Not logged in. · Lost password · Register
Forum: General Help and Support General Stuff RSS
Dokuwiki powered websites
Page:  previous  1  2  3  next 
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #16
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 67443
Quote by cziehr:
/* hide logo, usertools and search */
.headings.group, #dokuwiki__sitetools {
        height: 0px;
        visibility: hidden;
}


That's an ineffective way to hide the tools.
Use display: none; otherwise screen reader users and potentially search engines still have access to what's visibly hidden.
When you are hiding the tools via CSS either way it means that someone who is logged in cannot see the tools either. DokuWiki (if the template uses tpl_classes()) has a loggedIn class around most content which can be used to undo the hiding of the tools in that case.
The starter template and most templates that derive from it use the "hideTools" config option which completely removes the tools from the code when you're not logged in. That is the safer option.
Avatar
hj #17
Member since Apr 2008 · 186 posts · Location: Lancaster, UK
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 67443
cziehr, sorry for late reply and many thanks for sharing the code from your homepage.  I'll save that code, if I may, and perhaps give it a go on my localhost site to see how it works (and learn something in the process!) I could not have written that CSS to save my life!

There are things already I don't understand!...

  • Your header html has a div class "logoheader"...but no declaration in your user styles?
  • Why are you putting the header.html file in the conf folder? And why is the <?php not closed?
  • How is your header.html called into the dokuwiki template? (presumably you have to amend main.php...??)

It looks very simple and I will try it our.  But you see how humble my understanding is!  :scared:

Thank you.
Avatar
cziehr #18
Member since Jan 2011 · 620 posts · Location: 10119 Berlin
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Thanks ach for your hint. I use the dokuwiki-template and will have a look at the loggedIn class. I've never heard about that, but it sounds good. Another feature of DokuWiki which wants to be discovered!

Quote by hj:
  • Your header html has a div class "logoheader"...but no declaration in your user styles?

The logoheader-class is defined in the css of the dokuwiki-template. I only copied the code from the existing html when the page was displayed in the original design. The first block in my css hides the original header, in my header.html I add the logo again.

Quote by hj:
  • Why are you putting the header.html file in the conf folder?

DokuWiki looks for such a file, and if it finds one, it will be included. See https://www.dokuwiki.org/template:dokuwiki#supported_inclu… for more information.

Quote by hj:
And why is the <?php not closed?

This is standard in DokuWiki-files.

Quote by hj:
  • How is your header.html called into the dokuwiki template? (presumably you have to amend main.php...??)

See again https://www.dokuwiki.org/template:dokuwiki#supported_inclu…  ;-)


Greetings,
Christoph
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #19
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by cziehr:
Quote by hj:
And why is the <?php not closed?

This is standard in DokuWiki-files.

This is standard in PHP. From the PHP documentation:

it is preferable to omit the PHP closing tag at the end of the file. This prevents accidental whitespace or new lines being added after the PHP closing tag, which may cause unwanted effects
Avatar
turnermm (Moderator) #20
Member since Oct 2009 · 4711 posts · Location: Canada
Group memberships: Global Moderators, Members, Super Mods
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 67424
Here are  some examples of dokuwiki as CMS: https://www.dokuwiki.org/tips:cms, only one of which "looks  like" a wiki. And while we are on the topic of dokuwiki's possibilities, I stumbled on this site, which places dokuwiki among the top wiki engines:
https://computers.tutsplus.com
Myron Turner
github: https://github.com/turnermm
plugins, templates: http://www.mturner.org/devel
Avatar
hj #21
Member since Apr 2008 · 186 posts · Location: Lancaster, UK
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Myron, thanks for the heads up on those.

I had already looked at the 'Dokuwiki as a lightweight CMS page', and it does have some useful tips.  As regards the examples of sites, however, the two which look in any way 'modern', astro and kling-dach, no longer use dokuwiki, see the source code.  The ones which do still use dokuwiki look, I'm afraid, rather old fashioned. Functional perhaps, but they don't get the heart beating.

The same page references two templates, dockucms and mcz.  MCZ hasn't been updated since 2010 (Windows 7 was just being introduced!).  And dokucms looks....well, rather dull in my opinion; functional, I'm sure, and perhaps adaptable in the hands of a CSS whizz. But out of the box I'd never use it.
There's a list of sites using dokucms at the bottom of the template page - but picking three sites at random and glimpsing their source code also shows they don't use dokuwiki any more, they have moved on.

I've no doubt that Dokuwiki is, or should be, amongst the top wiki engines.  As a wiki I've no qualms about using it and recommending it to anyone, top dog for me. But your referenced article was from 2014. And as ach has suggested, maybe wikis are on the wane?

But I think what both ach and myself are getting at, borne out by some of my observations above, is that dokuwiki as a CMS or web site (as opposed to wiki) just hasn't taken off; because A) the templates are outdated, and B) there's no real movement to promote DW for other uses. Yet as Andi's splitbrain.org site shows, there are exciting possibilities for DW in non-wiki uses.

One of the things I appreciate about dokuwiki is that the resource site, dokuwiki.org, doesn't throw away old code. Early templates, early plugins...they're all still there, available for those who want them.  Too many software sites these days hide their legacy releases in obscure archives, or simple don't mention them. So kudos to DW.

But the downside of this is there is little separation of the new, modern and fresh from the positively dusty and historic (and may not work!)  And the dokuwiki.org home page hasn't changed in....how many years?

I just sense that a refresh of dokuwiki would be timely, a repositioning, perhaps. The web is changing fast.  And if there were three priority things to do, I would...

1. Overhaul the dokuwiki site to make it more colourful and appealing
2. Get some more modern templates and some uptodate examples of dokuwiki in use (sites that 'wow' people!)
3. Weed out or grade templates and plugins so that modern currency clearly comes to the surface and shines

Just my two penn'orth!
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #22
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by hj:
One of the things I appreciate about dokuwiki is that the resource site, dokuwiki.org, doesn't throw away old code. Early templates, early plugins...they're all still there, available for those who want them.  Too many software sites these days hide their legacy releases in obscure archives, or simple don't mention them. So kudos to DW.

But the downside of this is there is little separation of the new, modern and fresh from the positively dusty and historic (and may not work!)  And the dokuwiki.org home page hasn't changed in....how many years?

I agree that especially old templates and plugins are quite harmful, notably those that don't work anymore and make people be frustrated and think DokuWiki itself is outdated.

We have discussed this before (can't find it right now). I don't think we should completely remove pages, but remove extensions' meta data, so they don't appear in the templates/plugins' page anymore.
The main problem is that no-one is doing that. This would be a good content-only project for someone to help out who isn't a developer.

Another idea we had talked about was doing a showcase of "best templates" (and "best plugins"). Because this selection is bound to be biased, this was partly implemented by showing the popularity data and being able to sort by popularity.
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #23
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by ach:
Another idea we had talked about was doing a showcase of "best templates" (and "best plugins"). Because this selection is bound to be biased, this was partly implemented by showing the popularity data and being able to sort by popularity.

Oh, and the sorting by compatibility (which roughly translates to when an extension has last been updated) and filtering out of extensions with security issues.
Avatar
turnermm (Moderator) #24
Member since Oct 2009 · 4711 posts · Location: Canada
Group memberships: Global Moderators, Members, Super Mods
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post #21
It didn't occur to me to check the source code of the sites listed on the cms page, and at  least one of the others that doesn't "look" like a wiki is based on dokuwiki.   I know there are others.  I occasionally have come across a commercial site, usually technical, that has its basis in dokuwiki.  But that isn't really the point.  Dokuwiki is not a commercial product which has to "position" itself with respect to its competitors in order to satisfy its stock holders.  Its a community that centers around a core group of developers.  If the community were interested in 'modernity', there would be more of what you are looking for.  The other side of this is that where dokuwiki is being used on commercial sites that give dokuwiki a different look, and they are out there, these don't usually give back to dokuwiki. They are happy to have a free lunch.  Those who want something different can always try wikimatrix, where they might find developers whom they can hire to do what they are looking for.  But not all commercial sites want the different.  A few years ago I updated the site of an accounting firm.  As part of the package I offered them a bit of sprucing up. They didn't want it.  They wanted the same old 'staid' site that said to their clients, nothing has changed.
Myron Turner
github: https://github.com/turnermm
plugins, templates: http://www.mturner.org/devel
Avatar
hj #25
Member since Apr 2008 · 186 posts · Location: Lancaster, UK
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by turnermm:
Its a community that centers around a core group of developers.  If the community were interested in 'modernity', there would be more of what you are looking for. 

So you're saying the community and/or the developers are not interested in modernity?  Well, fair enough - they are, as you say, not beholden to shareholders, it is their prerogative.

But that's not really the point. Dokuwiki may not be a commercial product, but it nevertheless exists and has a position within an enormous market place, the world wide web, surrounded by thousands of competing softwares, a place of unstoppable trends and momentum, not just in function but also in design. Would any producer displaying and promoting their product in such a market place, and wishing for its continued success and uptake, ignore their 'shop window'?

To be honest, your comments surprise me. For a community within such an exciting, fizzing, rapidly evolving marketplace not to be interested in 'modernity' is odd, to say the least.

As a matter of fact I'm not a person who advocates change for change's sake, nor art for art's sake.  But we all, I'm sure, look at the world wide web every day. And we see dazzling designs and improvements to not only the functionality but the appearance of web sites. So much so that the average person expects excellence as a given, as a norm. This billowing cloud of development and progress surrounds us all, we can't not be affected by it...if only to say "oh look, the BBC has changed the design of its sports pages again". We may not always wish to move with the times, but we are swept along all the same.

Don't get me wrong - I've said and continue to say that I think Dokuwiki as a wiki is pretty wonderful, and I admire anyone or any group who can produce such a thing, and let us have it for free. (and in this I include all the voluntary advice you have given to many of us, thank you.)  But if the community has no interest in developing DW's position or offering, then DW will remain just what it is - a novel piece of wiki software of limited use unless you're a developer.

Personally, I think that's missing a trick.
This post was edited on 2019-10-09, 16:37 by hj.
Avatar
andi (Administrator) #26
User title: splitbrain
Member since May 2006 · 3484 posts · Location: Berlin Germany
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by hj:
To be honest, your comments surprise me. For a community within such an exciting, fizzing, rapidly evolving marketplace not to be interested in 'modernity' is odd, to say the least.

There is no market place. A market place is where things are sold. People here work in their spare time on things that excite them. Creating a "modern template" is maybe not as exciting as you think. Especially when you have lots of other things to do. You seem excited about it, so you should work on it. Either by learning how (though that is probably out of scope for this forum) or by hiring someone to do so. The latter is what Myron suggested, the former is probably more fun.
Read this if you don't get any useful answers.
Lies dies wenn du keine hilfreichen Antworten bekommst.
Avatar
StarArmy #27
Member since Nov 2011 · 102 posts
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
I think hj's suggestions and observations are very astute and this thread has been eye-opening for me...in a negative way. To summarize what I've seen hj is saying "Here's a direction I think Dokuwiki should go" and the response from the creators is essentially "We've decided that the direction we are going is nowhere."

More and more, the impression I get is that Dokuwiki's golden age is over. The forum moves slowly, the bug tracker moves slowly, many pull requests seem to be ignored, there's been no releases this year, and the lead devs are here saying essentially if you want a change, you'll have to do it yourself because we're no longer putting in any major effort. I feel like we're on a path to obsolescence here and I need start looking for a converter to another software because Dokuwiki's days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before development halts, leaving wikis vulnerable to the latest security flaw discovered or broken due to some change in PHP or something, and that will be the end of this software.

I hope I'm wrong, as I really like Dokuwiki and have been using it since 2007. But something has to change for things to get better.
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #28
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by StarArmy:
To summarize what I've seen hj is saying "Here's a direction I think Dokuwiki should go" and the response from the creators is essentially "We've decided that the direction we are going is nowhere."

I don't interpret hj's words like a "should" more like a "wish" and an observation.
I don't interpret anyone's response as saying a) anyone has decided anything and b) certainly not to "go nowhere".

Quote by StarArmy:
More and more, the impression I get is that Dokuwiki's golden age is over.

Yes, the golden age is definitely over. But DokuWiki is not dead yet and is probably going to stay alive for a while.
Our last HackFest was in 2015 and even then we knew things were slowing down. Here is a presentation Andi did back then to discuss this problem.

Quote by StarArmy:
the lead devs are here saying essentially if you want a change, you'll have to do it yourself

That has always been the case. That is the reality of Open Source projects. They live from participation from the community. But if there are not enough people who want to give back, that's a problem.

Quote by StarArmy:
we're no longer putting in any major effort

Are you?
Avatar
StarArmy #29
Member since Nov 2011 · 102 posts
Group memberships: Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by ach:
Are you?
Of course not. I'm not a coder. I just did my first Dokuwiki code edit ever only a couple weeks ago and I was just happy not to break anything. I flunked out of my bachelors in IT. I run a wiki and forum and build content and an online community (which I am not compensated for), not web software. But the attitude that I see, which is essentially "if you don't contribute code, you don't matter" is elitist and toxic and discourages people from making further suggestions.

I think the real questions we should be asking is "what features and looks do 2019 users expect and desire in a new default style/template?" and how do we get there in 2020?
Avatar
ach (Administrator) #30
Member since May 2006 · 1943 posts · Location: Folkestone, UK
Group memberships: Administrators, Members, Super Mods, Wiki Managers
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by StarArmy:
Quote by ach:
Are you?
Of course not. I'm not a coder.

That is pretty much irrelevant. There is a lot more to do on DokuWiki than just code.

Quote by StarArmy:
But the attitude that I see, which is essentially "if you don't contribute code, you don't matter"

Where did you see anyone say that or anything even remotely in that direction? (Apart from yourself, just now.)

Quote by StarArmy:
I think the real questions we should be asking is "what features and looks do 2019 users expect and desire in a new default style/template?" and how do we get there in 2020?

How do we get there is indeed the big question. Any ideas?
Close Smaller – Larger + Reply to this post:
Verification code: VeriCode Please enter the word from the image into the text field below. (Type the letters only, lower case is okay.)
Smileys: :-) ;-) :-D :-p :blush: :cool: :rolleyes: :huh: :-/ <_< :-( :'( :#: :scared: 8-( :nuts: :-O
Special characters:
Page:  previous  1  2  3  next 
Go to forum
Imprint
This board is powered by the Unclassified NewsBoard software, 20150713-dev, © 2003-2015 by Yves Goergen
Current time: 2019-10-16, 07:30:15 (UTC +02:00)