CMS More Work Than Static Sites?
Okay granted, in the end a content management system saves time. And it's great to hand off a site to a client and say 'here's your site, have at it', and not have to worry about adding all of the text content.
But how many of you feel that setting up a CMS is more work than coding a static site?
I mean by the time you upload, configure, customize etc. etc.
For example...to use pMachine as a CMS each *one* page requires anywhere from 2 to 4 pages that work together, then you have to deal with the templates.
Just thought this might make interesting discussion....
Roo
timjpriebe posted this at 19:21 — 8th March 2006.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
It's definitely a lot of work, but like you said, can add tons more flexibility in the end.
For me, it really depends on the size of the site. Both the starting size, and the estimated size in the future. And it just depends on the nature of the site. News-type sites, I can't see doing with anything other than a CMS. Same for personal blogging sites, of course.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
Busy posted this at 21:48 — 8th March 2006.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I'm starting to build up a library of pages, the pages used to make the one page. granted most sites are different but having a library of sorts allows to reuse a lot of stuff (using classes or functions if pear not installed)
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.