ModX site won't validate Strict

Quote from: AMDbuilder at Mar 11, 2008, 10:01 AM

Seeing as how you need to login to manager to use quick edit what’s the point in keeping it? Sure you can be browsing your site as you edit it, but I have found that just keeping the site open in a tab and refreshing the page once I save changes works just as well.

I normally remove quickedit after I do an install for this reason, that and less is more right?

AMDbuilder

Because I block manager access to the client so they are directly redirected to the pages they need to edit. This is for clients who are only familiar with Microsoft packages and through this method I can restrict them from causing unneccessary harm or being inundated with options they don’t need.

For my personal sites I always use the manager

You do know you can limit the users access to different aspects of modx using roles and give each client a manager login? Granted they can still change some of the page settings (or I didn’t lock it down as much as I could). I’m still playing around with giving clients access so I would be interested in your reasoning for quickedit only access.

AMDbuilder

Quote from: AMDbuilder at Mar 11, 2008, 11:13 AM

You do know you can limit the users access to different aspects of modx using roles and give each client a manager login? Granted they can still change some of the page settings (or I didn’t lock it down as much as I could). I’m still playing around with giving clients access so I would be interested in your reasoning for quickedit only access.

AMDbuilder

Quickedit only access is easy to use for clients, with little explanation. The manager isn’t.

Quote from: thehen at Mar 11, 2008, 09:41 AM

This does still show when not logged into the manager, else the W3C wouldn’t invalidate it.

Do you know why this is?

Susan pointed out the reason at the end of her post:
Quote from: sottwell at Mar 11, 2008, 08:38 AM

Make sure you clear the cache last thing before you log out, though, or they’ll still be in the cached document.

Quote from: smashingred at Mar 10, 2008, 10:41 AM

Personally, I tend to exert professional expertise on this. The reason most people still use target="_blank" is because they are still under the mistaken notion that you should not open external links in the same window because they will lose users.

I would argue that the decision should have been whether to include the link at all. It was a tactic of business owners who posted content that noone cared about. If the user doesn’t move closer to solving their problem at each step they will leave no matter what form the links take. If the content was indeed what they were looking for they will come back. If you walk into a store and you don’t find what you are looking for you go elsewhere no matter what else they have going on.

The fact of the matter is that if you send a visitor through to their goal they will be happy. If on your site they don’t find a solution they won’t buy anyway so what does it matter if they stay on the main page or not. The idea of the website should be to convert the right visitors into customers, customers into friends and friends into referrers. For those who are not the right visitors they can go wherever they want and leave whenever they want.

Many people who open links in new windows--especially users who browse at full screen in IE--often don’t notice the new window opening and then become frustrated when the back button doesn’t work and then close the browser windows thinking they did something wrong or that the site is somehow broken. (There are numerous studies from as early as the mid 90’s and as late as around 2003 to reinforce this user data.)

I have on occasion used unobtrusive JS to handle this and if users have JS off they will just get a normal link but I will not use target="_blank" if a client is asking for it, I will ask why, educate or eliminate.

Cheers,

Jay

thanks alot for this; I find this very useful!

[Now off to rid the world of dropdown menus masquerading bad IA as a feature that all sites should have.] Grin

Do you recommend that not using drop-down menus is using best practice for site usability?

Quote from: miamisurf at Apr 07, 2008, 01:47 AM

thanks alot for this; I find this very useful!

You’re welcome. I am glad.

[Now off to rid the world of dropdown menus masquerading bad IA as a feature that all sites should have.] Grin

Quote from: miamisurf at Apr 07, 2008, 01:47 AM

Do you recommend that not using drop-down menus is using best practice for site usability?

If you really read it, yes. Too many beginner designers get into doing dropdowns because they don’t know how to lead people to information, better yet they don’t know how to organize information, eliminate and more. Sometimes dropdowns are fine but often they are a result of one of two things: 1) Designer thinks that because they can they should. 2) They have all these pages and every page seems as though it should go in the main nav.

This is a big pet peeve of mine with the MODx default template as well as the wayfinder examples. The seem to suggest (though I know this to be untrue) that designers should do dropdowns.

Someone needs to look at the content and then decide where it belongs in the site (if at all) and seldom do so many pages need to be accessible from the main nav. If an item MUST be accessible from the main nav it should be in it instead of something else. Lose the Contact link to the footer or some other.

Navigation should lead users to the desired outcome for the site and the user and not be a dartboard of hope where they hover and click like someone who has had a few too many drinks at the pub. Fewer choices means faster decision making and faster decision making leads to choosing to buy/convert etc.

Dropdowns often impede the user from finding what they seek. One other reason so many people use dropdowns is that they design the site template before organizing the content and not the reverse which is the correct way to do it.

Cheers,

Jay

Whoa, awesome! You should have your own school of online marketing

Much of this is a combination of Seth Godin, John Jantsch, Jay Conrad Levinson, Steve Krug and a little me. I read marketing books and blogs all the time.

Websites are marketing--built on technology. Websites are not technology.

I am starting another venture right now on Productivity and Personal Development for Webdesigners.

Websites are marketing--built on technology. Websites are not technology.

Very very nicely said! I really hate to go off topic but I really enjoyed reading through all the theories and concepts brought up in this topic. Anyway back to topic, I think MODX should have some standard for the items in the repository, for example some snippets have html 4.01, others have transitional and so on and so on - ok its not a big problem to fix up the templates to suit your own design, but some snippets/plugins have html tags and styling and etc in the php files that have to be ftpd to your host, so it is a bit of a neusence. But than again, we are getting free snippets so we shouldnt be complaining

I just mentioned something similar the other day Vait. In the future, all "core add-on projects" should have easily modified templates and config options like Ditto and Wayfinder currently do. This makes it much more straightforward to configure everything by editing a single file, and considerably easier to share those efforts.