# Presentation video

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634>\
**Category:** Radiant CMS\
**Created:** [March 30, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634 "2007-03-30T16:12:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/1 "2007-03-30T16:12:41Z")

</div>

My presentation (~35 min) is now available on Google Video. Yay!

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=873065414896280423&hl=en](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=873065414896280423&hl=en)

Again, the slides are here:

[http://seancribbs.com/customizing-radiantcms](http://seancribbs.com/customizing-radiantcms)

Sean

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/2 "2007-03-30T17:40:30Z")

</div>

From the presentation:

0.7 - Intaglio (Blogging)  
Comments, tagging  
Mars Edit support  
Convert from WordPress, Typo, Mephisto  
Robust import/export

Oh? Where can I learn more? Is there a planned future release to  
address what’s being discussed in the “Radiant replace Pages with  
Abstract Content Model” thread?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/3 "2007-03-30T16:13:41Z")

</div>

Sorry, remove ‘cms’ from the end of that last URL.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/4 "2007-03-30T19:36:32Z")

</div>

That list is just what I have collected from Radiant’s core-team  
Basecamp.

Re: Abstract Content Model - Doubtful. I understand the conceptual  
reasons behind the abstraction of content; however, I’m with John on  
this one. There seems to be very little benefit for the amount of  
indirection and complication that would be introduced. If we want  
Radiant to maintain simplicity and clarity, I think we need to stay  
away from becoming a content-management “framework” like ezPublish,  
Plone, Xaraya, and many others. It’s really just overkill for most  
scenarios.

When we evaluated ezPublish at KCKCC we started calling it  
“hardPublish” – there were too many barriers between us and the  
content. And in the end, we wanted control of all of the output.  
Radiant provided that for us.

I guess what I’m saying is, I’m glad Radiant embraces constraints.  
That makes it not fit in all scenarios, but if you need something  
else, you should use it. Be pragmatic!

Sean

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 10:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/5 "2007-03-30T22:04:50Z")

</div>

Hi Sean:

Sean C. wrote:

> That list is just what I have collected from Radiant’s core-team Basecamp.

There is a Basecamp and a Trac? Or am I missing something?

> Re: Abstract Content Model - Doubtful. I understand the conceptual  
> reasons behind the abstraction of content; however, I’m with John on  
> this one. There seems to be very little benefit for the amount of  
> indirection and complication that would be introduced.

I am not quite sure what complications you are referring to? Derived  
models behave just like first order ActiveRecord models. At least that  
is the goal. All that changes is that you have the freedom of using  
the added layer of abstraction that provides you with a unified design  
model for content objects.

> If we want  
> Radiant to maintain simplicity and clarity, I think we need to stay  
> away from becoming a content-management “framework” like ezPublish,  
> Plone, Xaraya, and many others. It’s really just overkill for most  
> scenarios.

If I understand the motivation for Radiant correctly, then its goal is  
to be content developer-centric. So, what does the content developer  
care about how his/her data is stored? Simplicity in that domain is  
purely a user interface design issue that requires the underlying data  
model to accommodate for it. This can be done with an object-oriented  
model or a flat file model. Why reject proven software design and data  
modeling methodologies if they add flexibility without affecting  
functionality?

I have no intentions to interfere with Radiant’s UI design as long as  
it remains useful and intuitive. But I think adding a more flexible  
object model is beneficial in the long run and it does not need to  
affect the UI at all.

Cheers,  
Oliver

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@smc7000](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/smc7000)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/presentation-video/90634/6 "2007-03-30T20:39:37Z")

</div>

I just want to voice my support: Keep it simple.