RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-04 Thread Kieren T
What puts me off about about Contribute is the cost; very few of my clients are 
willing to pay that amount of cash. There aren't many open source alternatives 
to choose from, I'm currently riding with SnippetMaster ( do a search), one or 
two bugs, but all in all an excellent, web based alternative. There's a 
perfectly usable free version available and the full version only costs 23 GBP.
 
Kieren



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe 
ContributeDate: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:10:36 +1100Hi 

Several people are misunderstanding why some of us are challenging the use of 
Contribute (please note, challenging, not refusing) and why a consultant might 
discover (please note: discover, not insist) where a CMS might be a better 
solution for the client in the long run and better meets their own expressed 
business goals and defined measurable strategy (note: in line with their 
business goals and internal resources, not dictated to rudely).

So please understand my position in this matter (I can't speak for others) when 
I say a simple CMS might achieve the goals you already have expressed (easy to 
edit, client stays outside of code, accessible and SEO friendly pages) and is 
worth considering and suggesting. 

All I said was it is your job to find the best fit of technology that meets 
their stated goals and available resources and not bow to their not necessarily 
wide-enough research. 

To reflect on the example you stated, where the client clicks a button on the 
existing site to edit the copy of the page therein;  well what about posting 
news items in the site simply by send in an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
without even having to visit the site,which is possible with some CMS's or 
using a blog to increase presence and content interest which wordpress 
(installed in a hour and can move a large site's 50 pages of content into 
within a day) could easily mnage.

The point was not to roll over and use the technology they request but to dig 
deeper into their business goals and resources and aims for the site, step back 
and analyse their needs, then return with a best fit for their time, aims, 
strategy and budget.

Joe


On 04/11/2008, at 1:02 AM, Susan Grossman wrote:

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Guys,A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.Is there 
any point writing standards complient code or will contribute butcher the code 
anyway?Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include 
html files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime 
navigation changes etc.James
I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using Contribute.  A 
CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small existing website that 
they got someone to do at some point in the last few years and they're trying 
to change it/add to it/figure out how to do anything to it.  They aren't 
willing to start from scratch and have a CMS set up for them, nor do the 
volunteers want to learn all about editing in a role based application, no 
matter how easy it is.  These are the people who Contribute is a lifesaver for. 
 I go in and clean up their stuff, make it into PHP and design includes they 
can't accidently edit and show them how to use Contribute by surfing to their 
web site and clicking the Contribute button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans 
butchering.Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong 
with this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help 
them unless they get on board with the latest and greatest.  I'm here to help 
them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on 
the few pages they'll update.For me, the client is always right.  They know 
their business, their people, their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't 
say, Yes, though we could also do that by    but in the end, they make 
the final decisions and a lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they 
call the shots, and we have to be gracious.  I try to teach as I go , but I 
don't force my clients to learn if they don't want to.  And you might be 
surprised how many don't want to. -- Susan R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Guidelines: 
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: 
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]











Joseph Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)434 047 804http://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.cfmUnsubscribe: 
http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
_
Catch up on all the latest celebrity gossip 

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-04 Thread Joe Ortenzi

Hi

Several people are misunderstanding why some of us are challenging the  
use of Contribute (please note, challenging, not refusing) and why a  
consultant might discover (please note: discover, not insist) where a  
CMS might be a better solution for the client in the long run and  
better meets their own expressed business goals and defined measurable  
strategy (note: in line with their business goals and internal  
resources, not dictated to rudely).


So please understand my position in this matter (I can't speak for  
others) when I say a simple CMS might achieve the goals you already  
have expressed (easy to edit, client stays outside of code, accessible  
and SEO friendly pages) and is worth considering and suggesting.


All I said was it is your job to find the best fit of technology that  
meets their stated goals and available resources and not bow to their  
not necessarily wide-enough research.


To reflect on the example you stated, where the client clicks a button  
on the existing site to edit the copy of the page therein;  well what  
about posting news items in the site simply by send in an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 without even having to visit the site,which is possible with some  
CMS's or using a blog to increase presence and content interest which  
wordpress (installed in a hour and can move a large site's 50 pages of  
content into within a day) could easily mnage.


The point was not to roll over and use the technology they request but  
to dig deeper into their business goals and resources and aims for the  
site, step back and analyse their needs, then return with a best fit  
for their time, aims, strategy and budget.


Joe

On 04/11/2008, at 1:02 AM, Susan Grossman wrote:




On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Guys,

A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

Is there any point writing standards complient code or will  
contribute butcher the code anyway?


Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to  
include html files using php to avoid having to change loads of  
pages everytime navigation changes etc.


James

I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using  
Contribute.  A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a  
small existing website that they got someone to do at some point in  
the last few years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure  
out how to do anything to it.  They aren't willing to start from  
scratch and have a CMS set up for them, nor do the volunteers want  
to learn all about editing in a role based application, no matter  
how easy it is.  These are the people who Contribute is a lifesaver  
for.  I go in and clean up their stuff, make it into PHP and design  
includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to use  
Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute  
button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.


Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong  
with this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I  
won't help them unless they get on board with the latest and  
greatest.  I'm here to help them make sure their web site is  
accessible and that they can change text on the few pages they'll  
update.


For me, the client is always right.  They know their business, their  
people, their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't say, Yes,  
though we could also do that by    but in the end, they make  
the final decisions and a lot of the time I don't agree on  
everything, but they call the shots, and we have to be gracious.  I  
try to teach as I go , but I don't force my clients to learn if they  
don't want to.  And you might be surprised how many don't want to.




--
Susan R. Grossman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

***
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]
***

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-03 Thread Joe Ortenzi

I think that was the point of both myself and Dave, Todd.
Mark's vitriolic rant seemed to miss the point that the technology  
comes after you discover what the business requires, what their  
resources are, what the requirements of the site will be over the next  
12-24 months, etc. not just say OK to contribute because the client  
says so before discovering much more important things


And as for budget, well, Contribute at $99 is more expensive than many  
CMSs (twice the cost of the powerful EE and $99 more than Drupal).


As you say, a god consultant will discover why they want Contribute  
and, upon discovering those needs, either continue with Contribute or  
offer a solution that meets their needs better, should that be the  
case, but it is the needs of the project that need to be discovered  
first, I'd have thought.


Joe


On 03/11/2008, at 12:21 AM, 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?

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]
***




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]
***



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-03 Thread Susan Grossman
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 Hi Guys,

 A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

 Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute
 butcher the code anyway?

 Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include html
 files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime
 navigation changes etc.

 James


I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using
Contribute.  A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small
existing website that they got someone to do at some point in the last few
years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure out how to do
anything to it.  They aren't willing to start from scratch and have a CMS
set up for them, nor do the volunteers want to learn all about editing in a
role based application, no matter how easy it is.  These are the people who
Contribute is a lifesaver for.  I go in and clean up their stuff, make it
into PHP and design includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to
use Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute
button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.

Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong with
this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help them
unless they get on board with the latest and greatest.  I'm here to help
them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on
the few pages they'll update.

For me, the client is always right.  They know their business, their people,
their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't say, Yes, though we could
also do that by    but in the end, they make the final decisions and a
lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they call the shots, and we
have to be gracious.  I try to teach as I go , but I don't force my clients
to learn if they don't want to.  And you might be surprised how many don't
want to.



-- 
Susan R. Grossman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-03 Thread James Farrell
Hi Guys,

Thank your for your insights and assistance on this topic.

I am taking everyone's opinion into consideration and have received very
usefull help and templates from several people.

James

2008/11/3 Susan Grossman [EMAIL PROTECTED]



 On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:53 AM, James Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 Hi Guys,

 A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

 Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute
 butcher the code anyway?

 Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include
 html files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime
 navigation changes etc.

 James


 I do free work for non-profits, and many of them ask about using
 Contribute.  A CMS won't work for them because most of them have a small
 existing website that they got someone to do at some point in the last few
 years and they're trying to change it/add to it/figure out how to do
 anything to it.  They aren't willing to start from scratch and have a CMS
 set up for them, nor do the volunteers want to learn all about editing in a
 role based application, no matter how easy it is.  These are the people who
 Contribute is a lifesaver for.  I go in and clean up their stuff, make it
 into PHP and design includes they can't accidently edit and show them how to
 use Contribute by surfing to their web site and clicking the Contribute
 button.  TaDa - they can edit, sans butchering.

 Yes there are better solutions out there, but there's nothing wrong with
 this solution.  I don't feel it's my job to tell them that I won't help them
 unless they get on board with the latest and greatest.  I'm here to help
 them make sure their web site is accessible and that they can change text on
 the few pages they'll update.

 For me, the client is always right.  They know their business, their
 people, their limitations.  That doesn't mean I can't say, Yes, though we
 could also do that by    but in the end, they make the final decisions
 and a lot of the time I don't agree on everything, but they call the shots,
 and we have to be gracious.  I try to teach as I go , but I don't force my
 clients to learn if they don't want to.  And you might be surprised how many
 don't want to.



 --
 Susan R. Grossman
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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



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

Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-03 Thread Joe Ortenzi
Mark, you seem to misunderstand what Dave and I are saying and maybe  
you so angry about something you can't even see you're contradicting  
yourself and claiming dave and I are saying different things when your  
examples, reflected back at us, clearly show paralell, not conflicting  
statements.


In addition you seem to think I swan into an organisation and tell  
them how to run THEIR business, which is the last thing I do. As Dave  
says, a good website provider works in partnership with a business,  
and discovers and recommends technology that gets these business needs  
covered,


You are confusing two sets of business aims, one is the client  
requiring a website that serves his business aims and two a supplier  
of said website who's business aim is to be paid for a good service to  
the client, which sometimes means giving them what they need (by  
working in close consultation with them) rather than what they think  
they want, which as you seem to be saying, they may not necessarily  
know, if their business knowledge is not about the web.


And you know, my mechanic WILL tell me how to drive my car if I'm  
doing it wrong. stop riding the clutch, shift gears at a lower rev  
to save petrol, let the engine warm for a few moments before giving  
it a load, are all things you pay your mechanic good money for so  
your car runs better for longer, the expert advice he is good for.


Mark, you misread both myself and Dave terribly badly.

Joe


On 02/11/2008, at 9:41 PM, Mark Harris wrote:


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, 

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]
***



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---


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]
***



[WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-01 Thread James Farrell
Hi Guys,

A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute
butcher the code anyway?

Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include html
files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime
navigation changes etc.

James


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

RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-01 Thread Greenidge, Gerard
Hi James,

If you start with a standards compliant dreamweaver template and define the 
editable regions then Contribute should be able to play nice. Any php code that 
is NOT part of the editable regions will also be safe.

If you are not using dreamweaver then there are additional steps that you will 
need to take to create template based files that work with Adobe Contribute.

Gerard C. Greenidge
Manager, Web Services
California State University, Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
562-951-4466 - Desk
562-519-2639 - Mobile

-Original Message-
From: James Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: 11/1/08 6:56 AM
Subject: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute



Hi Guys,

A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

Is there any point writing standards complient code or will contribute butcher 
the code anyway?

Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to include html 
files using php to avoid having to change loads of pages everytime navigation 
changes etc.

James

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


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



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-01 Thread Joe Ortenzi

Hi James
Oddly, someone asked a similar question today in LinkedIn.

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/web-development/TCH_WDD/355859-15475515

Contribute is not about content management and 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.


It may be possible to use PHP for what you say, but maybe you wan to  
look at SHTML instead for server side scripting. I understand  
Dreamweaver is better with PHP than it used to be but it can easily go  
pear shaped if the client is not either severely restricted or  
understands HTML well.


Expectations may be shattered if the client has seen a sales pitch of  
Adobe Contribute and thinks they can do what they like with a page.  
Then they'll want the template modified when they can't then the IA  
gets messed up, then the nav needs changing, then they don't realise  
it's better to add news rather than replace it (for SEO) an the meta  
no longer gels with the page content


I could go on

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.


joe


On 02/11/2008, at 12:53 AM, James Farrell wrote:


Hi Guys,

A client wants to use Adobe Contribute for content management.

Is there any point writing standards complient code or will  
contribute butcher the code anyway?


Can I use php at all with contribute? Would love to be able to  
include html files using php to avoid having to change loads of  
pages everytime navigation changes etc.


James

***
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



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



Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

2008-11-01 Thread Mark Harris

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]
***