If that surprises you then maybe the kind of functionality you require would be found in contribute.
That can be installed and configured by just about anyone and it allows non-technical users to manage the content of their website. It is of course severely limited if you want to do things like site searching, automatic navigation, content scheduling, stats tracking and a bunch of other things that come with both Shado and FarCry. It's a bit like being surprised about the expectation of a sysadmin being involved when asking about the difference between DB2 and Oracle. In that case you should probably be using Access. Spike >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Taco Fleur >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 5:37 PM >To: CFAussie Mailing List >Subject: [cfaussie] Re: [OT] CMS Shado vs FarCry -> User friendliness > >One thing that surprises me when talking about both Content >Management Systems, you always assume there are developers >involved, and I believe you even rely on this fact for >installation and set-up. > > >Taco Fleur >07 3535 5072 >Tell me and I will forget >Show me and I will remember >Teach me and I will learn > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Geoff Bowers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2004 11:38 AM >To: CFAussie Mailing List >Subject: [cfaussie] Re: [OT] CMS Shado vs FarCry -> User friendliness > > >Taco Fleur wrote: >>> I actually think your question is too broad when you say >>> "user-friendly". >> >> When I say "non-technical" I mean that they are on the level >of being >> able to send an email and no higher than that when it comes to >> computers. > >You have a fine balance between sophistication and complexity. > It is impossible to offer a lot of features when the user >just wants to see one "GO" button. > >FarCry offers multiple views of the administration area; some >complex some less so. You can readily rewrite admin >interfaces to remove unwanted features and further simplify >the environment; in the fact the framework is specifically >designed to allow developers considerable latitude. You can >even expose administrative features in the presentation >layer/website proper so users don't have to go to the admin >area at all. > >It's all a question of how simple an interface your audience >requires and this is generally a factor of how sophisticated >their content management requirements are. > >"User Friendly" is actually a factor of a user's training, how >often they deal with the system, and what they actually need >to do in the system. Someone who only turns up every blue >moon to post an article needs something *very* simple, whereas >a user who turns up every day to post content (regardless of >their initial technical ability) can be taught quite readily >to perform much more complex tasks. > > > Thus far I only have received biased response ;-)) > >Both Shado and FarCry have large audiences of non-technical >users working with the products daily. For what it's worth, >I'd say they're both very configurable and both more "user >friendly" than the vast majority of CMS products on the market. > >-- geoff >http://www.daemon.com.au/ > >PS. there is no such thing as an unbiased response to a >subjective question :) > >--- >You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia >http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004 > >--- >You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia >http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004 --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
