Content Management Systems
What is a cms and why did I need to explore them?
A content management system is designed to allow users to create and edit content which is then displayed to other users. In simple terms, it is a way of making it easy for a group of people to create and maintain a web site, without needing to know html, ftp and the other usual tools. Usually, the content is created by filling in forms when you are attached to the “back end” of a site. Once this is done, the content appears in proper format from the “front end” (or publicly accessible face) of the same site. CMS also do such things as maintain details of publication dates, authorship etc.
We needed a cms for our school web site. Up till now, the site had been managed using dreamweaver. This was great for maintaining a common “Look and Feel” and for experts to produce some content. It does have a significant learning curve, however, which meant that very few people produced content. This meant that there was not a lot of content being produced. Updates were rare, content became stale and when the pressure went on, the site became out of date. We thought a cms should solve this. It would separate content from design and from the technology – lots more people could contribute. Ease of use would allow more content to be produced more quickly and more often. We started to explore.
Open Source
We decided early on that we would look for an open source cms. Firstly, commerical cms are extremely expensive and open source is free. Secondly, we have had very good experience of open source software on our servers, especially “moodle” which runs our learning environment and wordpress that runs this site. We like the lively community of people who mould software to do what they need it to do and the help that community gives when you need it. We had gained some confidence in moulding aspects of the software to our specific needs.
Nuke et al.
We soon discovered PHP-Nuke and all its related “cousins” (e.g. “post-Nuke“). These are very effective at creating highly interactive sites with forums, messaging and the like. This was not really what we wanted to do. A school web site has a place for interaction, but it must primarily be a means of publishing information. Nuke and its cousins were capable of this, but not primarily designed for it. The other thing we found off-putting was the appearance of a “holy war” going on between adherents of slightly different versions. Looking around various discussions for advice or hints as to which version was better, we found strong opinions, but very little clarity and an awful lot of nerdy jargon. We did not rule out a nuke-based system, but we decided to move on.
Wordpress
I like wordpress very much. It runs this site. I think it is by far the best software for running a “blog” or “web log” – a site in which articles are shown in date order but also categorised so people can find any article quickly. I was very tempted by it, but at the end of the day, it did not fit the “information architecture” we needed. A school site is primarily about publishing structured information, some of which changes frequently and quite a lot does not. Although a blog could be useful within a school site, it cannot be the complete site. We moved on.
“Publishing” CMSs
We began to focus on cms that were designed to produce the kinds of web site we wanted. We worked for a while with each of:
- PHPwebsite. This comes from the Appalachian State University and we liked it a great deal. In the end, we felt it was quite slow, it was less than convincingly reliable, especially on windows servers, and it was a little restricting in the way you worked with it.
- typo3. This is a very capable cms, so rather complicated. It does not help that the documentation and community is very full of jargon so trying something like creating a page and linking it to the home page took ages – most of which was discovering what the various buttons did and why. We could not see non-experts ever being comfortable with this.
- Plone and ez-publish. The comments about typo3 apply to both these systems, with knobs on! They are very highly capable but very complex. It was taking hours to read enough documentation to know how to do even very simple things. We felt it would take weeks to learn either of them well enough to use.
- spip I have a very soft spot for “spip”. It has a very clear and simple “metaphor” around which it is built. The system is designed to mimic a magazine, so you think in terms of sections, articles and authors – easy! I may well end up using spip for various projects but it had two problems. It was written in php3 – which required some adjustments to servers to get it to work – and the important documentation is in French. We managed this quite well, but it added an additional task and strain to finding out how to use it. We moved on.
In our exploration, we were greatly helped by the cms matrix. This site attempts to list and link to all available cms, with their features and with ratings by people who are using them. Invaluable and very helpful. Currently, it lists over 130 cms.
Finally (again) Mambo
We had looked at “mambo” briefly in the early stages of our project, but decided that it did not allow sufficient security levels (e.g. between editors and administrators) and it did not seem particularly intuitive. A new version prompted another look and we loved it. It is simple to use. It quickly allows you to create and edit content and it seems focused on a “publishing information” role. To cut a long story short, the site is now running on mambo. Multiple users, some of whom have no web-creation expertise at all, are busily using it. It does the job and does it very well.
For what it is worth, mambo is my recommendation. There are lots of people who swear by other cms, they might be right, but it has allowed us to set up the site we wanted very quickly and, we think, very well. It seems simple, fairly jargon free, and it works. It also has a lively and friendly community, and (usually a good sign) a number of independent web sites, who do not seem to be at war with each other. We like mambo.