in reply to A CMS That Doesn't Suck

I don't think you grok the concept of a CMS. You're suggesting that you remove much of the functionality that makes the difference between a CMS, and just some sort of ability to modify an HTML document through a web-based GUI.

I believe that all that you have managed to identify is that you do not want a CMS, but what you propose is not a Content Management System, as based on the (seemingly conflicting) requirements, you're suggesting that you remove the meta-data, which is how you handle the 'management' of the content.

It's entirely possible that your needs aren't met by an off-the-shelf product, and that many of the features in a CMS are extraneous for your purposes. In this case, I think the problem is that you are setting expectations about what a CMS is, that you're missing the real problem -- they weren't intended for what you're trying to do. It'd be like trying to write Perl in MS Word, and complaining because none of your scripts work, because of that damned smart quotes 'feature'.

Let me point out a couple of the flaws, as I see it in your listed requirements:

  • The church secretary should be able to install and use the CMS on almost any shared hosting account.

Use, I'll agree with. I won't agree with install.

  • The whole idea of content management is to require less steps and time to do the same things you could with Notepad. If it takes more, you will be asking why you did not stick with Notepad.

The whole idea of content management is to save time in the long run, not in the short run. Often times, it is quicker to do things in {insert favorite text editor here}. It also allows for consistency between multiple editors, the ability to specify workflow for approval, to easily adjust items in bulk, etc. etc. etc.

  • Tabbed, paged, treed, etc. control panels do not make your CMS user-friendly. They make it overly complicated, and they are not very sexy.

Authors (editors, whatever you want to call the person who places the content into the CMS) are not the only users. There are a number of people with various roles who might have to deal with the CMS. They may need to have different rights granted to them, and it

  • Meta-data is a waste of your storage space.

Metadata is the only reason that makes a CMS worthwhile. If you're not keeping meta-data, it's not a CMS. It's just a website, with the content in a database.

  • Content deserves to roam free instead of being trapped in complex databases.

No, it doesn't. (this is further explained below.)

  • Your CMS should be able to run a script written in any language without you having to convert it to some kind of plug-in.

Um...no it shouldn't. I agree, plugins are lame, but they provide a level of security, by not allowing your basic person posting content to embed something that may harm the system.

  • Templates are stupid, because they make your staff page and copyright page look just like another blog entry.

A good CMS allows templates based on the context. (and of course, the context is commonly derived from the metadata)

  • Of course you are going to make stupid mistakes. We all do it. Your CMS should be able to quickly undo them without adding to your stress.

You know, if you had metadata, you could keep journaling information, and be able to do things like 'roll back all entries made by Dave since 2005/05/18', because someone was stupid enough to fire Dave, without removing his access first, and there was no workflow process to require oversight.

  • It is just as bad when your website looks like your best friend’s website because you used the same content management system as when your clothes match your best friend’s clothes because you both shop at Wal-Mart.

That's your problem for using the default templates. Of course, if you expect the average church secretary to be able to use it, you're going to need to supply default templates.

  • If you are not planning on printing the entire internet, why do you insist on using WYSIWYG editors that use the same paradigm as print applications? A new WYSIWYG paradigm needs to be invented for the web.

I think that's outside of the scope of this project. If you take that on, you're never going to get finished. I'd either work on this, or this alone, or I'd work on the 'CMS' issue without it.

  • Collaboration on your website should be easy (including undoing changes from other authors you do not like.)

*cough* metadata *cough*.

  • The nature of mark-up defines what is content without unnecessary templates: whatever is not mark-up is content.

Templates keep you from needing to define the formatting of each page individually, and thus, makes it exceedingly easy to either replace all formatting in bulk, or to define the formatting based on context. (for instance, if you visit page A via a link from page B, you're given a different format than if you had come through page C

  • Content management is useless if you have to recreate your website to use it. Your CMS should be able to manage your current website as-is.

If you manage to pull this off, you're a genius. Of course, without any metadata, it's not a CMS.

  • It is okay if it takes a long time to create a new page, but it is not okay if it takes a long time to start creating that page.

Huh?

This sort of ambiguous requirement is what dooms most projects.

  • Is it just me or is keeping your content in a database and having the CMS generate static pages containing the same content redundant?

It is most definately not. By keeping it in a database, rather than a directory structure, I can do much more advanced queries on it than I'd otherwise be able to do.

However, for a site that has many more reads of a single page than writes, the static pages allow the webserver to cache the page. It also allows it to be quickly mirrored on a seperate site, if you wish to keep production seperate from the CMS system, or other sorts of load balancing.

The database also provides a good place to store metadata.

In Section Meditations