We are currently in the process of drawing up a solution for an existing client, creating a number of eServices. The client currently have MOSS 2007. The proposed solution is to use MOSS as the launching pad for the eServices…
The requirement involves drawing up several online forms which provide registration facilities as well as facilitating a workflow of some sort. I have been told that the proposed solution requires complex web forms.
Most are complex forms with parent child details that have multiple windows. The proposed solution is to do some bespoke development, developing ASP .NET forms. These forms would be deployed under the _layouts folder of the current MOSS portal, inheriting the master page design on the current site.
I have been told that this approach make development and deployment more simple, as well has having ‘complete integration’ with MOSS.
My questions are:
Is this the best way to leverage SharePoint – it seems like the proposed solution is not leveraging MOSS at all..! I thought perhaps utilizing Web Parts would be better, but I have been told that this is more complex and developing more smarter intuitive UI is more difficult. Is this really the case? If not, what should be the recommended approach?
We will be utilizing Ultimus as the workflow engine. However, I have been recommended K2 Workflows. Anyone used both/have any opinions on either?
Many thanks in advance!
Kind Regards,
If they have MOSS 2007 Enterprise, you might consider if web rendered InfoPath forms can meet your needs for "complex web forms". When it comes down to it, probably all of these technologies can meet the neeed it is just a matter of what skill sets you and your customer have and how that will facilitate keeping this solution up to date.
Asim, what they propose is a possible solution. They can however provide the same functionality by making use of webparts. With the details you are giving us that isn't really possible to decide which option would be easier. I used both approaches in the same project depending on the requirements of each functionality.
I can understand that it doesn't seem like they are leveraging MOSS, but they actually are building pages within the context of MOSS.
I haven't really heard about Ultimus, I did use K2 in a proof of concept and I was quite happy with it. Then again, choosing the right workflow solution depends on your requirements.
Related
Ok, I always ask this question to myself.
When it comes to SharePoint OOTB features VS C# custom development, where exactly do you draw the line?
Just post your thoughts... (even if you think this question is ridiculous :-P)
I can't recall one single project where SP "OOTB"...
Fulfilled the client requirements entirely (except for the most trivial cases). In the case of changing requirements this often led to over-complicated hacks or eventual re-write as some "custom development".
SharePoint Designer didn't make the problem harder and less maintainable. Worst. Product. Ever.
Edit: Actually, now that I am "forcing" myself to remember it, I think it all devolved to some hack or issue avoidance to get around some limitation or another. The difference is where the hack is encountered and how easy it is to perform said counter-measure(s).
Not sure how you're going to get anything like a specific answer to this, shouldn't it be decided on a case by case basis?
Surely its just "If the cost of the custom development is less than the cost of 'living with it as is" then develop, or not?
In SharePoint there are many customizations that can be done without having to develop (if you are referring to 'custom development' as C# code.
Several thing can be done using Sharepoint Designer, and I wouldn't know if those are to be considered custom development.....
I have created websites out of VS, changing basic stuff with Designer, and I've created workflows with WSS as the UI... so it also depend on what you want to accomplish...
We currently have a fully developed web forms application, basically its like WordPress using .net for multiple users to publish content. It does more than that but thats the simplest way to describe it. Our "webmasters" (I work in the gov) want everything put inside of SharePoint. We currently have SharePoint 2007. I have no experience developing within SharePoint so I don't know much about it.
My question is how do you decide when to develop your application in SharePoint and when to develop outside of it.
It depends on several things.
Is there any reason to use SharePoint features (lists for data storage, document libraries with versioning, groups for security, etc.) in your application? If you're just hosting ASP.NET pages within SharePoint but aren't using any of its features, it's not really worth the hassle.
However, if you would be adding the application to an existing SharePoint site, it might still be a good idea. Organizing everything in one place might be more convenient for users than setting up a separate web application.
If it is a requirement to re-architect your application to work with SharePoint, that is one very big reason to develop with SharePoint. Beyond that, the people influencing your architecture decisions may have good reasons of their own.
SharePoint provides security management, search and navigation to name a few relevant pieces to your web puzzle. If you are already creating dynamic web applications in .Net, a lot of what you've learned in the process will apply, but you have some learning to do.
Your orginization is not the only one moving most web applications to SharePoint. If you don't learn it now, you risk getting behind the curve.
You could also just 'show' your existing applications inside of a SharePoint web part (Page Viewer?). That way, your application remains the same, and it is 'shown' inside the SharePoint environment. This is somewhat a hokey solution, but in your particular circumstance, it could be viable considering development time, learning time, and control.
I know next to nothing about SharePoint, so maybe this isn't something you can/should do, or maybe it's something completely trivial, I don't know, but we have a custom in-house help desk application at work, and I'm wondering if it can be integrated into our help desk SharePoint site somehow?
I really don't know what's possible with SharePoint, so any ideas or thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.
The short answer is yes but the amount of time required to make this work will be directly related to your flexibility / needs. Would you be satisfied with default SharePoint lists / forms? Do you need to retrieve and update data hosted in an external source? Do you really need this integrated with SharePoint or simply hosted under the same URL?
I've found that SharePoint can do anything but the time required to make it meet the needs of a demanding/inflexible business user is sometimes significant.
There is also the issue of doing right or simply making it work. Making it work buys you some time initially but you can easily dig yourself a very deep hole that is difficult to escape. My suggestion is to keep the solution as simple and maintainable as possible.
Pretty much anything that can go on a webform can go in a webpart - with obvious complications, but yes it would work. Look into webpart development.
I would try to stick to the features that SharePoint is already offering you. You can achieve a lot by using them, and enriching them with a few simple workflows.
If you want to add some workflow logic to your solution, then try to avoid the designer workflows, since they have some issues when it comes to deployment(in short: you cant). So even if it looks easier to design them in Designer, you will pay a price later when you want to deploy them to production (You have a staging/development enviroment?)
In general I would also agree with mayos answer
Anything is possible...but check out the MSDN reference for integrating with SharePoint:
Integration with Office SharePoint Server
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to wrap my head around SharePoint. Why is it good? Why is it bad?
At a glance it appears to offer some incredible collaboration tools. However, the cost looks astronomical and it seems to be rigid & difficult to customize.
To those who've worked with SharePoint; please describe something good and something bad about it.
Pros:
Document management is its most well-known
function and integrates extremely
well with Office 2007.
Create group calendars that can be
overlayed onto your personal Outlook
and managed on the web.
Notifications in response to certain
actions on the group website
Wiki-type functionality with full
integration into the Office stack.
Full database backend which gives
you the reliability and safety of a
true RDBMS.
Extremely customizable if you choose
to develop custom websites using
ASP.NET (not the built-in wizard/gui
editor).
Form-data collection
Cons:
Freebie version is somewhat limited
on customization.
How to handle multiple editors to a
single file is not obvious.
Workflow for offline editing of
documents is non-obvious.
Very steep learning curve to use it
the right way.
Getting people to use it is like
getting people to go to the dentist.
Out-of-the-box templates don't do a
lot.
Customizing without writing code
really limits your options.
Integration with older versions of
office is ugly
Mac integration is non-existant (has
this changed recently?)
It has pretty good Office 2007 integration. As an example, Excel understands when you have a file checked out and will let you check it in (with comments) when you close it. The document management features simplistic version control (although it's not required; you can go with a single version for each file).
In SharePoint, everything is essentially a list internally and it's very easy to create a custom one. On a related note, I haven't used either yet, but it supposedly works well with workflows and InfoPath.
On the downside, it's pretty much a resource beast. It requires multiple machines with powerful specs, particularly if you want to "really" use it for document management and to be the backbone of your intranet/internet site. It scales to an extent, but it's not pretty from my vantage point.
Customizing it presents it's own challenges. You really need people focused on it full time, as both administration and customization require their own impressive learning curves.
Lastly, some of the out of the box parts are poorly implemented. The wiki is a prime example; it's basically useless in my opinion. So one thing to keep in mind is that some may consider SharePoint as a whole package as "best in class" (not saying I do!), its individual features often are not.
Good
Out of the box, it offers a ton of functionality and power, even for the stock web parts. Just creating a library of documents that anyone can open/edit/upload to is simple...even for those non-web-savvy amongst us.
Bad
Pretty much everything else.
The "Discussion Board" is a glorified Outlook email chain.
The disconnect between achieving similar results in SharePoint Designer 2007 and using the web interface are jarring and annoying
Attempting to customize the look and feel of a SharePoint site usually ends in complete disaster. Especially with WSS 3.0.
The nickel & diming scheme between the WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007 tiers is absolutely painful; WSS 3.0 is just barely functional enough to be extremely frustrating to use
Changing MS styles is almost impossible due to their horribly-laid-out and obnoxiously large CSS file.
IT IS 2009...GET RID OF THE TABLES FOR NON-TABULAR DATA ALREADY!
It's a beast to use. And handing two complete rebranding projects for two totally different areas of the company is driving me to the point of a nervous breakdown. Especially when opening the core.css file occasionally results in all the styles I've redefined getting reset to the defaults. Without anything done by me other than just OPENING the file. And there is no ability to undo these changes.
Good thing: Great communication tool. Instead of sending out a company wide email you can post an announcement to your SharePoint site. Users can subscribe to an RSS feed of the announcements or have a email alert sent to them when the list is updated.
Bad thing: Error messages displayed on a SharePoint site are generic and the link to help resolve the issue rarely is of any help.
Good:
It can be a great collaboration tool. Beginning developing for sharepoint is simple, assuming you are familar with ASP.NET webparts.
Bad:
The development lifecycle isn't fully implemented. There are no built-in facilities for testing, among other things.
SharePoint is evolving and becoming a better collaboration tool for Microsoft Office environments. It plays well in a small to medium sized business setting. It is critical to implement “best practices” on setup; otherwise it will quickly become a nightmare to maintain and to use.
For “best practices” here are two books that I recommend for SharePoint 2007:
Essential SharePoint 2007
Sharepoint 2007
A lot of the cool things in Sharepoint are avaialable in Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0, which is free with windows server 2003/2008. All you need extra is a license for SQL Server 2000 and later, which most mirosoft shops have. In WSS you can do document management, workflows, custom sites, blogs, wiki's, etc.
If you need Excel Services, Forms Server, CMS, or some of the other MOSS features, then that's another thing. And yes, it does cost a lot of money, but it' cheaper than doing it from scratch in most cases.
Pluses:
- Great object model.
- A lot of good features just come out of the box.
Minuses:
- Steap learning curve to do things the right way.
- It's very easy to hang yourself by doing things the wrong way.
- Debugging and deployment is about as pleasurable as root canal.
good :
A lot of things can be done. Wokflowks, InfoPath forms, Excel Services, Business Data Catalogs and etc.
Bad :
You won't be able to do these described easily. Must have sharepoint administrative and development skills for good solutions that don't improve quickly.
If you have a license for Microsoft Server 2003 then you can install the standalone version of Sharepoint for FREE!
Download Sharepoint
The install is very simple when using the internal database.
Microsoft Office Sharepoint Designer 2007 is a must have for any customization.
I have created a couple Company Intranets using Sharepoint and have been very pleased with its features.
Microsoft Office 2007 interfaces nicely with sharepoint.
I have found Sharepoint to be very powerful and easy to learn. There are lots of people developing sites using sharepoint. The level of customization is awesome. The simplest customization is done in your browser, the next level is using Microsoft Sharepoint Designer 2007, and finally using Visual Studio to create new apps(webparts).
Are there any blogs, guides, checklists, or controls we should be using to ensure our SharePoint implementation is accessible?
Preferrably to the W3C double A standard, or as close to that as we can get.
We're implementing an extranet solution.
This study has already been funded by Microsoft, and unfortunately the results only seem to be online in a Word Document.
The document is hosted on this blog:
http://blog.mastykarz.nl/best-practices-for-developing-accessible-web-sites-in-microsoft-office-sharepoint-server-2007/
And the path to the document is here:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=121877
I'm unsure on whether it would be a good thing to copy the contents of that into here to fully answer the question in a way that will be indexed by search engines, but I'll play safe as it's not my content.
The best place to start is the Accessibility Kit for Sharepoint. With this, you may reach single A standard, but in my experience, you will find it very tough to reach AA.
Microsoft didn't factor in accessibility in Sharepoint, and even 2007 suffers from a huge overdependence on table layout.
Good luck!
How are you deploying the implementation? Is it as an Intranet, or, is it as a public facing website.
I think one of the first rules is to be extremely selective with the use of out of the box web parts. Many of the web-parts I looked at weren't compliant even on a basic level.
Andrew
The best way is to run checks as you develop so you know where your pain points are.
The next step maybe to start with a minimal masterpage so you can choose what elements are presented to the user.
More advanced you can override the render methods to remove or change bits of the page that are not compliant with your checks. EG changing the case of tags (XHTML does not like all caps)
A bit more in this guide.
http://techtalkpt.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/building-accessible-sharepoint-sites-part-1/
http://techtalkpt.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/building-accessible-sharepoint-sites-part-2/
I recently read the MOSS book by Andrew Connell (www.andrewconnell.com) and it has a chapter dedicated to accessibility and SharePoint sites.
Simply put SharePoint sites are very difficult to generate W3C AAA standards, but the Accessibility Kit is one of the best starting points.
Stronly recommend his book for this chapter (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470224754?tag=andrewconnell-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0470224754&adid=18S6FKQJR5FZK56WHH6A&)
It depends how much of Sharepoint out of the box you are intending to use. In implementing our public facing site we managed to achieve AA compliance, although the amount of custom development required has raised questions over the benefits we are actually gaining from using Sharepoint in the first place.
A few pointers:
We made heavy use of SPQuery/SPSiteDataQuery to render site data to screen using xslt which gave us full control over the output. I found this link helpful:
http://blog.thekid.me.uk/archive/2007/02/25/xml-results-using-spsitedataquery-in-sharepoint.aspx
Check out RadEditor for Sharepoint for a nice accessible rich text editor for publishing.
For xhtml compliance, things were a little more tricky, we had to override most of the Sharepoint publishing controls' render methods to correct dodgy output.
If you are wanting to leverage the portal like capabilites of Sharepoint in your extranet it is more problematic. The web part framework is not accessible and I have not yet found a way to make it so. Any suggestions welcome!