A graphic designer is contracted out to an annual convention to design posters, brochures and a website each year. He contracts out the website build to me.
Because the site is basically static and is changed once a year, I code it in static html/css/js with some php/mysql for the registration form and the contact form.
One of the clients thinks it is a CMS and would like access to the back-end to do some content editing. The graphic designer and I had a discussion about the difference between what I built and a CMS, and asked me a question that I really didnât know how to answer: âWill the client think the website is less professional because it is not a CMS?â. I never really thought about one method being more or less professional than the other.
I have customers who have CMS sites that do not get updated from years end to the other, and others that have both static and CMS sites that want me to make all of the changes.
They can both be professional, but are just different.
Some customers like the fact that they can amend/change the site when they want to and want the facility even if they never use it. From working with designers you may need to make the designer aware that giving the end client the facility to change things could affect the design - putting images in where the designer did not allow for them, or leaving them out.
Personally I would say if the customer wants a CMS then why not let them have one?
Actually, the client didnât ask for a CMS, but for some reason he thinks the site is powered by a CMS and he would like access to the âbackendâ to make some content updates. I still have to speak with him and explain the difference, but the graphic designer was wondering if the client would think the website was less professional because it wasnât a CMS.
That reaction surprised me, because I believe in using the tool that suits the job, so a CMS in this case would have totally been overkill.
Obviously not a very experienced designer or theyâd realise that a CMS is just one of the many optional tools available that makes a site more professional when used appropriately and makes it far less professional if used inappropriately.
As a web based service provider I would expect a professional to go the over the advantages and disadvantages of differing methodologies to satisfy given business requirements. I do believe that it is less professional to not at least recommend and discuss the advantages of using a CMS given the climate of the industry and need for *most people to change out content themselves â within reason . Having said that if the initial requirements did not call for the ability to customize the site than you did your job. What the client is now asking for is a feature enhancement and would require more capital.
Putting that aside in my personal opinion you failed as a consultant. Consultants should be able to anticipate likely features and recommend ways to ease the process of development when they become necessary. Iâm a true believer there ALWAYS needs to exist a balance between simplicity and complexity to make way for new features without essentially rewriting or worse rebuilding things. The scenario you now describe is the difference between just getting something done and going beyond reducing development efforts in the future. This is a delicate line though when doing things as simple as possible since simple by definition implies lack of complexity that considers future needs â remember this the next time someone says a CMS is âtoo complexâ. using a cms might be âcomplexâ initially but chances are it will be required down the line. Therefore, it is a smart move to implement one. That goes regardless of whether or not doing so makes things âmore complexâ as it will make things âless complexâ in the future. Not to mention what is and isnât complex is all relative to individual perception which is directly related to ones own knowledge of the methodology that has been implemented.
Furthermore, the web designer whom contracted you failed. They seem to be more or less acting as the project manager. The individual who owned the client relationship is responsible for sorting out requirements . As someone who was told to just get a job done the person acting in that role would not be responsible for anticipation of new features.
I made some assumptions in this statement about your role. However, the real question is regarding how many people were involved in providing this service and who acted as the project manager / owned the client relationship vs. just executed. The person who owned the client relationship did a poor job in discovery and building a requirements outline since content-editing is a basic feature that should have at least been offered as an upsell. This is really what makes the difference between someone who just executes and a project manager / lead role.
Client(s) also have to realize that if they are hiring just a single person or two that they canât expect to get the same level of service that a larger team/agency would provide. Most freelancers these days tend to be mere execution focused. Thus, if you donât know what you want than this is the type of thing that happens since the people executing typically donât look at the larger picture and just get what they are told is done. The problem is many client(s) lack the proper knowledge to provide those requirements directly to people executing yielding these type of âincompleteâ results.
Which leads me to the reason I firmly believe you should not freelance/contract until you have at least ten years in the business. Executing tasks is easy but building requirement documents, talking to client(s), and making sense of what they want to implement is something only gained through years and years of real world experience. In a normal work atmosphere there are project managers, leads, seniors, etc to learn from and guard against everything none technical for the lower level staff, like yourself. When you freelance that typically doesnât exist and leaves a lot of room for error unless you have held a higher level position that was responsible for those things which is not someone newer to the industry. It is also not someone who just knows html and css. It is someone who understands the whole industry from devops to design to copywriting and is able to put together the right people/team to achieve the desired end result.
Going back to client responsibility â âyou get what you pay for!â. If you pay $500 USD or whatever for a site than expect to get a $500 USD website. Implementing a cms, customizing, etc isnât cheap especially when clients are picky. However, was stated in the beginning one should at least go over all the possible options that exist. With the information provided allowing the client to chose which offers the best value for their particular circumstances at present and the immediate future.
If a site does not use a CMS doesnât make it any less professional. As the client didnât ask for a CMS I read it you made a sensible call and just used normal flat pages. Yes of course you could have pointed out the benefits of using one as @oddz says, but at the end of the day you made the call and used what you deemed the best approach, after all you were just subbed out to do a web build, really as the designer is the lead for the project it should be him dictating the web site specs to you.
Iâd say that as the client is asking for the ability to update content then go back to them with a price for integrating some editing capabilities.
You make some good points there, @oddz. But some of your comments I take exception to.
There is a committee that organizes the event. They hired the graphic designer to produce a package of goods: brochures, posters, website design. He hired me to build the website.
This person who now is looking to do some editing of content is new to the committee organizing the event and was not part of the original set of requirements set out several years ago. He is just making assumptions
that the website is a CMS because he has dealt with other websites in the past which were all CMSâs . I donât think heâs ever experienced anything else, and he is not asking for the site to be changed to a CMS.
You do not know what was discussed with the client and with the graphic designer / project manager who has no experience with websites.
I do have ten years experience in the business and am not new to the industry, but normally I am in charge of the entire project from start to finish and have more control over what to offer the client. In this case, I was contracted out to do just one part of the entire job and was not in direct contact with the client. Everything went through the graphic designer.
Having said that, my question was not whether or not I have any right to freelance because I am a âlower level staffâ and whether I have âfailedâ. The question was "Why would one method (static website) be more or less âprofessionalâ than another method (CMS) for a website that is built for a single annual two-day event, and then taken down and completely changed for the next year (design and content). Given the circumstances (until this particular person became part of the committee organizing the event) the static website completely fulfilled the requirements and the features of a CMS would have never been used by the committee.
Thank you, @bluedreamer. That makes a lot of sense. The committee member was just one of several, and was not part of the setting up of requirements and the discussion involved. And I was not privy to the planning discussion. I was just brought in near the end to build what they wanted. By the way, this notion of âprofessionalâ came up the other day when I was explaining to the graphic designer what a CMS and a backend was, because he was totally unfamiliar with those concepts. There has never been any complaints about the website itself and its functioning.
Actually, this is really bothering me, @oddz . I opened this thread to find out peopleâs take on whether they thought, in general, one type of website was more âprofessionalâ than another, not for people to start bashing what they mistakenly think was the way a project was handled and making assumptions about whether I failed in my job or not. Maybe I would have gotten more illuminating responses if I hadnât tried to give background information to a situation that is too complicated to describe in a sentence or two.
I think the point was that a static site can be fine, and what makes it professional or not is whether the client was aware of their options and what they were getting. If this was done, and some new guy on the committee starts asking why it isnât a CMS, then the obvious answer would be, âWe discussed all options with the client, and this is what they chose.â
I did make to many assumptions about the circumstances and for that I apologize.
I think you slightly misinterpreted what was stated. Either way it really doesnât matter because the circumstances which you cited changes the perspective and no way did you really do anything wrong.
I have a tendency to assume the worse, sorry.
Going back to the original question I would say that using a CMS is more professional than just static HTML and CSS as it provides a path of relative ease to grow and onboard others into the project more so than just static HTML and CSS. However, when it comes to small websites, with very little functional requirements I guess the straight HTML and CSS route could work as well. It all depends on the context as I outlined but typical scenario in my experience deems a cms more valuable in the long haul where continuous integration is at play which are the types of projects I work on â always evolving.
A static site is just one way to build a site, and using a CMS is another. A CMS site can be done very unprofessionally, and a static site can be done very well. Static sites are coming back into popularity, so it could even be considered cutting edge. As said, the real question of professionality would come into whether the client was given the right information, but youâve spoken to that, so itâs ruled out. So no, a static site is not less professional.
So it comes down to choosing the right tool for the circumstances, which is what makes the end product professional or not.
If I canât find an out-of-the-box web application such as a database-driven resource that fits a clientâs requirements without too many time-consuming and costly adjustments, then I will recommend a custom-built one. The same thing goes for different types of websites.
I once redesigned a client website from a static website to a WordPress CMS so that she could do her regular updates without having to pay my hourly rate to do them (quite frankly I was getting tired of having to do her site maintenance), and she is still (quite happily) asking me to do her updates and paying me my hourly rate for it.
The trick is in educating the client sometimes on what is appropriate, not what they perceive as popular.
I think just need to understand, its only the matter of coding not professionalism. With CMS he/she has the ability to update website whenever they want but with static coding they donât. If the static website fulfill their business or promotion targets than need not to go for CMS solution.
Iâm going to skip over the responses and just give you my one thought:
That reaction surprised me, because I believe in using the tool that suits the job, so a CMS in this case would have totally been overkill.
This ^ is, in my opinion, correct - you use the tool for the job. If itâs really 1/year updates, and especially if it isnât worth the money invested in someoneâs time (yours?) for CMS setup, maintenance, updates, upgrades, etc to them - then it was not the right tool. Even if it is worth it to them, it could still not be the right tool.
Just explain the situation. They didnât ask for it - thereâs definitely nothing to be embarrassed about and you did nothing wrong. Theyâre just misinformed.
A professional with SEO, CSS, HTML and designing skill would be required to develop a website from scratch. I agree to oddz both have their own advantages in terms of cost , quality and time. A professional team may deliver a outstanding experience. On another hand a CMS satisfactory. You can even look for both CMS with professional consultant to review your CMS and correct the missing features. CMS is more easily to manage. and its easy to review.
