Iād like to find that guy who was the first to promote to customers the idea that they could manage their own website āas easily as using a word processorā and give him a good kick in the ass. I think he deserves it. Really and truly.
Since that fateful day when the idea was first pitched to the public, weāve seen a stampede of low quality sites emerging. They probably werenāt always low quality sites, but I think you will find that, in general there is a direct proportional relationship between the decline in the quality of a site and the amount of time that the site owner has been self-managing it.
there is a direct proportional relationship between the decline in the quality of a site and the amount of time that the site owner has been self-managing it
Then along came third-party site-builders with their ads all over Facebook encouraging the idea that with their softwareĀ anyoneĀ can build a website quickly and easily. To some extent this is true. AnyoneĀ canĀ build a website; but it does not necessarily follow that everyoneĀ shouldĀ build one.
My five year old kid can draw a picture of a car. In a light-headed moment I might do something really crazy like stick it to the fridge. But Iām certainly not crazy enough to go out and display it in an art gallery. Yet that is almost directly analogous to what these amateur website builders are doing. Iām not saying thereās no place for amateurs ā especially when it is clear that the website is intended to be an amateur website that somebody just built for a hobby ā itās quite another matter, however, when amateurish sites are being used to represent businesses and organizations.
The damage is done now, and unless there is a sudden mass enlightenment, it will continue to be the question every new client sets your teeth on edge with: āWill I be able to update and manage this site myself?ā
Where once they were terrified to even think about messing with anything technical, theyāve now come to expect it as a right. Obviously as the customer and site owner they do have that right, but I wish I could be completely frank with them and say, āBy all means you can manage the site yourself. But, if weāre both totally honest with each other right now, thereās no way to deny that youāre going to mess it up.ā
I canāt say that though, instead I just quietly sigh and give a meek affirmative response, mentally wincing at the thought that this is going to be yet another site I will have to keep an eye on and eventually drop from my portfolio once the client has ruined it sufficiently that Iām no longer proud to show it off.
The main culprits in this shift in clientsā expectations and mindset are CMS products such as WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, etc. In an ideal world, the purpose of CMS would be entirely to make it easier for designers, developers, and content managers to design, develop, and manage websites.
the copy you crafted most carefully for search engines, will be the first content your client edits
Inevitably, however, some misguided fool decided at some point to pitch the idea that the client would have autonomous control over their site content. Which is how they end up with a 700px wide image into a column that was intended to hold a 200px image. And that image will be at 300dpi. And saved in GIFĀ format. Or maybe BMP if they are really having a good day.
It is a rule, universally true, that the copy you crafted most carefully for search engines, will be the first content your client edits.
They will completely ignore the white space that you built into the design. They will copy and pasteĀ half of a JavaScript code from Trip Advisor then blame you when it fails to work. They will cheerfully combine four different font styles in the same paragraph. In fact, if there is any way at all they can make your design look terrible, they will find it.
What is the good side of CMS? Well, for one thing it allows you to develop sites more quickly provided that you already know exactly how your siteās skin is going to drape over the framework. For another, depending on which CMS you choose, you may have access to a vast library of tools and plug-ins that will help with easily adding functionality to the design.
But what about the bad side of CMS? ThereĀ isĀ a bad side. The reasons not to use a CMS include:
- Security vulnerabilities in yourĀ chosen CMS becomeĀ security vulnerabilities inĀ your sites.
- Unless you have a water-tight contract, any harm caused by security vulnerabilities exposesĀ you to litigation; when you install and use the CMS software, you (not the client) agree to a licensing agreement that specifically states thatĀ you accept all riskĀ for using the software, you have no recourse to make any claim against the manufacturer, even if the problem was due to negligence on their part.
- All available online WYSIWYG editors have quirks and problems that result in: āWhat you see isĀ almostĀ what you get, but not quite!ā
- For smaller sites that donāt need access to the full range of technologies provided by a CMS, the use of a CMS is overkill that often involves a steep learning curve for the client.
- CMS products inhibit your ability to create semanticallyĀ structured source code.
- CMS products oftenĀ make simple tasks more complex.
- AllĀ CMS products introduce bloat to your pages which can increase page load time and impede performance.
- Some CMS products are not SEO-friendly right out of the box, you may need to tweak the settings to make your pages crawl-able, and do youĀ reallyĀ want to leave SEO to a plugin?
- Self-management allows the client to alter your design, but still expect you to support their site (including their changes).
In conclusion, a CMS offers many advantages to designers, developers and content managers for rapid development and somewhat simple access to advanced features. But it is time that we stopped promoting it as a way for clients to manage their own sites, because in reality, youāre going to be doing the managing for them (for free).
And honestly, how often do most clientsĀ needĀ to update their website?