[TYPO3] Documentation nightmare

Vincent typo3 at crel.us
Tue Mar 18 22:33:54 CET 2008


On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:38:49AM +0700, Andreas Becker wrote:
> ...
> No Training at all would be needed as all TYPO3 Extension Developers already
> work with TYPO3
> No additional Software would be needed as TYPO3 already comes along with all
> we would need
> No Licence Costs as it is GNU ... OK you know all the benefits of TYPO3 so
> please use it!
> 
> But as said FIRST OF ALL we would need the definitive decission to USE TYPO3
> and also stop discussing other solution and instead investing the ideas and
> time in the idea of USING TYPO3!
> ...

As the one who started this whole thread with my documentation complaint
:-), I thought I would give you my two cents worth from the perspective
of somebody who is still evaluating content management systems trying to
decide whether we should choose typo3 or not.

First I will say that I am happy to see so much interest in correcting
documentation problem sparking up.  It is a significant factor in
keeping typo3 on our CMS consideration list.  I just hope it does not
die out this time.

Now my 2 cents worth:

  I fully agree with Andreas.  There is an additional reason though.  As
  a newcomer evaluating typo3, after all the claimed powerful features,
  if I see that the typo3 community does not even feel their own CMS is
  suitable to manage and publish their own documentation, which is
  supposed to be what it is designed to do, and instead have to resort
  to something like google docs or other external services, then I would
  be very sceptical as to the true usefulness of the software.  I would
  see that as a very negative sign.

  Which brings up another concern along the same line.  So far as I can
  tell, the official typo3 wiki does not run on typo3 either.  It
  apparently runs on mediawiki.  This brings up the same concern in my
  evaluation.  My understanding is that typo3 has a wiki extension.  Do
  the official typo3 developers and contributers not consider their own
  sofware suitable to even run their own wiki either?

  Daniel Bruessler <danielb at typo3.org> wrote:
  > O3Spaces Workplaces:
  > I installed it on my Ubuntu Desktop this morning. The installation
  > is very easy, then the server is accessable via Firefox:
  > * Spaces: http://localhost:8095/Spaces
  > * Studio Admin-Tool: http://localhost:8095/Studio
  >
  > You just need Java on your computer.
 
  Please do not even consider requiring doc contributers to use any
  tools that require proprietary software components such as Java.  We
  run all BSD, for example, and have never gotten a fully working Java
  environment going.  Typo3 is already suffering from years going by and
  nobody taking the time to update the documentation.  Do anything to
  make it less convenient, and it I suspect it may still not happen.
  Even requiring Open Office, is something I would recommend against.
  It is a huge package that we have had software dependency problems
  with in the past and usually do not have it running on our machines.  

  To me the natural choice would be to use typo3 for the official docs
  and for official contributers to collaborate, and continue your wiki
  for public contributions.  Then the official *doc people* can, in
  addition to their own writing, copy material from the wiki, edit as
  needed, and organize it into the official docs.

  I think the documentation should be kept simple enough to be edited
  in-line in the typo3 wysiwyg editor or for authors to be able to use
  any local tools they choose that can output simple html and paste it
  into typo3.  It seems to me that simple text formatting, image
  inclusion, and tables, should be sufficient for documentation and
  tutorials.  Get to elaborate on the tools or formatting requirements
  and you start cutting out people and contributions.  The important
  thing is the wording, cross linking of subjects, and pictures.  It
  should basically have the convenience of a wiki for the authors.
 
  Also, on a side note, I want to say this, just in case you have other
  ideas, before you get to far along and start creating any new videos.
  Please continue with Casper's original pattern of making videos in
  a format that mplayer can play natively, such as mpeg or ogg.
  Preferably ogg.  I have seen at least one or two newer (relative to
  the official docs) videos for typo3 that were in Flash.  I have to
  have a special browser plugin wrapper and a full Linux emulation
  support environment installed for BSD, and then can only run flash-7
  and then I can only view them embedded in a window in the browser.
  Yuck!  
  
  When we evaluating WebGUI in the past, that was a show stopper.  Even
  now, all videos I have found are poor resolution blurry flash.
  Actually the flash video that is embedded in their online demo is
  reasonable resolution, but we blew off WebGUI for over 2 years as
  a candidate because we never had flash working and could not find any
  other suitable docs for a reasonable evaluation.  We are in the
  process of re-evaluating now that we found they have a support wiki
  and you apparently can buy PDF books that are up to date, but the
  proprietary video format issue still is a huge negative.



More information about the TYPO3-english mailing list