WebsiteBaker in Studentsorganisation Site

[former]

Hi!

I tested 5 Opensource CMS and WebsiteBaker is the easiest to use, has the best install-procedure helping, has the lowest degree of complexity in handling of sitemanagement and the easiest adaptable templates.
I can only recommend it.
see http://organ.hgkz.ch

By.

[Ryan]

That is very nice to hear! BTW, did you find WebsiteBaker on OpenSourceCMS? It is not listed on the left menu, but I believe there is a forum post somewhere containing a link to it.

[Craig.Rodway]

BTW, did you find WebsiteBaker on OpenSourceCMS? It is not listed on the left menu, but I believe there is a forum post somewhere containing a link to it.

That's where I found it.. I hope they [opensourcecms.com] promote it on the main site  

[SilverFeces]

I think I found it on HotScripts...

[fienieg]

I think I found it on HotScripts...

Me too  

[a2aseppa]

I am currently using Jetbox, which is also quite good though one has to know some php for the menu editing. That's why I consider trying WS Baker instead.

Have anyone of you guys tried Jetbox and WS Baker? Can you say which one beats another.

Overall I think CMS must have good usability for the clients.

[fienieg]

WebsiteBaker, is very simple to use, it has nice colored admin section, with picture that speak for them self's. It just plain simple. And the advanced option from WebsiteBaker are great.  

It's just a great CMS

[Stefan]

I have just now checked out the jetbox demo at opensourcecms, but I don't think these two are really in the same category. Jetbox seems to be one of the many portal CMS, whereas WB is intended to be usable by everybody who can use a computer. Just try it out and you'll see that there is a huge difference. While Mambo, Typo3, Jetbox and (almost) all the others are intended for constantly changing blog-style type websites (community, news pages), WB is meant primarily for a quasi-static web page. It also has a news module but the "standard" page is an html page with fixed links that you can actually BOOKMARK.

PS: I do have to say, the backend of jetbox is very shiny.

[fienieg]

I must agree with stefan. Jetbox is a great CMS, if you know what you're doing. And have some extended knowlegde of cms systems. WB is for the general public. Just a stefan pointed out.

[SilverFeces]

WB needs more of the community features, mainly forums and other things that can provide interaction with the browser.

[Ryan]

Well, when I first dreamed of WB, I decided I wanted something simple - top priority.
Next priority was to have as many features as possible, that could be accessed without cluttering the basic features interface (hence, the "advanced" button).
What I have ended up with is something that can be used for either very, very simple websites - or alternatively, very, very complex websites.
However, as SilverFeces has said, WB needs more community features - this is what I love about WebsiteBaker - the fact that anyone can just make a module to add whatever feature they want.
In 3.x, modules will extend to be able to modify the administration (so that you can add extra functionality for admins only), so hopefully this will allow even more to come from WB.
 

[Stefan]

Glad to hear that, Ryan. I was just about to ask for a feature like that. Opens another world of possibilities!

[default]

Hello All,
I dont know how long i have been looking for such a cms.Ryan seems to be a coder who can see things from the point a noob
Congrats,keep it up  

[phil]

That is very nice to hear! BTW, did you find WebsiteBaker on OpenSourceCMS? It is not listed on the left menu, but I believe there is a forum post somewhere containing a link to it.

WebsiteBaker is now linked in the CMS-Portal Section on opensourcecms.com

Great work, Ryan and the contributers! Just to say once again