SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74
  1. #26
    Mouse catcher silver trophy
    Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,829
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sega View Post
    I second that. Having a series of static pages only increases the variables in a website, and therefore increases that chances that you are going to miss something, which will ultimately mean that you increase the chances of the client saying "you missed something". This looks bad on you and your company. Static pages should be a thing of the past, if a website has more than 10 pages it should be a CMS, this is what I think anyways.
    I have a website that has about 500 pages on it, and I see no need to use a CMS for it. Headers, menus, footers and repeated chunks of information are pulled in by virtual includes so there is no duplication of code, and no need to make the same updates in multiple places.

    What can a CMS offer me that I can't already achieve very easily with .shtml and .css? Why should I spend hours or days recreating my design in a format that a CMS can understand and then spend hours and days battling with it to get it to display what I want how I want it and with the code I want?

  2. #27
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy
    wwb_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    10,576
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    People still make static sites in 2009?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanhellyer View Post
    I'm not convinced that CMS's actually reduce the total amount of work required to be completed by web developers. Many sites which would previously have only been static sites are moving to a freebie CMS format since the price differential isn't as great as it would be if everything had to be custom built.
    This man speaks the truth. Just like most industries, things change and the incompetent get weeded out. Like those designers who can barely drag n-drop in dreamweaver and can't hack making templates.

  3. #28
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I have a website that has about 500 pages on it, and I see no need to use a CMS for it. Headers, menus, footers and repeated chunks of information are pulled in by virtual includes so there is no duplication of code, and no need to make the same updates in multiple places.

    What can a CMS offer me that I can't already achieve very easily with .shtml and .css? Why should I spend hours or days recreating my design in a format that a CMS can understand and then spend hours and days battling with it to get it to display what I want how I want it and with the code I want?
    ++ agree completely

    Cause the only thing I can think of right away that a CMS can do for you is let the client add their own content without handholding from you.

    People still make static sites in 2009?
    /me raises hand. Yes, I do. I know some other people here, like JJMcClure do as well. No point in fighting a CMS' terrible code for a mom-and-pop setup.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Addict zipperz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    CMS platforms are the way of the future for sure..

    There is still a lot of work to do in them theme development, customizations, ect people still want their own design it is just build on a platform that makes it more functional and powerful.

    I do think that hosting companies might make a system in the future that will install the top CMS systems more easily and create more “do it your self” web builders, which could take a lot of the potential small sites out of the web design market.

  5. #30
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwb_99 View Post
    People still make static sites in 2009?
    Yes because not all of use like the idea of some serverside script being left in charge of what was our once beautifully semantic source code. Plus not every website needs all the flash and glamour of an AJAX ridden website, simplicity can be exceptionally beautiful and still maintain it's userbase.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    What is the alternative to a CMS apart from static. How is the client suppose to add entries? Or should I build a website completely with server-side includes. I always though includes made my site load slower. Not sure what to think now, I always thought a good CMS is a good thing. I understand not all CMS's are good.

  7. #32
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    It has been well established here that the speed imprint on serverside includes is neglible at best, in fact includes require less active scripting than a CMS solution as the information does not have to be exchanged with a database or additional code for embedding input boxes for "member" functionality. A simple include is one request to the server to embed another file within the other, so personally making a website out of includes (unless anyone has something to show otherwise) may actually be a less impacting and simpler solution for small scale websites (obviously maintaining thousands of pages with includes might be an issue if you have many reusable components but then mass collaboration and management is what CMS's were created for in the first place).

  8. #33
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montéal
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Other thoughts…

    Internet is shaped by their users, we just had to return 15-20 years back when the only thing we need to think about was if we were to use internet Explorer or Nestscape… it was a serious decision! lol when you had to design and develop a website you needed to know HTML with some CGI and JavaScript. The majority of websites were informative and more often used for exchange in the science and scholar world.
    As more internet users got on the bandwagon the need to establish more complex websites were needed. Happen then a surge of development, other languages and tools were add to the fray, tons of websites were put on the Net and more people got connected.
    Like anything else the product needed to be refine, so more tools were add (example CSS) and graphic designer to use those new tools. That creation phase did bring the beautiful websites (not that they weren’t any before) to the users delight, new graphic designers added their touch on the web, creating larger than life design (often enough forgetting about coding and not applying optimization but that’s another story).
    Now we are in sharing phase were communities (forum, blog, facebook, twitter…) is why (mostly) users comes online. Once again, us behind the the web, have to adjust to those new needs…. that get me back to the CMS…. That is new tools to help us make the web like users want it.

    This is very much synthesized version of my vision of the web, surely different for everyone of us but that got me thinking about how much the web is growing fast, all those new tools, those new ways of making things… we need to learn and know so much to stay on top.

    I wonder again, what the future has in store for us, maker of the web

    Sorry for my rambling

    by the way thanks all for your imput on the subjet

  9. #34
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The internet has grown. As you said, before there was only two browsers. Now when I design and develop a website I test it on, Internet Explorer 6,7,8, FF 3, FF 2, Opera, Chrome and Safari.

    I have have multiple OS's in order to truly test different browser versions. I also have two monitors in order to speed up the production cycle. Not to mention endless software I have to use. I must say, the only thing that remained virtual the same is the HTML and CSS I use.

    Since I was never a sucker for WYSIWIG, I invested in learning the code, which proved to be useful. All the sites I produce come with SEO and SMO as part of the package. I design and develop most sites with the scope to put them on a CMS. Client's consistently change their mind, it seems quicker and faster to just CMS them all, as I would not want to be doing this later. Plus it makes me quicker at it in the process.

    I put up a post about how people can afford to do a site for 250GBP. I guess if you just did a HTML solution with no SEO, SMO and produced it in a few hours in Dreamweaver it might be profitable. But as you can see, it's not profitable for me.

    This is how I see the industry of web design.

    The guide below is by no means true, it's just a guide so you can see what I am getting it.

    Website Prices
    1999 = 200 pounds (HTML tables, with inline styles) tested in IE
    2001 = 250 pounds (HTML, CSS) tested in IE and Firebird
    2005 = 750 pounds (HTML, CSS, CMS) tested in IE, Firefox, Safari
    2007 = 1300 pounds (HTML, CSS, CMS, SEO) tested in IE, FF, Safari
    2009 = 1800 pounds (HTML, CSS, CMS, SEO, SMO) tested in IE6, 7, etc.
    2010 = 2200 pounds (HTML, CSS, CMS, SEO, SMO, AJAX) + browsers

    As you can see, more technologies are implemented every year and the price of the website goes up. Also the amount of work goes more and more squeezing rogue web designers out. It's not something which a college kid can do for you overnight, as the case might have been when I was in school, it's a real profession, similar to being an architect.

    I know, you might argue and say not all website need all those technologies. But I disagree, in either even we are going to have to include those techonologies on most of the websites. You might say the client did not ask for them, well, I am sure he didn't. But then again, the client in the most part is stupid, so expecting him to confirm something like AJAX is even stupider on our part. How are they meant to know what these technologies even are. There needs to be a base package were we include most of these technologies, the baseline for these technologies get's added year be year.

    After all, we all have a portfolio of websites, and if those websites looks outdated, then it would negatively reflect your portfolio work.
    Last edited by Sega; Jun 11, 2009 at 16:12.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sega View Post
    I design and develop most sites with the scope to put them on a CMS. Client's consistently change their mind, it seems quicker and faster to just CMS them all, as I would not want to be doing this later. Plus it makes me quicker at it in the process.
    I am with you there!

    If you plan to add CMS right from the start even with simple sites, there is room for expansion when your client decides to add more to the mix. ...And they will
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  11. #36
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I know, you might argue and say not all website need all those technologies. But I disagree, in either even we are going to have to include those techonologies on most of the websites. You might say the client did not ask for them, well, I am sure he didn't. But then again, the client in the most part is stupid, so expecting him to confirm something like AJAX is even stupider on our part. How are they meant to know what these technologies even are. There needs to be a base package were we include most of these technologies, the baseline for these technologies get's added year be year.
    Gosh, I didn't realise AJAX was a must, that plain text just doesn't work anymore without it first singing and dancing in a mootools-y drag-n-drop fading-awesomeness Nintendo-generation-friendly retard mode. Guess I'm already out of business, because I'm not AJAXing the heck out of our insurance and second home sites, because the visitors just won't come unless some Clippie is singing and dancing for them... surely they're not there to get an insurance quote or find a second home or anything... surely they must have Javascript to make their lives and our websites meaningful. Bah. : )

    I also didn't know SEO was a technology. Funny, all this time I thought it was just writing correct valid semantic HTML, or that old-fashioned term, "marketing" which is what advertising is.

    CSS is dressing. AJAX is dressing. SEO is... a cult or a religion, depending on who you ask (what does the all-knowing God called Google want us to sacrifice? We argue over whether fresh goats' blood or sheep intestines is better).

    Scripting and AJAX can enhance plenty of sites, especially those sites that must target the tv-addicted masses or those who need to perform multiple tasks faster than a server (a banking application for instance). But I place emphasis on "enhance"-- the page is just fine if it's a bit slower or uglier for the user without scripts, which is why I don't think scripts should by default be considered a necessity for a web site. Hell, images aren't necessary either, and you see people building websites almost entirely out of images, because they don't understand "enhancement" is different from a must.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Gosh, I didn't realise AJAX was a must, that plain text just doesn't work anymore without it first singing and dancing in a mootools-y drag-n-drop fading-awesomeness Nintendo-generation-friendly retard mode.
    lol. Come on you have to admit, the more you know the better it is. Eventually most websites will use AJAX, it's all about building a good portfolio of past work. The better you are the more chance there is of you winning the tender.

  13. #38
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    AJAX is like Web 2.0, its a buzzword which just means a collection of technology, knowing HTML, CSS and JavaScript is one thing but going in for all the AJAX mojo for the sake of ending up with some jQuery powered monstrosity when it has no need for the effects could be seen as pointless bloat code.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    best design;-)

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Gosh, I didn't realise AJAX was a must, that plain text just doesn't work anymore without it first singing and dancing in a mootools-y drag-n-drop fading-awesomeness Nintendo-generation-friendly retard mode. Guess I'm already out of business, because I'm not AJAXing the heck out of our insurance and second home sites, because the visitors just won't come unless some Clippie is singing and dancing for them... surely they're not there to get an insurance quote or find a second home or anything... surely they must have Javascript to make their lives and our websites meaningful. Bah. : )
    Yup, I'm afraid your days are numbered... You had better just shut things down unless you can get some AJAX for your site. I'm sure you can add it somewhere... Maybe you could get AJAX insurance
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  16. #41
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy
    wwb_99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    10,576
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Yes because not all of use like the idea of some serverside script being left in charge of what was our once beautifully semantic source code. Plus not every website needs all the flash and glamour of an AJAX ridden website, simplicity can be exceptionally beautiful and still maintain it's userbase.
    Funny, I never said anything to do with CSS or AJAX. But even kick in stuff like relative url resolution, menu generation and configuration management and it really makes no sense to do anything static anymore.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With the fast evolving internet, we have web 2.0 and web 3.0. and
    this will go on changing.
    Most Open source CMS will not be upgraded to new standards ,
    new functionality will also have to be incorporated into the CMS.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard ryanhellyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by anoopjoe View Post
    With the fast evolving internet, we have web 2.0 and web 3.0. and
    this will go on changing.
    Most Open source CMS will not be upgraded to new standards ,
    new functionality will also have to be incorporated into the CMS.
    Most new technologies do not need to be incorporated into CMS's, that side of thing is usually handled by themes.

    Ajax, Flash, javascript, "web2.0 look" etc. is all handled by the CMS's theme, it rarely needs to be incorporated directly into the software itself.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Addict Fre420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Leuven, Belgium
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by anoopjoe View Post
    With the fast evolving internet, we have web 2.0 and web 3.0. and
    this will go on changing.
    Most Open source CMS will not be upgraded to new standards ,
    new functionality will also have to be incorporated into the CMS.
    I think new standards have the highest possibility to be included in open source CMS.
    Custom made CMS will require a lot of work by a small team for a smaller audience, thus making it more expensive & less probable.

    Drupal 7 for example, will be RDFa --> web 3.0

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by anoopjoe View Post
    With the fast evolving internet, we have web 2.0 and web 3.0. and
    this will go on changing.
    Most Open source CMS will not be upgraded to new standards ,
    new functionality will also have to be incorporated into the CMS.
    I'll have to agree with Fre420 on this one...

    The reason I dropped our in-house CMS system in favor of Drupal was because thousands of people are involved in the development, testing and support of it as opposed to a handful of us. When there is a patch or security update, I'm automatically alerted. It is probably the same for other OS CMS.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  21. #46
    I hate Spammers mobyme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sunny Snowdonia
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Not sure why you need to have a "CMS" just to have repeating headers and footers.

    Aren't those called "includes"? That's something completely different than a whole setup like Drupal.


    Bah. It completely depends on what the client wants. If he's not updating the site, everything from me is static. Because I'm NOT going to waste my time fighting some retard template who generates crap overdone bloated HTML and CSS when I can in half the time write exactly what I want, and know it will be valid and well-written.

    I've fought templates, and haven't seen a single one that wasn't bloated. But of course, they MUST be bloated with redundant code in order to perform their purpose-- letting Joe update his blog. Since you never know what client X wants for customisation, you have to build ALL of it for him, and then let him pick. I hate empty divs, extra nesting, and endless CSS for elements who don't even exist.
    Lol. I concur with every single word. Bravo
    There are three kinds of men:
    The ones that learn by reading.
    The few who learn by observation.
    The rest of us have to pee on the electric fence.

  22. #47
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mobyme View Post
    Lol. I concur with every single word. Bravo
    I think the 90's called and want their CMS back

    Come on, wake up and have a look at what's available now!

    You build a simple brochure site and integrate the CMS (Drupal, Joomla, WP, etc...). Three months later the client wants to add some feature. Pick one: support forum, news releases, job postings, user management, etc...

    In the current CMS offerings I mentioned above, this involves adding and customizing some modules and maybe adjusting the CSS to accomodate the additional content types. I've been coding since the early 80's and I can't do it more effectively or efficiently than with a CMS framework.

    Maybe you're talking about PHPNuke or something but todays CMS software is more than a footer or nav include.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  23. #48
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Lawlz, the 90's called me this morning and wanted my rant back : )

    I'm not saying CMSes aren't going to be a regular tool web devs will need to use for certain clients. I also agree with web99 about how an absolutely, PURELY static site is pretty limited to a very small customer base. Certainly most of my static stuff eventually gets pumped into someone's template or whatever.
    (which is a terrible thing since this guarantees invalid, ugly, destroyed code. Which makes me want to quit this business)

    But I don't see how you get from "A CMS can be valuable for clients who want to change their content often and by themselves" to "everyone and his dog needs a CMS or else". They certainly target completely different clients.

    I just saw this bit of code from a template:
    Code:
            <div class="col-2">
              <div class="box1">
                <div class="top png"></div>
                <div class="tail png">
                  <div class="inner">
                    <div class="tail1">
                      <div class="title"><img src="images/spacer.gif" alt="" /></div>
                      <div class="inner">
                        <iframe src="https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?showTitle=0&amp;showNav=0&amp;showDate=0&amp;showPrint=0&amp;showTabs=0&amp;showCalendars=0&amp;showTz=0&amp;mode=AGENDA&amp;height=310&amp;wkst=1&amp;bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&amp;src=eos2j9eb9vi1as7g2jqhgsem6s%40group.calendar.google.com&amp;color=%23AB8B00&amp;ctz=####%2F####" style=" border-width:0 " width="255" height="310" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div class="bot png"></div>
              </div>
            </div>
    I refuse to work with this spaghetti. And I'll be plenty happy for anyone who wants to earn big bucks dealing with this, good for you. Me, I don't want this. It's garbage. Now say that word like it's French, Gar Baaazs (you know, with that voiced "sh" like in Zsa Zsa Gabor). Doesn't sound so bad now, does it? : )

  24. #49
    SitePoint Wizard ryanhellyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I just saw this bit of code from a template:
    Code:
            <div class="col-2">
              <div class="box1">
                <div class="top png"></div>
                <div class="tail png">
                  <div class="inner">
                    <div class="tail1">
                      <div class="title"><img src="images/spacer.gif" alt="" /></div>
                      <div class="inner">
                        <iframe src="https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?showTitle=0&amp;showNav=0&amp;showDate=0&amp;showPrint=0&amp;showTabs=0&amp;showCalendars=0&amp;showTz=0&amp;mode=AGENDA&amp;height=310&amp;wkst=1&amp;bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&amp;src=eos2j9eb9vi1as7g2jqhgsem6s%40group.calendar.google.com&amp;color=%23AB8B00&amp;ctz=####%2F####" style=" border-width:0 " width="255" height="310" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div class="bot png"></div>
              </div>
            </div>
    I refuse to work with this spaghetti.
    Any CMS which does not allow you to modify that is not worth using. Almost all popular CMS's allow to modify pretty much everything you want. The exception is Joomla which is absolutely awful for theming.

    I use WordPress which has a couple of minor limitations, particularly with it's built in gallery system, however with a little extra code in your theme you can rewrite any of that to whatever you want.
    Last edited by ryanhellyer; Jun 15, 2009 at 04:28.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanhellyer View Post
    Most new technologies do not need to be incorporated into CMS's, that side of thing is usually handled by themes.

    Ajax, Flash, javascript, "web2.0 look" etc. is all handled by the CMS's theme, it rarely needs to be incorporated directly into the software itself.
    I have witnessed this first hand. I know of a CMS that cost around 70k per year in salary alone, the bugs are enormous. Thinking of open source, you understand that there are many developers, and testers. Therefore if one was to find a bug, the chances of it being repaired a fairly high. Whereas a commercial CMS might have the bugs, but one might be overlooked because there is not the man-power to test the content management system.

    I think the future will be more open source, with a hint of custom development within that open source platform, just to do the custom jobs. The flexibility these open source CMS's offer are enormous, our commercial CMS did not offer anything. It might have been good in the 90s, but not in today's standard.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •