Hello fellow XOOPS users:

I've been running the Epping Forest Band website since 2004, after the band's previous effort to get online failed. I wanted to help out, and knew XOOPS could help me get online quickly, and also not tie any one person into providing all the content.

So the website has been through many changes - some good, some bad. Trying to implement every idea the band had proved interesting, and eventually I had to scale things back a little. Protector can sometimes be interesting, locking people out of the site. Also I've had to help the user base use their own computers! I guess we've all been there.

Recently - within the last few months, a web designer has joined the band and has been constantly demanding to take over the site - move away from XOOPS and use his design services. The band committee have been rebuffing these advances, and have kept their faith in my XOOPS based site. I am finding it frustrating dealing with the constant and substantial criticism from his sources.

Not sure why I'm posting to you all. I like using XOOPS and I think it has served the band well and will continue to do so.

Current site: http://www.eppingforestband.co.uk

The non-Xoops alternative: http://www.inet.me.uk/epping/

Any comment and advice gratefully received.

Daniel Andrews
EFB Webmaster

PS, any good brass players in the area - we need you! .... had to get that in!

In Holland we have a saying on 'seagull managers', they come in, loud yelling, sh*t on everything and everybody, and then, when everything is broke, they leave.

Don't doubt yourself.

Yourr site is beter - but perhps a bit more color?

kriss from france or xoopsdezign has done some good color thems

Your current site looks nice, graphically better than the non-xoops site. If necessary, you can improve the design of a XOOPS site just as much as the non-XOOPS site, simply by changing the theme and some templates.

One thing I would not do is to 'hand over' the site just like that. Never change a winning team

Ok on observing both sites, and since you used my wording of constructive criticism, as I often ask for…

The coding of the newer site that is suggested has basic W3C errors that shouldn’t be made, in other words if this person is such a professional as they say, then why add body top margin etc when they don’t exist as code? Mmmm = Dreamweaver newbie collage trained know not much other then how to make a mess of thing with Dreamweaver.

Anyways criticism of his work is not enough and will look bad doing so, yet on criticism of the XOOPS site…..= have you thought of adding more themes and designs with the theme selector and show what XOOPS is made of.
As in the theme at present is a draw back, it is not in keeping with what is presented in my own eyes and colourings.
So by adding some more themes you make everyone happy on design.


Your arrangement of Space with XOOPS needs fixing also, if you check my own site which is now minimized a bit to much some say, yet for me I can not stand sites that require you to scroll down to find nothing extra.

So make sure that the space is full of content and context (=sell the product through directing surfers, where you want them)
Middle of page is foremost and should be full interesting and colourful, many people will leave a site if the first page isn’t eye catching enough…that is one difference between the two designs and the only one really….there is very slight graphic experience, very slight…I find that none XOOPS one like a site I see for demons and witches normally, not a band.
Yet then neither is the XOOPS site in terms of colour or spacing….make the centre news and explanation full and large, so wham bham someone opens the site and there is it explained in the middle clearly, and then leading to the next article directly to keep them entertained.
To swap to a system where you need to pay someone each time is very limiting to say the least, so just make all these points in XOOPS and you are on a winner.

Quote:

I quite agree, and I've been struggling here I know. I'll redouble my efforts.

Quote:

I think that quote counters nicely any comments he has made to me.

Many thanks for your direction. I know what I must do.

What will be the manner of adding content to the non-xoops site? How much effort and time will it take for the users to adapt to the use of the non-xoops site? You have a blank.png in the Scabba news article displaying only the dreaded red X.

I really really really. Really like what svaha had to say! Of the same note- if it ain't broke, why fix it...

Keep the XOOPS cms. You will be glad you did. I like others have tried other cms and static methods and after wasting my time on them for what I like to refer to as research instead of a waste. I have always found XOOPS to be the most reliable and it is only going to get better.

Quest

Quote:
My point exactly. He made it very plain it was not his responsibility to provide content, just the design.

Quote:
Eeeek..... I don't see it, there is no image in that article. The "News" module was trimmed as it did contain a lot of outdated items. It now looks a bit bare to me. I used to have lots of topics with a few news items in each. There is a public news side and a private "Band members" side.

To be honest, your version looks a lot nicer - the other one almost looks quite.... uhm... amateurish.

Yours does look more professional.

I don't know if they intend to add it later, but the oter site has no doctype set, and no meta headers for keywords and description, etc.

I would not give up! Your XOOPS site is going to be easier to work with and infinately more functional. I would certainly put some effort into theming your site. Your theme looks very similar to the XOOPS default theme. It does not have to.

The one drawback I see with XOOPS is the asthetics of the default theme and backend of the site. There is all of this functionality there hidden under an ugly interface and it makes it a hard sell.

If I were you, I would put some thought and effort into coming up with a way to make your site not look like a XOOPS site and making it as pretty as possible. I would make a couple of themes and have the members pick which one they want to use. You are going to have to make this an easy decision for them. Get the theme looking good and they will see past it and see the functionality of xoops.

The bottom line: Pretty sells, ugly does not. All of the functionality in the world hidden under an ugly theme is going to be wasted on the members.

Here are a couple of examples of themes that (I have been told) do not look like boxy XOOPS sites: (all of these are modifications to available XOOPS themes.
http://kreitergeartech.com
http://churchthatcares.org
http://xoops.mattregister.com

There are countless examples out there.