nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

TeamSite FAQs

System

Our installation has a FAQ template. Somebody created the following FAQ:

TeamSite FAQs

These questions come from support staff and clients.

Why do I feel like such an idiot every time I use TeamSite?
Will I ever become comfortable using TeamSite?
Will TeamSite save me time?

Why do I feel like such an idiot every time I use TeamSite?
It's a feature of the system to make you feel that way.

Will I ever become comfortable using TeamSite?
Yes, then we will change to a new system.

Will TeamSite save me time?
Time is a relative thing...

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

gzevin

has somebody asked another Q:

has the implementation been done properly?

Greg Zevin
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

Migrateduser

What is the proper way to do an Interwoven implementation?

It is actually probably one of the best Interwoven implementations I have seen. The users don't complain about bugs in the customizations, it is the user interface (WebDesk) that they seem to object to - the "Portal" integration piece is relatively intuitive but the Portal isn't quite there yet (not my project). They are largely unaware of the Interwoven bugs - all they know is that the servers are frequently rebooted and things don't work consistently. Management is definitely worried about the amount of customizations that have to be built into the system to make it do anything like what they want, but at the same time they want additional customizations to make it do more. I think no matter how much one tries to simplify a system there is just too much terminology and too many options - in this case too many CCI links in emails (some users want everything, some users want almost nothing). Some people prefer the flexibility of FrontPage, some people like the idea of focusing on content instead of presentation and having standard processes. Plus some of these users don't understand the difference between a file and a directory, forget which category/type they selected when they created a new templated record, etc. So I think there would be problems with any system, I just thought it was funny that someone would document their issues like this.

But I appreciate your comments, I will work harder (Napoleon is always right).

Bowker

I love the statement:
--------------------------------------------------
Management is definitely worried about the amount of customizations that have to be built into the system to make it do anything like what they want, but at the same time they want additional customizations to make it do more.
--------------------------------------------------

Your management and my management/business community/technical community/... all want something different. I find it quite unfair that IWOV gets blasted, no nuked, over their interface and the amount of customization people need to do "to get it to do what they want".

We're approaching the end of a 6-9 month project to "get TS to do what we want it to do". We took the approach that they supplied the back-end and we wrote our own front-end to meet our business needs. If you have the time and a couple of clever people you can do just about anything with versioning/workflow/workareas/openDeploy/proxy server/....

I do understand that there are some bugs in the system. The severity of which is debatible. Let the programmer who has supplied software of this complexity/magnitude to a group of people who have used their product to do as many things 'out of the box' and didn't have any errors/issues cast the first stone.

I work in the financial industry and my users are not 'rocket scientists' but once they are trained and use the system a little (using web desk pro) I see very few 'stupid user errors'. We do have some customizations (custom menu item and one workflow) in place to help manage html docs and DCRs but overall our users picked up on the generic unmodified TS system.

Sorry for taking the possibly unpopular stance of defending IWOV's product line, specifically TeamSite, (No, I don't own any stock) but someone has to.

Migrateduser

I think you have some valid points, Dan. But I also think that being able to get the kind of feedback they do from this site and the Focus Groups will only make the products Interwoven makes better in the long run. Of course everyone seems to complain because the product isn't built explicitly for their needs, but that's the nature of the software beast. The beauty of Interwoven is that they built this site which allows people to bluntly go where few software companies have gone before. I'm pretty sure the good folks at Interwoven are able to weed out the nonsense and see the really good suggestions people provide to make their products better. Same thing can be said about the Focus Groups - somewhere in the heaps of "I want this" and "I need that" are some real gems of ideas. Although it appears that Interwoven gets beat up on a regular basis, this is a brilliant idea if they want to be successful down the road. I'm sure the good ideas they get more than make up for the bruised egos. It may seem like I personally can't stand TeamSite and the various tools I use that Interwoven provides. That couldn't be further from the truth - this product is my bread and butter. But give me a place where they allow me to vent my frustrations and ask for the world, and I'll do just that. I know everything I ask for won't be implemented, but maybe some of it will and that will make my job and this product be around longer. I don't want Interwoven to fail, and so I push them. It's a win-win.

Just another way to look at it

Dave Smith
Sr. Software Engineer
Nike, Inc.
(503) 671-4238
DavidH.Smith@nike.com

Migrateduser

I think the difference is that some organizations consider TeamSite a shrink-wrapper product and some consider it a platform. Interwoven sales would make a customer think the product can do anything out of the box and I feel that they refer to what I would consider development as configuration, which sounds much less severe. If you look at it as a platform you understand what you are up against. Trying to get an enterprise to switch to the appropriate perspective makes me look bad as a consultant.

But I also feel that the product could be more intelligent - simple things like unlocking or reverting DCRs when the corresponding actions are taken on the output files, etc. And it could ship with more functionality that 90% of organizations would use. And the products (such as VisualAnnotate and even OpenDeploy) could be much better integrated.

The users here have been to Interwoven training and several in-house trainings but they still don't get it. I think the UI is just not intuitive enough. Personally I think there are good reasons to make sure technical people develop websites, not average users (who probably have more important things to do, especially for Intranets). But if more companies did ROI on their CMS implementations I would be out of work.

Interesting comments on CMS recently at http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/22/1513241&mode=thread&tid=126.

Bowker

(I hate threads like this!)

John (et al),

I agree that there are some ootb things they could do. But consider this...

Your point of "unlocking or reverting DCRs when the corresponding actions are taken on the output files" would kill us here.

We have some html docs that are built with up to 10 DCRs. There is a many-to-many relationship between our files and DCRs. If someone unlocks a DCR I don't want all the generated docs that use that DCR to be unlocked. Or worse, on a revert, how far back do I revert all the generated files? Do I just regenerate them? What about those docs that are in the process of being modified... As you see there are a dozen questions/options/variables/... on something as simple as a revert. What about a delete, modification, expiration... each situation is different based upon what the business needs are.

Migrateduser

Right but if there are a million things that are configurable, unlocking/reverting could be included - every organization I have worked for would enable them. Seems like it could be an attribute in templating.cfg.

rollo

I think John hits a good point. A lot of complaints seem to stem from what the client was sold versus what is Real Life. It's the old 'setting expectations' problem. I know it well from a former job - the sales rep has closed the deal, now you have to bring down the eager client by telling them what can be done immediately, what's going to take six months, and what is.. er.. 'phase two'.

Luckily for me, I'm an internal developer on an established installation of TeamSite. Expectations are still high, but they're realistic.

As for the UI, it seems to me that one of the things most often mentioned about TS6 is its super-customisable interface, which would be a step in the right direction. The planned development/enhancement of CCIs is also encouraging - I think they're a great way to 'shield' the user (especially non-technical users) from the inner workings of TS, and just give them what they need to complete their part of the process.

And FWIW, I thought the FAQs were pretty funny, and I'm generally convinced that TeamSite is a good product (or platform) that is getting better.

Phil

Migrateduser

My concern with 6 is that I may have to build that UI using some kind of toolkit. But I don't have anything to base that on.

nipper

My personal favorite:

WHAT HAPPENED ??? TS LOST ALL MY FILES. I EVEN LOGGED OUT & BACK ON & THEY ARE GONE.

Of course in webdesk, view -> modified files is persistent so you must explicitly change it back to All Files.

Andy

Johnny

That one happens all the time here!!

Ive seen serious panic attacks from that one!!!!

John Cuiuli
Consultant
Sydney, Australia