Thread

I’m all for changing “weblog” but not to “channel”. I use channel to describe a collection of content (single/multiple weblogs, forums, gallery).

e.g. on my current site I have multiple channels: music, movies, tv, and books. There is a blog post “weblog”, an image “weblog”, and a forum post “weblog” – not to be confused with the similar modules. I have a category group called channels which contains the above list of available channels, and is available to to each “weblog”.

Each channel has a page with the latest content from all weblogs belonging to the channel (category).

A channel acts as a conduit allowing data - or water to flow through. As such, it is the perfect word to be used in place of Weblog, “channeling” data to specified locations with further specifics within the channel to parse the data.

Deepsurface stole my thunder.

To date I’ve always used the term “stack”, but even though it’s simple and monosyllabic, it’s clunky; not quite as harsh as “bucket” but close.

“Channel” is much more graceful and seems more accurate in that data flows and that sometimes a weblog (I mean a channel) never actually does appear on the front-end but is a tributary to something larger. So to me it’s a perfect choice, I love it. PXLated, breathe deep and enjoy the flow.

I’m also very glad themes are disappearing because I always though they were misleading as to what EE actually is.

Why not just use the term, “page”? Everything in a website is considered a web “page” in the user’s eyes. Data flows, but it all flows to a given page. Sure, you may not see it all on the front-end, but in the end-game, things are loaded into a web page, dynamic or not.

When I see the word channel, I think television, IRC rooms or representational groups. “Channel” is going to be even weirder than using the “weblog” terminology to describe things. Eh, but to each their own.

Why not just use the term, “page”?

Reason #1.

Reason #2

Ok, we’ve heard a lot of discussion about the “channels” nomenclature. For the record, I think it’s a great term that has positive connotations, and fits the model quite well. I’m certainly glad to be free of the “weblog” term (finally!). It’s done, it works, let’s get used to it.

What I’d like to hear from people on is the other ideas of the post, regarding first impressions. When I show potential clients and other developers the install process (which is actually fine) and the sample templates, their enthusiasm seems to wane considerably.

I like the idea of a few different types of sites (mashup/aggregator, blog, corp. site, web app, etc.) to show the range of possibilities. Quality and differentiation is key here.

Thoughts? Ideas? How can this go beyond marketing and into really useful, illuminating examples that get clients excited about the possibilities?

I like the idea of a few different types of sites (mashup/aggregator, blog, corp. site, web app, etc.) to show the range of possibilities. Quality and differentiation is key here.

Thoughts? Ideas? How can this go beyond marketing and into really useful, illuminating examples that get clients excited about the possibilities?

This is what the Showcase is for. 😊

But the other option that we think will be much more popular with developers is the “blank” installation where EE is installed, but nothing else. In the majority of cases now a dev installs EE and then proceeds to delete everything relating to the default install or heavily modifying it.

I am one of the devs that do this, and I am really looking forward to using the blank installation. Thanks!

I wholeheartedly agree that ‘weblog’ should be dropped, if for no other reason that it promotes a stereotypical view of EE. The first thought that comes to mind after hearing the word weblog is… ‘oh, it’s a blogging tool’. I do prefer ‘section’ over channel but I like either better than weblog and will probably learn to be happy whatever the case is.

Second, I’m glad that there is some focus on educating the new to EE designer/developer on what EE is and what is can do.

I might add, as a relatively new to EE developer myself, the docs are very comprehensive and cover many topics… however the organization of the docs is something to be desired. It takes me forever to find the needed documentation for something EE does and can do. I believe this is the case because the docs are essentially spread out into three different systems… the ‘wiki’, the ‘documentation’, and the ‘knowledge base’. This isn’t even counting the forums which are another great resource in themselves. So with all these separate systems providing support for the end user… it seems very easy to get lost in it all. I would be thrilled to see some consolidation of the three systems or better organization of the data in each so that one could quickly find all references to a specific topic.

Probably there are many opinions on this matter… but I would like to see some focus on a better organizational scheme across all the EE support materials.

Just my two cents…

I would also like to add that EE is a blast to work with and surprises me often about how much thought has gone into its’ architecture. I can’t wait for Ver 2.0!

Not to change the subject, but would it be possible to get a quick description of how seamlessly EE 2.0 will embed and interface with CI?  Right now I keep the two in separate Systems folders because I did not want to risk overwriting certain similarly-named directories or files (index.php) (there doesn’t seem to be a lot of risk of that but didn’t want to chance it).  Ideally these items would complement one another so one could build some really kickass quickie applications in CI and easily embed them in EE templates.

Also, to what extent will the very fine and growing selection of 1.x plugins work in 2.x?  Will 2.x be able to read 1.x components?

Not to change the subject, but would it be possible to get a quick description of how seamlessly EE 2.0 will embed and interface with CI?  Right now I keep the two in separate Systems folders because I did not want to risk overwriting certain similarly-named directories or files (index.php) (there doesn’t seem to be a lot of risk of that but didn’t want to chance it).  Ideally these items would complement one another so one could build some really kickass quickie applications in CI and easily embed them in EE templates.

This type of thing will be discussed after the Developer Preview is available.

Also, to what extent will the very fine and growing selection of 1.x plugins work in 2.x?  Will 2.x be able to read 1.x components?

1.x Add-ons will not work with 2.0. They will have to be rewritten. There will be a Developer Preview and Beta available before a public release to give active EE devs a chance to do so.

Regarding http://www.change.gov, all has been done with EE but the discussion. It would be great that EE 2.0 has the same comments features than intensedebate.com offers:

http://change.gov/page/content/discusseconomy

I don’t like Channels. It’s better than ‘weblog.’

I was one of the first to squawk about “weblog” when it seemed that EE was really more of a CMS (I’m old). Weblog did not/does not fit. Rick responded with a feature to change ‘Weblog’ to whatever you want, except in the EE tags, which still uses “weblog”, a holdover from pMachine days.

I use Section, which fits web development better than Channels. Channels comes across as a broadcast media term. Radio channels. TV channels. I don’t know too many web sites that deal in “channels” as terminology about sections of a site.

Whatever. Channels it is. Better than weblog, not as good as section.

Whatever. Channels it is. Better than weblog, not as good as section.

I’m backing you on this one RonnieMc.

1st Place: Section
2nd Place: Channels
3rd Place: Weblog

...how seamlessly EE 2.0 will embed and interface with CI?

What is CI?

Sorry for the double post.

CI stands for CodeIgniter an Open Source PHP framework that EE 2.0 will run on.