Desktop WYSIWYG versus Server-based CMS

Dreamweaver Contribute authoring compared to CMS

[cewyattjr]

So the MIS VP is pushing for our web team to evaluate and implement a CMS with the idea that it would help us, errr, manage content better. Pretty much that's the long and short of it.

Currently, we manage a multi-department (~150 content managers) several-thousand template site for a small graduate school, where I've worked for several years now. The site consists largely of file-based templates using content "includes" into a design template. Also in certain areas, we have a good bit of custom ASP apps built by folks on our team. For example, we built our program catalog using MS SQL and ASP, and have some clever ways of displaying specific categories of info into departmental pages.

Our license for MS Frontpage is due to expire, and the web team would like to adopt a Contribute and Dreamweaver (power users) approach to content management on the site. The MIS VP, on the other hand, is angling for an "Enterprise" CMS.

So given the site as it exists, there is quite a bit of resistance to changing technology. Simply put, what we have currently "works" and we've been able to draw upon our talent pool to customize web apps on an as-needed basis.

With all this in mind, I came across this interesting old thread here: [webmasterworld.com...]

I'm not totally opposed to adopting a CMS. But like many new technology products, I feel like it exists in this utopian cloud of sales/marketing B.S., and my fear, really, is that we could spend months converting content and building a CMS infrastructure, only to discover that the "old way" was just as good if not better. On top of that, I feel that a CMS is positioned, logically, to eclipse much of the custom infrastructure that has been built.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and I guess that is why I'm attempting this discussion! :-)

-Chuck

[lbombardier]

Having worked with multiple Content Mangement systems including commercial (Contribute)OS (Mambo) enterprise (WebPal) and custom applications it's pretty clear that they all have their ups & downs.

Contribute - Not cost effective for more than a dozen or so users and fairly restrictive in that all you can manage is rich text and images. However, you can use all the CSS you want (in a strictly managed environment) which is good.

Mambo - Free! However, is again fairly restricitve in what you want to allow users to do but does allow integration of custom applications. (A solution though, so not great for ASP folks.)

WebPal CMS - Works well for large volume of users (Implemented for a University with 200+ contributors) and has a number of really cool nodes that allows tons of automation and customization by actual contributors.

In the end I've found that it really depends on what you want to allow your users to do and how much scalability/flexibility they require.

[scintex]

It sounds like you guys have started to develop the inner workings of a CMS already.
I am sure if you had version control and maybe some workflow (for author/editor) - oh yes and that web front end then you'll probably have a pretty good CMS tailored to your business.

Maybe you could just build your own in ASP?

Our CMS currently allows users to edit XML files using a web form. This is wrapped in version control. The XML gets deployed to the database and the application reads from there. Maybe you could do it this way?

[eclancy]

You could keep your current system and not any changes and still allow any chosen individual to edit the pages via an Internet Browser. Check out edit.com to see how they do it. It is truly amazing, and no I don't work for them.

[moltar]

I recently came across a great CMS called "CMS Made Simple". It's still in beta I think, but that thing is what I was looking for a long, long time! Fully customizable in terms of design for the designer/programmer, yet intuitive for the end user (client/customer).