cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Please advise on Alfresco best practice?

pawel_pohl
Champ in-the-making
Champ in-the-making
Warning: long post  😎

Dear Alfresco crowd,

First, thank you for creating this impressive piece of software.

I am looking for a very easy to use and low-maintenance solution for my company's marketing material approval process.

I've been playing around with Alfresco and so far it seems like a very fitting choice, but I would like to ask for recommendations on how to configure it for this project. I've only used it for two days and I'm sure I'm ignorant of best practices.



First, our requirements:

1. Simple workflow: representatives can upload their marketing materials to one space (preferably by network share or email), branding guys get an email with a notification, view the resource, approve/reject or start a discussion. Approved stuff somehow becomes approved permanently, either by being copied to a read-only folder or by getting some read-only tag. Either way it's "frozen" and can't be modified, and can be easily distinguished from the rest (all approved content can be browsed somehow). Reps get an email saying their stuff is OK to go to print or wherever.

2. Minimizing effort by reps (end users) is absolute priority, every screen users need to click through increases the probability the system will go unused. Reps are overseas so no face-to-face training.

3. Avoiding heavy customization



OK so now the questions (and thanks for reading so far, btw):

A. Explorer or Share? Or another client?
There  seems to be an unnecessary duality here, contradicting the brilliant simplicity that first impressed me about Alfresco. I know that I shouldn't interfere with Share sites from Explorer, but, at the same time, features like rules are missing from Share. On the other hand, Share has some features (Flash preview, easier access to comments and lots of other usability advantages) that are very valuable. It seems that there is one front-end that is scheduled for deprecation, while the other is not nearly mature yet. It's not an option for the reps to have to use two clients (too much confusion…), which one should I go with?

B. If Share, is there a *reliable* way to get the automatic workflow assignment and inbound mail functionality? Also, is there a way to set a site to be a users home page, so that the first thing they see is the site dashboard and not their own? The process of finding the site seems really difficult, not to mention that you actually have to explain what sites are (since in my use case I want the site to be a singleton anyway). Is there any way to crop down Share interface to bare minimum?

C. If Explorer, will there be an easy transition to Share once it matures? Is there some way to make discussions more visible in Explorer?

D. If third-party, then which one? I tried DoCASU, and the interface was very neat - but again, no discussions, limited previews.




Big thanks to anyone who tries to answer!

Best

Pawel
3 REPLIES 3

mikeh
Star Contributor
Star Contributor
I'll offer you a short version:

1 - Explorer vs. Share. Explore client is at v3.2, whereas Share is only v1.2. Therefore not all the features are available yet. However, that doesn't mean you can't configure rules in the Explorer client for Share Document Libraries. The warning across the top is just that - a warning. You may see some odd behaviour at times, but nothing should "break".

This isn't aimed at you specifically, but many people have brought up the same issue: they want a "simple" interface and yet accuse Share of not having all of Explorer's functionality. WE are adding Rules, better support for Workflow, Advanced Search, etc. to Share in upcoming versions, but usually we've found that 90% of users don't want it on a day-to-day basis; it's only the administrators who are complaining and they can do the one-off configuration in Explorer instead.

I suggest you set-up a Share site how you want - remove any pages you don't think you're going to need (wiki, calendar for example). Then use the Explorer client to configure rules on the Sites/[sitename]/documentLibrary folder. I suspect this will satisfy most, if not all, of your Use Cases. In the meantime, keep an eye out for Alfresco v3.3 / Share v1.3 which we'll be releasing in the first half of next year (probably 2nd quarter).

Thanks,
Mike

pawel_pohl
Champ in-the-making
Champ in-the-making
Mike,

First, thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions. Your support is greatly appreciated.

I feel more confident about Share now. To clarify, I have absolutely no problem using two or more clients as an administrator; I only need to keep it simple for end users. If you say the warning can be safely ignored, great. I will assume Share is a safe choice and do some more fiddling with it.

Regarding Share simplification: I got as far as removing blogs etc. from the Share site. Is there any way to redirect users to a Share site of my choice right after they log in? This seems to be the final obstacle.

Cheers,

Pawel

mikeh
Star Contributor
Star Contributor
Regarding Share simplification: I got as far as removing blogs etc. from the Share site. Is there any way to redirect users to a Share site of my choice right after they log in? This seems to be the final obstacle.
Have a look at site-index.jsp - this is the initial redirection when someone browses to http://server/share

Thanks,
Mike