Template for Articles

[GrandSchtroumpf]

This is my template suggestion for the articles.


Each article has 3 files.

Example for a dummy article:

http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/dummy-article.php
This is where the php variables are defined and where the template used is defined.
source code:  http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/dummy-article.txt

http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/dummy-article.inc
This is the content of the article.  That's what the authors will write.

http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/dummy-article.css
This is the custom css file for the article.


The default template has 2 files:

http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/template.php
This is the definition of the default template.  This template should be used by most articles.
source-code: http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/template.txt

http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/default.css
This is the css file where the template layout is defined.
It also contains the default styles for the most commonly used html elements, such as lists and tables.
The authors can override those defaults in the custom css file for their article.


Each author will have his/her own css file:

This is what i understood from a previous discussion with Cd&.  I hope it's correct.
Each author will be able to control his/her own layout customisations centrally using an author css file that will be applied to all his/her articles.
This means 3 css files will be applied to each article in the following order:  template's css, author's css, article's css.
That's not part of the current code, but it's very easy to add it.
Each author could also have his/her own template.


In the future, the content and the values for the php variables will be fetched from a database.


Here is what it looks like for my article:
http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/css-background.php

Have a look at the css file to see how easy it is to alter the default layout:
http://www.serger.biz/ert/template01/css-background.css

[VGR]

pitet mettre un tbody dans les tables

[VGR]

(surtout en 4.01 strict)

May be I made a mistake, but it seems to em the code implementing the various footer functions (like loadButtonDZ(); ) is missing from the template.txt

[VGR]

also : this is case inconsustent : type="text/CSS"

[GrandSchtroumpf]

> pitet mettre un tbody dans les tables
There are no tables in the template.
The table is only in the dummy-article.inc which is the author's work.
I have included some typical html structure in dummy-article.inc to illustrate the default css.

> the code implementing the various footer functions (like loadButtonDZ(); ) is missing from the template.txt
Yes, that's done on purpose.  I did not include the .js file to keep it simple.

> also : this is case inconsustent : type="text/CSS"
That's right... that's a copy/paste from the W3C specs.


The important part of this thread is wheter or not we should have a default template an what should be part of that default template.  What should we impose and what should we offer as an option to the authors?  Should we hand-craft each layout or should we try to focus on producing content that uses valid accessible code?


Answers to Cd& posts from this topic:
http://www.expertsrt.net/main/forum/topic,836.msg8807

> Default (ERT standard) styles are fine as defaults.
If you mean http://www.expertsrt.com/CSS/primary.css I don't think that's fine.  It has too much unnecessary stuff.
I think that articles should have their own clean and understandable default css.

> We should encourage to support user preferences for styles.
That's a very theoretical...  In practice, people don't even know they can modify their user stylesheet.
Take a look at an unstyled table for instance, nobody wants that.
We should provide a minimalistic default stylesheet that gives a decent page when the article's css file is empty.

I certainly don't want to impose any specific layout to the article's content.
But YES, i DO want to impose a somewhat common navigation.
Having the navigation once on the top, once on the left and another time on the right is a pure nightmare.
However, I encourage the authors to change the colors... especially to hotpink ;).

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-facilitate-navigation
13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner. [Priority 2]

I beleive we needed a decent default template because some authors (like myself) don't want to have to completely control their layout.  I remember someone saying to me once that content is the only thing that really matters.
If you want complete layout freedom, you also need to be able to rely on a decent default layout.
That is specially important to authors who are not be fluent in html/css.
I called this a "template", Cd& calls it a "wrapper"... for me it's pretty much the same thing.  The important thing to know is that my "template" suggestion is completely flexible and completely customisable by the author.
Actually, it's almost identical to what Cd& is currently doing, the only difference is that the files are organized a little differently.

I also beleive we needed default template because, to create the real layout that fits their needs/mood, authors need to know in advance what final html/css code they will get after their article has been wrapped.  Then, they can choose what default css they want to override.

[COBOLdinosaur]

About standards.  ERT standards for PHP <?php always <? never  ... ;^)

You removed the scripting to simplify, but EVERY ERT PAGE uses scripting, and some Authurs uses additional scripting, and some Authors are abslutely depedent on the correct function and interaction of the script style and DOM, and they don't always stay to strict standards.

There is also content doing includes cross domain and using frames.  I prefer the word wrapper because that is what I use.  Template implies, and infact with this approach we see encroachment onto the area that belongs to the author.

My approcha has been that I will do whatever is necessary to present the authors content the way they want it displayed.  I may give advice and guidance to improve the presentation, but the author owns the content.  If that means extra work, it gives me motivation to move more quickly to automate some of the work.

I I can't give the author the presentation they want then maybe I will have to insist on changes, but I am not going to impose or require specific presentation formats, unless the GC decides it would be best for the site. 

That is all speaking as the editor who has been putting the stuff together; and yes someof them are a lot of work, but Sandi get preliminary layout done, and the authors keep improving and helping out.

What follows is COBOLdinosaur contributing author. 
<no compromise>
I am going to say this absolutely as clearly as I possibly can: The day ERT "requires" me to change my content to fit an, image, template or philosophy; is the day i ceases contributing as an author.

A year before this site was started I had discussio with EE about doing exactly what we are doing here, in their white papers area. That did not happen because they were not willing to give authors creative control and an unencumbered Copyright.

ERT has given unencumbered copyright  and creative control to authors.  I'm not going to attempt to speak for other authors, just for me.  My content will be presented the way I want it presented, or it will not be presented; and I support any author who trys to protect their rights and creative control.  If I get reduced to bloggin g that is preferable to have my presentation change in a way I don't like.
</no compromise>

Okay now back to the more practical aspects of this I think we need quidelines and recommendations, but not requirements.  If an authur makes demands we cna meet then we will just ahve to pass on their content, but we should do everything we can to allow authors the full range of control and expression.

[COBOLdinosaur]

BTW, I like the pieces that are there, and the simple approach they allow is not a lot of work.  It is just the idea of a template sends chills up my back.  I would be the first step in reducing author control.

[GrandSchtroumpf]

> It is just the idea of a template sends chills up my back.

It's not a template for the content, it's a template for the wrapper.  So, i'll call it "wrapper template".
We just have to declare the article attributes in some php variables and php creates the wrapper for us.  The article's content is located inside a separate file that has no php code.  No more need to edit a complex files.  Everything is clean and separated.  That should greatly reduce the number of typos and the amount of time needed to fix things.

http://www.expertsrt.net/main/forum/topic,924.15/  Reply #29
That's what i want to avoid... IMHO, it's a little messy.

Now we can  decide what's an article attribute and what's not.
The title is clearly an article attribute, it's not part of the content because it will be used in lots of differnent places.
Copyright and subtitle can be part of the content, that's no problem.
In the future, article attributes might also include date, author, categories.
Those could be used by the "wrapper template" to display links to all articles in the same categories or all articles by the same author... that's a very standard functionality (look at dzone for instance).

Cd&, please tell me clearly if what i suggest helps or not.  If it does not help, then there is no need to continue this discussion.

[COBOLdinosaur]

It helps.  The job is much easier.  The problem I have has nothing to do with the technical quality of the approch or fo the techniques being used here.

It is the political and creative side of thing that raise concerns.  The thrust seems to be that the author simply writes a bunch of code and then turns it over.  The who point of the learning center approach is the t the author remains connected to the content, and it not just tossing it out there. 

The author need to be part of develping the piece not just writing it, but through the process of developing for the site.  Going slow and not being able to just feed it into a 'bot that generates a final page is not a disadvantage ; it is part of the QA process.

If a piece take three weeks of discussion and playing before it goes onto the site; so what?  There is no timetable for delivery.  The point of automation by using a database is to make delivery more efficient.  If there are some side effects that reduce work for setup, that is okay, but not less work at the expense of flexibility.

If we start stadardizing a lot of things, then there is more that has to be overridden for non-standard presentations.  If it becomes extra work to override, then the easy way is to use teh "standard" defaults.

IT is not so much about what is in the template, but rather the idea that anything is "standard" or that there will be requirements that limit an author.  Up to now the only absolute requirements have been that the page has to carry the ERT logo, and some form of ERT compatible navigation has to be used.  Everything else has been and is open to discussion with the author.

[COBOLdinosaur]

I don't want to see authors start losing control of their content and have their content twisted the way the site documentation I wrote for EE was turned into promotion of things I opposed.

When the Google crush hit EE, it was chaos.  There was no site documentation of any use.  What little help text existed was out of date and not very helpful.  I wrote a series of pages that I posted on my own web space with links posted by me and other experts that pointed to help for new experts, new questioners and general information about the site.

Eric asked if he could copy them to CityofAngels.com and put them in an EE "template".  I made the mistake of saying yes without getting any commitment or recognition of copyright.  The content got "slightly" edited, and the the presentation was changed; including the sequencing of information.  After several months they got migrated directly onto the EE site, and the links to the original information were changed to point to the EE version.

Through several iterations of editing, revision, and manipulation, what started out as a clear and frank description of the right way to conduct yourself had been turned into promotional material that supported and encouraged the kind crap from Premium users that drove a lot of experts from the site. 

I suppose the crap would have eventually been there anyway, but my mistake left me with garbage I disagreed with being associated with my name, and there is not a thing I can do to change that.  What I can do is try and prevent authors at ERT from having to fight to protect their work, by making sure they always retain control.

[VGR]

(just xanting to help)

I solved the same problem in a similar way. The author won't lose control if you allow :
- inclusion of the article's body in the BODY of the HTML page (it's already the case)
- definition of some HEAD values like TITLE, meta-author , meta date-created and the like (it's partly the case)
- conditional inclusion of an $extra_js file in the HEAD section if the author defined $extra_js (will be a unique filename) : if (isset($extra_js)) if (is_file($extra_js)) require_once($extra_js);

[COBOLdinosaur]

The problem, I have is the level of automation, defaults and plugging variables into pre-defined structures as part of creation. 

Easier to use procedures and tools are fine, but nothing should be automatic when it comes to the creation or modification of the page. We want to build automation into the generation, but not into the building of the page. The creation of content is a collaboration involving the author, any who choose to review it during submission, Sandi during proofing and editing, and me doing the layout.  I don't want to speed up the process, and I don't want any of it to be automatic.  Cleaning up with wrappers reduces effort, and that is good, but we need to keep content creation "hands on by many".

It is not Lego.  We are not creating a hundred new pages every day like BBC, EE, or Yahoo.  We add a few new high quality pages every week.  I go back to pages and play with the tracking code to find out what is happening to them. If they need changes to do better I can make suggests based on an understanding of each page.

Where does it need links from? Where have similar pages done well?  How are visitors navigating into it and away from it? What does it need to get from page 2 of the SERPs to page 1?  Some pages have been easy (or perhaps I got lucky). Other pages took me a long time to find the right way to launch them, so they would get the critical mass needed to do well with Google.

It is fine to improve code quality and support the standards, but as far as the content creation process goes: there is nothing to fix because it is not broken.

[GrandSchtroumpf]

Thanks VGR, that's exactly the type of comment i was expecting.


Let's give 100% control to the authors...  That's a great philosophy.

Each article will require:

• One file with the article's content - clean html only, no php.
• One file that defines the article's attributes - php variables.

(in the future, that data will come from the db)

Each author will have an unlimited number of the following files:

• Wrapper files: html code with some tags that will be replaced based on the value of the article's attributes.
• CSS files: to control the presentation.
• Javascript files: to control the behaviour.

The article attributes will define:

• The path to the content.
• The path to the wrapper that needs to be used to create the final html.
• The title, subtitle, date, authors, categories, date of revision, ... you name it.
• An array of css files that need to be linked to the page.
• An array of javascript files that need to be linked to the page.

Each author can create his/her wrappers, css and javascript files.
Each author can use his/her wrappers, css and javascript files on multiple articles.
A lazy author can borrow the files from another author.

That's all.  Everybody should be happy with that...  No?

We only need to publish an explanation of the structure and the syntax for the replacement tags used in the wrapper.  Then the authors will be able to create their own articles exactly how they want them to be.

[COBOLdinosaur]

Okay... just don't automate creation.  If we don't have something we need to handle a piece of content then we will make what we need and add it to the tool chest.  Content is not ice cream melting in the sun.  A little time to do it right does not cost anything.

[GrandSchtroumpf]

> Okay...
Really???  I cannot beleive we finally agree on a practical solution :).

> ... just don't automate creation.
What do you mean by that?