Cms evaluation

CMS Evaluation
with test implementations
TYPO3 Camp Stuttgart 2015
Drupal – Contao – Joomla! –
Wordpress – TYPO3 CMS – TYPO3
Neos

Gernot Schulmeister | gernot.schulmeister@wfp2.com 09.05.2015 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

Live Test
Motivation
Methodology
Results
Conclusion
Schedule

CMS Evaluation
Order of implementation
• Drupal
• Contao
• Joomla!
• Wordpress
• TYPO3 CMS
• TYPO3 Neos

CMS Evaluation
Features
• Main-, sub-, breadcrumb-, language and metamenu
• News
• Special content elements
• Contact form
• Header images
• Slideshow on the homepage
• Search
• Lightbox
• Sitemap

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

CMS Evaluation
Proceeding

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

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

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

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

CMS Evaluation
Evaluation: time effort
Effort Rating Ranking
Contao 22,5 69 73
TYPO3 CMS 23 64 72
Wordpress 25 52 66
Joomla! 33,25 42 62
TYPO3 Neos 45,75 36 57
Drupal 47 31 51

CMS Evaluation
Evaluation: implementation quality
Rating Ranking
TYPO3 CMS 69 64
Contao 52 54
Drupal 48 48
Joomla! 47 47
TYPO3 Neos 41 46
Wordpress 37 45

CMS Evaluation
Evaluation: developer – developing profile
Ranking Rating
Drupal 26 25
TYPO3 Neos 21 23
Joomla! 21 21
Contao 16 15
Wordpress 13 16
TYPO3 CMS 8 6

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

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

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

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

CMS Evaluation
TYPO3 CMS
• 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

CMS Evaluation
TYPO3 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

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

CMS Evaluation
Links
• Drupal: p144004.mittwaldserver.info/
• Contao: contao.p144004.mittwaldserver.info/
• Joomla!: joomla.p144004.mittwaldserver.info/
• Wordpress: wordpress.p144004.webspaceconfig.de/
• TYPO3 CMS: typo3.p144004.webspaceconfig.de/
• TYPO3 Neos: neos.p256913.webspaceconfig.de/

Cms evaluation

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Cms evaluation

Ähnlich wie Cms evaluation (20)

Mehr von Gernot Schulmeister

Mehr von Gernot Schulmeister (6)

Cms evaluation