My requirements include: “Until the user follows a login link, he should not...On this one, I’m afraid you just have it wrong. Take a look here: http://sd54dfl.org/.
see a login box, a password box, a registration link, or a lost password link.
This decreases irrelevant clutter.”
I
A user browsing the web site follows a login link, and finds himself on a login page on which he may enter his login name and password to log into the web site. After completing the login, he finds himself back on the page from which he originally followed the login/register link, but now he is logged in and can do additional things permitted to him.
Well, you have me there. It would probably take a few minutes to make the site I referred to behave that way. I didn’t do it because it’s not appropriate for that site (although I’m curious to know how you can be so confident that the site in question doesn’t do this since you couldn’t log in ). If MODx behaved this way out of the box, I’d have had to go to extra effort to make it NOT behave that way. This is another good example of a "requirement" of yours that isn’t really appropriate for many web sites. As it happens, the users of the site I referred to each have only one page that allows them to do any work and, for security reasons, *they can’t see it until they log in*. It’s a different page for different users depending on their roles. MODx made it trivially easy to let me (a beginner, remember) set it up so that after logging in, they are redirected to the appropriate page for *them* -- not the page they came from, which would make no sense at all. Thus a CMS that met your requirements would be unusable for a rational design of this site.
Quote from: BobRay
My requirements include: “Until the user follows a login link, he should not...On this one, I’m afraid you just have it wrong. Take a look here: http://sd54dfl.org/.
see a login box, a password box, a registration link, or a lost password link.
This decreases irrelevant clutter.”
I
Yes, the requirement includes a login link, but don’t rely solely on quoted text to tell the whole story. The complete description is on the review page, but let me quote a bigger chunk here:
A user browsing the web site follows a login link, and finds himself on a login page on which he may enter his login name and password to log into the web site. After completing the login, he finds himself back on the page from which he originally followed the login/register link, but now he is logged in and can do additional things permitted to him.
Do you need a system that is plug-and-play and does everything for you out of the box?
That’s what happens when you post uneducated non-sense and call it something like comparative review. Try taking the time to learn more about the systems you are comparing before pushing people’s buttons.
I see a lot of emotionally-charged postings, to which I will make a combined response soon.
ROFLMAO -- thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning to release some of that aggression. You have already shown everyone on this board how little you understand about MODx. The emotionally charged responses are a defense mechanism against your misinformation.
I think you are taking my review, and my forum postings, as some sort of request or even demand for somebody to do something specific. They are not. My review was intended to give others the benefit of what I learnt when I experimented -- extensively -- with MODx and CMSMS. In all modesty, chances are that of all human being on the planet, dead or alive, I’m the one that knows more about BOTH CMSes. And I decide to make this knowledge available to all interested persons.
Example of pushing people’s buttons right there. Capitol letters to accentuate something that was not at all necessary, nor accurate IMHO.
My follow-up postings here in this forum were intended to (a) correct a LOT of misinformation that a number of people posted, AND I MEAN A LOT, and to (b) answer questions that were asked of me.
I’m speechless. You have apparently missed all of the information provided in people’s attempts to correct your misunderstanding of the product. Perhaps you just don’t get it and should move on. Not trying to be rude, but from my perspective, trying to stay outside of this discussion, you have worn out your welcome if you are not willing to try and understand what these people have tried to explain repeatedly in reply to your false assertions.
So far, I have seen ONE factually-sound correction to my review, and that is where you stated that the caching issue had been addressed in the current release. And even that is not really a correction, because it doesn’t point out an error in my review, but only makes it clear that a newer release doesn’t have the same problem. I have yet to see any other technically-sound suggestions or corrections. Pretty much everything else that sounded factual was based on somebody NOT READING WHAT I WROTE and then posting an erroneous assertion.
BobRay, for example, responded to a quoted fragment, did not take an extra minute to actually read my review, confidently presented his login link as the solution that I had overlooked, and then quickly backtracked by saying that he didn’t need my type of login link anyway. Talkabout tripping all over your own feet! Not singling you out, BobRay, yours was one of the smaller errors; your message just happens to be nearby on the screen as I post this.
I’m sure you are all very nice people in person. Words on a screen bring out the worst in people, sometimes. Perhaps that’s how it ought to be -- it gives us a chance to release all that aggression in a harmless way.
Interesting thread...
But in the end the main attraction with MODx is how adaptable it is with respect to design. To me MODx’s strength is that YOU are in control of the design process. Its a web designer’s CMS. I like how you can create your XHTML and CSS...
My review was intended to give others the benefit of what I learnt when I experimented -- extensively -- with MODx and CMSMS. In all modesty, chances are that of all human being on the planet, dead or alive, I’m the one that knows more about BOTH CMSes. And I decide to make this knowledge available to all interested persons.
My follow-up postings here in this forum were intended to (a) correct a LOT of misinformation that a number of people posted, AND I MEAN A LOT, and to (b) answer questions that were asked of me.
For example, you, Rthrash, asked me some questions about the Next/Previous links. I did, and I included links to some web sites that use these links. After I did, you suddenly changed your mind about wanting to understand the concept of these links, and instead, began talking about what MODx is or isn’t.It doesn’t matter - your Next/Previous links were irrelevant; you were criticizing MODx for not doing something that it has NEVER intended to do. MODx gives developers and designers flexibility - not out-of-the-box custom options. I’m sorry if this doesn’t fit your mold, but it doesn’t in any way make your review valid.
So far, I have seen ONE factually-sound correction to my review, and that is where you stated that the caching issue had been addressed in the current release. And even that is not really a correction, because it doesn’t point out an error in my review, but only makes it clear that a newer release doesn’t have the same problem.Actually, it does point out a crucial error - you’re trying to write a review with an outdated product version. No self-respecting software reviewer would attempt to do such; they always get the latest versions of products.
Interesting point. No, for two reasons.
By your logic, mail.google.com should have a login link, which allows you to go to ANOTHER page that has a login box. You said before, the user shouldn’t have to go in circles --- what do you think clicking a link to go to another page where you have to click again to login does?