The same test website was implemented with Drupal, Contao, Joomla!, Wordpress, TYPO3 CMS and TYPO3 Neos. A protocol and the time effort was measured and the usabiltiy and quality of the implementation evaluated.
All Time Service Available Call Girls Mg Road 👌 ⏭️ 6378878445
CMS Evaluation with test implementations
1. CMS Evaluation
with test implementations
TYPO3 Camp Berlin 2015
Drupal – Contao – Joomla! –
Wordpress – TYPO3 – Neos
2. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 2wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Gernot Schulmeister
… Lives in Mönchengladbach
… Developes websites with TYPO3 since Version 3.7
(2005)
… Works for wfp:2
… Has a migration background and comes from
Southeast-Europe (Austria)
… Likes operative CMS evaluations
Contact
• facebook.com/gernot.schulmeister
• twitter.com/mistakanista1
5. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 5wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Order of implementation
• Drupal
• Contao
• Joomla!
• Wordpress
• TYPO3
• Neos
6. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 6wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Features
• Main-, sub-, breadcrumb-, language and metamenu
• News
• Special content elements
• Contact form
• Header images
• Slideshow on the homepage
• Search
• Lightbox
• Sitemap
8. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 8wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Motivation
• I wanted to test Neos
• I wanted to know something about other CMS
• I had to write a master thesis
• TYPO3 loses market share
• CMS evaluation is a big topic
• I did not find any information about tests like this
• Achieve knowledge on how to get started with other
CMS
• Learn from other CMS
10. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 10wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Proceeding
11. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 11wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Criteria catalogue
Implementation of the frontend (14 criteria)
• Main part of the evaluation
• Effort and usability of the solution is analysed
seperately
CMS functionality (8 criteria)
• Usually main part of other CMS evaluations
Developing and developer profile (5 criteria)
• Personal, subjective conditions of the
implementations
12. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 12wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
• Create an order of the results
• Key of points: 6-5-4-3-2-1 point
• No CMS can have equal points
• Time effort is easy to evaluate
• Arguments for evaluating the usability have to be
found
• Intensive work with the results necessary
• Difficult to enlarge the methodology to additional
CMS
Evaluation methodology: Ranking
13. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 13wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
• Point system from 6 to 1 point
• More CMS can receive the same points
• Easier to enlarge on additional CMS
• Challenge: how to rate time effort
Evaluation methodology: Rating
14. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 14wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
• S: Scale, HE: Highest effort, EpP: Effort per Point
• Calculation: Highest effort divided to 6 rounded to half
an hour is the effort per point
• Example: CMS 1: 6h, CMS 2: 3h, CMS 3: 2h → Scale 2
• Result: CMS 1: 2 points, CMS 2: 4points, CMS 3: 5
points
Rating: Time effort
S HE EpP 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 4 0,5 to 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 from 3
2 8,5 1 to 1 1,5 – 2,5 3-4 4,5 – 5,5 6 - 7 from 7,5
19. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 19wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Drupal
• Content based CMS
• Based on a node system
• Easy to create and configure content elements
• Easy to style without changing source code
• News and Lists with views
• Many modules have to be installed
• No full text search for content elements
• Problems with translations on static pages
• Login Url hard to remember ?q=user/login
20. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 20wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Contao
• Page based CMS
• Similar to TYPO3 CMS
• Unified development process: Create content in a
module → Assign it to a frontend plugin → make the
frontend plugin visible through a page layout → assign
the page layout to a page
• No source files had to be changed for the
implementation only the styles
• CSS can also be stored in database
• No translation handling → Multi tree concept
21. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 21wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Joomla!
• Content based CMS → only one content element per
uri
• 3 types of extensions: components, modules and
plugins
• Menu types for different content on pages: default:
article, category lists for news and room lists or form
• Modules are positioned in a part of the page layout
• For each header image own module necessary
• Not easy to add fields to content elements
• No translation handling in the frontend
22. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 22wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Wordpress
• Content based CMS
• Good facilities for translation handling and adding
additional fields
• A lot of changes in php source code files were
necessary
• Code with mix of php and html
• Only static pages were used
23. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 23wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
TYPO3
• Update from 6.1 to 6.2 caused problems
• Indexed search did not work out of the box
• Configuration languages like Typoscript or yaml only in
TYPO3 products
• The form content element was not usable
• Extensions are often buggy
24. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 24wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Neos
• Installation caused a lot of troubles
• More memory and more expensive hosting packages
necessary than for other CMS
• SSH access for flow scripts necessary for example to
create new nodes
• Backend is not always stable
• Errors when publishing changes
• Multilanguage behaviour caused double input of
content
26. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 26wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Conclusion
• All features can be implemented with all CMS
• Everyone will defend his favourite CMS
• Its important to catch the starters
• Objectivity is restricted by the developer and
developing profile and circumstances
• The evaluation still has a lot of deficiencies
• Maybe a unified developing process on top of
configuration would be a good idea for TYPO3 products
• For Neos it would be good to become cheaper in
memory and resources to have better chances on the
market
27. Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 20.06.2015 Seite 27wfp:2 GmbH & Co. KG Mönchengladbach | www.wfp2.com
CMS Evaluation
Recomendations (besides TYPO3)
• Drupal → Community websites
• Contao → for starters who need a websites very
quickly
• Joomla! → websites with a lot of out of the box
features
• Wordpress → Blogs
• Neos → Business Applications with little CMS, if you
want to implement everything yourself and use
modern implementation techniques