|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/19/06 22:18
In article <dlnvg2ttnedolp7oeqs7p6ar1acd0jq1h3@4ax.com>,
David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
> >
Some interesting thoughts here David. Big subject. I would like
to get a perspective one day on some model for what we are
talking here: what order of difficulty is the problem of how to
get rid of website managers? Driverless cars? They have some
driverless trains. And there have been some serious
(passengerless!) trials of pilotless passenger planes going
across the Atlantic. (I think it was Atlantic).
I think one thing we can say is that those who are not the guinea
pigs in these experiments have the advantage. Partly, my original
story was about this point.
> >> > 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.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|