Thomas:

I did in the past a version of Soapbox that included the SPAW editor, but after I wrote the help files (which take a lot of space), I had to choose between including the help or including SPAW, and chose the first option. Same thing about Tiny Content: it had some versions with SPAW, but the one I'm using now (1.6) has taken it out, I guess for the same reason.

I probably won't create a Soapbox with SPAW. It weighs too much. I definitely will make one using the WYSIWYG editor Samuels has been developing. It's great, it's light, it's easy to use, and it's programmed using XoopsForm, so it's very easy to integrate. I promise you it'll be for the better.

Cheers.

I would not recommend WF for your mother its not an easy to use interface not for someone that isn’t really into computers I certainly wouldn’t let my mother at all log into my XOOPS site LOLOLOL crikey! Talk about site crash. WF is a good module though you can do a lot with it.

Horacio,
Thank you for your response. I understand your concern about module size. It's definitely something you need to take in consideration while developing a large community based web site. However I think an HTML editor is very important. Gone are the days were you can capture an audience on the internet with just text (not in all cases!). But it's nice to be able to provide the reader with images and such.

It's nice to see the integration of the HTML area. I have stumbled upon people with browsers who haven't been able to use the editor. It's sad but what can you tell them. Please exchange your $3000 Mac to a cheapo PC! Right!

As far as looks I really like Spaw. It's simply beautiful. ( in a computer sense). HTML editor is much more efficient in my opnion and so it's worth it.

Right now I am working on figuring out the XOOPS code and how the HTML editor was used in the Wiwi module. If I can get it integrated I will let you know.

Yourhelp,
Thanks for your friendly recommendation. Yes, I don't think I will let my parents touch my XOOPS sites. That would be a catastrophy! lol

It's just amazing though how many people in the young generation that don't know how to use computers. But, that's why XOOPS is such a great system. People can contribute online without much experience in HTML. The only problem I've learned is when you have a user who is already intimidate by the idea of "becoming" the web master. And they are initially the type of people who are afraid to push an electronics button and see what happens. lol

Anyhow, I am going to look more at the WF modules and certainly try them in action.

Thank you,

Thomas

I would like to add a few comments to this little debate and hopefully clear a few issues with WF-Sections.

We all know now that the previous version/s of WF-Sections has more than its fair share of bugs and little annoyances and we over the project site we do not shy away from this but actually embarrassed this and we have been working for the last 3 months in getting a working version available. We have had positive feedback regarding the CVS version and we are very close to a beta release of 2.0.2 with an update script =)

Many people have complained or commented on the complexity of WF-Sections and these comments have persuaded new users to keep away from WF-Sections and use other programs. I agree that choice is a good thing and that WF-Sections may not be everyone’s first choice, just because something is complex does not make it bad.

WF-Section has never designed for the beginner in mind, but for the webmaster that is looking for a powerful tool to manage their article management. It has been stated on this website that WF-Sections is probably the most rich featured system of its kind on the internet and its only available for XOOPS *grin*.

While I agree that most people just want to 'get their articles up and running fast' and it seems that with the complexity of WF-Sections this does not happen, well in fact once you get used to this software you will in fact find it the opposite and you can easily add and maintain your articles.

WF-Sections is a professional based tool aimed at the experienced user and possibly not the beginner. You wouldn't expect a graphics designer to use the MS Paint package would you?

Just my 2p worth =)

Scott

It is a fantastic module no doubt about that.

Boy, I think I may have posted in the wrong thread. I never really wanted to argue which is better. I think both modules have their purpose. And they are both good. :)

I have been trying to use the Wiwi module to integrate the HTMLarea into Soapbox. I have made some progress but still can't get the HTML area to work. Spaw which is a configuration option work partially.

I probably should create a new thread on the forum, because I now really have one goal. Make HTML area work in Soapbox!

Nope not your fault at all. I can’t see any angry emoticon icons yet in this post only smiles sometimes reading another’s posts you can get the wrong impression that’s why emoticons where invented.

It is good to talk about modules there an important part of XOOPS without them XOOPS wouldnt be much would it.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I have either given the wrong impression here or you have miss-undertood me here. <- Smiley.

My point wasn't to to say which module is better or which module should be used etc. I was merely answering the question as to what WF-Section is, whats wrong with it and what we are doing with it. Also to let people know that WF-Sections is not a easy to use module compared to the likes of SoapBox (from what I seen is a fantastic module) it's just that both modules are different in approach.

I did not intend to start a flame war between the different modules =)

Scott

Its ok everyone is coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL no flame war believe me this isn’t a flame war check out some of my old posts there what people might call flame wars. But I look at them more as posts with lots of variety and different opinions and I like posts where people can say how they feel about something.... anyway babbling on here but EVERYTHING IS COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. BIG SMILES

Quote:

What can people that use non-IE browsers suggest to you? Please use an editor that is cross-platform compatible! Right!

I'm looking forward to the Koivi (???) editor that is under development. It appears to have much better cross-browser compatibility.