|
|
Posted by Richard Formby on 03/09/07 00:41
Rik wrote:> Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:04:43 +0100, Rik <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> tonnie <t.prasinge@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>> Why a cms? Total overkill as it looks now. Use the time to teach her
>>>> how
>>>> to place content in HTML!
It takes about three minutes to learn how to use the CMS in question. In
fact with this client I didn't have to teach her. I told her over the phone
how to get into it and she immediately started using it. It's that
intuitive.
How many minutes of my *paid* time would the client have to invest in to
learn how to "place content in HTML", a skill she may never use again. And
for how many hours will she pay me to fix it when she breaks the HTML? If
she breaks the content then she can easily repair it herself.
>>>
>>> Hmmmz, a CMS is a real time-saver.
And money. The clent does the content and tinkers with it herself. Why pay
me heaps of money to type in content or correct typos?
>> Also, an seo killer, see
>> www.kruse.co.uk/content-management-systems.htm
>
> Depends highly on the CMS in use.
Agreed.
> 11 of the 12 points do not apply to my own brand of CMS on that list,
Agreed.
The very first point actually IMHO supports the use of a CMS. "The content
that you can manage is the on-page text". That is what CMS means. Content
management. Not web page management. Leave web page management (and SEO) to
the web designer. Leave the content management to the client.
The remaining points are moot. A good CMS *will* allow the client to change
the title of the page (part of the "content"), alt text, what links look
like and what is in them and all the other stuff.
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|