RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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 gossi
Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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
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
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
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
Bless you Dave, much more patience than I had, I can tell you. These are all spot on. Joe On 03/11/2008, at 9:35 AM, Dave Lane wrote: 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
Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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.
Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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] ***
I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )
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] *** --- Begin Message --- 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
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 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] )
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] *** --- Begin Message --- 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
RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
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:
I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )
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] *** --- Begin Message --- 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
Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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
Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute
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
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
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
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
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
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" 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] ***
