:[[http://xoops.org/ |XOOPS]]: TBD; details in XoopsEvaluation

The project was initiated by the needs of my websites and the [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_evaluate/ How to evaluate a content management system]] paper by [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/ Step Two designs]]. I would also like to include ideas from "analysis report by Ariga":http://www.ariga.cz/saa1.html about requirements on CMS systems as well as look at "Jeffrey Veen's famous article":http://www.veen.com/jeff/archives/000622.html .

The project was initiated by the needs of my websites and the [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_evaluate/ How to evaluate a content management system]] paper by [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/ Step Two designs]]. I would also like to include ideas from "analysis report by Ariga":http://www.ariga.cz/saa1.html about requirements on CMS systems.

:[[http://www.mamboserver.com/ Mambo]]: a strong workhorse, esp. when beefed up with plug-ins, but ouch the templating; details in MamboEvaluation

h2. The [=CMSes=] Dissected (The Results)

So far (9/2004), I have had a deep look at the following (a-z order): ''Mambo, [=PostNuke=], Textpattern''. Yet to come are: ''Drupal'', ''[=WordPress=]'', ''type3'', ''XOOPS''.

:[[http://www.mamboserver.com/ Mambo]]: a strong workhorse, esp. when beefed up with plug-ins; details in MamboEvaluation
:[[http://www.textpattern.com/ Textpattern]]: simple effective solution for smaller (mainly personal) sites; details in TextpatternEvaluation.
:[[http://www.drupal.org/ Drupal]]: TBD; details in DrupalEvaluation.

h4. Below the Bar

:[[http://www.postnuke.org/ PostNuke]]: known and popular ... and skipped. I do not want a CMS from people who are not able to create an understandable, accessible and navigable website... Details = ''the accessibility test story'': I want to try the thing - where is "download" from the title page? [answer is "under @@pnNews@@"...] Where is the installation manual? Not in the distro... Maybe in @@pnSupport@@, huh! the first article there is "PostNuke tutorial in Indonesian language", eh..., no link in @@pnSupport@@ Main Menu either (why do they call it "support"?)... Back to title page...wait a minute, how do I get back? the "Postnuke" logo is not clickable... aha, see the tiny tiny @@pnNavigator@@?... Finally I found the installation manual under FAQ, heavy with the "click here" syndrome and - surprise - on an ''external'' website... That was the give-up point for me.

h4. Background note: how I got to this eval

Having authored HTML in @@vi@@ for years (started in ca 1995), I learned the benefits of good editors like @@dreamweaver@@ and have used them for about 5 years now. But (1) the web should be editable in itself [todo: find link to supporting docs from TBL], (2) dreamweaver grows in features, weight, startup time, consumed screen space etc, and yet 95% of time I use it just as a WYSIWYG editor for simple markup, (3) for other web content authors, which I co-operate with, dreamweaver and similar are a bit too complicated -- all they need is just to put pieces of information on the web.

So I tried WikiWiki, and I like it for its near-purity of hypertext idea implementation, but (1) it is a flat system, not a hierarchy, and most websites are not flat, (2) it mostly promotes open access to the authored content (for a good reason), but sometimes you really need only those responsible for the content to have write access.

The project was initiated by the needs of my websites and the [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_evaluate/ How to evaluate a content management system]] paper by [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/ Step Two designs]].

h2. Prerequisites and Standpoint of the Evaluation

Before reading the results, please have a look at the following so that you know what to expect:

* [[EvalCMSWebsites Types of websites]] considered for the evaluation, i.e. what kind of web structures I'd like the CMS to support, were primarily ''company/departmental presentation'' with tree organization and mostly "permanent" content;
* [[EvalCMSCriteria Evaluation criteria]] used to rank the CMSes include ease of installation and use, content structuring and templating system, as well as quality of generated output and avoidance of simplification of website structure;
* LAMP(Linux-Apache-MySql-PHP) platform with open source availability was a must-have feature.

This approach resulted in a pre-selection of some CMS systems, and the ranking of the evaluated ones as shown just below.

h4. Background note: how I got to this eval

Having authored HTML in {{vi}} for years (started in ca 1995), I learned the benefits of good editors like {{dreamweaver}} and have used them for about 5 years now. But (1) the web should be editable in itself [todo: find link to supporting docs from TBL], (2) dreamweaver grows in features, weight, startup time, consumed screen space etc, and yet 95% of time I use it just as a WYSIWYG editor for simple markup, (3) for other web content authors, which I co-operate with, dreamweaver and similar are a bit too complicated -- all they need is just to put pieces of information on the web.

So I tried WikiWiki, and I like it for its near-purity of hypertext idea implementation, but (1) it is a flat system, not a hierarchy, and most websites are not flat, (2) it mostly promotes open access to the authored content (for a good reason), but sometimes you really need only those responsible for the content to have write access.

h2. The CMSes Dissected (The Results)

So far (9/2004), I have had a deep look at the following (a-z order): ''Mambo, [=PostNuke=], Textpattern''. Yet to come are: ''Drupal'', ''[=WordPress=]'', ''type3'', ''XOOPS''.

:''Mambo'' (http://www.mamboserver.com/): a strong workhorse, esp. when beefed up with plug-ins; see MamboEvaluation
:''Textpattern'' (http://www.textpattern.com/: simple effective solution for smaller (mainly personal) sites; see TextpatternEvaluation.
:''Drupal'' (http://www.drupal.org/): TBD; see DrupalEvaluation.

h4. Below the Bar

:''[=PostNuke=]'' (http://www.postnuke.org/) -- known and popular ... which I skipped: Summary - I do not want a CMS from people who are not able to create an understandable, accessible and navigable website... Details = '''the accessibility test story''': I want to try the thing - where is "download" from the title page? [answer is "under @@pnNews@@"...] Where is the installation manual? Not in the distro... Maybe in @@pnSupport@@, huh! the first article there is "PostNuke tutorial in Indonesian language", eh..., no link in @@pnSupport@@ Main Menu either (why do they call it "support"?)... Back to title page...wait a minute, how do I get back? the "Postnuke" logo is not clickable... aha, see the tiny tiny @@pnNavigator@@?... Finally I found the installation manual under FAQ, heavy with the "click here" syndrome and - surprise - on an ''external'' website... That was the give-up point for me.)

h1. An Evaluation of Selected Open Source CMS Systems

''Přemek'', April 2004

For some of my websites, I need a CMS (content management system). This page summarises my experiences and feelings about those that I have come across and maybe even thoroughly evaluated.

The project was initiated by the needs of my websites (''departmental presentation'' and ''personal website'' types of sites) and the [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_evaluate/ How to evaluate a content management system]] paper by [[http://www.steptwo.com.au/ Step Two designs]].

h3. Types of websites

The types of sites that drove the evaluation are, ordered by scale:

# ''personal'' (personal or family website) -- mostly simple hierarchical structure with 1-2 levels, mix of static and standard dynamic content (e.g. image gallery) + blog; one or two content authors with access to the whole website.
# ''community'' -- mostly simple hierarchical structure with 1-2 levels, some static content, some blogging, plus standard dynamic content (file uploads/sharing, polls, discussions, galleries); includes intranet accessible only for a defined set of users, one or two editors + a bunch of content authors.
# ''news'' (news site, webzine) -- mostly simple hierarchical structure with 1-2 levels, frequently updated content consisting of multiple articles in each node of the hierarchy, article comments and rating, additional standard dynamic content (galleries, polls, forums, ...); one or two editors + a bunch of article authors.
# ''shop'' (web shop) -- quite rich hierarchical structure with many levels, a bit of static contents, some standard dynamic content (search, news), plus heavy use of domain specific dynamically generated + updated contents, may include added functionality for registered set of users; requires backend accessible only for a defined set of users, one or two content editors/managers.
# ''company'' (SME company or departmental presentation) -- quite rich hierarchical structure with 2-3 levels, a lot of static contents that needs to be updated at times, but otherwise should not move or change very often, some standard dynamic content (polls, news), plus quite a lot of domain specific dynamically generated + updated contents, may include ''shop'' and ''news''; includes intranet accessible only for a defined set of users, half a dozen of content authors/managers with responsibilities for (mostly disjoint) parts of the website.


h3. Criteria for Evaluation (aka PremekBrada/EvalCMSCriteria)

As a ''general approach'' to the evaluation, I firmly believe the key of the web (as information repository) are sites with permanent contents, not quick-publish-and-disappear blogs or shops.

For that kind of website, one needs the following generic structure: tree hierarchical organization, the first level nodes are "sections", each section has an index page (intro text, configurable contents) plus a set of content pages (static or dynamically generated content) inter-linked via their contents (hypertext, remember that?). The node's index page is static content, not a concat of all section's pages like in a blog. The content pages can have content and structure either static, blog/articles based, or application-specific.

This approach resulted in a pre-selection of some CMS systems, and [[EvalCMSCriteria a set of criteria]] used in their evaluation. The pre-selection primarily involved the LAMP(Linux-Apache-MySql-PHP) platform, open source availability, and avoidance of simplification of website structure.


h2. The CMSes Dissected (aka The Results)

So far, I have had a deep look at the following (a-z order): ''Mambo, !PostNuke, Textpattern''. Yet to come are: ''Drupal'', ''WordPress'', ''type3'', ''XOOPS''. The summary of the evaluation is the expression of suitability for the above site types; for each, scale is [useless/twisted/partly/quite-well/perfect-fit/overkill] + comments on plug-ins or changes necessary to get to that level:


:''Drupal'' (http://www.drupal.org/): Summary: TBD. Details: DrupalEvaluation.
:''Mambo'' (http://www.mamboserver.com/) -- a strong workhorse, esp. when beefed up with plug-ins: Summary: personal [perfect-fit/overkill], community [perfect-fit], news [quite-well], shop [partly], company [quite-well]. Details: MamboEvaluation.
:''!PostNuke'' (http://www.postnuke.org/) -- known and popular ... which I skipped: Summary - I do not want a CMS from people who are not able to create an understandable, accessible and navigable website... Details = '''the accessibility test story''': I want to try the thing - where is "download" from the title page? [answer is "under {{pnNews}}"...] Where is the installation manual? Not in the distro... Maybe in {{pnSupport}}, huh! the first article there is "PostNuke tutorial in Indonesian language", eh..., no link in {{pnSupport}} Main Menu either (why do they call it "support"?)... Back to title page...wait a minute, how do I get back? the "Postnuke" logo is not clickable... aha, see the tiny tiny {{pnNavigator}}?... Finally I found the installation manual under FAQ, heavy with the "click here" syndrome and - surprise - on an ''external'' website... That was the give-up point for me.)
:''Textpattern'' (http://www.textpattern.com/ -- simple effective solution for smaller (mainly personal) sites: Summary: personal [quite-well], community [quite-well], news [quite-well], shop [partly], company [partly]. Details: TextpatternEvaluation.

----

h3. Background note: how I got to this eval

Having authored HTML in {{vi}} for years (started in ca 1995), I learned the benefits of good editors like {{dreamweaver}} and have used them for about 5 years now. But (1) the web should be editable in itself [todo: find link to supporting docs from TBL], (2) dreamweaver grows in features, weight, startup time, consumed screen space etc, and yet 95% of time I use it just as a WYSIWYG editor for simple markup, (3) for other web content authors, which I co-operate with, dreamweaver and similar are a bit too complicated -- all they need is just to put pieces of information on the web.

So I tried WikiWiki, and I like it for its near-purity of hypertext idea implementation, but (1) it is a flat system, not a hierarchy, and most websites are not flat, (2) it mostly promotes open access to the authored content (for a good reason), but sometimes you really need only those responsible for the content to have write access.

h2. Comments

Feel free to put your comments to this evaluation below; please date and sign them. Thanks, ''Přemek''.