Eric, Not to prolong this discussion on the dev list, but by any chance did the folks you hired make use of the user's mailing list to overcome their obstacles?
,Chris --- Eric Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, > Those comments were actually made by the folks that we hired. I am > not > sure why they feel that way, but I am certainly going to ask them. I > provided them with all the documentation I could get my hands on. I > don't see why they think it is so difficult. I am tempted at this > point to just have them provide me with the XHTML and CSS that they > created and tell them that I will modify the FTL templates. I think > it > might be a little too much like "real code" for them to understand > and > they should probably stick to what they are good at. > > On 2/26/07, David E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey Jonathon, it's great to get your point of view on this. > > > > That said, I'm sure you know mine is coming... ;) Don't worry I'm > not > > going to attack what you said, but rather hopefully just explain > some > > anomalies. > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > > > > Since they're talking about the UI, then they are somewhat > correct. > > > Some of the UI use Freemarker, some use form widgets. Also, > there's > > > a great deal of refactoring going on at the moment for UI (by > > > Adrian Crumm). One of the problems with CSS styles usage, just to > > > name one UI problem, is that styles don't describe the content > but > > > the UI attributes instead. > > > > The ecommerce UI is 100% FreeMarker, the form widget is not used > > because the customer facing stuff is meant to be customized in a > very > > visual way. > > > > > In general, the UI isn't as cleanly coded as it should be. > > > > This is certainly true, and probably always will be. However, for > > many it doesn't matter so much... > > > > > But then again, large variety of coding constructs in the UI are > to > > > be expected, and are less crippling than similar mess in the > > > backend modules. Developers generally place less emphasis on UI > > > than backend, since UIs are really much easier to correct in > > > comparison. > > > > The reason it is how it is now is that very few people have the > > motivation and means to improve it. Most of the web design folks > > don't really use the HTML or CSS from the base template AT ALL. > > > > A good web design company will start with a graphic design, code it > > up in HTML/CSS, and then put that HTML/CSS into the dynamic > templates > > (FTL files), replacing the dummy text from the design with dynamic > > code as needed. > > > > Two points on this: > > > > 1. there is no natural feedback cycle here to improve the open > source > > project > > 2. for projects that take this approach the current HTML and CSS > > practices in OFBiz are only an example and are mostly thrown away > for > > real world use > > > > > I don't know about $2500 pricetag for doing up the UI alone. At > > > double that price, you could have a whole new OFBiz tailored for > > > your organization (without data migration from legacy systems). > > > > Wow, where could I get that? If I could get a sub-contractor to do > > that much for that price I'd make a killing! > > > > Please do share... > > > > > > but I think doubling the price right around the time that the > > > project should > > > > be completed is not good business. > > > > > > Oh. Your developers should've fully assessed OFBiz in the early > > > stages. This tells me one of many possible things: your > contractor > > > may not be very IT-savvy, and couldn't assess OFBiz > himself/herself > > > nor afford a capital outlay to hire a team to do the assessment > > > before he/she took the project from you. > > > > This is a good point. For ecommerce stuff, another important thing > is > > to make sure they have web design and dynamic web site experience. > > > > > Lastly, we need to understand that OFBiz is open source. We > didn't > > > pay anything to use it (unless you bought the docs!) > > > > If you buy anything from anyone that's what you're buying. You are > > NEVER buying OFBiz itself. I assume you are referring to the > training > > materials from Undersun (well, now from Hotwax). If so, you are not > > buying it from "OFBiz" or any organization that owns any of OFBiz. > If > > you buy the training materials you are paying to use them, not to > use > > OFBiz, in any way imaginable. > > > > > I know, the initial knee-jerk reaction is to ask: "Why'd they > > > represent it as thus?". Call it bad or inaccurate or back-firing > > > marketing if you want, but OFBiz is a solid platform to work > with, > > > and it's free. > > > > This is a good point too Jonathon. It does make me wonder though > what > > Eric saw that represented things to be different than they are. > Eric, > > perhaps you could comment on that? Was it something on an OFBiz > site > > or in OFBiz documentation? > > > > -David > > > > > > > > >
