I realise that this discussion was finished a few days ago, but I'm
just catching up on my lists and I thought I'd chime in here with a
response to one comment which was not picked up on by anyone in
subsequent replies.

On 12/2/05, Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does not, in my experience, work well with other than fairly basic
> CSS (IE-positioning bugs can make it impossible to select text and
> hence edit).

While versions 1 and 2 had some issues here, version 3 of Contribute
is pretty much flawless in this respect. I've yet to find a CSS layout
it couldn't work with. Design time CSS (CSS files that are only loaded
by DW/Contribute) make it very easy to tweak layouts to make them
easier to edit.

> The WYSIWYG aspect also doesn't work particularly well
> when parts of the page are incorporated through includes.

As Contribute is page-based, anything that's in an include is not
editable (as essentially it's another page). We create client-editable
drop down menus by including the unordered list in a separate file.
The client can then browse to http://theirsite.com/nav.html in
Contribute and edit that page - that is, change the links in a clean,
simple, unordered list - to change the drop down navigation. It
actually makes a lot of sense to the end user, and a similar system
could be created for sites that use includes for other areas.
Design-time CSS is useful here - you can specify the way things will
look for the client while they are editing it.

An alternative to includes is using the full capabilities of DW
templates - nesting, optional and repeating regions, etc. They're
actually pretty powerful, and as they are handled entirely by DW and
Contribute no server-side component is required.

Essentially, I'm a big believer in using the right tool for the job.
We do a lot of CMS work, but for small static HTML sites (say 1 to 30
pages) we've not found a better solution than Contribute.

--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.zombiecoder.com/
*********************************************************
The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*********************************************************

Reply via email to