> To them, knowing where the line wraps > is important. But is it?
It's not. This is just an issue the content author has. Where the line wraps is really irrelevant to most everyone except maybe the graphic designer who is laying out a printed piece...which always takes manual handiwork anyways. In the context of the web, it's not even a concrete concept. So, I guess my point (I should make one, I suppose) is that these types of problems are perceived issues, but not real issues in terms of content quality, and can be a detriment as people are focused on other issues than the quality of the content. A CMS still needs to adopt to perceived issues if they want to make a sale. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I dunno. From the sales POV, the CMS makes a sale and the client is happy because they got what they asked for (as opposed to what they need, but that's nothing new) but the 'idealistic Darrel' thinks that's just getting in the way of moving people away from that mindset. I see it as a problem like those that still double-space after periods. It's not necessary to create the content, but those that have just gotten that habit in their head can't be helped. This isn't meant to sound like client or end-user bashing. I just wonder how often technology goes too far in pampering a user's perceived issues at the cost of not having a better product (and, in the case of a CMS) better content. > Now I > completely disagree > with the approach but the client is always right, right? Well, (putting on my business hat), yes. But of course the real issue is that the client simply isn't prioritizing and separating real needs from perceived needs. But that's nothing new either. > We can still take the inline edited content > and spit it out > with a different css on a different publication. Is that really single-source content management, or is that content repurposing? Or does it really matter in the real world? Adam added: > The vendor has invested > quite a lot of effort (and no doubt money) into building a really snazzy > WYSIWYG interface for end users that lets them play around with templates > and move stuff around a screen and just in general have hours of fun playing > graphics designer. > We never use it. Ha! At least I'm not alone in thinking this, then. ;o) You did mention that "newspaper writers and editors are a more highly evolved species" and that there is really the issue. It's a people issue, not really a technology issue. If you're investing in a CMS, then, by rights, you should be investing in content. That means helping the writers and editors evolve a bit. There's no point in buying a $5000 fridge to store frozen TV dinners. (Bad anology?) > But I'm not sure I understand why the rest of the world should be forced > into this mindset. I concede that forcing end-users into anything is usually a bad idea. From an idealistic standpoint, I think forcing people into that kind of mindset would put an emphasis on the content. In every big web project I've ever worked on, the project was always compromised in the end because the client became enthralled with the presentation and never got around to making good content. It's like taking away the XBox so the kids get their chores done. (Another bad anology?) > Why do we keep trying to force > people to adapt to the software instead of the other way around? It's always a compromise. Interfaces and toolsets should accomodate user needs, while at the same time users should be expected to learn a bit. Checks and balances. (Like I said, though, if you want to sell something, all my arguments go out the window...) -Darrel -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
