hmmmmm..... to enter the minefield ....... at stoke all was not as it would seem....yes the 'licences' were free for the applaws CMS - but there were some pretty hefty compulsory installation, consultancy and maintenance costs that resulted in the 'free' translating into a bundle that took it to a cost that was equivalent to some of the 'off the shelf solutions' that are available and were being considered.
If my understanding is correct the original applaws project was aimed at establishing a set of standards for navigation, metadata and accessibility that could be applied to the CM arena. The extension of this into a full project was taken on by some of the members of that project and is infact a revamped version of arsdigita - again please correct me if this is not the case - this is what I have been able to glean (and seems to be supported by the 'help' from redhat (who took over arsdigita)). The original project and the ensuing product are not necessarily one and the same thing. For example - one of the 'contributors' to the original project (age concern) is actually using reddot and not the applaws product. The fact that one of the original goals was accessibility and the fact that the ensuing product seems to have issues with blind readers, would seem to serve to highlight how the two aspects of the applaws project (defining standards and building a solution (as we are led to believe)) are in essence, less that the same. It also amuses me slightly as we have proven concept with the German equivalent of the RNIB so that blind readers can not only be used to read the output but to actually input via the CMS - wish I had known that applaws had these issues when we were talking to stoke :-)..... Steve (RedDot) -----Original Message----- From: Tom Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 January 2003 09:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [cms-list] OPEN SOURCE, OPEN-ENDED COSTS? Any comments on this... +10:OPEN SOURCE, OPEN-ENDED COSTS? by Phil Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Few people become extremely excited on hearing the phrase 'content management system'. As public sector web operations continue to grow in size, however, the term is one which we are destined to hear with increasing frequency. Put simply, a content management system is a piece of software that helps an organisation's staff co-ordinate and manage web site content. Such systems can, for example, allow authorised non-technical users to post up web pages and to publish or exchange data in a variety of formats. There are a large number of content systems commercially available, many of which translate well to public sector use. Like all software these can be expensive to purchase, however, so in an attempt to introduce a cheaper alternative a 1.8 million pound local government pathfinder project set out in 2001 to develop an 'open source' CMS. The package, called Accessible and Personalised Local Authority Websites (APLAWS - http://www.aplaws.org.uk), was developed by Camden council with help from four other London boroughs - Harrow, Bromley, Lewisham, and Newham alongside several technology companies and charities for visually impaired and elderly people. The system, which cost 1.8 million pounds and formally concluded its development phase in March last year, complies with recognised standards for navigation, metadata and accessibility. For example, compliance with the XML-based e-Government Interoperability Framework (eGIF) allows APLAWS users to deliver information to a range of different devices such as mobile phones. Although APLAWS is available for any local authority in the UK to download for free from the project web site, Stoke-on-Trent is currently the only council to have implemented the system, which it did in late 2002 with the help of open source technology supplier Red Hat (http://www.redhat.com). All five London boroughs involved in APLAWS' development are expected to follow suit and implement the system in due course, however, as is West Sussex council. Camden has already added a few pages using the system but plans to take a few months to introduce it across its whole web site. "Content migration is a relatively small problem. Changing the way we do things is what is taking the time," says Jeremy Tuck of Camden. The main change comes because the user-friendliness of such systems allows responsibility for publishing content to be handed down to front-line managers and staff. "We wanted to put ownership of the site into the hands of the service providers," says Sue Sales, manager of Stoke's web site. While this approach also promises cost savings in the future, in the short term it means staff need to be trained in using the system and to adapt to their new responsibilities. "It's a totally different mindset using a devolved authoring system," says Angela Frodin, web site manager of Gloucestershire County Council which chose to use a rival content management system. Despite the absence of a licence fee for the open source package, other considerations mean the cost comparison between APLAWS and other solutions is not straightforward. An evaluation of the project published last May by consultants ECsoft (http://fastlink.headstar.com/apl) concluded that "Large parts of the APLAWS solution are open source, which implies a low acquisition cost but not necessarily a lower cost solution." As Frodin says, adopting APLAWS in practice requires a council to hire a development company to do the necessary customisation for them. Furthermore councils using the system are required to be active participants in the APLAWS user group and commit funding or development resources to future shared development projects," adding further costs which are hard to quantify. Sales says the council is happy with the content templates which come with the system. These include a standardised information category list for web sites such as 'health', 'housing' and 'jobs'; a format for listing local events; and one for presenting council meeting minutes and agendas. "[The templates] are pretty good but there are things that we need which are more bespoke. There is some content customisation, but we are looking for more training on that because it is not intuitive," she says. Another of the disappointments for Stoke was that the system is not fully accessible to people with disabilities using special access devices such as screenreaders. "I was given to understand that the visual site was more accessible than it is," says Sales. Tuck too admits that it is an area in which the product could be improved. The RNIB is due to assess the accessibility of the system early this year -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise. -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
