor does). Unless the image is on the server, you can''t use it - so where does that leave the frontend editor? They can only write text, then - and the webmaster is going to have to load the images, which kind of kills the idea of user-edited CMS. Does it do the alt. text? - not sure if it does - but you''ve got to have that. Links: it can''t browse for content to link to (like TMedit). It''s got some neat JS popup effects - but I need simple, practical functionality, and FCKeditor is way better (but lousy with text). Best not to add yet more JS to the pages, in any case. OK, it''s good at some things, as you say, like anchors and cleaning up Word code - but we need better font controls than this has, and better image management. I appreciate the fact that there is a difference in requirements for backend and frontend editors; but the perfect editor would be able to satisfy both, with some functions disabled for frontend users. [quote] "And then why are you making this challenge to a bunch of Ruby on Rails coders?" Fair enough - I need to explain. It happened like this: a RoR dev pressured a pal hard to implement RadiantCMS for a big project with a decent traffic load (the sort of thing Plone or Drupal is normally the first choice for, if you''re talking OSS). So, I looked at Radiant, and could see that it is still a new project, and still has a way to go before it is ready for release into the big wide world (see the review on my site). I invested some time in that, and also in looking at RoR. I didn''t really want to knock it, as there are some good signs of first-class quality in the Radiant project, it''s just that it isn''t ready yet (the page code is really A1 and that''s rare, even for mature projects). So I got to thinking: what have I seen that is useful to a lot of people and built with Ruby? And I couldn''t really put my finger on anything, so I thought, what the hell, it''s supposed to be good for webapps so let''s wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite (heh heh!). A good wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the existing ones just don''t do it for me) would go a long way to convincing many people that RoR has some substance. Remember, I''m not a dev, so once we''re into coding (apart from CSS, basic PHP and stuff) you''ve lost me. You say JS would be a better proposition here? OK, I''ll take your word for it (as long as the JS doesn''t make it onto the web pages of course, that''s the last thing you want). Once again - thanks for the feedback. Chris p.s. This forum - can you only reply using a full quote? Hmm, needs a Ruby dev then... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris Price wrote:> wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite (heh heh!). A good > wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the existing ones just > don''t do it for me) would go a long way to convincing many people that > RoR has some substance. >You know, I''m not sure the RoR community is really interested in "convincing many people that RoR has some substance." We who use it know that it does. People who are sincerely interested in it will soon discover that it does. While you may have a valid point in a lack of a perfect WYSIWYG editor, I''m thinking that your challenge displays a pretty significant lack of understanding about the RoR community. That''s just my opinion, which is, of course, void of all value. Peace, Phillip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''d like to echo Philip''s point. I don''t want to convince "many people that RoR has some substance." That''s like Toyota & Nissan trying to convince GM & Ford to adapt TQM. Time... and a loss of customers (both end-user & developers) will do that just fine. ~ mel On Jan 15, 10:52 am, Phillip Koebbe <phillipkoe...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris Price wrote: > > > wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite (heh heh!). A good > > wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the existing ones just > > don''t do it for me) would go a long way to convincing many people that > > RoR has some substance. > > You know, I''m not sure the RoR community is really interested in > "convincing many people that RoR has some substance." We who use it > know that it does. People who are sincerely interested in it will > soon discover that it does. > > While you may have a valid point in a lack of a perfect WYSIWYG > editor, I''m thinking that your challenge displays a pretty > significant lack of understanding about the RoR community. > > That''s just my opinion, which is, of course, void of all value. > > Peace, > Phillip--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris Price wrote:> So, I looked at Radiant, and > could see that it is still a new project, and still has a way to go > before it is ready for release into the big wide world (see the review > on my site). I invested some time in that, and also in looking at RoR. I > didn''t really want to knock it, as there are some good signs of > first-class quality in the Radiant project, it''s just that it isn''t > ready yet (the page code is really A1 and that''s rare, even for mature > projects). >Actually Radiant works very well for us for a number of things. But, to each his own. Cheers, Mohit. 1/16/2008 | 8:56 AM. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Chris Price wrote:> So I got to thinking: what have I seen that is useful to a lot of > people and built with Ruby? And I couldn''t really put my finger on > anything, so I thought, what the hell, it''s supposed to be good for > webapps so let''s wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite > (heh heh!). A good wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the > existing ones just don''t do it for me) would go a long way to > convincing many people that RoR has some substance.> Remember, I''m not a dev, so once we''re into coding (apart from CSS, > basic PHP and stuff) you''ve lost me. You say JS would be a better > proposition here? OK, I''ll take your word for it (as long as the JS > doesn''t make it onto the web pages of course, that''s the last thing > you want).Let''s put it impolitely, then, but only for the sake of argument. If you don''t know the basics of what technologies are involved in a web-based WYSIWYG editor, you don''t understand much of the things you claim to do. Unless a "CMS implementer" is someone who nudges others into doing the hard work for him while claiming the fame and profit. Remember, I''m only winding you up to see if you bite. To get a lively discussion. Oh, please spare us. In a politer vein, I''d like to suggest that you''re in the wrong forum for your problem. Find a forum where you can hire a competent developer who can handle the tasks you have. If they''re using Rails, they most likely already know this forum and use it for discussing technical problems. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris Price wrote:> I thought, what the hell, it''s supposed to be good for webapps so > let''s > wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite (heh heh!). A good > wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the existing ones just > don''t do it for me) would go a long way to convincing many people that > RoR has some substance.So you make a living by manipulating others? Why would a client-side editor " go a long way to convincing many people that RoR has some substance"?> You say JS would be a better > proposition here? OK, I''ll take your word for it (as long as the JS > doesn''t make it onto the web pages of course, that''s the last thing > you > want).You''re saying that Javascript doesn''t belong on web pages? This is the second recent attempt at coercing this list. I suppose that''s a good indication that rails is becoming important. (If you''re wondering, the other one was no less transparent than yours.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
If people need something done, and they want to throw a challenge out there, they should just put a cash put to it... and consider it a sponsorship to the open source community instead of trying to manipulate ppl w/ hidden intentions. Open and honest intentions almost- always leave a sweeter after-taste. On Jan 15, 6:54 pm, George Bailey <listcatc...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris Price wrote: > > > I thought, what the hell, it''s supposed to be good for webapps so > > let''s > > wind up the Ruby guys a bit and see if they bite (heh heh!). A good > > wysiwyg editor (I am very pernickety I admit, the existing ones just > > don''t do it for me) would go a long way to convincing many people that > > RoR has some substance. > > So you make a living by manipulating others? > Why would a client-side editor " go a long way to convincing many > people that RoR has some substance"? > > > You say JS would be a better > > proposition here? OK, I''ll take your word for it (as long as the JS > > doesn''t make it onto the web pages of course, that''s the last thing > > you > > want). > > You''re saying that Javascript doesn''t belong on web pages? > > This is the second recent attempt at coercing this list. I suppose > that''s a good indication that rails is becoming important. > (If you''re wondering, the other one was no less transparent than yours.)--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Everybody: thanks for engaging on this, from my point of view it''s been worthwhile as I''ve learnt a couple of things. I try and learn something every day if I can, and I''ve a long way to go... My longer post in answer to the many questions here has been blocked with a spam message about a doubtful word, so right now I''m testing to see what the problem might be. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OK, a part of this long message is being blocked by the spam filter so I''ll post it in sections to see where the problem is. At least it should make it more readable, as it''s very long indeed. Firstly: my original post was sincere and my original aim is still valid: I don''t like any of the current visual editors and would rejoice to see a new one that had the best features of all, and none of the bugs. Anyway. As far as I can see, maybe the best one out there is the new Kupu editor for Plone, but it looks as though that''s only supplied for Plone. I''d like to thank you all for your tolerant response to a rather cheeky approach, and I''m sure you are bearing in mind that it resulted from some heavy evangelising by a Ruby dev in the first place. Of course, I could have thought about it all for another day or two and then decided not to post at all - in all probability. But I believe it''s best to post anyway, even if the conservative thing would be to say nothing; this way you can learn things, and in any case the Net is best used to push frontiers. I think the conservative approach is a mistake unless you''re in the banking or legal business. What I learnt: of course, I''ve made a coding error, through over-simplification and hurry. I assumed that a task connected with a webapp would require a web application framework for developing; this is wrong. The visual editor is simply a segment of that webapp, and can (perhaps should) be coded in a different way - with anything from Delphi to JS no doubt. Secondly, what a tolerant and polite bunch of guys you lot are. No doubt the use of (probable) real names on this forum helps! On a JS forum I''d have been slagged off rotten. I think I''ll come back here then... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Right, here are the individual replies. The spam-block problem must be in here somewhere. I''ve had to break up words and put in asterisks. Here are some of the individual replies (and what a lot there are): @pko* ebbe Yes, you are correct in both your points. On the second one, as I pointed out, I made an evaluation error in the required code* base. @melvin* ram No doubt you are right. More power to you, things seem to be going well. Big problem with this spam filter - I can''t get most of these replies to go through. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
And the next lot: @Mohit OK, I believe you. But the ultimate aim of open-source CMS developers is probably to get their application out there and being used by a very large number of people, correct? I''m a technical author and a usability spec ial ist, and I can tell you strongly that from both perspectives they are going about it the wrong way. To take just one example: firstly you have to get people to install your product. Therefore you have to do two things: make it easy for them to do so; and tell them how easy it is, in simple steps. The Radiant project doesn''t do either, and from the outside, it looks a mess. It looks as though it would be impossible for anyone other than a host''s tech support, and he would have to compile it, on the server. This may or may not be the case, but it''s how it comes over. There are any number of mistakes here, just from the point of view of getting the CMS out there and used by many people. Of course, if that''s not what they want, it doesn''t matter. It seems a shame, since, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are signs of excellent quality in that project - the generated web page code for instance is superb. And if you think that''s easy to achieve, you''d be completely wrong. More to come. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
And the last one. I found what the spam block problem was, it''s the word after ''usability'' in the last post, and is getting blocked as a 6-letter synonym starting with C for a male enhancement medicine. Oh well. @Michael Schuerig Point 1: you''re dead right, I''m afraid! I try and get others to do the work as it''s so much easier... But as regards CMS, I mainly do that for fun, it''s not a living for me. So fun is the name of the game. I''m not in it for the money so I can''t invest, more''s the pity. Point 2: another forum - a Ruby dev pushed so I pushed back. As you say, the coding question is probably not perfectly relevant. @George Bailey 1: I never said I make a living at it, I''m an enthusiast - like many of yourselves as far as Ruby goes, no doubt. CMS for me is basically an interest, so I''m not exploiting anyone. Sometimes it pays, sometimes it doesn''t. That doesn''t mean I''m any less passionate about fixing problems, though. I hate the third-rate in anything, especially if I''m forced to use it. And as regards Ruby, you still have a public relations image issue - many know what Python does, but who can say precisely what has been achieved with RoR? If you don''t understand this, then pick an Internet-savvy computer user and ask them; I''d bet they couldn''t give you one example. Understandable, of course, as RoR is so young; but don''t be telling me that everyone knows what it does and respects it because that''s not the case. 2: as regards JS on web pages: I''m one of a very large number of people who think that times have changed and the less JS the better. I certainly don''t expect coders to agree on this point as many of them are pushing for exactly the opposite. The web changes drastically about every 18 months (my theory), and it''s a different place now to what it was three years ago. JavaScript is the nearest thing to compiled code, in the text-based code world (as far as I can see - and you know I''m not a coder!). That means that to many of us it is undecipherable. Search engines hate and despise it for that reason, and because it is used to attack them so often; also of course the fact that it is now the main tool of online miscreants of various persuasions. The more transparent web coding is, the better, as far as I am concerned; and it''s also a major accessibility issue, which I expect you dislike any mention of because that is always hard for coders to get their heads around. When I mention JS disparagingly, I can assure you that my intentions are absolutely genuine - a genuine desire to get rid of it. My definition of a skilled web page coder is one who can accomplish a tricky job without using too much JS (or none if possible). How did we get into this, anyway? I''m not sure what you mean by coercing, I just do fun posts or serious posts, I wouldn''t want to be coerced myself so I don''t do it to others. Read it, laugh at it, or ignore it. @melvinram Not sure what you mean. I''m basically an amateur in the CMS world, I do it for fun and sometimes get paid, though not nearly as much as the job is worth. I''d love to be able to sponsor the OSS community, it''s one of the best and most valuable things we have. Why did anyone assume I am a rich professional? As a personal assessment, 90% of CMS implementers are not full-time pros. How can they be when the vast majority of installed CMS is OSS and implemented by friends, family and part-timers. The only rich people I personally know are people associated with Broadvision and Vignette (in which case they aren''t likely to be messing around with an OSS plugin), and developers. Some developers earn $2,000 a day (that''s the rate in London for a top guy). So if you want to find someone with money, find a coder (which is about as realistic a statement as ''all CMS implementers are rich'', I suppose!) My original post was genuine and you can take it or leave it, I don''t care - we''re all only in this for fun and knowledge. If you get paid as well, that''s great, but I usually don''t. Well, that''s it for this tranche. Sorry about this messing about, splitting my return post up, but it was very frustrating trying to find out which word was causing the filter problem, in the middle of 1,000 or more. And I suggest that if you look closely at my true profession, you''ll see that if I was ''true to type'' as some of you have suggested, I''d be loading up these posts with links. Think about that. Love, Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Chris Price wrote:> > And as regards Ruby, you still have a public relations > image issue - many know what Python does, but who can say precisely > what > has been achieved with RoR? If you don''t understand this, then pick an > Internet-savvy computer user and ask them; I''d bet they couldn''t give > you one example. Understandable, of course, as RoR is so young; but > don''t be telling me that everyone knows what it does and respects it > because that''s not the case.Chris, I don''t see how a WYSIWYG editor would solve this "problem." I''m not trying to be mean-spirited here, but the things that you''ve written don''t really quite make sense. It''s almost like Cargo-Cult posting. The words and the terms are all there but they don''t quite fit together. Rails is a server-side technology. Your editor would run on the browser, and yet you suggest it could be written in "Delphi." My browser doesn''t run Delphi. Does yours? It seems that your understanding of how a WYSIWYG editor works is that the user clicks on Bold and Underline and the computer figures out the rest. You say "times have changed" and "the less Javascript the better." That is about the opposite of reality. Javascript is more widely used than ever before, and growing. The words you wrote sounds much more like the sentiment of several years ago, as if you''re echoing them. You don''t like it because it''s "indecipherable" and that it is "used to attack search engines." wtf? You say you''re not a coder and yet you "spent some time" evaluating Rails. What did you look at? Did you try building a sample application? If not, what was your evaluation process? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
George, thanks for taking the time to reply on this, but I really don''t agree with any of your points at all (in the second part of your post). Because of that I shan''t reply as that would not improve the situation. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris Price wrote:> And the next lot: > > @Mohit > OK, I believe you. But the ultimate aim of open-source CMS developers is > probably to get their application out there and being used by a very > large number of people, correct? I''m a technical author and a usability > spec ial ist, and I can tell you strongly that from both perspectives > they are going about it the wrong way. To take just one example: firstly > you have to get people to install your product. Therefore you have to do > two things: make it easy for them to do so; and tell them how easy it > is, in simple steps. > > The Radiant project doesn''t do either, and from the outside, it looks a > mess. It looks as though it would be impossible for anyone other than a > host''s tech support, and he would have to compile it, on the server. >I''m bordering on being unsure of what your pitch/ background is. Radiant is written in Rails. Rails is written in Ruby. Other than Ruby, nothing is compiled. Radiant is installed quite simply by copying a bunch of files to the server - like ANY other Rails application. Unless you''re looking at the wrong Radiant project, there''s nothing in it that seems to agree with what you say. As for a simple step-by-step guide, how are these: * http://dev.radiantcms.org/radiant/wiki/Installation and after you have got that done: * http://notepad.onghu.com/2007/5/26/hello-world-using-radiant-cms> This may or may not be the case, but it''s how it comes over.I''m sure the guys over at the Radiant site would be happy to know why that''s the way it comes across. The documentation is in a wiki and can be edited by anyone who feels that it could be represented better. If you can help point out what is wrong and what conveys the wrong impression, I''d be happy to log on to the wiki and fix it.> There are > any number of mistakes here, just from the point of view of getting the > CMS out there and used by many people.What mistakes? You certainly seem to feel you know a lot, so help us understand what the problem is. There''s a TinyMCE plugin for Radiant (though I don''t like to use WYSIWIG for a CMS but again, to each his own) and there''s also a WYMEditor plugin for it (if I remember correctly). * More about the pretty WYMEditor here - http://www.wymeditor.org/en/> Of course, if that''s not what > they want, it doesn''t matter. It seems a shame, since, as I mentioned > elsewhere, there are signs of excellent quality in that project - the > generated web page code for instance is superb. And if you think that''s > easy to achieve, you''d be completely wrong.I don''t think it''s easy to achieve and have a lot of respect for the project. There are other reasons why Radiant is not the best out-of-box CMS, but from what I see, that''s not what is bothering you. Best regards Mohit. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Chris Price wrote:> George, thanks for taking the time to reply on this, but I really > don''t agree with any of your points at all (in the second part of > your post). > > Because of that I shan''t reply as that would not improve the > situation.That you don''t agree doesn''t make his points any less true. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Doodlekit uses rails and the X Standard WYSIWYG browser plugin. http://doodlekit.com/home http://xstandard.com/en/ So.... where is the problem exactly? You can use things like TinyMCE pretty easily, and if your really feeling adventurous there are some other editors that do work with rails. I, however, agree with some of the other people in this post. Using a markup filter IMO is preferable over a WYSIWYG editor because really most people don''t need to bother with WYSIWYG editors. Its really more than most people need. You can accomplish the exact same things with using say a textile filter, without worring about which browsers work with your WYSIWYG editor. If they are doing anything more complicated than that then they either are writing the HTML by hand or getting someone that knows how to for them. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
@Mohit Sorry for my absence, I got dragged away to work. Documentation: I''m not sure if you''re aware of this but two facts are pertinent here: 1: Engineers cannot communicate. This is a universal truth, always has been, and will never change. They need interpreters. 2: Open-source documentation is famous the world over for being absolutely, utterly terrible. This is related to point 1. Software authors usually write the docs for OSS projects, but you can see they are not a good choice for this task. These facts are part of the reason why commercial enterprises are so very reluctant to take on OSS for business software use. They are fully prepared to pay more for software that is not as good, when it is commercially backed - ie with good documentation, training, training support, and technical support. Unless you know of specific circumstances why the Radiant project would not align with these axioms, even though it may be painful to do so, you should assume that the previous statements apply. So, starting from the beginning - an application user manual needs to start correctly. This is done by stating who the document is for, then linking to other locations in the same space, for docs for other types of users. Let''s say this is the Installation doc, for implementing and commissioning personnel - we state this first. Then we state what the software is, then what broad class it is, then any sub-category it may belong to; then how it can be used, with any immediately relevant pros or cons; then what machinery it will work on and what it won''t; how it can and can''t be installed; what are the required pre-requisites if any; any major advantages or disadvantages to the approach this application takes. So you start with a very firm idea of exactly what you are looking at, and you don''t get any nasty surprises later when you find it won''t install on your Sun Solaris/ Unix/ Oracle. Radiant doesn''t do this. For instance, then, you could say (but with much expansion): RadiantCMS is a website content management system [that tells us what it is and also the class - not an Intranet or documentation content mechanism] that can be used as a [delete as appropriate] provider-consumer CMS community/ news CMS portal CMS. It can be installed: remotely via FTP and HTTP remotely or on the local machine on the local machine only It requires a server that is enabled for: etc etc ------------------------------- ....and this is just the first page. Not sure if you get the picture but before you even start do anything or touch anything, everything possible should be defined - so there are *no questions whatsoever*. This is the start of the user-centric approach, which is so different to either the feature-centric approach or the vague ramble approach. Best not carry on I think, enough''s enough. If you seriously think I could help further, I would be very glad to help - honestly. You need two people to write a manual - one who knows the equipment, and one who can get that knowledge on paper in a way that others can comprehend. OSS projects don''t seem to appreciate this; the one way that never works (and never has, in any field of engineering) is to get the technicians themselves to author it. As regards the links you gave: the first is the project wiki, which accords fully with my earlier statements; the second is an attempt at a ''guide to the guide'', which should not be necessary. If a guide itself needs a guide, there is something wrong. Isn''t this obvious? A couple of other points in your post I didn''t answer, this is enough for now I think. Once again, if what I say makes any sense to you - then I will help further. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
@Michael> That you don''t agree doesn''t make his points any less true. > > MichaelWe are of diametrically-opposed opinions so there is no point in arguing - surely? In any case this is not the right venue. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
@mr_shine
Those links are interesting. Some nice gfx on all those Doodlekit sites,
an excellent look to all of them. Is that a hosted solution? No, I see
not, from the portfolio sites. Perhaps they should put some technical
info in there somewhere for people who might be looking for that (server
requirement etc - if it runs on anyone''s server, say so?).
X-standard looks good and I hope they get a wider audience. I downloaded
and tried the lite version, and it has some nice features: in
particular, the code view is the best I''ve seen on a plugin editor -
very good indeed.
I''d like to see a screenshot of the upgrade pro model,
couldn''t find one
- if you want to upgrade how do you know what you''re getting? There
were
some install issues both on Firefox and the CMS, that they could
profitably document, to ease the install. It needs an extra CSS file as
well, I think, an editor_content.css file to control the background
colour in edit view. Would have to be added to the master xml file list.
Here''s the typical code for that:
body {
margin :0;
padding :0;
text-align : left;
background : #fff;
background-image : none;
}
And believe me, that was fun, contributing some code on a coder''s
forum.
But I guess you guys wouldn''t even call that code :)
Chris
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris Price wrote:> 1: Engineers cannot communicate. This is a universal truth, always has > been, and will never change. They need interpreters. >...and they would be glad to have that.> Unless you know of specific circumstances why the Radiant project would > not align with these axioms, even though it may be painful to do so, you > should assume that the previous statements apply. >For one, I have actually seen, read and followed the documentation on the Radiant CMS website. Let''s not forget that a web-enabled CMS running on Rails (or .net or J2EE or PHP, etc.) is not an end-user tool. It is not a download and run like, say, a media player. It''s meant for a technical audience to set up and pass to their clients - the clients should see what they see when they log in. So, while I can try to see what you are saying, the issues are slightly different when talking engineer-to-engineer and engineer-to-client.> So, starting from the beginning - an application user manual needs to > start correctly. This is done by stating who the document is for, then > linking to other locations in the same space, for docs for other types > of users. >Same point as above.> Let''s say this is the Installation doc, for implementing and > commissioning personnel - we state this first. > > Then we state what the software is, then what broad class it is, then > any sub-category it may belong to; then how it can be used, with any > immediately relevant pros or cons; then what machinery it will work on > and what it won''t; how it can and can''t be installed; what are the > required pre-requisites if any; any major advantages or disadvantages to > the approach this application takes. So you start with a very firm idea > of exactly what you are looking at, and you don''t get any nasty > surprises later when you find it won''t install on your Sun Solaris/ > Unix/ Oracle. Radiant doesn''t do this. > > For instance, then, you could say (but with much expansion): > RadiantCMS is a website content management system [that tells us what it > is and also the class - not an Intranet or documentation content > mechanism] that can be used as a [delete as appropriate] > provider-consumer CMS > community/ news CMS > portal CMS. > > It can be installed: > remotely via FTP and HTTP > remotely or on the local machine > on the local machine only > > It requires a server that is enabled for: > etc > etc > ------------------------------- > > ....and this is just the first page. Not sure if you get the picture but > before you even start do anything or touch anything, everything possible > should be defined - so there are *no questions whatsoever*. >I agree (up to a point) and there''s a plan with regards to Radiant in that direction. http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant-docs/2007-December/000034.html> Best not carry on I think, enough''s enough. If you seriously think I > could help further, I would be very glad to help - honestly. You need > two people to write a manual - one who knows the equipment, and one who > can get that knowledge on paper in a way that others can comprehend. OSS > projects don''t seem to appreciate this; the one way that never works > (and never has, in any field of engineering) is to get the technicians > themselves to author it. >Well, it can''t be helped. For some reason (and this is a sweeping generalization), perhaps enough professional document writers are not getting involved with open source projects. I''m sure if you got in touch with _any_ OSS project and told them that you are a professional technical writer and would like to write documents for them, they''d welcome you with open arms and a beer. But, on the other hand, it''s silly to say - OSS projects are doomed because they can''t write documents. They are doing more than enough writing the code so that the option exists. It''s nice of them to even write some documents... ideally someone else should play that role.> As regards the links you gave: the first is the project wiki, which > accords fully with my earlier statements; the second is an attempt at a > ''guide to the guide'', which should not be necessary. If a guide itself > needs a guide, there is something wrong. Isn''t this obvious? >The second is *not* a guide to a guide. It is Step 2. It refers to the ''guide'' for installation - and adds something new. Tells you how you could create a project and get moving in detail. Together, the 2 documents help get you started. Again, the second link does something about the problem - if it''s felt that there was something missing in the original docs, an attempt is being made to address it. That''s better than shouting doom from atop an email client.> A couple of other points in your post I didn''t answer, this is enough > for now I think. Once again, if what I say makes any sense to you - then > I will help further. >I find your attitude a bit dismissive, but I''ll overlook that assuming that you know more than me (which is still TBD). Best Regards Mohit. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 1/17/08, Chris Price <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Documentation: I''m not sure if you''re aware of this but two facts are > pertinent here: > > 1: Engineers cannot communicate. This is a universal truth, always has > been, and will never change. They need interpreters.Of course engineers can communicate. The people who work to route traffic around the internet as their daily job are very capable people from my experience. I find it quite insulting, if only on their behalf, that you would propose such an utterly false statement.> 2: Open-source documentation is famous the world over for being > absolutely, utterly terrible. This is related to point 1.I find most open source documentation to be adequate. Some is of course better than some others, but that''s true with all documentation, open or proprietary. I''ve not found it difficult to maintain a 12 year developer career using open source technology almost exclusively. So your premise, at least for myself, is false. I''m sure others would agree.> Software authors usually write the docs for OSS projects, but you can > see they are not a good choice for this task. > > These factsThese are not facts, they are your own flawed opinions. Flawed mostly due to your own apparent lack of experience with what you choose to discuss.> are part of the reason why commercial enterprises are so > very reluctant to take on OSS for business software use. They are fullyCommercial enterprise (software) is scared of what it cannot control.> prepared to pay more for software that is not as good, when it is > commercially backed - ie with good documentation, training, training > support, and technical support.If open source does not suite you then leave it alone. No one is holding a gun to your head. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Mohit Sindhwani wrote:> Chris Price wrote:> For one, I have actually seen, read and followed the documentation on > the Radiant CMS website.Fine. But would you not admit it could be improved? An example: page 1 might mention for instance: 1. What servers the app will/ will not run on. 2. What databases, ditto Isn''t this important for a CMS? I don''t think info like this is presented logically enough by most document sets, and that''s basically what I''m whingeing about here.> > Let''s not forget that a web-enabled CMS running on Rails (or .net or > J2EE or PHP, etc.) is not an end-user tool. It is not a download and > run like, say, a media player. It''s meant for a technical audience to > set up and pass to their clients - the clients should see what they see > when they log in. So, while I can try to see what you are saying, the > issues are slightly different when talking engineer-to-engineer and > engineer-to-client. >Fair enough, I take your point. However, I would argue on this, 2 points: 1. I believe a CMS has two classes of user, and the owner and his staff have a right to be called the end user. The other party, the visitor, is a non-involved form of user who does not fully qualify for the term end-user since they might only be present for 8 seconds once in their lifetime. The true end-user, the CMS tech staff, work with it every day. Another term is needed for visitors, but I don''t think end-user is appropriate. 2. Of course you are right when you point out the difference. But I believe that OSS usually makes the fundamental error that engineers need very little help, and if they ask for it they must be deficient. I cannot agree here. Take the case of a radio engineer opening up a transmitter to repair it - he needs all the help he can get. The ''end-user'' might possibly be interpreted as the remote listener (and this parallels the previous item) - but which of the two needs the tech assistance? The listener or the engineer?>> So, starting from the beginning - an application user manual needs to >> start correctly. This is done by stating who the document is for, then >> linking to other locations in the same space, for docs for other types >> of users. >> > > Same point as above. > >> surprises later when you find it won''t install on your Sun Solaris/ >> It can be installed: >> before you even start do anything or touch anything, everything possible >> should be defined - so there are *no questions whatsoever*. >> > I agree (up to a point) and there''s a plan with regards to Radiant in > that direction. > http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant-docs/2007-December/000034.html >This is interesting. I see that you are doing what you can. So there is perhaps a little room for improvement? Delete that last bit - of course there is, even with mature projects. I should not criticise more, as you are clearly trying to sort it out.>> Best not carry on I think, enough''s enough. If you seriously think I >> could help further, I would be very glad to help - honestly. You need >> two people to write a manual - one who knows the equipment, and one who >> can get that knowledge on paper in a way that others can comprehend. OSS >> projects don''t seem to appreciate this; the one way that never works >> (and never has, in any field of engineering) is to get the technicians >> themselves to author it. >> > > Well, it can''t be helped. For some reason (and this is a sweeping > generalization), perhaps enough professional document writers are not > getting involved with open source projects. I''m sure if you got in > touch with _any_ OSS project and told them that you are a professional > technical writer and would like to write documents for them, they''d > welcome you with open arms and a beer. >I thoroughly believe you are right, there aren''t enough tech authors assisting. I did try to help a project once, but they turned it down, and I got the feeling it was kind of a clique - if you weren''t in, they didn''t want to know. No problem for me, I have enough to do.> But, on the other hand, it''s silly to say - OSS projects are doomed > because they can''t write documents. They are doing more than enough > writing the code so that the option exists. It''s nice of them to even > write some documents... ideally someone else should play that role. >I guess you''re right, the application is the important thing. Anything else is a plus.>> As regards the links you gave: the first is the project wiki, which >> accords fully with my earlier statements; the second is an attempt at a >> ''guide to the guide'', which should not be necessary. If a guide itself >> needs a guide, there is something wrong. Isn''t this obvious? >> > > The second is *not* a guide to a guide. It is Step 2. It refers to the > ''guide'' for installation - and adds something new. Tells you how you > could create a project and get moving in detail. Together, the 2 > documents help get you started. > > Again, the second link does something about the problem - if it''s felt > that there was something missing in the original docs, an attempt is > being made to address it. That''s better than shouting doom from atop an > email client.Whoa, you''re a bit prickly on this one! Fair enough, it''s not a guide to the guide - but I still don''t think it should exist (in a perfect world of course, and we''re a long way from that). At any rate, I don''t think there should be major holes in the main manual, like connecting to databases and stuff.> >> A couple of other points in your post I didn''t answer, this is enough >> for now I think. Once again, if what I say makes any sense to you - then >> I will help further. >> > I find your attitude a bit dismissive, but I''ll overlook that assuming > that you know more than me (which is still TBD).Well, if you think that, it''s come out wrong. My attitude is certainly critical, as to argue a point you must often criticise. But dismissive? I''m trying to engage, and spending some time on it. I don''t think that qualifies. Trouble is, criticism is painful - and most of us think we don''t need it. If I say something can be improved, and offer some help, does that make me dismissive? Up to you I guess - I must be putting it the wrong way or something. I don''t claim to know any more about anything than anyone else, I simply have an opinion and am usually prepared to back it up - otherwise what''s the point. I''m happy to try and prove any statement I make, though over a beer is best. I think you could progress those docs by starting with a bunch of definitions, of what you can and can''t do with the app, and where it can or can''t be installed. To me that just seems logical, but I guess everyone thinks differently. I''m a usability guy, and if something isn''t really straightforward it niggles me I suppose. A big problem for me is that developers know everything about the way applications work, and just assume everyone else will be OK. That winds me up. Good luck anyway. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Greg Your points: Greg Donald wrote:> On 1/17/08, Chris Price <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Documentation: I''m not sure if you''re aware of this but two facts are >> pertinent here: >> >> 1: Engineers cannot communicate. This is a universal truth, always has >> been, and will never change. They need interpreters. > > Of course engineers can communicate. The people who work to route > traffic around the internet as their daily job are very capable people > from my experience. I find it quite insulting, if only on their > behalf, that you would propose such an utterly false statement. >Greg, I need to tell you that I am an old engineer - very old. I''ve worked in many branches of engineering (was going to say nearly all, but that would be crazy). I''ve seen it all. Haven''t done it all yet though. I found that I spent an increasing amount of time writing stuff, and went with it. I can understand if you are a young man, and have never heard this statement before - but believe me, it applies almost generally and of course it is normally only spoken behind technicians'' backs. Naturally there are exceptions but that''s true of anything - I''m a techie who writes (or thinks he can) so there you go. But I''m not insulting myself or other engineers by repeating this truism, because you''ll find it''s correct more often than not. So what - you think people can do everything?>> 2: Open-source documentation is famous the world over for being >> absolutely, utterly terrible. This is related to point 1. > > I find most open source documentation to be adequate. Some is of > course better than some others, but that''s true with all > documentation, open or proprietary. I''ve not found it difficult to > maintain a 12 year developer career using open source technology > almost exclusively. So your premise, at least for myself, is false. > I''m sure others would agree. >I works for you, fine. I''d suggest that might be because you are a talented dev and understand it all without your hand being held. That doesn''t apply to me or many others. If you make a living in the OSS/ commercial-user world, that''s terrific. A lot of us would like to do the same, and perhaps only partially succeed there at present. I believe this market will expand, though - and it particularly suits the technically gifted such as yourself, no doubt.>> Software authors usually write the docs for OSS projects, but you can >> see they are not a good choice for this task. >> >> These facts > > These are not facts, they are your own flawed opinions. Flawed mostly > due to your own apparent lack of experience with what you choose to > discuss. >Well, OK, you don''t agree. But I''m an old guy and I''ve been around, so I can say with confidence that tech staff are best at doing what they do, and others better at filling in the gaps; but there are exceptions to every rule. Above all, it is not insulting to say that people are generally good at doing what they do, and frequently poor to bad at other tasks. Why would you assume that an engineer is going to be brilliant at at some other task vaguely related in some way to his products? Most enterprises find they need spec iali sts for doing the work, spe cia lists to write the user and training manuals, and speci alis ts to market the results. Developers originate everything in this field - but to think they are capable of doing an expert job on every aspect of the project or its use in the field is a flawed concept. They are clever people, but everyone has to spec ialise now. There may indeed be people who can do two or three others'' jobs well, but they are not a majority.>> are part of the reason why commercial enterprises are so >> very reluctant to take on OSS for business software use. They are fully > > Commercial enterprise (software) is scared of what it cannot control. >Yes, no doubt.>> prepared to pay more for software that is not as good, when it is >> commercially backed - ie with good documentation, training, training >> support, and technical support. > > If open source does not suite you then leave it alone. No one is > holding a gun to your head. >OK, agreed. But what I am saying is that it is often a first-class product, why not present it and market it better. Please, let''s agree to disagree. I believe that devs do a good job but need help presenting their work to a wider audience. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris, Even though you really got a lively discussion, I think your request doesn''t fit this community very well. Rails is absolutely awesome, but it is a tool for developers to get what they want easily, well-done and having fun. It is not a panacea for the web projects of commercial enterprises. That''s Microsoft! Cheers, Sazima On Jan 18, 11:21 am, Chris Price <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Greg > > Your points: > > Greg Donald wrote: > > On 1/17/08, Chris Price <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Documentation: I''m not sure if you''re aware of this but two facts are > >> pertinent here: > > >> 1: Engineers cannot communicate. This is a universal truth, always has > >> been, and will never change. They need interpreters. > > > Of course engineers can communicate. The people who work to route > > traffic around the internet as their daily job are very capable people > > from my experience. I find it quite insulting, if only on their > > behalf, that you would propose such an utterly false statement. > > Greg, I need to tell you that I am an old engineer - very old. I''ve > worked in many branches of engineering (was going to say nearly all, but > that would be crazy). I''ve seen it all. Haven''t done it all yet though. > I found that I spent an increasing amount of time writing stuff, and > went with it. > > I can understand if you are a young man, and have never heard this > statement before - but believe me, it applies almost generally and of > course it is normally only spoken behind technicians'' backs. Naturally > there are exceptions but that''s true of anything - I''m a techie who > writes (or thinks he can) so there you go. But I''m not insulting myself > or other engineers by repeating this truism, because you''ll find it''s > correct more often than not. So what - you think people can do > everything? > > >> 2: Open-source documentation is famous the world over for being > >> absolutely, utterly terrible. This is related to point 1. > > > I find most open source documentation to be adequate. Some is of > > course better than some others, but that''s true with all > > documentation, open or proprietary. I''ve not found it difficult to > > maintain a 12 year developer career using open source technology > > almost exclusively. So your premise, at least for myself, is false. > > I''m sure others would agree. > > I works for you, fine. I''d suggest that might be because you are a > talented dev and understand it all without your hand being held. That > doesn''t apply to me or many others. > > If you make a living in the OSS/ commercial-user world, that''s terrific. > A lot of us would like to do the same, and perhaps only partially > succeed there at present. I believe this market will expand, though - > and it particularly suits the technically gifted such as yourself, no > doubt. > > >> Software authors usually write the docs for OSS projects, but you can > >> see they are not a good choice for this task. > > >> These facts > > > These are not facts, they are your own flawed opinions. Flawed mostly > > due to your own apparent lack of experience with what you choose to > > discuss. > > Well, OK, you don''t agree. But I''m an old guy and I''ve been around, so I > can say with confidence that tech staff are best at doing what they do, > and others better at filling in the gaps; but there are exceptions to > every rule. Above all, it is not insulting to say that people are > generally good at doing what they do, and frequently poor to bad at > other tasks. Why would you assume that an engineer is going to be > brilliant at at some other task vaguely related in some way to his > products? > > Most enterprises find they need spec iali sts for doing the work, > spe cia lists to write the user and training manuals, and speci alis ts > to > market the results. Developers originate everything in this field - but > to think they are capable of doing an expert job on every aspect of the > project or its use in the field is a flawed concept. They are clever > people, but everyone has to spec ialise now. There may indeed be people > who can do two or three others'' jobs well, but they are not a majority. > > >> are part of the reason why commercial enterprises are so > >> very reluctant to take on OSS for business software use. They are fully > > > Commercial enterprise (software) is scared of what it cannot control. > > Yes, no doubt. > > >> prepared to pay more for software that is not as good, when it is > >> commercially backed - ie with good documentation, training, training > >> support, and technical support. > > > If open source does not suite you then leave it alone. No one is > > holding a gun to your head. > > OK, agreed. But what I am saying is that it is often a first-class > product, why not present it and market it better. > > Please, let''s agree to disagree. I believe that devs do a good job but > need help presenting their work to a wider audience. > > Chris > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Sazima Yeah, it''s been fun! Bit of a mistake on my part, though, coming here and talking about code... Still, I make at least one mistake a day, and this was one I guess. I''m not a coder and really don''t appreciate a lot of the issues, of course. When you get older, it''s easier to admit your abilities are limited. Normally I''ve got a smile on my face and I''m always willing to help anyone - but that doesn''t transmit well I suppose. Anyway. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Mohit Sindhwani wrote:> understand what the problem is. There''s a TinyMCE plugin for Radiant > (though I don''t like to use WYSIWIG for a CMS but again, to each his > own) and there''s also a WYMEditor plugin for it (if I rememberMohit, Where can I find that TinyMCE plugin for Radiant? I''m working on a project where I need non-technical types to edit page content while I''m working on other aspects of the project. If I can put together a WYSIWIG editor allowing them to add/modify content, the project will speed up. With Regards, Cody Skidmore -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Cody Skidmore wrote:> Mohit, > > Where can I find that TinyMCE plugin for Radiant? I''m working on a > project where I need non-technical types to edit page content while I''m > working on other aspects of the project. > > If I can put together a WYSIWIG editor allowing them to add/modify > content, the project will speed up. > > With Regards, > > Cody Skidmore >Hi Cody, There are 2 WYSIWIG and 1 WYSIWYM Text Editor plugins for Radiant: * WYSIWYG Text Editor (TinyMCE) (archive, docs) A WYSIWYG editor based on the TinyMCE editor * WYSIWYG Text Editor (FCKeditor) (home, packages, svn) A WYSIWYG editor based on the FCKeditor * WYSIWYM Text Editor (WYMeditor) (home, svn) Adds WYMeditor as a text filter. Requires the shards extension The page to start with is: http://wiki.radiantcms.org/Thirdparty_Extensions Hope this helps. Cheers, Mohit. 1/18/2008 | 11:16 PM. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Mohit Sindhwani wrote:> Hope this helps.It does. Thank you Sir! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Chris, You''re doing a lot of whining and not enough contribution. Do something about the problems you preceive or relax and stop wasting breath (or bits) in this case. And if you think you don''t want to contribute and that rails is unacceptable in it''s current form... use php or java or .net or whatever floats your boat Thanks for stopping by. ~ mel On Jan 18, 4:51 am, Chris Price <rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Mohit Sindhwani wrote: > > Chris Price wrote: > > For one, I have actually seen, read and followed the documentation on > > the Radiant CMS website. > > Fine. But would you not admit it could be improved? An example: page 1 > might mention for instance: > 1. What servers the app will/ will not run on. > 2. What databases, ditto > > Isn''t this important for a CMS? I don''t think info like this is > presented logically enough by most document sets, and that''s basically > what I''m whingeing about here. > > > Let''s not forget that a web-enabled CMS running on Rails (or .net or > > J2EE or PHP, etc.) is not an end-user tool. It is not a download and > > run like, say, a media player. It''s meant for a technical audience to > > set up and pass to their clients - the clients should see what they see > > when they log in. So, while I can try to see what you are saying, the > > issues are slightly different when talking engineer-to-engineer and > > engineer-to-client. > > Fair enough, I take your point. However, I would argue on this, 2 > points: > 1. I believe a CMS has two classes of user, and the owner and his staff > have a right to be called the end user. The other party, the visitor, is > a non-involved form of user who does not fully qualify for the term > end-user since they might only be present for 8 seconds once in their > lifetime. The true end-user, the CMS tech staff, work with it every day. > Another term is needed for visitors, but I don''t think end-user is > appropriate. > 2. Of course you are right when you point out the difference. But I > believe that OSS usually makes the fundamental error that engineers need > very little help, and if they ask for it they must be deficient. I > cannot agree here. Take the case of a radio engineer opening up a > transmitter to repair it - he needs all the help he can get. The > ''end-user'' might possibly be interpreted as the remote listener (and > this parallels the previous item) - but which of the two needs the tech > assistance? The listener or the engineer? > > > > >> So, starting from the beginning - an application user manual needs to > >> start correctly. This is done by stating who the document is for, then > >> linking to other locations in the same space, for docs for other types > >> of users. > > > Same point as above. > > >> surprises later when you find it won''t install on your Sun Solaris/ > >> It can be installed: > >> before you even start do anything or touch anything, everything possible > >> should be defined - so there are *no questions whatsoever*. > > > I agree (up to a point) and there''s a plan with regards to Radiant in > > that direction. > >http://lists.radiantcms.org/pipermail/radiant-docs/2007-December/0000... > > This is interesting. I see that you are doing what you can. So there is > perhaps a little room for improvement? Delete that last bit - of course > there is, even with mature projects. I should not criticise more, as you > are clearly trying to sort it out. > > > > >> Best not carry on I think, enough''s enough. If you seriously think I > >> could help further, I would be very glad to help - honestly. You need > >> two people to write a manual - one who knows the equipment, and one who > >> can get that knowledge on paper in a way that others can comprehend. OSS > >> projects don''t seem to appreciate this; the one way that never works > >> (and never has, in any field of engineering) is to get the technicians > >> themselves to author it. > > > Well, it can''t be helped. For some reason (and this is a sweeping > > generalization), perhaps enough professional document writers are not > > getting involved with open source projects. I''m sure if you got in > > touch with _any_ OSS project and told them that you are a professional > > technical writer and would like to write documents for them, they''d > > welcome you with open arms and a beer. > > I thoroughly believe you are right, there aren''t enough tech authors > assisting. I did try to help a project once, but they turned it down, > and I got the feeling it was kind of a clique - if you weren''t in, they > didn''t want to know. No problem for me, I have enough to do. > > > But, on the other hand, it''s silly to say - OSS projects are doomed > > because they can''t write documents. They are doing more than enough > > writing the code so that the option exists. It''s nice of them to even > > write some documents... ideally someone else should play that role. > > I guess you''re right, the application is the important thing. Anything > else is a plus. > > >> As regards the links you gave: the first is the project wiki, which > >> accords fully with my earlier statements; the second is an attempt at a > >> ''guide to the guide'', which should not be necessary. If a guide itself > >> needs a guide, there is something wrong. Isn''t this obvious? > > > The second is *not* a guide to a guide. It is Step 2. It refers to the > > ''guide'' for installation - and adds something new. Tells you how you > > could create a project and get moving in detail. Together, the 2 > > documents help get you started. > > > Again, the second link does something about the problem - if it''s felt > > that there was something missing in the original docs, an attempt is > > being made to address it. That''s better than shouting doom from atop an > > email client. > > Whoa, you''re a bit prickly on this one! Fair enough, it''s not a guide to > the guide - but I still don''t think it should exist (in a perfect world > of course, and we''re a long way from that). At any rate, I don''t think > there should be major holes in the main manual, like connecting to > databases and stuff. > > > > >> A couple of other points in your post I didn''t answer, this is enough > >> for now I think. Once again, if what I say makes any sense to you - then > >> I will help further. > > > I find your attitude a bit dismissive, but I''ll overlook that assuming > > that you know more than me (which is still TBD). > > Well, if you think that, it''s come out wrong. My attitude is certainly > critical, as to argue a point you must often criticise. But dismissive? > I''m trying to engage, and spending some time on it. I don''t think that > qualifies. > > Trouble is, criticism is painful - and most of us think we don''t need > it. If I say something can be improved, and offer some help, does that > make me dismissive? Up to you I guess - I must be putting it the wrong > way or something. > > I don''t claim to know any more about anything than anyone else, I simply > have an opinion and am usually prepared to back it up - otherwise what''s > the point. I''m happy to try and prove any statement I make, though over > a beer is best. > > I think you could progress those docs by starting with a bunch of > definitions, of what you can and can''t do with the app, and where it can > or can''t be installed. To me that just seems logical, but I guess > everyone thinks differently. I''m a usability guy, and if something isn''t > really straightforward it niggles me I suppose. A big problem for me is > that developers know everything about the way applications work, and > just assume everyone else will be OK. That winds me up. > > Good luck anyway. > > Chris > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Melvin Ram wrote:> Chris, > > You''re doing a lot of whining and not enough contribution. Do > something about the problems you preceive or relax and stop wasting > breath (or bits) in this case. > > And if you think you don''t want to contribute and that rails is > unacceptable in it''s current form... use php or java or .net or > whatever floats your boat > > Thanks for stopping by.Understood. I stopped by for a chat and I''ve had my money''s worth :) My offer to Mohit is open if he is interested, maybe you didn''t see that. As regards code and its relative merits - I''m not a coder and don''t know enough to get involved with that argument. I have to deal with the end results in my work, though, and have strong opinions on that side of it. Am looking forward to more RoR coming along, to see how that works out in my space. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---