Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Gernot Schulmeister … Lives in Mönchengladbach … Developes websites with TYPO3 since Version 3.7 (2005) … Works for wfp:2 … Has a migration background and comes from Southeast-Europe (Austria) … Likes operative CMS evaluations Contact • facebook.com/gernot.schulmeister • twitter.com/mistakanista1
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Features • Main-, sub-, breadcrumb-, language and metamenu • News • Special content elements • Contact form • Header images • Slideshow on the homepage • Search • Lightbox • Sitemap
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Motivation • I wanted to test Neos • I wanted to know something about other CMS • I had to write a master thesis • TYPO3 loses market share • CMS evaluation is a big topic • I did not find any information about tests like this • Achieve knowledge on how to get started with other CMS • Learn from other CMS
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Criteria catalogue Implementation of the frontend (14 criteria) • Main part of the evaluation • Effort and usability of the solution is analysed seperately CMS functionality (8 criteria) • Usually main part of other CMS evaluations Developing and developer profile (5 criteria) • Personal, subjective conditions of the implementations
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation • Create an order of the results • Key of points: 6-5-4-3-2-1 point • No CMS can have equal points • Time effort is easy to evaluate • Arguments for evaluating the usability have to be found • Intensive work with the results necessary • Difficult to enlarge the methodology to additional CMS Evaluation methodology: Ranking
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation • Point system from 6 to 1 point • More CMS can receive the same points • Easier to enlarge on additional CMS • Challenge: how to rate time effort Evaluation methodology: Rating
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Drupal • Content based CMS • Based on a node system • Easy to create and configure content elements • Easy to style without changing source code • News and Lists with views • Many modules have to be installed • No full text search for content elements • Problems with translations on static pages • Login Url hard to remember ?q=user/login
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Contao • Page based CMS • Similar to TYPO3 CMS • Unified development process: Create content in a module → Assign it to a frontend plugin → make the frontend plugin visible through a page layout → assign the page layout to a page • No source files had to be changed for the implementation only the styles • CSS can also be stored in database • No translation handling → Multi tree concept
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Joomla! • Content based CMS • 3 types of extensions: components, modules and plugins • Menu types for different content on pages: default: article, category lists for news and room lists or form • Modules are positioned in a part of the page layout • For each header image own module necessary • Not easy to add fields to content elements • No translation handling in the frontend
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation WordPress • Content based CMS • Good facilities for translation handling and adding additional fields • A lot of changes in php template code files were necessary • Code with mix of php and html • Only static pages were used
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation TYPO3 • Easy and clean Templating • News system and dynamic content elements with many features • Good multilanguage support • Update from 6.1 to 6.2 caused problems • Indexed search did not work out of the box • Typoscript is difficult to debug • The form content element was not usable • Extensions are often buggy • No out of the box speaking urls
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Neos • Installation caused a lot of troubles • More memory and more expensive hosting packages necessary than for other CMS • SSH access for flow scripts necessary for example to create new nodes • Backend is not always stable • Errors when publishing changes • Multilanguage behaviour caused double input of content
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Conclusion • All features can be implemented with all CMS • Everyone will defend his favourite CMS • Its important to catch the starters • Objectivity is restricted by the developer and developing profile and circumstances • The evaluation still has a lot of deficiencies • Maybe a unified developing process on top of configuration would be a good idea for TYPO3 products • For Neos it would be good to become cheaper in memory and resources to have better chances on the market
Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Recomendations • Drupal → Community websites • Contao → for starters who need a websites very quickly • Joomla! → websites with a lot of out of the box features • WordPress → Blogs • TYPO3 → medium to large websites with a lot of CMS and custom applications • Neos → Business Applications with little CMS, if you want to implement everything yourself and use modern programming techniques