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; } } }

Move to 6.0 -- In The Real World

Greetings,

I am curious as to how many people have made the move to 6.0 or are in the process of such a move. My major concern is around the stability of the product, so some real-world experience would be nice. I typically wait 1 service pack release before upgrading the major releases, but I am considering starting a 6.0 upgrade project in order to squeeze it in before our next major development effort.

I am also interested in any pain-points that might have been experienced in the upgrade process, especially those that don't jump out from the documentation (e.g., install issues, admin issues, usability oddities, or the need to rewrite code).

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

Billy

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

We have been playing with 6.0 on our dev server for a few weeks now. You can look at my various threads for all the pain I've encountered so far. Even getting past some of the initial pain, we would still never release this version to production. We'll wait for 6.1 at the very least. This version appears rushed to the market. Just our opinion...

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

I actually know 1 client (a pretty major one actually, that has some significant presense in the US), who still runs TeamSite on 4.5.0 unpatched and is happy.

Having said that, I think this is a unique situation and I'd definitely wait till 6.1, especially if you are holding more than 1 site and have many users...

Stability-wise, I'd say it's pretty safe as the core server is still 5.5.2...

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

Thanks for the speedy replies. I was actually thinking of a 3 to 6 month time frame for the deployment (I wonder how long it will take the .1 release to come out). Currently the system is being used by a very small number of users, but that user-base will be increasing significantly towards the middle of next year.

Starting in about February we will be building a new, fairly significant, implementation. Part of my consideration of moving to 6.0 before then was to avoid developing an implementation that we would have to spend significant effort migrating in the future. In addition, we will definitely be moving to 6.0 within the next year, so I don't want to have to retrain the user-base that will be coming on next year.

I have been involved in major TeamSite upgrades in the past, and based on that experience, I want as few users and implementations impacted as possible.

- Billy

I think this goes well beyond the typical TeamSite upgrades of the past. Because the UI has changed so drastically, and for really the first time there will potentially be a significant amount of re-tooling to be done just to get things working the way they did before (not even considering any new customizations yet), you are smart to wait till the next minor release. I think it's supposed to be coming out in about 6 months or so. Out of curiosity, what does your new, fairly significant implementation involve?

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

Hi Billy,

My recommendation is this. Start working with TS 6.0 now. Familiarize yourself with the features and the new UIs and begin working on your implementation. By the time you are ready to go live, we will have released the first service pack already.

Just to let you know there are customers who are already in production with TS 6.0, as well as 100+ who have it installed in their development environments and are working in exactly the way that you describe. They are planning and developing new initiatives on TS 6.0 today so that when the first SP comes out, they will be ready to go live immediately rather than being 3 months behind the curve.

Also, as Greg mentioned before, TS 6.0 uses the TS 5.5.2 backing store, so the upgrade behind the scenes will not be as painful as the TS 5.0.1 to TS 5.5.2 upgrade was. However, as Smitty remarks, the UIs are very different than the old WebDesk Pro interface. Therefore, you will want to get all your new TS users using the new UIs ASAP to avoid the issue of retraining (as you deftly point out).

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns or would like to talk more specifically about the differences between TS 5.5.2 and TS 6.0.

Cheers,
David Yun

Product Manager, Client Tools
dyun@interwoven.com

Dave, the term "Fairly Significant" is relative within this environment. It will be a typical implementation that includes new DCT's, TPL's, a Workflow, and OpenDeploy & Datadeploy for files and extended attributes. Primarily, this implementation will be bringing on a whole new group of people using the system and it will be increasing the number of users significantly.

- Billy

After dealing with a bunch of initial headaches with the UI changes (many improvements, some non-improvements, and some things that make me scratch my head wondering what they were thinking), I have seen enough to give somewhat educated advice for anyone in your position.

o Keep in mind that the beta testers for 6.0 didn't have any documentation to perform any activities described in the still yet-to-be-officially-released UI Customization Guide. So if you intend to make any customizations to the UI, remember that none of this was beta tested thoroughly. Proceed at your own risk.

o The new UIs are very different than what your current users are used to. It is a vast improvement in most areas. Depending on the expectations of your users, they will either love that there are still 2 distinct UIs or they will find it very annoying very quickly moving between the 2 (having to log out and log back in to view the Standard UI vs. the Pro).

o If you can afford to wait for 6.1, then definitely wait. It sounds like you have a lot of stuff already built and yet to build in your system. Do you really want to add a pile of unknowns into the mix? Let the rest of us weed out the problems while you sit back and wait for a more stable version. I think you'll be happy you did.

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

Hi Dave,

Billy is thinking of using TS 6 for new initiatives only. Remember that WebDesk Pro is still supported in TS 6, so you can roll out the new ContentCenter UIs to new users while keeping your existing users in WebDesk Pro to be trained on the new UIs at a later date. This really reduces the burden on IT by enabling them to use a phased approach to roll out the new UIs.

Also, I still have yet to hear a compelling reason why a user would want to utilize both UIs. All along we have presented CC-Standard as being the UI for non-technical subject matter experts to contribute content to the Web. We've intentionally abstracted out difficult concepts like Editions, Workareas, Branches, etc. so these users wouldn't have to drill down many levels to get to the content they care about. Also all CM functions are done through wizards and there is a very simplified model that was built specifically for these non-technical users.

CC-Professional is meant for power users who need to do heavy duty lifting such as creating editions, creating new branches, or also users who are savvy enough to get basic content management functions and who need to do some intermediate activities such as job management.

Do you really think a marketing specialist would be able to handle CC-Pro or that a jsp developer would really tolerate using wizards to contribute content? The traditional approach of one size fits all simply does not work if you are trying to roll out CM to 10,000s of users as some of our customers are trying to do.

These are two VERY different user profiles so I would not see users switching back and forth between the new UIs. But that being said, I do trust you when you say that there are concrete reasons for why you would want to do this.

I already have two feature requests filed on your behalf. A URL Command to enable you to switch between UIs by clicking a link that you could add via the UI Toolkit and a My ContentCenter tab added to the ContentCenter Professional UI so you can get that high-level, holistic view of the content all in one shot. Please let me know if there are any specific needs that you would like to see addressed.

Thanks,
David Yun

Product Manager, Client Tools
dyun@interwoven.com

I've explained in vivid detail why I think it's a mistake to have two UIs. I believe you should have made the single UI customizable enough so that 2 aren't necessary. We'll see how the masses feel when people start using this version.

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

Edited by lissa on 11/12/03 03:32 PM (server time).

Dave,

I'm still not clear on why you want them combined. I realize you feel you've given the detail, but it's still not getting through. Can you provide more specifics?

From my view point, CCS is a contributor interface. Contributors don't create branches, they don't create workareas, they don't understand these concepts. The UI is highly focused on contribution. CCP is for web site managers. They control the structure.

These are two very different usage models. So far, almost all the customers we've shown CCS to, have said they like it. Most have said it's exactly what they need - an interface geared towards to contributors.

As far as I can see trying to merge the usage models will just lead to a confusing UI. So we need to understand what problem merging the UI's is going to solve. There may be other solutions.

>> I've also mentioned that last year or last Focus Group, Karen stated specifically that there would be one UI.

This is in the context of the previous IWOV initiatives, TeamDoc and TeamWeb. They were much more stand alone and considered separate. However CCS and CCP are very much tied together and do not suffer from the same 'separation' that TeamDoc/TeamWeb and WebDeskPro did.

>> I know where my feature requests will end up.

I believe we fufilled hundreds of feature requests in the 6.0 release, so they don't all get ignored.

Please try not to be so combative.

Thanks,
Todd

Dev. Mgr., CCS and UITK

The reason we want them combined, once again, is because our users (all of them) are in the gray area between the two extremes you mentioned. We don't have contributors who interface with TeamSite and we don't have "Web Site Managers" by your definition. All of our users perform both functions. As I have said before, Interwoven has been here several times over the past year marketing the new UI to our management, showing us the thing as if it was a single UI - I really don't think it was made clear at all that there were going to be separate distinct UIs. Everyone wants the CCS style UI as a "home page" type of thing - where they can see everything on their plate. And then they want to be able to dig in and utilize the features within the CCP UI - what they are used to using to create jobs and monitor the whole environment. Nobody wants to have to switch UI's to do that. Maybe that's crazy talk - but it's just how we do things.

The whole point of all this is to provide us with the ability to customize the look and feel. Well, why wouldn't I then be able to customize my look and feel so that if I wanted to, any true "contributor" people would only see the CCS UI upon login and any true "web designer" people would only see the CCP UI and and people who needed both would get both (3 tabs)? Call me crazy but I think that makes complete sense rather than 2 UI's.

I disagree about what Karen said. I'm pretty certain she was talking about TeamSite. I don't recall you being there. Maybe you were. That's what both me and my coworker recall.

I wasn't notified of any of my feature requests being fixed in 6.0.

You call it combative. I call it frustration.

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

Smitty wrote:
>I've explained in vivid detail why I think it's a mistake to have
>two UIs. I believe you should have made the single UI
>customizable enough so that 2 aren't necessary. We'll see
>how the masses feel when people start using this version.

>Edited by lissa on 11/12/03 03:32 PM (server time).

I wonder what one has to say to have it censored by IW ?

Yes please send me a copy, I've said some pretty harsh things and can't remember being censored. **** who owns these posts.

Un friggin believable that Interwoven actually censored a post that didn't say anything offensive whatsoever. This is absolute BS. What a crock it is to be unable to be "negative" - I guess Wall Street might be lurking out there. Unreal...

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

>> All of our users perform both functions.
>> Everyone wants the CCS style UI as a "home page"

If they perform both functions then they are CCP users. If all you are saying that is missing from CCP is the "home page", then I believe we've already explained that we are planning adding this to CCP. If you are asking for something else, then please be specific. CCP and CCS both offer editing of files, but they do it very differently. We have customers have clearly said they want users to have only wizard based ways of editing of files. We can not simply combine the CCP edit file and the CCS edit file wizard. They are two competing concepts. So is there something more you are looking for other than a home page on CCP?

Dev. Mgr., CCS and UITK

Well let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a system glitch or otherwise let them account for what appears to be a blatant breach of good customer/strong poster confidence.

>Well let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's
>a system glitch or otherwise let them account for what
>appears to be a blatant breach of good customer/strong
>poster confidence.

Knowing Smitty, very doubtful.

But in the name of not hurting any one's feelings we should institute politically correct day, everyday. Days where we all post glowing things about the products, companies and eachother. Sing Kumbya and get extra credit if you have time to go out and save a whale.

Andy

No that's all I'm looking for. I was merely responding to David's post where he couldn't in a million years comprehend having one UI for both styles of look and feel. This is all I've said (at least 3 times in DevNet already) about it. It doesn't seem like a stretch for you to provide the whole package in one UI, meaning one login. Having 2 separate and distinct UI's just seems wrong. So when you provide the ability to see it all in one login, I will be one happy camper.

The problem with you saying If they perform both functions then they are CCP users. is that your marketing folks have been here several times showing my users the cool new CCS look and feel and they all think they're getting that. When they find out they will have to log out and log back in to see that cool new look and feel, they will not have an enjoyable user experience. That's the problem for me - the perception has been planted that there would be one UI that would include the CCS look and feel. I get to be the lucky one to tell them they aren't getting that after all.

At least not for a while.

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

And cross-post the really negative stuff on the yahoo forums just in case.

Dave,

Adding the portal page to CCP and combing the UIs are two separate matters. It could be a matter of semantics that's causing the confusion. When you suggest to us combine the UI's, that means to me "combine the CCP edit and combine the CCS edit wizard" which is impossible and defeats the purpose of a simplier UI for business users.

So now I understand your meaning to be you just want a portal home page to CCP. No problem, it's on the list (though I don't know when it will be implemented).

Concerning marketing...yes, sometimes they mislead, but I think in this case "same look and feel" has a broad interpretation. To us "look and feel" refers to styles, fonts, colors, etc. In that regard CCS and CCP do have the same look and feel. Compare this to WDP and WD. They were completely different look and feels. If someone in marketing or PM told you that you'd get a portal style home page in CCP, then yes, that is misleading. It was something that was never committed to (at the time of the focus group), just on the drawing board.

Dev. Mgr., CCS and UITK

Fair enough - bad choice of terms on my part. What I meant was they saw the CCS UI - the portal....uh...look and feel (****...sorry, but you know what I mean) and want that kind of "what's on my plate right now" page (or tab) in their CCP experience. I think we understand each other. I'll try and be patient. No promises.

I don't really know anything about the Edit Wizard thing and why it's not easy to combine the 2 UIs because of that. I'll take your word that it's not a good thing to try and do. When I say that I want a single UI, I am specifically talking about the user experience of logging in once and navigating to every UI that is available without logging out. That's what I mean. So please understand why it sets me off when any of you come back and say they can't understand why anyone would want that. From my perspective, I can't understand why anyone would not.

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

that Wizard is another pain in the neck - I mean the ability to configure it (per branch and user role, probably) has to be opened to us ASAP. Otherwise I predict a pretty lousy user response Smiley Happy

Greg Zevin, Ph.D. Comp. Sc.
Independent Interwoven Consultant/Architect
Sydney, AU

Having only briefly looked at some material regarding the UIs - I'm wondering if there isn't a relatively simple customization here? If you can add 'tabs' to the CCP interface, and those 'tabs' can reference any URL or applet you want - would it be possible to have a 'tab' that used a CCI URL with the directive for the CCS to essentially embed the entire CCS "portal" as an additional 'tab' in the CCP?

Someone logging into CCS directly would only get CCS.
Someone logging into CCP would get CCP with a tab-access to CCS (I would think the cookie for the CCP process would grant access to the CCS tab without requiring additional login)

(A) Would this satisfy your requirements Smitty?
(B) Is this possible Todd?

--fish
Senior Consultant, Quotient Inc.
http://www.quotient-inc.com

Unfortunately it would not work. Why? Because the CCS portlets go to CCS pages. So if you clicked edit you'd go to the edit wizard, not the CCP edit screens. Also, the current portlets are designed specifically for the CCS user in mind. For example, the wokrarea drop downs down display workarea names, they are configurable. Also the UI design assumes you don't have that many workareas that you can access. This wouldn't be a valid assumption for CCP users.

Dev. Mgr., CCS and UITK