Armadillo works great with clients. Just saying.
Didnāt you know, this forum is one giant Souce fan club š¤£
1 Like
This forum isnāt a fan club by any means. There is no commercial pressure to say or not say what anyone thinks. Source is very popular here because it simply outperforms everything else out there.
4 Likes
@Webdeersign You so elegantly underlined @ajenks point. Itās one of the reasons this forum has become more and more irrelevant.
5 Likes
@ajenks and @mitchellm ā If this is a Source fan-club, how would you characterize the Weeverspace site?
We talk a lot about Source for a reason. There is plenty of topics unrelated to Source, though. You can even find threads where other platforms like UiKit are praised. Joe Workman also have his share of praise in these pages. There is also plenty of references to products and services completely unrelated to Source.
Letās be fair. Every forum has its main āthemeā. It just happens that RW4Allās users are mostly interested in Stocks and Source.
Itās one of the reasons this forum has become more and more irrelevant.
Thatās certainly a surprise for meā¦ š
1 Like
This calls for a poll š
1 Like
Sorry, but I call BS!
There are over 500 members here, a handful are Source fanboys, theyāre just the most regular/vocal members, so it can seem like everyone is a source fan.
Iāve nowt against Source, I use it, itās great, but the fanboyism and constant references to it on totally unrelated threads does get tiresome at times.
5 Likes
@TemplateRepo ā Everyone is entitled to express their own interests and opinions. If anyone here is interested in Foundry, Foundation, UiKit, Platform, BlueBall or anything else, they are free to request information, help or just casual discussion on those topics. Nobody stops them.
There is no need to start a war simply because some people are more vocal than others. Be vocal, too, if you think that you have something interesting or of value to others about your favored platform. As a matter of fact, you are quite vocal about UiKit, arenāt you? Did anybody object to that?
Some āunrelated threadsā are about seeking guidance or recommendations. And just so happens, that for some tasks Source is a perfect choice. What good would it bring to people seeking advice, if this information would be withheld from them, just because you are tired of hearing about Source?
1 Like
First off, Iām not starting a war. Iām calling out your comment about this forms users being āmostly interested in sourceā.
Second, yes, I was vocal about UKIt. Did anyone mind? Dunno, but donāt think so. But I suspect that was because I didnāt bombard everyone with it.
And thirdly (and finally)ā¦
If someone was looking for guidance, that wouldnāt be an unrelated thread would it.
1 Like
Can we just drop this unproductive back-and-forth? Iām sure there are more interesting things to discuss ā especially in the thread dedicated to Foundry 3ā¦
1 Like
Umm, Weaverspace is for Foundation users so Iām not sure how that would even compare, and why does it even matter, I was making a joke about RW4all being a fanboy club for Source. Then the usual people get butt hurt cause I dare say something about Source. Source is an awesome framework no doubt, but itās not for everyone. Donāt worry, I wonāt be posting anymore on this forum, itās to toxic and I have better things to do with my time.
2 Likes
Yep, please get back on the original topic question:
2 Likes
Iāve been using it to create a business site for a new venture. So far I have found it to be quick and easy to use with enough extra layers if you want to tinker, or you can use the presets for ease and speed.
Itās a great value upgrade and is a complete package - without any additional (non Foundry 3) stacks you can create a site. Thatās what Iām trying to do presently because all the foundry 3 ātoolsā work well together and are well thought out.
As always with Adam you get easy to understand documentation and also some complete site examples with banner and call to action extras. These are free to use, play with and alter. Also extra videos in collaboration with rapidweaver classroom providing a tuition package that a novice could follow to create a new site from scratch.
Support forum is also great and questions are answered promptly and consciously.
I was going to update an older site from Foundation 1 to the newer version but will now use Foundry 3 because it seems to be more intuitive. Also came out on release with written documentation and hours of easy to understand videos tutorials.
The āBlacksmithā stack is a nice way to change things across the site or to elements on a page using CSS classes. I will build the site and add this on later if I want to change some of the backgrounds, buttons etc.
5 Likes
Yes, I agree. Lots of helpful information. I think Adam listened to all the complaints about Foundation 6 from people who bought it and then developed Foundry 3 as a direct response, complete with complete documentation as well as direct, to-the-point, shorter actual tutorial videos as opposed to two hour, hard-to-follow movies from Joe Workman.
I hope Joe can duplicate Adamās efficiency and succinctness. Foundation 6 might actually be the best framework of all, but who knows if most people just canāt figure out how to use it.
One of Joeās videos included a lady whoād built dozens of sites with RapidWeaver for maybe 10 years, and her biggest complaint, āFoundation 6 takes away the fun of RapidWeaver.ā
Foundry 3 is fun.
5 Likes
1LDās āDeluxe Stacksā showed that a framework isnāt necessary any more ā half a dozen structure stacks with responsive functionality will do the same thing. Joeās āStarter Packā illustrates this now too. But for my money Skylerās āFluidā was the most interesting non-framework platform, with interaction built into its very core. For whatever reasons ā perhaps most, because it was difficult for users to get their heads around ā it didnāt catch on. But I canāt help feeling that a next-generation platform would do much the same.
2 Likes
How is Foundry 3 on Pagespeed Insights.
I had a play with it, and when you follow some advices you get from using PageSpeed insights, 98/99% on performance wasnāt an issue. No problem achieving 100% on the other 3 after the latest update of Foundry which added more accessibility options. As soon as you use a stack that loads jQuery though (like Obscure Email from @doobox e.g.), that drops a lot.
1 Like
I found the same as Pumpkin, the page speeds Iām getting are 99 on a couple of sites, thatās without evening really trying to be honest. Iām embedding quite a bit of animation with that. If I put a stack in that use jquery (of the ones Iāve tried) it tends to go down to 93-95, take them out and utilise the tools inherent to work something similar it goes back to 99. The other stats all score 100. I guess to get 100 on perfromance I would need to take the animation sections out, but then it loses the whole point of what I do. Iām very impressed with it if iām to be honest. The CSS grid is good but pretty basic, Iām looking at the moment whether to add Flux in to the equation as that looks very interesting.
What CSS Grid?
Doesnāt Flux add jQuery for some reason?
Not that jQuery is the problem that Foundry users seem to think it is. It is one piece of the complex puzzle that coupled with lots of other stuff, can slow your site to the point where it will never be able to achieve 100% Speed. If the rest of the site is quick then adding jQuery may not stop you from getting 100%.
E.g. See Pumpkins 100x4 Blocs5 Bootstrap5 built site that loads jQuery. If the rest of the site is fast, jQuery doesnāt slow it enough to fall below the 100% speed threshold.
Similarly, Stuarts Source site (4x100 for mobile & desktop)](https://source.shakingthehabitual.com) is so fast it doesnāt even need all of PageSpeeds recommendation to be addressed. I.e. 15 images without dimensions, huge dom of 1200+, etcā¦ When a site is this fast you can sit back and ignore all that recommendations.
1 Like
Youāre right on all counts. But in fairness also Iām not aiming to achieve 100, it would be nice, but not the top priority, if that was my main aim then I would have to sacrifice another important aspect of the sites Iām currently building, by omitting a key component Iāve strarted using, just want to ensure my sites arenāt utilising too many different instances of jquery and reserve the times I am loading it to key stacks/components suitable for the need. Go back about two years ago I was shoving loads of different stacks by different developers on a single page, looking back those sites were getting poor lighthouse scores looking now. As we know there are some really excellent stacks out there and now I want to use them when they really fill the need as opposed to just get them in for this and that. Iām finding Foundry 3 to be excellent, it is ticking all the boxes for my workflow and it is really fun to use and perfoming well. But as I said at the start you are right on all counts.
2 Likes