|
|
Posted by David Segall on 09/19/06 14:11
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>In article <esrqg2tutullu5ghv3nnc09dmmtp6mu65k@4ax.com>,
> David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <450afe1c$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>> > "code_wrong" <tac@tac.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe I want a content management system?
>> >
>> >May I? I was amused by the tale of a friend in the public service
>> >who relates how there is constant attempt to seek out such
>> >systems so that everyone in the organization can update the bits
>> >of the information on the website that is their speciality. We
>> >agreed that, in fact, it was simpler for such people to email the
>> >webmaster with the changes than to learn how to operate a content
>> >management package.
>
>> If the above is true then a computer program can read the incoming
>> email and update the web site.
>
>What is your point in saying this? I do not disagree with this
>last. But so what?
After deep self examination :) I have to apologise. There was a
subtext to my post and I should have made it explicit. Every time some
computer gurus get together they tend to decide that their craft is
too complicated for the ordinary user to grasp and they should
interpose themselves. How can COBOL generate the efficient code that I
can write in assembler? How can Dreamweaver generate the superb HTML
that I can write using Notepad? If each employee has their own
computer the sky will fall in; how can we make their computer look
like a dumb terminal and control everything on the server?
>What trap have I fallen into as a result?
>Perhaps you will explain. But if you do, please note that it is
>relevant to the point of my story that a program such as you
>mention must not be so hard to make and maintain that it is more
>costly and unwieldly on the whole in all its ramifications than
>having the website manager receive the emails and immediately vet
>the changes proposed, put them in unchanged, or adapt them with
>an eye on the overall effect on the website design, if necessary
>query the sender over glaring or other mistakes or other unhappy
>proposed changes. The point of the story is that a lot of
>managers in bureaucracies like the idea of CMS but it is often a
>utopian idea, not as practical as it seems.
If the web site manager needs to do all that then you are right.
However, it is likely that these duties will go the way of the
telephone switchboard operator and the typist. The volume of web based
data will require that users can update the content and will result in
more products like Adobe Contribute
<http://www.adobe.com/products/contribute/> and more web sites that
simply serve documents written with the contributors' favourite
editor.
>
>> > And what is updated can actually impact on
>> >design questions which are definitely not in the skill range of
>> >the various bods on the various floors.
>
>> If this paragraph is true then the first paragraph is false but it
>> makes a valid argument for restricting user updates.
>
>Sorry, I can't see this? How does it make the first para
>literally false?
It does not. I hope that this post explains where I was coming from
and fills in the details that should have been in my first response.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|