|
|
Posted by Big Bill on 03/09/07 15:45
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:41:25 GMT, "Richard Formby"
<newsgroups@barefile.com.au> wrote:
>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 SEO to the web designer? Why would you do that? Anyway, in
this context, surely you mean the template designer?
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/internet-marketing-small-business.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-tips.htm
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|