Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Dave Lane
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 Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Mark Harris

Dave Lane wrote:

I'm sorry, Mark, but that is not a winning strategy in business.

Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While web 
design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.



As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.  


Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are 
merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance. 
Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the 
client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have you 
then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas on their 
naivety?



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. 


Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the 
constraints and responsibilities that come with it.



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.


That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
you should never let the client specify the technology,
that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
project and identified the resources for ongoing content
and support.

which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention arrogant. 
Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your car? He's far 
more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should know, right?



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.

See, it's the whole become expert with them that's the problem. They 
don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a commodity 
to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on staff. If they're 
lucky, they have a librarian, who does records management, maybe a 
little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They don't *want* a web designer 
on board, or they'd be hiring one instead of farming the work out to you.


If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try to get 
them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future business 
*but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them something they 
feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it could become, if 
appropriate. I'm not going to push a company into Web 2.0 if they 
still believe a little man sits in the printer pushing out paper.




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.  


If it works for them, it's their call. A simple site set up by someone 
who knows what they're doing can be managed just fine with Contribute. 
It's not likely to win any awards (and it probably won't do a lot for 
their bottom line) but we don't always get to paint the Mona Lisa. 
Sometimes, we just put the colour on the canvas and move it about a little.



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.


Your point assumes knowledgeable people doing the maintenance. My point 
says, if they're asking for Contribute, they're short on knowledgeable 
people. I agree completely about the OSS thing (obviously) but you need 
to remember that, for Joe Sixpack, OSS may still be the big scary thing. 
You've got to be ready for OSS and understand what you're doing before 
you'll bring it into your business. I know that doesn't make rational 
sense, but people do behave irrationally, especially about technology. 
Contribute comes with a brand that they know and they feel comfortable 
with that.



Those who don't feel responsible for learning about and adhering to best
practice should look for another line of work.


Well, it's their business, isn't it? And, as a supplier, it's yours to 
supply what they need within the constraints they specify. It's also 
your job to give them something they will use. Drupal may be simple for 
thee and me to manage, but the boss's PA will be very wary when faced 
with the options contained within.


The road is littered with the remains of web development 

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Todd Budnikas
with respect to both sides here, I have had numerous clients come to me
requesting Contribute as a solution. I would say the reason, in every case
i believe, is the cost. It's a 1 time fee of $99. I imagine, that if you
can offer something comparable or cheaper to them, they would appreciate
the  recommendation and scrap Contribute if the other product(s) worked
better, were easier to maintain and implement, etc.

I would guess here that the client isn't dictating technology, but budget
for CMS. I mean, what are the chances they've used a bunch of solutions,
and settled that Contribute is the best and meets their workflow?

My recommendation is to try something like http://www.cushycms.com/ which
is also free and is a hosted solution. I've used this with pretty good
success. It's not without it's limitation, but it's extremely easy to use
and met the needs of one of my clients. You obviously could go with a more
common solution like Expression Engine, or Wordpress, etc.

I would find out why your client wants to use Contribute, and if you'd
rather not use it, then your job is to find something comparable or better
(hopefully for the same cost or less) and state your case.

 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]
***



[WSG] Belinda Garfath/CO/HIC is out of the office. [SEC=No Protective Marking Present]

2008-11-02 Thread Belinda . Garfath

I will be out of the office starting  03/11/2008 and will not return until
05/11/2008.





NOTICE - This message is intended only for the use of the addressee named above 
and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not 
disseminate, copy or take any action based upon it. If you received this 
message in error please notify Medicare Australia immediately. Any views 
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the 
sender specifically states them to be the views of Medicare Australia.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



[WSG] I am away on leave [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-02 Thread nathan.franklin
I am away on leave returning on Monday, 10 November 2008, if you have a
request for Customs web admin please send it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Regards
Nathan
Nathan Franklin
Web Admin | IT Applications | Australian Customs Service
Ph: (02) 6275 6357 | http://www.customs.gov.au
http://www.customs.gov.au/ 



IMPORTANT:

* This transmission is intended for the use of the addressee only and might 
contain sensitive or legally privileged information. If you are NOT the 
intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in 
error, please notify the author immediately by telephone and delete all copies 
of this transmission together with any attachments. 

* The Australian Customs Service DOES NOT AUTHORISE the recipient to further 
disclose this email or its contents without permission of the originator.

* Unsolicited commercial emails MUST NOT be forwarded to the originator of this 
transmission unless prior consent has been given.


***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Dave Lane
Hello Mark,

Mark Harris wrote:
 Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While web
 design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.

If it's not the decision of the web developer, then I don't expect that
web developer to be around for long.

 As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
 else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.  
 
 Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are
 merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance.
 Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the
 client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have you
 then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas on their
 naivety?

I disagree here.  The developer provides support - the customer chooses
the developer based on that ability (assuming the customer isn't totally
naive, which is probably not a safe assumption), and values their
ability to provide that support.  The customer should *want* a developer
who focuses on the smallest possible set of technologies (that's not
*too* small to fulfil the requirements).  Otherwise the developer will
be likely to be stretched too far.

 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. 
 
 Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the
 constraints and responsibilities that come with it.

Agreed.  It's the web developer's business decision in that case.  Those
who take any work that comes their way regardless of the technologies
specified reek of desperation... (which, ultimately, leads to lack of
respect from the customer)

 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.

 That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
 you should never let the client specify the technology,
 that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
 be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
 project and identified the resources for ongoing content
 and support.
 
 which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention arrogant.
 Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your car? He's far
 more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should know, right?

If my mechanic suggests that I alter the way I drive to reduce the
maintenance requirements and therefore cost of running my vehicle, and I
trust him/her, you better believe I'll listen.  I'd say it'd be a
foolish customer who didn't.

 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.

 See, it's the whole become expert with them that's the problem. They
 don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a commodity
 to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on staff. If they're
 lucky, they have a librarian, who does records management, maybe a
 little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They don't *want* a web designer
 on board, or they'd be hiring one instead of farming the work out to you.

Customers will become expert in whatever technology they're convinced is
best for them, and is well supported.  But that's not what I was talking
about in the above paragraph.

The business I was referring to was the web developer - if the web
developer isn't experienced with his/her tools, then s/he's a cowboy/girl :)

 If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try to get
 them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future business
 *but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them something they
 feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it could become, if
 appropriate. I'm not going to push a company into Web 2.0 if they
 still believe a little man sits in the printer pushing out paper.

True, but those naive companies need to expect to pay for the privilege
of being educated.  And, being blank slates, they should be given the
technology that the *web developer* thinks is best, not the one they
happened to see on the self of Harvey Norman or on the infomercial page
of the Tuesday fun with computers section of their local mainstream
newspaper.

 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.  
 
 If it works for them, it's their call. A simple site set up by someone
 who knows what they're doing can be managed just fine with Contribute.
 It's not likely to win any 

I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
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---
Hello Mark,

Mark Harris wrote:
 Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While web
 design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.

If it's not the decision of the web developer, then I don't expect that
web developer to be around for long.

 As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
 else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.  
 
 Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are
 merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance.
 Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the
 client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have you
 then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas on their
 naivety?

I disagree here.  The developer provides support - the customer chooses
the developer based on that ability (assuming the customer isn't totally
naive, which is probably not a safe assumption), and values their
ability to provide that support.  The customer should *want* a developer
who focuses on the smallest possible set of technologies (that's not
*too* small to fulfil the requirements).  Otherwise the developer will
be likely to be stretched too far.

 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. 
 
 Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the
 constraints and responsibilities that come with it.

Agreed.  It's the web developer's business decision in that case.  Those
who take any work that comes their way regardless of the technologies
specified reek of desperation... (which, ultimately, leads to lack of
respect from the customer)

 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.

 That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
 you should never let the client specify the technology,
 that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
 be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
 project and identified the resources for ongoing content
 and support.
 
 which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention arrogant.
 Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your car? He's far
 more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should know, right?

If my mechanic suggests that I alter the way I drive to reduce the
maintenance requirements and therefore cost of running my vehicle, and I
trust him/her, you better believe I'll listen.  I'd say it'd be a
foolish customer who didn't.

 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.

 See, it's the whole become expert with them that's the problem. They
 don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a commodity
 to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on staff. If they're
 lucky, they have a librarian, who does records management, maybe a
 little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They don't *want* a web designer
 on board, or they'd be hiring one instead of farming the work out to you.

Customers will become expert in whatever technology they're convinced is
best for them, and is well supported.  But that's not what I was talking
about in the above paragraph.

The business I was referring to was the web developer - if the web
developer isn't experienced with his/her tools, then s/he's a cowboy/girl :)

 If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try to get
 them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future business
 *but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them something they
 feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it could become, if
 appropriate. I'm not going to push a company 

RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2008-11-02 Thread Chris Vickery
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] )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
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. 

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Joe Ortenzi

With respect Mark,

Please do not misrepresent me.

I did not say the client had to do it my way, to the contrary, I said  
in my post, in a portion you did not include, that the technology used  
must be derived from a business strategy and a needs scope of the site.


To wit:
 The technology you decide to deploy should be a result of having  
defined the strategy and scope of a project and identified the  
resources for ongoing content and support.


I never said all clients need to have a web team either, I just stated  
where, in my experience, Contribute would be useful and has aided  
workflow and has operated well.


And I completely agree, no-one in their right mind would drag a  
client, child, dog or whatever, kicking and screaming  towards  
improvement. But surely a client sees the benefit of being able to  
edit and create their own content, and one proposing Contribute  
already has this in mind. It is up to we professionals to show them an  
option that goes towards their own content supply, but in a more  
integrated fashion than Contribute can manage.


Joe

On 02/11/2008, at 4:43 PM, 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]
***




Joseph Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)434 047 804
http://www.typingthevoid.com
http://twitter.com/wheelyweb
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jortenzi
Skype:wheelyweb

http://au.movember.com/mospace/1714401



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
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---

With respect Mark,

Please do not misrepresent me.

I did not say the client had to do it my way, to the contrary, I said  
in my post, in a portion you did not include, that the technology used  
must be derived from a business strategy and a needs scope of the site.


To wit:
 The technology you decide to deploy should be a result of having  
defined the strategy and scope of a project and identified the  
resources for ongoing content and support.


I never said all clients need to have a web team either, I just stated  
where, in my experience, Contribute would be useful and has aided  
workflow and has operated well.


And I completely agree, no-one in their right mind would drag a  
client, child, dog or whatever, kicking and screaming  towards  
improvement. But surely a client sees the benefit of being able to  
edit and create their own content, and one proposing Contribute  
already has this in mind. It is up to we professionals to show them an  
option that goes towards their own content supply, but in a more  
integrated fashion than Contribute can manage.


Joe

On 02/11/2008, at 4:43 PM, 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]
***




Joseph Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)434 047 804
http://www.typingthevoid.com
http://twitter.com/wheelyweb
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jortenzi
Skype:wheelyweb

http://au.movember.com/mospace/1714401



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

---End Message---


[WSG] button name present and some CSS issues

2008-11-02 Thread Taco Fleur
Hello all,
 
I just published a site that has some strange behaviour.
 
As far as I know, the name of a submit button (name=) is only passed on to
the receiving end when that button is actually clicked. 
I've always worked that way, maybe I've always worked with input
type=submit and now that I'm using button I'm discovering that they
work differently? Would anyone be able to shed some light on this?
 
The problem is that on the server-side I check to see what button is present
and based on that I perform an action like going back for example. For some
reason in Internet Explorer ALL button names are now passed along when the
form is submitted.
 
http://gabba2.unidapsolutions.com.au/buy-now.cfm
 
 
Display issue, in Internet Explorer the continue button at the bottom of
the form is showing only partially. I've tried several things to get it to
display fully, does anyone have any suggestions here?
http://gabba2.unidapsolutions.com.au/buy-now.cfm
 
Thanks in advance
 
Cheers
 

Kind regards, Taco Fleur (CIO/CEO/Founder)

  _  

Find Australian businesses, products and services on
http://www.clickfind.com.au/ www.clickfind.com.au

www.onlineadvertisingplatform.com.au
http://www.onlineadvertisingplatform.com.au/  

Blog: http://australiansearchengine.wordpress.com
http://australiansearchengine.wordpress.com/ 

 

This email (which includes any attachments) has been sent on behalf of
Commerce Engine Pty Ltd or its Associated Entities (hereinafter called
clickfind). The information contained in this communication may be
privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, any
use, disclosure or copying of this communication is expressly prohibited.
If you have received this E-mail in error, please delete it immediately.
Clickfind does not warrant or represent that this E-mail (including any
attached files) is free from electronic viruses, faults or defects.
Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of
mistaken delivery to you. For more information about use, disclosure and
access see our privacy policy at
http://www.clickfind.com.au/privacy-policy.cfm

 

P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] button name present and some CSS issues

2008-11-02 Thread Thierry Koblentz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Taco Fleur
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 6:09 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] button name present and some CSS issues

Hello all,
 
I just published a site that has some strange behaviour.
 
As far as I know, the name of a submit button (name=) is only passed on to
the receiving end when that button is actually clicked. 
I've always worked that way, maybe I've always worked with input
type=submit and now that I'm using button I'm discovering that they
work differently? Would anyone be able to shed some light on this?
 
The problem is that on the server-side I check to see what button is present
and based on that I perform an action like going back for example. For some
reason in Internet Explorer ALL button names are now passed along when the
form is submitted.
 
http://gabba2.unidapsolutions.com.au/buy-now.cfm
 

Display issue, in Internet Explorer the continue button at the bottom of
the form is showing only partially. I've tried several things to get it to
display fully, does anyone have any suggestions here?
http://gabba2.unidapsolutions.com.au/buy-now.cfm





This should help regarding the first question:
http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/forms/multiple-submit-buttons.html

For the issue with the display of the button in IE6, try this:

#doSubmit {position:relative;}



-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-02 Thread Michael MD
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:21 -0500, Todd Budnikas wrote:
 with respect to both sides here, I have had numerous clients come to me
 requesting Contribute as a solution. I would say the reason, in every case
 i believe, is the cost. It's a 1 time fee of $99. I imagine, that if you
 can offer something comparable or cheaper to them, they would appreciate
 the  recommendation and scrap Contribute if the other product(s) worked
 better, were easier to maintain and implement, etc.
 I would guess here that the client isn't dictating technology, but budget
 for CMS. I mean, what are the chances they've used a bunch of solutions,
 and settled that Contribute is the best and meets their workflow?

I had not heard of Contribute but from what I see searching on it, 
it looks to me like a desktop application sort of like Dreamweaver... ?



regarding costs:
There are plenty of free/open source CMS out there 
(eg xoops, drupal, etc) and for basic stuff a lot of them are pretty
easy to set up so long as the web host has the required software
installed (php, mysql, etc)






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***