Talk:Drupal/Archives/2009/June

No Backend

In hope of maybe reviving the discussion about a re-edit of the Drupal page, I just wanted to point out one little detail, that for me is what makes Drupal different from any CMS I've ever used: It doens't have a backend. As an administrator you lon in from the same location your other users login and you see the same page as your users (except for the admin menu). Now this is not necessarily a good thing (as can be seen in the Minnesota Usability research, that is mentioned in the article) but it is unique, as far as I know. Maybe there could be some discussion about how to structure the site, what information to place where, etc. I, for example, find the links in the above comment very useful, but I am unsure whether, if you included them in the article, you would have to include so many other sites that are similar, that it would simply be too much. That's just my two cents, though.
84.61.238.254 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the admin menu IS the "backend". It has a unique URL (www.sample.com/admin) and lets you do things regular users can't do. How is this a criticism?
-Replysixty (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well DotNetNuke uses the same concept. There is no Admin login; Admin items get added to the menu once you login.

-- Drupal's admin can use a different theme however, so I think this is more of a theming issue than much of an overall usability difference. Rogdor (talk)

The term "back-end" does not refer to admin interfaces; those are still front-ends. It refers to the underlying engine that does the under-the-hood dirty-work.
überRegenbogen (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"quote" "happy"

There were an awful lot of unnecessary quotation marks—around even common terms, like "stock" and "back-end". I weeded them out, as they were excessive and superfluous, and undermined the significance of those that were actually warranted—i.e. around things that are actual quotations.
überRegenbogen (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)