Usability and simplicity of adding a new document (or perceived lack of...)

MODx has Template Variables. That is great, it allows flexible input of various kinds of content. But what if I don’t want my client to be intimidated by all the standard fields of the document editing environment in MODx?

Title
Long title
Description
Document’s alias
Link Attributes
Summary (introtext)
- Auto-generation possible? I may have to look closer to find it...
Uses template
- I just want the templates tied to their respective site sections. Clients don’t know which template to choose.
Menu title
- Auto-generation possible? I may have to look closer to find it...
Menu index
- Auto-generation possible? I guess, but then I’d also like the field hidden, so only the superuser / administrator see it.

All are good to have, but not always needed. Especially when using template variables to post a podcast for example. Then there are even more fields, and some of the TVs somehow makes the standard fields obsolete for the specific content type. Or am I wrong?

Anyway, is there any way to pare down the document editing environment?

Basically I find Drupal’s CCK (earlier called FlexiNode) or Symphony’s approach great. You simply start with an empty content form, then create the fields you need, and then there is what’s needed, no more, no less.

I’m writing the above as a question, not as a rant. I hope I may just have been to blinded by the otherwise cool MODX interface, and that the above is certainly possible.

And the above is especially true when changing the subject to adding WebLinks. How come a simple link process as posting a link should be, happens in an environment that looks as complex as the document environment?

And then, there’s also the Page Settings tab. First of all, why is it called Page Settings and not Document Settings? Second, there’s even more options. Options that are great to have for ME as the administrator, but clients tend to forget when I tell them to just ignore this and that feature here and there. They just get confused.

I know I can use QuickEdit for the clients daily updates. But what if I still want to be able to hide a lot of the above functionality for semi-pro manager users?

An addition and related question: How much of the managers functionality can be implemented in the frontend / quick edit? Everything?

About the manager field, there’s a plug-in just for that my friend and it’s called Customize Manager Fields, available at this address:
http://modxcms.com/Customize-Manager-Fields-1342.html

Hope this helps you.

Also keep in mind that we have an inherited legacy which we’re slowly addressing, and which will be resolve in 097. I think you’ll like what happens there. Very valid points!

Glad work is being done towards this. Anyway, I’m tad confused about that whole rewriting MODx core...

0.9.7 will be a core rewrite? I assume I can upgrade from 0.9.6 to 0.9.7... but what about from the 0.9.x branch to the 1.0 branch? And from 1.0 MODx will become Tattoo right?

Thanks for the link to Customize Manager Fields - right on!

In fact the new core (aka MODx 1.0 / Tattoo) has been developped from the ground up (full OO), parallel to the legacy branch, for over a year. The new core is powered by xPDO, an object relational bridge...I’ll let the guys who know better explain what this is all about.

0.9.7 will be some kind of an hybrid, in fact backported code from the new core to the old branch (again I’ll let devs explain this in more detail) and will ship with xPDO (You’ll see some nice change in the manager too). This all will allow for gradual change toward the 1.0 branch, but you can bet 1.0 will still be a jump. Sure you’ll have to do some work to upgrade but I am fairly confident that the benefits will surpass the work involved... for more details well, Jason will help with that

In the meantime, Jason’s blog post, Transforming MODx: Tales of OO, MVC, and O/RM is a must read (and re-read might I add !)

097 is a total rewrite that has been in development for a long long time, but does not have the full feature set we (arbitrarily) decided would be in our 1.0 release (which really should be more like a 2.0 ... but that’s another issue entirely ).

Thanks for enlightening me on that. Had seen Jason’s blog post before. Heavy stuff.

I find it fantastic you do so much to reduce, simplify, lessify the core. I like that a lot. Way better to refine than to keep adding.

PS: Please don’t call it MODx 4.0

Quote from: raveoli at Jun 04, 2007, 08:05 PM

Thanks for enlightening me on that. Had seen Jason’s blog post before. Heavy stuff.

Mind blowing indeed... I admit the inner workings are lost on me, but the concepts are just so compelling !

Quote from: raveoli

I find it fantastic you do so much to reduce, simplify, lessify the core. I like that a lot. Way better to refine than to keep adding.

In this regard MODx will really follow the web2.0-ish "less is more" principle

Quote from: raveoli

PS: Please don’t call it MODx 4.0

LOL !

Yeah well Dean did that cause he was tired of the 1.0 jumble and turning 40, and I can say MODx 1.0 will make it before Jason does (lol). If anything, let’s loose the rev numbers and focus on philosophy and concepts around the Tattoo symbolism...

Tattoo > Yeah but where can I find a thorough walkthrough of that symbolism. The stuff I’ve seen is some semi-secret talks, with "Tattoo - make your mark" slogans slipping through

Well, you get the idea, leave the mark and do not follow the pack

Joke aside, I think things will clear up once 0.9.7 beta is out, which is not just now but not so far (june was mentionned, make it july at worst)... you shall start to see what the future hold by then (I know this talk of future things to come is getting old but it takes time to write an app from the ground up, as is the case with the new core...).

Latest nuggets by Jason