SMF developing or stagnating (was Wordpress/SMF bridge)

[PhuriousGeorge]

Nope... the customer is, quite frequently, just plain wrong.

...

Projects require four things
Scope - Cost - Time - Quality

if anything in that list changes, then everything else has to change to accommodate it....
(in our case, cost is not a factor, since none of us are paid and no one pays for the software or the features)
-- You can increase the scope (aka add features) by adding time or decreasing quality.
-- you can decrease the time by cutting scope or cutting quality
etc and so forth

This is all 110% correct in the real world

[Spr1te]

"This is, actually, technically an argument - since we have two contradictory positions...   that is pretty much the definition of an argument... "

Having two contradictory positions does not constitute an argument. I prefer to view our dialogue as a debate. Speaking of which, not once did you address AESTHETICS in your dissemination of project ideology. It is @ the forefront of ALL design and the reason why I have persisted to this point.

SMF is not pleasing to the eye all that is offered is an outdated theme, 3 column portals or variations of same, nothing exciting and has been that way since - well a long time.

When people want to start up a website they want it presented in an eye catching manner so as to attract readers or potential memberships. A standard webpage with link backs to a forum that is homogenous in style. > @ this point we are told anything WP can do is able to done in SMF. Yet there is nothing showcased that would lay credence to the claim.

I have a suggestion: Why not start a topic on "WP/SMF theme comparisons" where best examples are showcased, do a poll and see where SMF stands. Basic feedback is a wonderous thing and may lead to well earnt salvation.

[Arantor]

Both Kindred and Arantor have provided readers examples of what they believe can be accomplished by way of integration WP/SMF software but these seriously look out dated!

The example I gave was A WORDPRESS THEME. So WordPress themes are outdated, good to know.

[MrMike]

not once did you address AESTHETICS in your dissemination of project ideology. It is @ the forefront of ALL design and the reason why I have persisted to this point.

Actually, no.

Aesthetics is a secondary concern in design and engineering. In proper design, form follows function, not the other way around.

[Kindred]

Quite so, MrMike...

However, to be fair...   form and layout are part of scope...

that's what people like Sp1te don't seem to understand...   

Scope is scope and covers everything - including functionality, layout, design, and hoodyhah.... ANY change to the initially proposed scope results in changes to the other legs of the project plan.


So, Spr1te, while I did not specifically "address aesthetics" - it was actually covered in my statement.
and MrMike is right in one thing...   it is ****NOT**** "the forefront"

As for "all that is offered is outdated theme, 3 column portal" etc and so forth...
Sorry, I call utter and total BS.

first of all - I happen to LIKE the forum design.  So, your argument that "SMF is not pleasing" is yet another personal opinion....
second -- you do realize that 99% of the wordpress themes are based around a 3-column design as well?
just because something is a 3 column design does not limit you in the way you seem to think.... especially since most of the portal mods have different locations that you can combine for moderately different layouts PER ACTION!
third -- as Arantor has already pointed out... he duplicated a wordpress theme directly in SMF.


Also, your concept of eye catching and mine seem to be VERY different.  I have found your example to be garish and overdone.

Finally...   debate == argument

[Spr1te]

Both Kindred and Arantor have provided readers examples of what they believe can be accomplished by way of integration WP/SMF software but these seriously look outdated!

The example I gave was A WORDPRESS THEME. So WordPress themes are outdated, good to know.

Hi Pete, not my fault if you chose the wrong one > I'm talking slick presentations and again I'm not slagging your efforts just trying to be bold enough to bring this aspect of SMF out in the open. I don't pander to people like most I prefer to be frank. The new version of SMF for instance is not new, it looks the same! - currency is what I'm on about.

[Kindred]

so?   If you don't like it, get off your buttocks and make your own theme - then offer it on the theme site to demonstrate what you think a good theme looks like!

Seriously...   put your money where your mouth is and SHOW US (by download count, if nothing else) how your concept of a good template puts everything else in the smf site to shame.

[Arantor]

Actually, your issue is not that you 'don't pander to people'. Your issue is that you want what you think is cool and anyone who fails to provide that is automatically a failure in your eyes.

And 'you're not slagging my efforts' except for the bit where you do just that.

Why the **** should any of us listen to you, again, when all you do is preach blatant hypocrisy?

[MrMike]

Both platforms have their merits and deficits.

The enormous number of plugins and themes for WP make it an easy choice for a lot of people, and to be fair there are a *lot* of plugins for WP that have no analog in the SMF world (jobs boards, many, many different calendars, duplicators/replicators, online stores, etc etc).

The WP code has gotten better over time, so now it's rated only "dreadful" instead of "toxic".

WP has also seen high adoption because it appealed initially to lone-wolf bloggers, whereas SMF is targeted at groups and communities. There are a lot more bloggers than groups, so it's easy to see why so many people glommed onto WP. It's a good fit for a lot of people, no denying it.

But...the plugins are plagued with security issues and the sheer number of them makes it nearly impossible to vet or certify them in any meaningful way. Unless you audit the code yourself you simply have no way of knowing if the plugin is a disaster waiting to happen (and most people can't do it themselves).

SMF is a far more structured system, and the inherent nature of discussion boards means they appeal to a smaller audience (much smaller, really). It only takes one person to throw up a blog and start hammering out posts, but a discussion board by it's very nature requires a larger, more cohesive, more focused audience- pretty much the opposite of what blogging is supposedly all about.

Personally I think a bridge from SMF to WP or WP to SMF is a great idea, it would provide people with more options and allows them to start from either "end", so to speak.

Moving on, I disagree with much of what Spr1te said.

"SMF is not pleasing to the eye all that is offered is an outdated theme"

There are lots of themes for SMF and many of them are very pleasing to the eye in my opinion. The overall designs are somewhat limited by the structure of the system, which in this case is a forum. It really can't stray too far from that because that's what it is. If you want a nicer theme or something really different, go ahead and code it. No one is stopping you.


"3 column portals or variations of same, nothing exciting and has been that way since - well a long time"

Some truth to this, but as Kindred pointed out, the vast, vast majority of sites -all sites- are two- and three-column designs. That's what seems to work and so it should come as no surprise that we see so many of them. And it should also come as no surprise that SMF uses similar layouts.

It's true that the pace of development of SMF (and most forum software as well) is slower than something like WP which has a much, much broader base of users. I myself wish there were some key packages available for SMF (like jobs boards, some different calendars, a selection of online store mods, etc) but those things aren't my primary goal when using SMF. If I wanted a jobs board, I'd pick a stand-alone script or maybe use a WP platform with a plugin.

But as far as discussion forums go, SMF is what I'd recommend. I've been running forums since ~1996 and I've tried hundreds of different forum scripts. SMF is the one I settled on years ago for a standard forum "component".

[MrMike]

Having two contradictory positions does not constitute an argument.

Well, actually it kinda does if you're debating the merits of one versus the other.

I prefer to view our dialogue as a debate.

A debate is an argument, Spr1te. It's just an argument that's (generally) conducted in a more formal way.

[MrMike]

The new version of SMF for instance is not new, it looks the same! - currency is what I'm on about.

I don't see any reason it shouldn't look the same or similar. I prefer it that way. I don't want to have to relearn stuff every time there's a new release.

You want currency, I want consistency.

[Arantor]

Because form follows function, of course.

Appeal to new is a standard logical fallacy, just as some here would do well to learn that appeal to antiquity is just as much of one.

[Spr1te]

not once did you address AESTHETICS in your dissemination of project ideology. It is @ the forefront of ALL design and the reason why I have persisted to this point.

Actually, no.

Aesthetics is a secondary concern in design and engineering. In proper design, form follows function, not the other way around.

Ha ha I seem to recall making the "Form Follows Function" statement elsewhere. >

OK I gave mention to Mercedes Benz a few posts back making the point on user demand. Proper design takes form more seriously than you might think. Why do you think Merc design team place so much emphasis on presentation of their finished product?

They have invested hugely into each project. The must get the balance right or the consequence of losing market share and suffering financial loss as a result, become quite real. All car manufacturers have elements of other makes built into their vehicles so as not to stray too far away from what is considered to be a popular look based on user demand. They respect their customers and endeavour to cater for what they believe will excite the end user. So no, although form follows function its a prime ingredient in the overall mix and must not for one instant be overlooked as a car with all features will simply not sell if it is unappealing to the end user...I too have an engineering background!

[MrMike]

Ha ha I seem to recall making the "Form Follows Function" statement elsewhere. 

Where? I must have missed that.

OK I gave mention to Mercedes Benz a few posts back making the point on user demand. Proper design takes form more seriously than you might think. Why do you think Merc design team place so much emphasis on presentation of their finished product?

1) They care far more that it works than what it looks like.

2) "Presentation of their finished product" has virtually nothing to do with the design and construction of the presented product.

[Kindred]

"although form follows function its a prime ingredient in the overall mix and must not for one instant be overlooked"


And now you are using doublespeak

in other words
"you caught me out on my unilateral statement (which was wrong, as has been proven), so now I am going to try top backpedal and tell you what I ACTUALLY meant to say..."

I have never once indicated that layout and templates were NOT a part of the project scope -- you just ASSUMED that, becauise I did not call it out as a separate piece, that I was ignoring it... However, I never did... and as a matter of fact, when MrMike made his form/function statement, I clarified it by making that exact statement.   layout and presentation are part of scope...   but they are only PART of the scope - and when you are dealing with a project - be it a car or a forum software, you must takle the ENTIRE SCOPE into account... as well as BUDGET, TIMELINE and QUALITY.

Those are the four pillars of ANY project.

We have no budget.
We are all volunteers.
So, if you would like to donate some of YOUR time to volunteer a template design -- then, please, by all means, do so.
We can not and would not PAY someone to do work on this system...   that would denigrate the VOLUNTARY/FREE efforts of every contributor to the project.


so -- since you seem to have ignored my previous challenge to your thinking, I will state it again...

so?   If you don't like it, get off your buttocks and make your own theme - then offer it on the theme site to demonstrate what you think a good theme looks like!

Seriously...   put your money where your mouth is and SHOW US (by download count, if nothing else) how your concept of a good template puts everything else in the smf site to shame.

[Spr1te]

Quite so, MrMike...

However, to be fair...   form and layout are part of scope...

Finally, seems were making some ground.

While I did not specifically "address aesthetics" - it was actually covered in my statement.

Why wouldn't you address it if its @ the core of this debate? > The tendency is to overlook this aspect of overall design or not place sufficient importance to it.

And MrMike is right in one thing...   it is ****NOT**** "the forefront"

Beg to differ, but it is!

As for "all that is offered is outdated theme, 3 column portal" etc and so forth...
Sorry, I call utter and total BS.

Call it what you will. Take it on board or don't.

first of all - I happen to LIKE the forum design.  So, your argument that "SMF is not pleasing" is yet another personal opinion....

As is yours. SMF's current popularity is a gage on whether your correct or not.

second -- you do realize that 99% of the wordpress themes are based around a 3-column design as well?
just because something is a 3 column design does not limit you in the way you seem to think.... especially since most of the portal mods have different locations that you can combine for moderately different layouts PER ACTION!

Thing is they have a generic tired feel to them. Same ol same ol as I said.

third -- as Arantor has already pointed out... he duplicated a wordpress theme directly in SMF.

I believe I've addressed that point.

Also, your concept of eye catching and mine seem to be VERY different.  I have found your example to be garish and overdone.

I won't mention the word bottleneck!

[Arantor]

I believe I've addressed that point

If by address you mean 'I insulted it but claimed that wasn't what I mean so we're good, right?', then yes, you addressed it.

[Spr1te]

so?   If you don't like it, get off your buttocks and make your own theme - then offer it on the theme site to demonstrate what you think a good theme looks like!

Seriously...   put your money where your mouth is and SHOW US (by download count, if nothing else) how your concept of a good template puts everything else in the smf site to shame.

No can do "form" in this theatre requires skill and an equal amount of imagination. Its SMF's job to put the eye candy out and mine to assess!

[Spr1te]

Actually, your issue is not that you 'don't pander to people'. Your issue is that you want what you think is cool and anyone who fails to provide that is automatically a failure in your eyes.

And 'you're not slagging my efforts' except for the bit where you do just that.

Wrong never intended it to come across that way. Just looking for eye candy is that a crime?

[Kindred]

nope.   We are an open source project with open development....

Which means that it is EVERYONE'S JOB to contribute, if they want the software to continue.




But, this, of course, just clarifies the main point that you refuse to admit.
You, sir are a whiner.
You want everyone else to make things that YOU feel are "good" regardless of what it takes, or what it costs -- so long as YOU get your cookie.
Welp, Sorry.... Yet another case to prove that the customer, quite frequently, is WRONG.

If you want something that badly, when so many folks seem to disagree with you, then step up...   put your own money or time up.
If you don't have the skills, then hire yourself a web dev with layout experience and contribute back to the community.

So far, the only contributions I have seen from you are your statements that "SMF is doing it all wrong" -- which are useless, pointless and nothing more than whinging.