[TYPO3-UG US] Status of TYPO3.us

[Alex Heizer]

Hi Zach,

Zach Davis wrote:

>
>
>Ok -- seems like we're agreed then; we'll move forward accordingly. I 
>fully see your point about beginning with the basics, and I agree that 
>the classic* is a good place to start. I think including all three 
>approaches (is there a difference between the automaketemplate approach 
>and the MTB approach?) is a great solution and will greatly benefit the 
>user.
>  
>
Well, that's a good point. And since I'm not sure I know all the 
differences between all the different ways, this would benefit me, too, 
to have a section for each that explains the differences, compared to a 
pure-TS or TS/HTML/CSS method. :)

>For the record (and for those of you who are thinking about learning how 
>to use TV), the purpose of TV, as I see it, is not to allow users to 
>avoid or circumvent typoscript -- and it's not to somehow speed up site 
>devlopment. TV actually brings new features to the table, which are more 
>about added functionality than saving time or making typo3 easier for 
>newcomers. In my experience, TV doesn't really save you much time. Take 
>the FTB tutorial for instance -- you're still using the same typoscript 
>objects (renamed lib.whatever instead of temp.whatever) -- what's 
>missing is the TEMPLATE object, which is only a small part of the 
>typoscript. Add to this the fact that templaVoila allows you to have 
>different templates for different branches of the site without confusing 
>conditions in the TS or endless ext templates, and you have a pretty 
>powerful tool. Throw flexible content elements on top of that, which 
>make it possible to include a two column layout, for instance, within 
>another column, and you have a very powerful tool. 
>
True. Good stuff to put into the TV section to help people decide if 
it's right for them to use! :)

>Like 
>automaketemplate, I doubt TV will prove to be a fad. Kasper and Robert 
>both seem comitted to its continued development, and given that its 
>original funding came from one of the largest sponsors of TYPO3, I think 
>it's likely that we'll see TV increasingly becoming the accepted (and 
>expected) way of doing things.
>  
>
This brings up another point. Since all of the tutorial videos except 
for the TV video are created on a non-TV site, these will also have to 
be updated. I don't think TV will be a fad, but over time different ways 
of doing things better are created, and as long as T3 is still run off 
TypoScript, then TS will still be the fundamental that people need to 
learn when they have to learn the fundamentals. Since the majority of 
the sites currently in existence were created before there was TV, and 
different template-building methods are appropriate for different sites, 
with different end-users to maintain them, I think it's going to take a 
little while before TV becomes ubiquitous. Not that it's bad, just there 
are lots of options for people to choose from. People are still coming 
up with alternatives, like the 'dhelements', etc., so my point before 
was: let's set up the documentation to accommodate what we already have, 
plus whatever comes along down the line. Having the base documentation 
explain and teach TS, then having each alternative explained with its 
advantages and disadvantages. That way all of TV's cool features 
actually stand out as being different from the same old boring 
hand-coded TS stuff. :)

>* I think classic is a better term for this approach than old-fashioned 
>or outdated -- just as I think it's probably unfair to characterize TV 
>as a flash in the pan, what's hot, another fad, etc.
>
Yes. Words like "old-fashioned" and "outdated" can be negative. 
"Classic" has a nice ring to it. :)