Tom Doyle :: TALK

It seems everyone wants a content management system nowadays. Every time someone contacts us for a new website design, one of the basic requirements is a content management system. Most people don’t know exactly what they want in a content management system, but they know that they want to be able to update their website without having to contact their web developers.

So with so many options and a seemingly unlimited supply of content management systems available out there, should you bother paying for one?

Well for me the answer is absolutely not - if you can get a free open source CMS to do everything you require, why pay for a bespoke or licensed option?

I spent years with a company who thought the way of the future was building a CMS to sell on. At the time it was a great idea, but that was before there were an decent free or open source ones available.

Right now you would be hard pressed to find a commercial CMS that has the capabilities of a free open source option. Most of the popular open source solutions are maintained by a network of enthusiasts that update the software for fun.

Not only do they update the software, they also build many different modules that allow developers to easily plug in new features for your website.

Whether it’s a mailing list or video management tool, in general a click of a button is all it takes to give your website this functionality.

The biggest problem nowadays if choosing the right CMS for your business.

For a large website, I wouldn’t look much further than Typo3, Drupal, Mambo or Joomla as the CMS of choice for your business. Both have huge communities of contributors making it easy to find a module to suit your requirements.

At the lower end of the scale, for say a small brochure type website you’ve got WordPress, CushyCMS and many more to choose from.

In this day and age, paying a license fee for a CMS is a total waste of money.

Related articles

• A Powerful Open Source Content Management System - Drupal
• Top 40 open source content management systems (CMS) - TECH.BLORGE.com

In my business, I’m constantly involved in debates on a regular basis discussing how important developing websites to the latest coding standards actually is.

In most cases, people expect me to be a huge fan of the latest W3C web coding standards. A lot of these people believe that all professional web design agencies should do nothing less than provide my clients with websites coded to the latest web standards.

However the reality is, that although I completely believe in the concept of having web coding standards and that it is for the common good and the future of the Internet, I’m not convinced that every website has to be developed to the latest coding standards right now.

Those that think it is the only way to do websites now are generally egotistical snobs who like to brag about being able to produce standards compliant websites.

I think it’s time to cut out the b*llshit.

Let’s look at the arguments most pro-standards compliant supporters use to justify their cause.

1. Sites coded to the latest coding standards perform better in the Search Engines
   This statement is simply untrue. A site can perform just as well developed in the old fashioned way as it can in the new way.

   But with all statements related to this topic, it was taken completely out of context and made a fact by those that didn’t really understand what it meant.

   The truth is simple, a properly coded CSS based, compliant standard website should have less code than your old table based website. In theory a search engine should be able to pick up the important content of your website more easily, since there is less code. However, a clean coded website in the old fashioned way can do just the same too.

2. Quicker and more flexible
   In some cases you can agree with this, but in others you can’t. There are a few things that can be done quickly in HTML that take an age in CSS, but this goes both ways. So I don’t think it’s fair to use this as an argument for the cause.

   Another argument is that CSS based sites download quicker… that too is highly debatable and comes down to how well a site is coded. Here’s a recent study : http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_02.aspx

   The fact is that in theory a CSS based site will have less code, so it should be a smaller file size. In turn this should relate to a faster download. I completely agree with that.

   However, if the site is badly coded and uses unnesseccary code, it will be the same amount of code as the old way.

3. Accessibility & Cross Browser Compatibility
   This is one that really gets to me. Most people that use this as an argument don’t really understand what accessibility actually means. So just for you, here’s WikiPedia definition of accessibility:

   “Accessibility is a general term used to describe the degree to which a product (e.g., device, service, environment) is accessible by as many people as possible. Accessibility can be viewed as the “ability to access” the functionality, and possible benefit, of some system or entity.”

   My only issue with wikipedias definition is the highlighted part. Accessibility is about access for all (http://www.sustainable-design.ie/arch/adapthouse.htm) not just a few people.

   So unless your site is nearly completely text based, your website will not work in old browsers. Have a look at a browser compatibility chart : http://vzone.virgin.net/sizzling.jalfrezi/stylebml.htm

   For me, it is more impressive for a web developer to have his website work well in all browsers than someone who can just code for the latest browsers.

   To date, most webmasters base their website accessibility test on W3C’s WCAG 1.0, which are just that, guidelines. How many web designers that claim to be 100% accessible have actually sat down with someone who has activity limitations? I would imagine very very little.

   Instead, they use a program to test how well their site is coded. Webmasters being webmasters, have spent years hacking their code to work in different browsers, so you can imagine how easy it is to trick a piece of software that just looks for dodgy code. In theory you could have an inaccessible website, that will pass this test, yet it could be claimed to be accessible. Thankfully WCAG 2.0 will focus more on the actual accessibility rather than the websites code.

   On and just to add more to this argument, you can create an accessible website no matter which route you take in terms of coding standards.

With our clients, we’ll continue to give them the pro’s and con’s of each different techniques. It must be noted that a lot more people care more now about the latest coding standards than working in older browsers.

The change is coming, so make sure you evaluate all issues before deciding on which route to take your website. Both ways have equal pro’s and con’s associated with them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New web accessibility guidelines will be ignored, says critic
• CSS Web Design Basics
• Accessibility is Accessible

I frequent the AskAboutMoney.com web forum, offering my advice on many topics from web design, web development, online marketing and even business management.

I don’t know about you, but my idea of a forum is a place where people from any walk of life can come on offer their advice, opinion or ask a question on any topic that the forum discusses. A good forum for me is where you can voice your opinion freely and unless you are completely rude, ignorant or offensive you should have no issues voicing your opinion.

I’ve only ever had one issue with AskAboutMoney.com in the past, where a question I asked was near instantly closed. After much deliberation with the moderator involved, I completely understood his position. My post was a legal question and they simply didn’t want to be seen as giving inaccurate information on a legal scenario. I didn’t agree with it, since it was a forum, but I completely understood the position he took.

Yesterday though, just showed me how ridiculous it gets when you have people with an ounce of power (moderators) for the first time in their lives, let it quickly go to their heads.

The title of the thread in question yesterday was “www.blacknight.com & www.letshost.ie” (Thread in full - click here) and the rest of the post went like this:

Any suggestions as who to use in hosting a new website?
Pros/Cons? Narrowed it down to these two -

www.blacknight.com

www.letshost.ie

Thanks

There were a few responses, most of them avoided the original question, which was “who to use in hosting a new website” and went on to recommend hosting companies which the original poster hadn’t asked about.

Since I’ve basically used all of certainly the main hosting companies over the years I’ve been doing this and having used both Blacknight and Letshost - I voiced my opinion with a simple yet accurate quote:

“Blacknight - without a shadow of a doubt. Premium quality service.”

I completely addressed the original poster’s question; who to use; and for what reason.

ClubMan, a moderator at AskAboutMoney.com sent me a private message and removed my post.

Let’s make it clear, above my posts there were people recommending Hosting365 who did not have any relation to this post other than that they are a hosting company in Ireland. Clubman removed my post and replaced it with:

“I am closing this thread because it is being exploited by people recommending service providers in which they have some vested interest.”

OK fair enough, we have done work for Blacknight in the past, but in reality, we are a bigger client of Blacknight’s than they are of ours. So I don’t see how I had a vested interest in this post. it was an honest opinion based on the years and many hosting companies I’ve used over the years.

But the big question remains… why didn’t he remove those posts that recommended Hosting365? At the end of the day, they had nothing to do with the original thread.

So was it because AskAboutMoney.com have a vested interest in Hosting365? Like, that’s where there website is hosted at the end of the day.

Bottom line is - I have no problem with posts being removed if there are people with a vested interest upping their business, but I believe if they stop one person, they should block them all. Maybe ClubMan didn’t have the b*lls to do this?

EDIT:

I just got a response from ClubMan….

Your company’s relationship(s) with Blacknight means that you have a vested interest which you did not divulge. This is a breach of the posting guidelines. End of story.

Ok so what he’s saying is that I can’t post a comment on any topic relating to anything to do with hosting unless I divulge in all cases that I have worked with Hosting365, Host Ireland, LetsHost, WebWorld, Blacknight…. etc etc ……

I don’t have a vested interest in any of these companies… I wish I did.

What a ridiculous response.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How to Choose a Web Hosting Company Suitable for Your Website
• Designing and Hosting Your Website on the Internet
• Find Cheap Web Design & Web Development at Great Pricing
• Make Money With Forum Marketing