Hi,
I was looking for “rails cms” and finally, radiant is the one I want.
However I ride w3m in text mode (a11y background) and because of
javascript, I can’t pass the demo test…
Is it possible to turn off javascript in the view layer ?
if yes? then users += 1 end
Thanks !
Boris,
In order to get “unobtrusive” Javascript and full plain-text
compatibility,
we would have to change a lot of the code – maybe this can be a 1.0
goal.
Luckily JS is only required in the admin interface, so you might be able
to
enable JS just for that domain/url in your browser.
Sean
On 1/23/07, Sean C. [email protected] wrote:
Luckily JS is only required in the admin interface, so you might be able
to enable JS just for that domain/url in your browser.
He cannot. It is a text browser not supporting JS
Right, I must have misread that. Sorry!
Sean
Boris wrote:
I was looking for “rails cms” and finally, radiant is the one I want.
However I ride w3m in text mode (a11y background) and because of
javascript, I can’t pass the demo test…
The Radiant admin will probably always require Javascript.
–
John L.
http://wiseheartdesign.com
“John W. Long” [email protected] writes:
[…]
The Radiant admin will probably always require Javascript.
So I will probably never be able to use radiant 
Requiring JS breaks overall radiant accessibility. Isn’t JS mostly
used to shrink the content tree ? This would be great to relax this,
by providing simple fallbacks for people without JS support in their
browser, see quotes below.
Requiring JS would also break “no-fluff” and “minimalistic” claims,
IMO.
So how could I bypass the admin view requiring JS ? Is there a way to
manage content offline ?
I’m looking forward to see radiant as the first accessible Rails CMS !
Thanks for your attention,
Quotes:
“developers need to provide fallback options for users on other
platforms or browsers, as most methods of Ajax implementation rely
on features only present in desktop graphical browsers.”
–Wikipedia,
“AJAX and JavaScript are supposed to be used to enhance the user
experience when run on a platform that supports it, they are not
there to replace the job of the server in the first place”
–Brett Parker, http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/blog/2006/08/29
Boris wrote:
“John W. Long” [email protected] writes:
The Radiant admin will probably always require Javascript.
So I will probably never be able to use radiant
While it saddens me that you can’t find a Ruby solution to meet your
needs, I’m afraid I have to fall back on the old excuse that I designed
Radiant to meet my needs and expectations–not yours. Early on I made
the decision that Javascript would be a requirement to improve the speed
of development. There are times when there is not an easy way to create
an alternate representation of the same functionality for browsers with
Javascript turned off. So I made the decision that we would not support
it–at least initially.
So how could I bypass the admin view requiring JS ? Is there a way to
manage content offline ?
You can create and submit patches to repair the current
implementation.
You can create an extension which provides a text-browser friendly
version of the admin.
–
John L.
http://wiseheartdesign.com
The Radiant admin will probably always require Javascript.
So I will probably never be able to use radiant
Requiring JS breaks overall radiant accessibility. Isn’t JS mostly
used to shrink the content tree ? This would be great to relax this,
by providing simple fallbacks for people without JS support in their
browser, see quotes below.
I was going to write back to your original message and say “all you
needed to do to create fallbacks is to fix x,y and z”, but realised
after the first couple of entries that it was starting to get
non-trivial.
The main awkwardness that I see is page parts. Adding them, removing
them, displaying them in a usable manner. All those would be quite
difficult without JS.
Using extensive javascript in an administration application is a very
reasonable design decision - the administration application has the rare
luxury of dictating its audience. Unless you’re running on a old wyse
terminal there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to spin up firefox
for your website management.
Dan.
“John W. Long” [email protected] writes:
Boris wrote:
[…]
So how could I bypass the admin view requiring JS ? Is there a way to
manage content offline ?
You can create and submit patches to repair the current implementation.
You can create an extension which provides a text-browser friendly
version of the admin.
I finally think that a good solution would be to provide an API
through XML-RPC, like others already do. This would be real
luxury :-). Maybe it’s non-trivial, but at least I won’t be alone to
use it… so hopefully not alone for achieving it!
What do you think about that?
Thanks,
Hi Dan,
Not everybody has the luxury to have a body that can use Firefox. That
was the point in this case.
Erik.
Daniel S. wrote:
Using extensive javascript in an administration application is a very reasonable design decision - the administration application has the rare luxury of dictating its audience. Unless you’re running on a old wyse terminal there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to spin up firefox for your website management.
Dan.
–
Erik van Oosten
Boris,
XML-RPC would be great. I don’t know the innards of Radiant (mental)
enough to give a definitive answer, but if it can be done, it would
give Radiant tremendous flexibility.
I finally think that a good solution would be to provide an API
through XML-RPC, like others already do. This would be real
luxury :-). Maybe it’s non-trivial, but at least I won’t be alone to
use it… so hopefully not alone for achieving it!
I’m actually quite interested in implementing the atom publishing
protocol, and have been thinking a lot about how radiant’s model of what
constitutes a page can be mapped to atom entries.
Then main issue is radiant’s concept of page parts (which ironically
enough is the reason why the admin interface needs javascript and the
reason for this thread starting) - but there’s many ways in which parts
could be mapped to atom collections. I take it that wordpress/movable
type/other blogging platforms don’t have a similar concept, which is why
we don’t line up with the rest - perhaps only the ‘content’ parts get
exposed through the atom entry… it’s a little bit of a clash of
schemas.
Until I start seeing gui clients implementing the APP, it’s not easy to
see how to map radiant to atom so that it’s usable, but it probably wont
stop be geeking out on it sometime in the not too distant future.
Dan.
I think a REST implementation would be very simple to accomplish.
However,
that too would need to be developed as an extension for the time being
because I don’t believe that’s on the table for the core before 0.7 at
least
(a task listed on the 0.7 release plan is ‘Add support for publishing
through Mars Edit’ – I imagine TextMate might be possibility too).
Sean
What’s the basic idea behind making a JS-free view?
Is it for users with text-only browsers? Why not take the approach of
making sure that all of the features of the admin be easily supported
through script/console.
For instance, we already tell people to use script/console to edit the
Conf. Would some API improvements like this meet your needs Boris?
What if you built an extension that just added a bunch of utility
classes/methoda that made it easier to build a site directly from
script/console?
Jacob B. wrote:
classes/methoda that made it easier to build a site directly from
script/console?
All of the features can be done from the console, if you know what
you’re doing. However, script/console is not for casual users; it’s
better if you’re familiar with using it from other Rails projects.
Sean
Integration with Mars Edit is planned for 0.7, FYI. I don’t know what
that entails, but I imagine there will be the possibility for supporting
other options.
Sean
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs