SYNOPSIS: The “export to website” feature seems to list the exported documents in a given group on the corresponding index page in a fixed way, by “date added to DT”. It would be much more useful, if the index page would display the list in the sorting order chosen in DT for that group.
UPDATE: As Christian points out in a post below, the order chosen is the one used by the manual sorting order (a.k.a. “unsorted” in the menu View > Sort > Unsorted).
UPDATE2: See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21364 for a method to quickly make bulk adjustments to the unsorted ordering.
The “export as website” feature is a very handy way to quickly generate a structured website with lists of documents. The looks are rudimentary without modifying the css file extensively, but that’s OK for a lot of purposes. In my case, I’m using this method to post some large, frequently updated lists of documents for my colleagues at work. Maintaining and editing the materials is ideal in DT, and the result is quickly exported.
However, I noted one rather serious limitation that I can’t overcome. With the usual caveat of me simply missing something obvious, here we go:
For each exported group, an index.html page gets created that lists (and links to) all the docs contained in said group. The order of that list seems to be fixed by the “added to DT” date and can therefore not be changed (short of fiddling with the “added” date, which is cumbersome). This is a pity. If the export could be made such that it honours the ordering currently used in DT for that group (by data, name, manual …), this feature would be massively more useful.
I, for one would be very interested in a sortable “export to website”.
NOTE: There are some workarounds. For example, I maintain a web-based list of scientific papers for my collaborators, all pdfs. In that case, I don’t use the “export to website” feature, but export the files directly into a file structure on the web server. As there are no index.html pages present in those web directories, the server renders a file directory display, which can be sorted in various ways. But this method falls short in two ways: (1) This is not self-explaining to a wider audience that might use that site and (2) does not provide the automatic format conversion that “export to website” offers: works well with a pile of pdfs, but the occasional RTF would not get converted to html.
So I still think that a somewhat beefed-up “export to website” would be highly useful.