stevenc317

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2009
56
0
56
I am posting this thread to demonstrate some of my ideas on how to make the 'Add-on' domain page more useful. My first idea involves a few simple changes to cPanel's HTML template for https://www.YOURDOMAIN.com:PORT/frontend/x3/addon/index.html.

There were a number of things that were bugging me on the default page layout.
1) Default view was only for 10 domains, I changed this to list 500
2) Wordwrapping in the middle of domain names & paths. I regularly have this addon domain page open up in one of my tabs so I can quickly copy the path & past it into ssh for a quick way of navigating to that directory. With the word-wrapping, when I pasted the text into Terminal it treated each word wrap as a new line character.
3) I have a widescreen monitor and cPanel's default page took up maybe 30% of the total screen real estate (width) leaving the rest wasted space. By resizing I was able to better utilize my space.

I have the HTML source if anyone wants it (as long as cPanel doesn't have any objections).

Here is a screen shot of my changes:
 

Attachments

Last edited:

halie

Active Member
Apr 12, 2006
30
0
156
I fully support your first post, this is certainly overdue.
Come on - how many people these days, certainly technical people, have monitors of 800x600 (note the page width is set at 763px)? As cPanel uses Yahoo's YUI, it really should have been moved to a 100% width page by now, using the #doc3 YUI grid.

By the look of the source, I think the cPanel team had half a mind to implement YUI's resizemonitor, to allow the regions you are talking about to be resized. However, I can't see any resizable areas using Firefox and it may be that this was not finished.

Also, I agree - 10 items per page is enfuriating in this day and age. cPanel team, please understand that no-one uses 56K modems any more!!! ;-)
Furthermore, there isn't even a user-preference where the default number of items in all lists can be set.


Possibly, the request in your second post may be more difficult to implement - but I will leave it to the cPanel team to comment on that.

Halie
 
Last edited:

stevenc317

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2009
56
0
56
I fully support your first post, this is certainly overdue.
Come on - how many people these days, certainly technical people, have monitors of 800x600? As cPanel uses Yahoo's YUI, it really should have been moved to a 100% width page by now, using the #doc3 YUI grid.

By the look of the source, I think the cPanel team had half a mind to implement YUI's resizemonitor, to allow the regions you are talking about to be resized. However, I can't see any resizable areas using Firefox and it may be that this was not finished.
Good, so I am not crazy!
 

azdolfan

Registered
Feb 22, 2010
2
0
51
Additional ideas:

  1. Ability to 'edit' the path a domain is pointing to. Without getting int specifics of how my business operates, in many cases I do need to point a specific domain to a new path on the server, but I do not want to 'migrate' them to another virtual host.
I totally agree on this! I'm currently changing file structure and now have to delete and add on about 200 domains when my last host who didn't use cPanel, allowed editing of the path. Please change this and the automatic subdomain creation on an addon domain. With 200 domains, it now looks as if I have 400 domains. And, I'm not even done adding. Those are my biggest two big issues with cPanel.
 

halie

Active Member
Apr 12, 2006
30
0
156
azdolfan, they aren't going to listen to suggestions from you or me. A couple of years ago I suggested that they clean up their HTML code (because it will render more efficiently and reliably across all browsers but also because the quality of the frontend HTML can be very telling of the quality of the backend code). Just paste some of the WHM code into the W3C validator and you will see scores of easy to fix errors, including this one on the forth line:

<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/cPanel_magic_revision_1266689773/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon">

Of course, there is no close tag.

Numerous releases pass, and the code still looks like it has been put together by an amateur in the 90s, despite one of the selling points of the latest version being, and I quote, "cleaner HTML code".

Oh well.