> Hi Cameron > > phpWebSite seems pretty basic. The user permissions are > rudimentary and the approach to site structure/categorization > does not look very intuitive - not easy to visualize a multilevel > site. It does however offer many of modules from calendar to discussions. > > In my experience producing a valid and accessible site requires > templates and rich editor: > > 1. Templates that are designed by people with knowledge of the > validation/accessibility issues and can be applied by > authors/users of the CMS but not altered. > > To make the system easy for designers creating templates it makes > sense to abstract dynamic elements into "widgets" (interface > components). This allows developers to isolate the underlying CMS > code and keep it stable, yet give designers easy, ideally tag > based component syntax to use when adding dynamic items in their > template designs. > > For example <widget:menu/> would add a dynamic menu. The widget > itself typically comprises server-side scripting and markup - so > it is validated independently. Widget presentation is changed via CSS. > > 2. Authors require a rich editor that produces compliant output > (XHTML) and enforces CSS. phpWebSite does not offer this (unless > you add an editor to it yourself) since it has a basic markup > text area with rudimentary image capability (upload one image as > far as I can tell). I think that will be the biggest problem - > invalid markup in content. > > Regards > > Johan
I did a site in it a couple of years ago and wasn't impress. Might have improved a lot since then. Neither was the client impressed with the user interface they had to use. Future of mambo looks more interesting if they have taken xMambo into their development stream. I'm going to look at working with a few Mambo templates and see how I go. Thanks to all Geoff ********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
