After my previous post comparing Word Press to DNN to Drupal, I realized there would be Joomla folks out there crying foul, and as well they should.

Why compare Drupal and DNN yet leave out poor Joomla? 

My reason seemed good enough; after all, I had no experience with Joomla, as opposed to hours upon hours of work with the other tools; however, that was no excuse. If you look at trends, you cannot ignore the data: since 2005, Joomla has surpassed Drupal in popularity.

So, if according to the trends, Joomla is the CMS of choice for most websites, how could I leave it out? Not only that, but if Joomla is so popular, why have I not worked with it yet? And that last question is what’s been bugging me for the past few days, and it has led me to my latest project: The Drupal v. Joomla Challenge.

The Challenge

The challenge is to put Joomla and Drupal in a head to head competition of content management systems (CMS) in ‘a no holds barred’ smack-down fight. I have the perfect opportunity to test the two out: I’ve been commissioned to research which CMS platform is the best for my client’s needs.

I’ve been the webmaster for a not-for profit organization for some time now, and we have decided it’s time to increase the power and functionality of the site (it’s currently a static website, and I’m the only webmaster). I’ve been given the task to research what system we should go to, and if you ask me, the best way to research is by doing.

Over the next few days, I’ll create 2 separate sites: one using Drupal and the other using Joomla. I’ll include the same content and general functionality, and I’ll compare each experience and take notes on the process. I’ll begin with the out of box set-up: I’ll compare the features, code, administration tools, and ease of use in getting content posted.

Next, I’ll explore the themes and modules created for each CMS. I’ll look at the variety, ease of implementation, functionality, and code they produce.

I’ll then see if I can create the functionality I’m aiming for, and I’ll be taking notes on the process, and of course, see if it’s even possible.

Finally, I will make an assessment of the overall experience and choose the winner.

The Criteria

We need a way to compare the two. I have decided to look at the following criteria:

Functionality: Our website highlights a number of programs, classes, and clubs around the entire state, and we want the user to be able to easily find exactly what they are looking for by filtering content by location or cost or some other factor. We therefore need a flexible, yet powerful CMS, and the specs for our needs will be a good test of the overall system.

Ease of Use: I want to know how well each one works out of the box, how easy it is to add modules and themes, how easy it is to customize (both layout and features), and how easy it is to administer users.

Standards Compliance: the site I’m working on is tied in to education, and so compliance with w3 standards will be important from an accessibility standpoint. Of course, I hate tag soup anyway, so I’m always interested in how clean the code is. I want to know how easy it is to produce table-less xhtml code, and so I’ll be specifically looking at how many errors the two systems produce and how easy it is to fix those errors.

I’ll be posting my experience over the course of the next few days (or possibly weeks). Stay tuned…

I’ve been working with drupal testing out it’s power, and I have to say, the more I work with CMSs like drupal or DNN (dot net nuke), the more amazed I am with Word Press and how much easier it is to create and customize sites.

First and foremost, Word Press is open-source, so are a myriad of modules and themes that go with it. Not so with DNN. Even though it bills itself as open-source, pretty much every developer charges for their modules and skins (WP’s version of themes). Drupal is also open-sourced, so it’s a tie in this area.

Secondly, Word Press, or at least the theme I’ve chosen is standards-compliant. It uses <div>s and not tables for layout. DNN almost exclusively uses table-driven layouts (ugh!). I’m not a fan of tables, mainly because nothing appears in a table until the entire table has loaded. With <div>s and CSS-driven layouts, the HTML will load even if the CSS has not loaded. Just like with the previous note, however, Drupal is pretty much the same as Word Press.

Third, Word Press works out of the box with minimal set-up. DNN works fairly well this way, until you want a theme that isn’t provided, and then, if you want a table-less setup, you might as well clear your calendar for the rest of the day or two, unless of course, you want to spend some money and just pay for a CSS-driven layout (they range from $40 – $125). Drupal, because of its power as a CMS, requires much more set-up. I’m fine with that because it allows me to charge more for setting up someone with a site, but there’s a huge learning curve involved, and you have to understand what taxonomy is and what it has to do with developing a site.

Fourth, customizing Word Press is a breeze, provided you are comfortable with php. Modules are easy to add as long as you are comfortable unzipping files and working your way around folder structures (note: don’t use a cpanel type program to upload modules, it will take you an eternity, you absolutely must work with an ftp program, which does feel ‘old school’ but it’s a must). Themes are even easier to customize (provided you are handy with html and css).

The trick to themes, however, is php include files. They are very simple to work with. Basically, your page is made up of sections or modules, and each one is a separate PHP file. You just need to familiarize yourself with the 4-6 files to see how they all work together (e.g. main index, side bar, header, etc.). Think of each php file as a division (like a div tag) on your master page. If you want to tweak your theme, you just have to concern yourself with the html tags on the php (leave the php code alone), and work on the CSS. In fact, in many cases, you can leave the php files alone and simply work on the CSS. The best part is that the entire CSS is accessible to work on directly. This is clearly NOT the case with DNN.

In DNN you are forced to work on skins and containers. For some reason, the developers decided to separate half of the layout into skins and the other half of the layout into containers. The skins are made by adjusting both the html and CSS for main divisions, headers, etc. However, if you want to decorate the various CSS decorations around individual page divisions (like image boxes, side bars, etc.), you need to work on the containers separately. I won’t even mention how controls come into play. The worst part is that to develop a skin &/or container, you need to compress your files into a zip file, upload it, unpack it, and then see if it works the way you intended. If it doesn’t, you need to work on the files, zip them, upload, unpack, & test. Rinse & repeat until it works. Note: I’m leaving out technical details that are also required, but I think you get the point.

Drupal is great, and I suppose it’s goofy to even try to compare a CMS to a blogging software; there is barely a comparison. The only reason why I’m comparing it to Word Press is that I wish customizing Drupal were as easy as customizing Word Press. It’s not nearly as intuitive, but I suppose you get what you pay for (in time and development). Drupal is more complex, but that leads to a more robust and powerful tool. DNN might make the same argument, but since it barely supports standards-compliant sites, and that with a hefty added cost, it’s not friendly to browsers, users, or developers.