Re: The new website vs. the old
- From: "Atle Smelvær" <zinvob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:35:03 +0100
> My choices are for ease of maintenance. I can't automate site updates one
> page at a time if the whole site needs to be regenerated every time the
> navigation info changes, and I can't have the upcoming Challenge Maker
> update individual pages automatically if there is a "content management
> system" acting as a bottle-neck for the whole update process.
And why do you need a Challenge Maker that updates individual pages like
this? Have someone here done any comparing on what you will gain, and the
amount of work etc. to make this. And will it be any less work than just
using a FTP client?
Why not only create a little challenge suggestions page, where people can
vote on the suggestions. And then you just pull out the suggestions that are
ready to become real challenges. Woulr it not be better to spend work with
this instead of changing the whole site and creating some challenge maker
program (if I understand correctly)?
And creating this challenge suggestions page could be done with some php
code and mysql. So there is no need for updates like the ones you speak
about, and no bottleneck.
> In my opinion, the content management system provide no additional value
to
> the process. Instead, it restricts options. I have redesigned to the
site
> to be as simple to update as possible. To add a new challenge, a link
needs
> to be added to the navigation pane, and the new web page needs to be added
> to the server. That's it. No further work is required; and it is
possible
> to automate individual page updates from other processes without needed
the
> entire site regenerated.
>
> Although large commercial sites (like Borland's) do use CMS's to manage
> content, it is truly overkill to use it here.
But rewriting it when it's already made, and creating a challenge maker is
not overkill?
> I am afraid the debate over Frames just leaves me cold. This is truly one
> of those arbitrary "religous" issues argued over by programmers and it
just
> boils down to arbitrary tastes, with no real impact on the real world.
> My priorities are purely pragmatic. This is the simplest design from a
> maintenance perspective I can think of, so that's why I made the choice.
> Now it takes seconds to add a link to the nav pane, and a page to the
site;
> and at the same time I can provide you all with a secure utility to do the
> same.
> That's all the time I am spending on this discussion. I am truly serious
> when I say that never volunteered to participate in endless debates on
> matters of no consequence; and my work maintaining and improving the site
> doesn't automatically "make me eligible" for such debates.
Actually, getting input on the visuals and other aspects of the web page is
actually part of the volunteer work you have signed up for. If not, then I
find this webmaster position of yours very odd.
-Atle
.
- References:
- The new website vs. the old
- From: Atle Smelvær
- Re: The new website vs. the old
- From: Dennis Landi
- The new website vs. the old
- Prev by Date: Re: The new website vs. the old
- Next by Date: Re: The new website vs. the old
- Previous by thread: Re: The new website vs. the old
- Next by thread: Re: The new website vs. the old
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
