Chris, to the best of my knowledge, no. I did suggest it as a resource though.
On 2/26/07, Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
