CMS tools for small business

looking for opinions on current options

[S_Wagner]

A small business has a website developed in Dreamweaver...about 10 pages w/ images & text, custom banner, with a couple of contact forms that trigger emails. They want inhouse non-tech admin staff to take over updates. They are willing to recreate the site in a CMS. They have Yahoo! web hosting, so Yahoo! SiteBuilder is an option. They also have MS Publisher, so would like it if they could use that.

Wondering your thoughts on what would be the best software for them to use? Would anyone recommend using SiteBuilder or Publisher? Or, what other options would you suggest?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[ergophobe]

Just curious, but what's your role in this (i.e. consultant, employee, contractor?).

Publisher is a page layout tool for print. It's a little like using xPress or InDesign to create web pages. Publisher has a save as HTML option, but last I tried Publisher (several versions ago) it was, I thought, a terrible tool (for print layout).

As for using it for web layout, here's what one MSMVP [msmvps.com] (Microsoft Most Valued Professional, so not a hostile source) said at the end of 2006:

Publisher is not an html editor nor is it a web design tool. More importantly there is no code for you to see nor edit. It simply doesn't exist. The html source is not created until Publisher writes it, which is when it generates the web site when you save the web publication as a web site.

For me that is pretty much a deal killer, but maybe your folks are comfortable with that. Essentially, what that means is that they would always need to edit the document in publisher format, then save as HTML, then publish to the web. If they did any mucking with the HTML code, that would be lost at next publish.

Sorry, but I don't know anything at all about SiteBuilder.

Would you consider using Dreamweaver or even Nvu or something like that? Or possibly Micrsoft's replacement for FrontPage... I always forget what it's called. I would think those would all be better options than Publisher (again, making no comment on SiteBuilder).

[edited by: ergophobe at 5:09 pm (utc) on May 8, 2008]

[ergophobe]

And this from the official MS page on using Publisher to build websites [office.microsoft.com]:

Office Publisher 2007 is an excellent authoring tool to use when you want to quickly create, publish, and manage simple, static Web sites that match your business brand and that require revisions of only text and graphics. Office Publisher 2007 is not the appropriate tool in the following cases:

* If your Web site needs interactivity or database-driven content, so that visitors can respond in a Web log (blog) or purchase items in a shopping cart
* If your Web site requires data validation, such as for verifying credit card numbers
* If you expect to later alter the raw HTML code in an HTML editor after you create your Web site in Office Publisher 2007, which combines HTML, XML, and VML code to produce Web sites

Once again, deal killers for any site I would do. But of course, your clients (or you) aren't me.

[Marcia]

Would anyone recommend using SiteBuilder or Publisher?

Yahoo's Site Builder I haven't seen, but if it's anything like what many other online templating systems are, or what Publisher (argghhh..)is like, in a word, no.

Or, what other options would you suggest?

Customized, to stay consistent with the current site architecture.

[S_Wagner]

Thanks ergophobe and Marcia for your responses. My role is as a consultant at this point. I've suggested that having a professional web developer maintain their Dreamweaver site would be pretty cost effective since it's a simple site, but so far no interest.

[ergophobe]

How about they buy Dreamweaver and have a pro do the hard stuff and they do the simple edits. That would be really cost effective.

[S_Wagner]

That's a good idea. I appreciate your time!

[k1rk]

I know this thread is a little on the old side, but I have to use a cms on nearly every site I design now days and I use a very wide range depending on need, size of site and technical knowledge.

Personally I would recommend a simple txt include system. Use asp or php to include the txt files where the body copy would be, and then create a page for them to edit these. This works really well for my clients with little computer skills. For a small site where new page creation isnt necessary I would go this route as it means they cant damage the website design or code and its as simple as just typing in the content.

Of course a system this simple has many fall backs, such as not being able to upload images and such. But for small business its cheap and quick to build and easy to use.

[martinship]

Given that you already have a Dreamweaver-built site, I am amazed no one has suggested Adobe's Contribute. It's a content editor for updating Dreamweaver-built sites.

From Adobe.com:

Simplify the editing process by enabling content contributors to update multiple websites and blogs from a single application without learning HTML. [...] Adobe ContributeŽ CS3 software uses Dreamweaver CS3 templates, ensuring accurate updates to websites designed with Dreamweaver. Website look and feel are never compromised, even when multiple authors update content across the site. Authors can update only areas designated by the designer or webmaster ...

Personally, I have been saddled with a load of FrontPage-built sites, so this isn't really a lot of help for me, and I don't have any personal experience with implementing it. It was recommended to me by another web developer, though.

Sorry to re-open this old thread.

[ergophobe]

>>Sorry to re-open this old thread.

On the contrary, thanks for adding that.

I looked over the videos and you're right - it looks interesting for a small site like the one mentioned by the original poster, especially since it should integrate well with Dreamweaver.

>> saddled with a load of FrontPage-built sites

Poor you! Adding some dynamic, DB-driven functionality to a FP-built site was one of the most hateful things I've had to do. It literally turned 15 hours of work into 40.