CMS Evaluation

CMS Evaluation

Drupal, Contao, Joomla!, WordPress TYPO3 and Neos are compared by a test implementation of a website

Fd95a3ab89a6497b6631e9fc6cc6b9d8?s=128

mistakanista

July 09, 2015
Tweet

Transcript

  1. CMS Evaluation with test implementations Webworker NRW 9. Juli 2015

    Drupal – Contao – Joomla! – WordPress – TYPO3 – Neos
  2. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 2 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  3. Live Test Motivation Methodology Results Conclusion Schedule

  4. Live Test

  5. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 5 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Order of implementation Drupal Contao Joomla! WordPress TYPO3 Neos
  6. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 6 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  7. Motivation

  8. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 8 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  9. Methodology

  10. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 10 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Proceeding
  11. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 11 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  12. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 12 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  13. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 13 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  14. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 14 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation • S: Scale, HE: Highest effort, EpP: Effort per Point • Calculation: Highest effort divided to 6 rounded to half an hour is the effort per point • Example: CMS 1: 6h, CMS 2: 3h, CMS 3: 2h → Scale 2 • Result: CMS 1: 1 point, CMS 2: 4points, CMS 3: 5 points Rating: Time effort S HE EpP 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 3 0,5 to 0,5 0,75 - 1 1,25 - 1,5 1,75 - 2 2,25 - 2,5 2,75 - 3 2 6 1 to 1 1,25 – 2 2,25 - 3 3,25 - 4 4,25 - 5 5,25 - 6
  15. Results

  16. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 16 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Evaluation: time effort Effort Ranking Rating Contao 22,5 69 71 TYPO3 23 64 68 WordPress 25 52 60 Joomla! 33,25 42 56 Neos 45,75 36 42 Drupal 47 31 42
  17. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 17 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Evaluation: implementation quality Ranking Rating TYPO3 69 64 Contao 52 54 Drupal 48 48 Joomla! 47 47 Neos 41 46 WordPress 37 45
  18. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 18 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Evaluation: developer – developing profile Ranking Rating Drupal 26 25 Neos 21 23 Joomla! 21 21 Contao 16 15 WordPress 13 16 TYPO3 8 6
  19. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 19 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  20. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 20 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  21. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 21 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  22. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 22 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  23. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 23 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  24. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 24 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  25. Conclusion

  26. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 26 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  27. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 27 wfp:2 GmbH &

    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
  28. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.07.2015 Seite 28 wfp:2 GmbH &

    Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com CMS Evaluation Links • Drupal: drupal.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/ • Contao: contao.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/ • Joomla!: joomla.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/ • WordPress: wordpress.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/ • TYPO3: typo3.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/ • Neos: neos.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/