Clients vs. Users

gaekwad · 2015-07-02 14:14:32

Bloke wrote #292466:

Because you’ll be able to attach custom fields to Sections. And Categories.

I had no idea this was on the cards, and it makes me very happy.

makss · 2015-07-02 16:42:27

GugUser wrote #292476:

As an example a simple website, but where are a total of 34 custom fields used in various sections for the standardized data entry and the later output according to schema.org.

If custom fields are not used in the select, they can be combined into one field. I use custom fields of type mediumtext and serialize/unserialize, which can pack/unpack large multidimensional array. This can all be implemented using a plugin. I do not see any reason to overload the core Textpattern.

Complex forms for data entry, I would not like to store the article table, and would use a separate table and a separate interface(inside txp admin using plugin) for input/editing.

GugUser · 2015-07-02 19:14:51

If I understand you correctly, then you criticize my use of the custom fields. Why? What do you mean with “I do not see any reason to overload”?

My example shows a easy way for the normal user to insert names, addresses etc. Or how else would you be able to output something like this (it’s only one example):

<article class="address organization" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization">
	<h2 itemprop="legalName">legalName</h2>
	<p itemprop="contactType">contactType</p>
	<p itemprop="agent">Name</p>
	<div itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress">
		<p itemprop="streetAddress">Street</p>
		<p><span itemprop="postalCode">postalCode</span> <span itemprop="addressLocality">Locality</span></p>
		<p itemprop="addressCountry">Country</p>
	</div>
	<dl>
		<dt>Phone:</dt>
		<dd><a href="tel:+41phnoenumber"><span itemprop="telephone">Phnoe number/span></a></dd>
		<dt>E-Mail:</dt>
		<dd itemprop="email"><a href="email</a>
		</dd>
	</dl>
</article>

I like this way to do that with the use of custom fields.

Bloke · 2015-07-03 06:56:06

makss wrote #292508:

would use a separate table and a separate interface(inside txp admin using plugin) for input/editing.

That’s the approach I’m taking. Dedicated tables for each data type, with a new panel to manage the fields.

GugUser · 2015-07-03 20:23:52

Maybe I have to add that in my example, thanks to bot_write_tab_customize, only the custom fields are visible that are needed in each section.

towndock · 2015-07-07 11:42:32

hcgtv wrote #292465:

Textpattern has two audiences, the web developer and the end user.

Those two audiences are often both represented in a single site. Example: I create (the web developer) a site for a real estate company. Once I hand over the site, they are the end user. It needs to be simple enough for a secretary or (gasp) a real estate broker to enter new content. The easier and more intuitive it is, the happier they are. And my phone rings less (I’m happier).

The combination of lots of custom fields and bot_write_customize is key to making this happen. It can make the user interface so much more pleasant to use.

hcgtv · 2015-07-07 14:11:51

towndock wrote #292733:

The combination of lots of custom fields and bot_write_customize is key to making this happen. It can make the user interface so much more pleasant to use.

Sway me with examples ;)

mrdale · 2015-07-07 17:00:46

hcgtv wrote #292761:

Sway me with examples ;)

I run tons of wine sites with eCommerce on TXP. I rely heavily on Custom Fields and bot_wtc. Being able to reorder custom fields and run jquery on the write screen adapts the hard coded “article” content type to provide quasi custom content types. So articles can now easily be products, locations, people, etc, etc. with their own context driven custom fields.

Being able to customize the write screen means that a “person” doesn’t have to have a “price” or “square feet” and a “product” doesn’t have to have “professional qualifications”.

I’m not sure why we have to keep considering TXP as a simple blogging platform, when many many people for years have been stretching it to other great purposes.

We don’t lose any simplicity and leanness in TXP by shoring up it’s content handling capabilities. It just makes sense to do so.

hcgtv · 2015-07-07 18:34:27

mrdale wrote #292771:

I’m not sure why we have to keep considering TXP as a simple blogging platform, when many many people for years have been stretching it to other great purposes.

I’ve always said that with Textpattern, you can make most any site.

My discussion centers around the fact that most core devs, now and in the past, are/were web developers. They use(d) Textpattern in a business setting, where I and many other Textpattern users utilize the core code to put up personal sites.

Business Textpattern users have different needs than I do. Take the case of Themes, I’m happy with just being able to import and export them without encountering core clashes. Yet there were many posts in the Themes discussion threads that centered around being able to use version control on the Pages, Forms and Styles.

Bear in mind that I don’t dislike developers, I myself have been a computer programmer for many/many/istoppedcounting years. But anytime I’ve coded a system for someone, I didn’t use it much, other than to check it for errors and that it met the client’s needs.

We need end users Dale, or else you run the risk of losing your beloved TXP tags :)

mrdale · 2015-07-07 21:08:30

hcgtv wrote #292783:

We need end users Dale, or else you run the risk of losing your beloved TXP tags :)

Ah, I gotcha. people who build small sites from scratch ala Wordpress, Squarespace, Wix, etc…

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#13 2015-07-02 14:14:32

Re: Clients vs. Users

Bloke wrote #292466:

#14 2015-07-02 16:42:27

Re: Clients vs. Users

GugUser wrote #292476:

#15 2015-07-02 19:14:51

Re: Clients vs. Users

#16 2015-07-03 06:56:06

Re: Clients vs. Users

makss wrote #292508:

#17 2015-07-03 20:23:52

Re: Clients vs. Users

#18 2015-07-07 11:42:32

Re: Clients vs. Users

hcgtv wrote #292465:

#19 2015-07-07 14:11:51

Re: Clients vs. Users

towndock wrote #292733:

#20 2015-07-07 17:00:46

Re: Clients vs. Users

hcgtv wrote #292761:

#21 2015-07-07 18:34:27

Re: Clients vs. Users

mrdale wrote #292771:

#22 2015-07-07 21:08:30

Re: Clients vs. Users

hcgtv wrote #292783:

Board footer