RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Reiterating what Gerard said yesterday, my experience has also been that the code is as compliant as the template you designed for the page. I've implemented many contribute systems for clients and without exception they've found it easy to use and does everything that they want. Some of these clients have previously had more custom CMSs that have eventually fallen over, mainly because the group that set up the system either folded or didn't care to provide ongoing support (if I had a dollar for every time a client said their web designer just wasn't answering their calls and emails...) I think it's great for smaller clients because it's easy to use, very affordable to implement and if you make your templates right, makes pages in compliant code. If something goes wrong, because it's a mainstream product, there's plenty of developers who can modify the system. Having said that I'm currently working with an open source solution for a larger web site. We decided that a Dreamweaver Contribute combination probably wasn't robust enough for what we need and with a reasonable budget we could get much more from a customised open source solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Lane Sent: Sunday, 2 November 2008 7:06 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute I'm sorry, Mark, but that is not a winning strategy in business. As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability. Anything else is a disservice to both your business and your customer. The customer is not always right. The customer hires you because they perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your skill and judgement on their behalf. If they don't have that respect for your ability, they're not the right customer for you. I'm not saying that you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the advantages of the tools you've chosen... if you can't do that then you probably haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools. Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest set possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then maintain those skills for the length of their relationship with their customers. I completely agree with Joe's statement - using an app like Contribute is a step backwards in most cases, both for the customer and for the web. CMSs, if chosen wisely (and the open source ones are better than anything proprietary, so it'd be foolish not to go down the open source path), implemented by *knowledgeable* developers with an appreciation for web and software best practice (e.g. standards compliance, source code control, change control procedures, etc.) and the will to adhere to it, with ongoing maintenance in mind. Those who don't feel responsible for learning about and adhering to best practice should look for another line of work. The road is littered with the remains of web development companies who tried to support whatever solution de jeur their customer specified. If you customer requires you to use their choice of technologies rather than yours, my advice is to get a new customer. That sort of customer will make your life miserable and cost you money in the long run. Cheers, Dave Mark Harris wrote: Joe Ortenzi wrote: Contribute is not about content management as much as it is about allowing an in-house web team to share tasks without a proper CMS deployed. Thus your coder can code and the content writer can write but it can be all wrapped within a team. This is, frankly, Web 1.0, and your time and their money is better served by getting a simple CMS deployed that meets with their scope and strategy and will be easier to manage for everyone, client included. With respect, this is so much bollocks. The manner of deployment is always the client's choice. If you can offer her something better, by all means offer, but it's arrogant to tell the client you have to do it this way. Many clients won't have an in-house web team - they'll have one person to whom maintaining the website is only 1/4 of their job. Some outfits are still coming to grips with how they should be using the web and need baby steps. While it's a designer's job to help educate them, you can't drag them kicking and screaming into something they're not ready for. Regards Mark Harris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Dave Lane = Egressive Ltd = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = m: +64 21 229 8147 p: +64 3 9633733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion
I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] )
Hi, I'm currently on leave until the 17th of November. For New Zealand inquiries please contact Patrick FitzGerald (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) For Tasmanian / Support inquiries please contact either: Casey Farrell (Implementation) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Amanda Brown (Project Management) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Narelle Davis (Training) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Micky Gough (Support) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Kidn Regards Karl Davidson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ---BeginMessage--- Reiterating what Gerard said yesterday, my experience has also been that the code is as compliant as the template you designed for the page. I've implemented many contribute systems for clients and without exception they've found it easy to use and does everything that they want. Some of these clients have previously had more custom CMSs that have eventually fallen over, mainly because the group that set up the system either folded or didn't care to provide ongoing support (if I had a dollar for every time a client said their web designer just wasn't answering their calls and emails...) I think it's great for smaller clients because it's easy to use, very affordable to implement and if you make your templates right, makes pages in compliant code. If something goes wrong, because it's a mainstream product, there's plenty of developers who can modify the system. Having said that I'm currently working with an open source solution for a larger web site. We decided that a Dreamweaver Contribute combination probably wasn't robust enough for what we need and with a reasonable budget we could get much more from a customised open source solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Lane Sent: Sunday, 2 November 2008 7:06 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute I'm sorry, Mark, but that is not a winning strategy in business. As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability. Anything else is a disservice to both your business and your customer. The customer is not always right. The customer hires you because they perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your skill and judgement on their behalf. If they don't have that respect for your ability, they're not the right customer for you. I'm not saying that you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the advantages of the tools you've chosen... if you can't do that then you probably haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools. Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest set possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then maintain those skills for the length of their relationship with their customers. I completely agree with Joe's statement - using an app like Contribute is a step backwards in most cases, both for the customer and for the web. CMSs, if chosen wisely (and the open source ones are better than anything proprietary, so it'd be foolish not to go down the open source path), implemented by *knowledgeable* developers with an appreciation for web and software best practice (e.g. standards compliance, source code control, change control procedures, etc.) and the will to adhere to it, with ongoing maintenance in mind. Those who don't feel responsible for learning about and adhering to best practice should look for another line of work. The road is littered with the remains of web development companies who tried to support whatever solution de jeur their customer specified. If you customer requires you to use their choice of technologies rather than yours, my advice is to get a new customer. That sort of customer will make your life miserable and cost you money in the long run. Cheers, Dave Mark Harris wrote: Joe Ortenzi wrote: Contribute is not about content management as much as it is about allowing an in-house web team to share tasks without a proper CMS deployed. Thus your coder can code and the content writer can write but it can be all wrapped within a team. This is, frankly, Web 1.0, and your time and their money is better served by getting a simple CMS deployed that meets with their scope and strategy and will be easier to manage for everyone, client included. With respect, this is so much bollocks. The manner of deployment is always the client's choice. If you can offer her something better, by all means offer, but it's arrogant to tell the client you have to do it this way. Many clients won't have an in-house web team - they'll have one person to whom maintaining the website is only 1/4 of their job.
