Why and when to consider a CMS (Content Management)

[Dcrux]

I found this to be key...

The goal of this entire matter is such that only the current ‘articles’ will be available to the website’s audience at any time – no saved, archived, or otherwise stored content provided by the ‘external author individuals’ will be provided on this website. Additionally, the website’s owner will also produce a very limited amount of content (e.g. approximately four [4] articles each year).

As you say, "No website feature other than those described are desired." The advice is a straight up web site, no CMS.

Static websites may well be on their way out -- but poor design of CMS systems ensures a slow march. Improving usability and functionality does show promise for the future.

[webmistress30]

I have been promoting CMS to my clients for the past 4 years, it is the only thing that I will build for my clients these days. If they ask for an HTML site I turn the business away, I do not have time for it, its SOOOOO Slow compared to a CMS. I have worked with several CMS programs and became very frustrated with many out there. However I've found one that I love that is flexible and pluggable. I've not found any custom request that cannot be accomplished. As far as my clients go, they LOVE it too. Small businesses have the ability to update their own content if they choose to. I want to emphasize "if they choose to". Many of them end up with their businesses growing and expanding after we do their website and we still end up doing the maintenance work for them.

Another thing is the CMS is extremely user friendly and I can set various interface levels for the clients as not to overwhelm them.

Another focus for us is to build a website that is search engine friendly and the CMS accomplishes this very well. When I turn it over to the client I lockdown specific content, functionality, etc as not to allow them to slowly deteriorate their marketing efforts.

Here is a great site that I found when comparing CMS:

http://www.cmsmatrix.org

[Faglork]

If they ask for an HTML site I turn the business away, I do not have time for it, its SOOOOO Slow compared to a CMS.

You'd be surprised how fast it can be. A little mod_rewrite, SSI and PHP can do wonders. And with endless flexibility.

But in general, I agree, of course, especially when it comes to large sites. No doubt about that.

However I've found one that I love that is flexible and pluggable. I've not found any custom request that cannot be accomplished.

You are talking about WEBGUI, right?
http://www.webgui.info/

Looks nice. Just a quick question: Is it XHTML compatible? I have only found HTML sites on their reference pages, and the feature list is silent on that.

faglork

[Faglork]

The advantages to the entrepreneurial small business owner who maybe has "the gift of gab" are incredible- being able to put their information out there in a Right Now manner, and leveraging the power of RSS to put it in front of the right viewers . . . no static site with a "maintenance contract" is going to be able to do that as efficiently.

It all depends. Of all my clients, only a minority is able to write, let alone "write for the web". And of them, only some actually find the time to do it.

So it is indeed better to turn the raw content over to someone who can do this. And whether you need RSS is a different matter. Sure, many can benefit of that, but not all.

I merely wanted to stress that there are - in most cases - no "out of the box" solutions, and that in some cases a CMS may not be necessary (we are talking about small sites here).

faglork

[Dcrux]

Let me restate I am not going to question the obvious advantage a CMS can have for those selling web site construction.

A CMS is still a business communication strategy first. And many companies don't want to think about strategy, and the barely want to think about the web site. Writing is thinking, folks. Having lots of contributors producing all kinds of content means thinking about communication strategy.

It doesn't have to be a long involved discussion. Most business people will see all kinds of opportunities to solve genuine problems. And it is not like business people aren't having information overload problems. But CMS discussions often put the cart before the horse, then throw away the horse.

I would be the first one flying the CMS banner if the topic even once swerved from throwing up or maintaining web sites to include specific customer application. Beware the technologist who has found the one true hammer. Every situation turns into a nail in need of pounding.

[bj]

in some cases a CMS may not be necessary (we are talking about small sites here).

You're right. I don't suggest a full blown CMS to small businesses at all. They don't suit, and they're too complicated for a generalist to learn to use. Most will easily grasp and embrace blogging aps as an alternative, since they've already filled out ap forms at amazon or other ecommerce sites, and already have the basic concept down. There's nothing scary there, and most small business people like the idea of being able to control not only their own content and add to it within a preset web architecture framework, but also control the costs associated with update.

Am I sometimes somewhat baffled after the fact by how they end up using these? Yes. But in all of those cases the site owner has actually used the web ap, grown their own site, and thanked me for the tool to do so.

I would be the first one flying the CMS banner if the topic even once swerved from throwing up or maintaining web sites to include specific customer application. Beware the technologist who has found the one true hammer. Every situation turns into a nail in need of pounding.

Certainly customer needs as well as audience needs must be anticipated and (hopefully) met. If the web ap is too complicated to learn to use, or the client is the computerphobic type who has put up a mental road block against learning anything, then the webdev will not be doing anyone a service by pushing them into a CMS.

Looks nice. Just a quick question: Is it XHTML compatible? I have only found HTML sites on their reference pages, and the feature list is silent on that.

I dunno about webgui, but ModX allows for xhtml/css templating, and is fairly easy for the end-user to edit their own pages if they use the quick edit feature. It's very extensible, and versatile, but definitely a steep learning curve for the webdev, and also a learning curve for the user to create new content and organize it on the backend. Is it ideal? No, though the developer definitely seems to be heading it in the right direction, and it is a young project. Is it for everyone? Definitely not. But is it worth consideration? Yes.

[freetraff]

Content management is great. You have to make changes in your content almost every day, if you are not a programmer - :(

After I got CMS module integrated into the tool which I use to work with my site, it saves me much time and pain in the back. It's like working with Word - made a change, saved it, got it on a web site.

[webmistress30]

You are talking about WEBGUI, right?
http://www.webgui.info/

Yes, I am referring to WebGUI. Actually, the best way to get to it is this:

http://www.plainblack.com

It is XHTML compliant. In fact its so compliant that it sometimes drives me crazy from a design perspective. It also has versioning built into the latest version which makes it nice, if a client screws something up you can retrieve old data.

It has become internationally recognized and there are several large companies and government agencies using it. Obviously I'm not at liberty to say who. I also have several small business owners that love it. They find it extremely easy to use. I've trained over 500 individuals internationally on the system. Like I said, I've used several CMS's and never found one to be this great. One instance of the system can be used as an intranet, extranet, and commercial site.

I am a rare breed as I can program in several different languages but I'm a true designer at heart. I've not found anything as flexible as this. Here are just a few of the items that come with the system: Message Boards, Photo Galleries, Calendar System, Shopping Cart, Merchant system plugged in, GUI Editor, File System, Versioning, Forums, Polls, Syndicated Content, Blogs, SQL reports, User Management, Security, etc, the list goes on. Everything is incredibly robust as well, when I say calendars, you can have 20 calendars running on the system and have them all integrate into one main calendar. This system can be very simple for a business user and very robust for a developer/designer. I will tell you that a developer has a harder time catching onto the system than a business user. The graphical interface is what throws a developer off track when trying to learn it. For a designer it is very easy to pick up. This is just from experience of training several individuals. I find developers the hardest to train as it is a learning curve and they would rather not learn it.

It is definitely a product that I highly recommend as I have worked with several CMS's, Portals, etc. This I find to be the most flexible. There are some usability issues that I have found with working on it. I am highly experienced when it comes to usability and I have found some flaws in the system when it comes to that. Otherwise, they have a great system and its a constantly active open source project.

Someone made a point earlier on, the biggest challenge with this is clients expect MAGIC. They hand you a check and expect a fully functional website with content and don't realize the effort that they need to put in to make it great. I give my demo's in person or over the phone and once they see it and how easy it is to work, they instantly want it. I highly recommend at least trying it out and keeping an open mind about it.

[Faglork]

Thank you very much for the info!

There are some usability issues that I have found with working on it. I am highly experienced when it comes to usability and I have found some flaws in the system when it comes to that.

Would you like to give some hints about the flaws? And is there a workaround?

faglork

[ambassador]

-------
Dec 17, 2005

DCrux - You are suggesting that a CMS solution is not a good idea for the specific use described in my previous post? It seems that the stated seven external contributors, and the stated advertising management, coupled would strongly suggest a CMS solution.

webmistress30 - The CMSmatrix site is helpful. Thank you. According to the CMSmatrix site, the WebGUI CMS does not have the ability to manage advertising space as needed in the application described in my previous post.

bj - Interestingly, the ModX CMS is not represented on the CMSmatrix site.

Faglork - As you may have already discovered, the CMSmatrix site (referenced by webmistress30) indicates that WebGUI is XHTML compliant. However, none of the WebGUI example sites that I checked exhibited the 'strict' XHTML document type. I did not check all of the examples so there may indeed be some 'strict' XHTML examples in the list.


Ambassador
-------