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] *******************************************************************
