Elmar Höfinghoff

My feedback

  1. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » E-commerce  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  3. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  4. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  5. 180 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    22 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hello!

    We are currently trying to come up with the best model for enabling Content editors and Marketers to compose parts of pages using widgets also on MVC websites.

    What do you think about the following:

    1. The most important part is to enable business users (Content editors, Marketers) to add and configure components (widgets) in within specific areas (zones) on a page

    2. MVC developers know how to create layoyuts/templates and can do that on their onw, only need to be able to mark part of the layout as a widget area/zone

    3. MVC developers know how to implement reusable components. If there is a unified way to register such components with Kentico to be used in widget areas, there is no need to develop hundreds of out-of-the-box widgets.

    4. The biggest wish for Content editors and Marketersis to be able to influence a section of a specific page,…

    Elmar Höfinghoff commented  · 

    For our company the missing MVC support (including page editor features) is the biggest showstopper for Kentico Websites!
    This is such a big problem, that we can't even use Kentico on some customer projects anymore!

    Elmar Höfinghoff commented  · 

    1.) Agree, it is most important. I want to add: Widget Zones have to be configurable WHICH widgets are allowed to be inserted here. This is currently missing in the Portal Engine.

    2.) Correct, template editing must not be included in the CMS. Nice to have.

    3.) Correct, I do not need hundreds of out-of-the-box widgets. The most Web Parts or Widgets are too specific and come with not wanted markup. This is the biggest argument to develop in MVC. So we do not need ootb content.

    4.) Agree, content editors need only some sections to add and reorder components.

    More than OM tasks, default content management is focussed in our projekts. Widgets are nice to add some individual content to static templates, which are based on repeater content.
    The mixture of data pages, used as source for these repeaters, and individual content added as widgets is a very common szenario. Too much widgets are confusing the editors.

    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  6. 44 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Share your thoughts  ·  1 comment  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » E-commerce  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
    Elmar Höfinghoff commented  · 

    Same here.... first thing QA mentioned was "why does the customer get informed twice? Order created and Order payed?"...
    Admins need the Order created, Customers need the Order payed notification....

  7. 26 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  8. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  9. 144 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Elmar Höfinghoff commented  · 

    How do I do this if it is still implemented? We also ran multiple times into this issue. We have a base funktionallity of every Web Part, e.g. you always be able to define a padding top. If we have to enhance this base functionallity, we always have to do it on EVERY WEB PART redundantly, because there is no inheritance of those fields.

    So my question again: If this is implemented - how can I use it? Any documentation link?

    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  10. 144 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    14 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hello,

    we are exploring the options on how to limit widgets that can be added to various zones that are available to content editors on the whole web.

    Limiting widgets per zone is one of the most considered options.

    (Please note that the main focus is on the MVC devleopment model)

    If you have any suggestions on what possibilities to limit widgets you would appreciate, please leave a comment below!

    David Komarek
    Product Owner

    Elmar Höfinghoff commented  · 

    It would be very helpfull if the web part or widget list could be filtered by the page type and/or the page template where it should be added to.

    Currently I have to explain our content editors which of the web parts or widgets are designed to be placed in which page types or page templates.

    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  11. 24 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff shared this idea  · 
  12. 62 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  13. 115 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 
  14. 320 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi, this idea is currently being explored an dwe are looking for the best solution.
    I would like to hear your suggestions regarding this functionality to make this as smooth as possible, please add your comments below the idea:

    What is the most common scenario?
    - Store administrator who needs to change page type of a product
    - Site administrator during site redesign
    - something completely different

    Do you see an urgent need for having this integrated directly into UI:
    - for editors – somewhere in Pages
    - for store admins – somewhere in Ecommerce apps
    - just for global administrator, so that he understands all possible issues that may arise related to system setup, workflow, …
    - no ui, just API

    Do you want some kind of auto-mapping of fields or complete control of the mapping?
    - full control, no logic based on same names
    - auto-mapping would do

    Elmar Höfinghoff supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base