CMS Made Simple Forums

I stumbled across this site accidentally, but it did catch my interest.  I don't mean to offend anyone, but I have some serious questions and would be quite interested in thoughtful responses (I am writing a book for website owners).

One of the biggest advantages of a cms, for web owners who are not web developers, is the wide level of support; extensions; templates, books, online help and available developers who specialize in that particular cms.

CMS systems like Joomla!, Wordpress and Drupal all have those advantages due to their widespread popularity.

Lesser known CMS systems, obviously cannot offer these advantages.  Now I have no problem with the knowledgeable developer who wants to build his own website, choosing to do it however he wishes, but..

Does a developer really have the right to make this choice for a paying client?  To knowingly restrict this client to a comparatively unknown cms system rather than one of the best-known ones, could have devastating results for the web owner if he and the developer should part ways.

Obviously, my question applies to developers who would build custom-coded sites as well.  If it is generally in the best interest of a web owner to have his site built on a popular cms system, then what moral obligation, if any, does a developer have to advise the client about this issue rather than just offer a custom-coded, or lesser-known cms system as a solution?

This is a good question.

Here are a few more things to think about.

a) CMSMS is not an 'unknown' CMS.  We're a well known, award winning CMSMS, ranked 6th in certain circles (gotta find those stats again).

b) A website developer does not have the right to impose anything on the website owner.  This is part of the negotiation, and bidding process.  The website developer should choose the right tool(s) for the job based on the customers needs.  (maybe it's joomla, drupal, CMSMS, WP, SMF, magento, or a combination of a bunch of tools) and explain his choices to the website owner during the bidding process.  A developer that only knows one package is like an auto mechanic with only a hammer in his toolbox.

c) There is really no such thing as a 'non custom coded' website.  They're all customized in at least look and feel, and in frontend behaviour.  Some have different functionality (private content, ecommerce, blogs, product catalogs)...  so there is custom development in every project... it just may not be in coding PHP (or other web language), it may be in CSS, Javascript, smarty.

there is custom development in every project..

I would disagree with this statement, but first it is important to differentiate between "development" and "content".

By "development", in the context of this topic, we refer to the means by which the website is created.  In other words, we are referring to it's foundation and structure and the "language" (loosely defined) that a person will be using to modify the site's navigation and content.

As you are probably aware, a large, custom-coded PHP website (i.e.: not a cms; not Rails; etc.) often must be scrapped and the project started from scratch when there is a change in developers.  To a lesser degree, the same situation arises when lesser-known structures are used to create a website.

A website developer does not have the right to impose anything on the website owner.

True, but isn't this done by omission when a developer fails to properly inform a client about the alternatives.  And isn't it true that if the developer does "inform" the client, he does so through the lens of his own views and prejudices?

The website developer should choose the right tool(s) for the job based on the customers needs.

This is one of those statements that sounds good and makes a good "sound byte", but in fact, is rather meaningless.  Other than a few government contracts I've worked on, any CMS system would have worked just fine for every project I ever been involved with in my twenty years in web development. 

For the most part, no serious argument could be had over any of those projects (including large corporate projects, many small business projects and most government projects) regarding which cms was more appropriate in terms of how it might affect the effectiveness of the website.  (Exceptions are a few sites with comprehensive user-level requirements and a couple of newspaper sites.)

So that mostly leaves only the questions of support, extensions, templates, available developers, etc.  In other words, we are back where we started.

As you are probably aware, a large, custom-coded PHP website (i.e.: not a cms; not Rails; etc.) often must be scrapped and the project started from scratch when there is a change in developers.  To a lesser degree, the same situation arises when lesser-known structures are used to create a website.

Well, you're asking for a crystal ball here. Who knows what the state of web development will be in 5, 10 or 20 years. All you can do is use tools that are available now and, based on the past history of the tool developer/community, choose one that looks like development is likely to continue.

True, but isn't this done by omission when a developer fails to properly inform a client about the alternatives.  And isn't it true that if the developer does "inform" the client, he does so through the lens of his own views and prejudices?

I don't think it's possible for anyone to be completely objective in this regard. I think it's impossible for someone to be an expert in all web development tools. We all have our preferences. I believe it's up to the customer to do some research into the available technologies, to have some idea of what they're looking for.

So that mostly leaves only the questions of support, extensions, templates, available developers, etc.  In other words, we are back where we started.

Well, CMS Made Simple has a large community base, with a number of developers and contributors and it's been around for quite a while, so I don't think development will stall, any time soon. There are quite a few developers available who offer their services for hire. This CMS is growing steadily, with the number of extensions (modules and plugins) growing daily. The support forum is excellent, with a lot of participation by the developers.

Just my 2¢.

Nullig

First, I'd like to thank everyone for being so gracious and allowing my post that must seem somewhat "blasphemous" to your members.

I believe it's up to the customer to do some research into the available technologies, to have some idea of what they're looking for.

I think this poster is right on the mark, but the fact is that web owners, for the most part, are not aware of the choices and possibilities.

I feel that developers should strive to educate clients, but with each developer having his own biases, that is probably an impossible task.

Thanks again for your excellent input.  I'll stay tuned to see if there is more.

I guess I'm confused as to what you're asking.  Are you speaking in generalities, or are you asking specifically if it is morally acceptable to recommend this CMS - CMS Made Simple - for a website?

In principle, I agree with Calguy that the developer shouldn't impose anything on the client.  However, the client is the client because he needs a service or product.  He expects a level of competence from the developer he hires.  Part of this expected competence is the competence to choose the right development framework, and part of this choice should be made with an eye toward the future.  This is where a system with a very open architecture (not necessarily the same as open-source) really shines.  With some software, even open-source software, the architecture is such that it takes an expert in that software to make it work, build new modules, fix bugs, etc.  With other software, it is possible to take a complete project and hand it off to a new developer/maintainer who is at least proficient in the base language (PHP, ASP, etc.) and it will be a very short learning curve until the new developer is comfortable continuing on where the old one left off.  IMHO, this is one of the beauties of CMSMS.

Is CMSMS THE most popular CMS?  No.  Is it the CMS with THE best name recognition?  No.  Does it have ALL the bells and whistles of some of the other CMS software?  No.  Does that make it a poor choice for a new web project?  Absolutely not.  There is much more to a CMS than popularity with the masses and having modules to do everything from making your coffee to picking your nose.

You might also like to read:
http://www.packtpub.com/article/open-so ... us-winners

note 2007 and 2008

I guess I'm confused as to what you're asking.  Are you speaking in generalities, or are you asking specifically if it is morally acceptable to recommend this CMS - CMS Made Simple - for a website?

I think there are many acceptable choices for those who want to build their own websites, including CMS Made Simple.

My question is in regards to professional developers with paying clients. 

I think it would be fair to say that anyone offering web development services for hire, should recognize that there are consequences involved in the choice of the development platform, and that making these decisions based on what the developer is most comfortable with, rather than what is in the best interest of the client, is a questionable practice.

compusolver wrote: I think it would be fair to say that anyone offering web development services for hire, should recognize that there are consequences involved in the choice of the development platform, and that making these decisions based on what the developer is most comfortable with, rather than what is in the best interest of the client, is a questionable practice.

You know, I'm left here wondering why you'd think that a professional would not know what’s best for the client.  I get really bothered by backyard mechanics’ doing what you’re describing, but see that is the clients fault for not doing their homework on the contractor.  Just because the client may know nothing of the web, doesn’t mean that they can’t ask for a reference list, list of skills etc.. This all seems like a mute point… 

As I see it, what your really doing is trying to build a case against CMSMS verses Joomla, Wordpress and Drupal.. well in short IMnsHO .. those “widespread popularity” platform are not filled with professionals, thou they are in there, but filled with noobs that don’t know better and like moths to a flame were drawn in to the pretty, and get stuck in their head that it can’t get better than this.

From what I’ve seen, and I have used Joomla, Wordpress and Drupal, and IMHO the professionals that know HTML/CSS/PHP and the basics leave sooner or later, or stay to pray on the noobs.  That is My2Cents here..

compusolver wrote: My question is in regards to professional developers with paying clients.  

I think it would be fair to say that anyone offering web development services for hire, should recognize that there are consequences involved in the choice of the development platform, and that making these decisions based on what the developer is most comfortable with, rather than what is in the best interest of the client, is a questionable practice.

So to play the Devil's advocate, if I, as the web-developer currently negotiating a new project with a client, determine that the software that best fits his needs is a system that I have little experience with, what do I do?
1. Recommend the new system to my client, then bill extra hours because it's taking me more time to get competent with the new system.

2. Recommend the new system to my client, then somehow bill fewer hours than what it actually takes me to build the site, because after all it's not fair to expect the client to fund my education on the system that I, the developer, recommended.

3. Mention the new system, because it would be "the best" fit, but don't recommend it because I'm not competent in it.  Instead, recommend a system that I am competent in and which, with a little work (which I can do because I have a high level of proficiency in this system), can be adapted to do what the client wants, and to produce a result that is virtually indistinguishable from "the best" system.

4. Don't even mention the new system, since I don't want to deal with learning a new system, and recommend a system that I am competent with.

5. Add additional options here, because I'm sure there are more...

Oh, and how does one determine "the best".  Is an out-of-the-box perfect solution "the best", if it comes in a software package that is in a language I don't understand, or in a proprietary package that requires a high-priced support fee?  Is that better than a simple PHP framework that I, as the purported PHP expert, can extend to my heart's delight and which can be easily maintained by another developer down the road?

The developer/client relationship is just that - a relationship, meaning there are two (or more) involved.  It is no more realistic to say that the developer's preferences are not important than it is to say that the client's needs are not important.  A good developer (and by good I mean not only technically skilled, but also skilled with people), can match the client's needs with a software solution that the developer is comfortable working in.

I agree with JeremyBASS that your tone is being interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as "looking for a fight".  If you're not comfortable recommending CMSMS, then don't.  No one will fault you for that.  But it's certainly not fair to fault someone else for recommending it in appropriate situations.  (And what is "appropriate"?  That's ultimately to each developer to decide, and the client ends up trusting, just like in every other service-based relationship.)

One of the biggest advantages of a cms, for web owners who are not web developers, is the wide level of support; extensions; templates, books, online help and available developers who specialize in that particular cms.

One can say : "If you need job done - do it yourself". But i believe "Nine jobs and tenth misery" is closer to reality. If person is not web developer, he/she should not do any web development. Simply because it is cheaper to hire somebody else than learning lots of new stuff and earning nothing. Also i do not imagine any learning without doing and fixing own mistakes. So if you need job done well, trust somebody who knows more than you in that particular sphere.

Ok, so you decided to hire developer to do job for you. How to choose right one?
1. You can ask your acquaintance fro help. It would be the cheapest solution, but result is unpredictable.
2. Second option is to use yellow pages and google and do simple survey what is on the market. It would cost you some time and some learning.
3. Third option is to hire consultant who could help you to put your needs and expectations on paper, create questionnaire for developers and finally filter crappy answers and portfolios. This is most expensive way to start project, but should give you solution close to the best one. Consultant could be any web developer who does not participate in survey. I recommend one who refused to build site because of tight schedule.

If it is generally in the best interest of a web owner to have his site built on a popular cms system, then what moral obligation, if any, does a developer have to advise the client about this issue rather than just offer a custom-coded, or lesser-known cms system as a solution?

Basically that is the way market economy works. Usually it is all about trust and money. It is science outside CMSms how to gain one and/or another.

Good discussion.

But just to rewind to a point made earlier:

compusolver wrote:

The website developer should choose the right tool(s) for the job based on the customers needs.

This is one of those statements that sounds good and makes a good "sound byte", but in fact, is rather meaningless.  Other than a few government contracts I've worked on, any CMS system would have worked just fine for every project I ever been involved with in my twenty years in web development. 

This just isn't true. One of the main reasons we often recommend CMSMS is that we know clients actually use it to maintain their site.

We've had several clients over the years who already had CMS systems in place but found them too unfriendly or confusing to use (Mambo / Joomla I'm looking at you here). It's no good implementing a CMS if the client doesn't use it and either just comes back to you when they want changes or never updates the site.

CMSMS works really well for us because we can add extra functionality and do lovely design etc but still hand over a system the client is happy to use. Obviously if they're all tech wizards or have specific requirements then we'll recommend something suitable for them - but providing them a system they don't use just because it's on a more popoular platform isn't a good idea.