Posted by dorayme on 01/21/07 11:58

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? 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.

> > 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?

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]