"There is a direct proportional relationship between the decline in the quality of a site and the amount of time that the site owner has been self-managing it"
I’d like to find that guy who was the first to promote to customers the idea that they could manage their own website “as easily as using a word processor” and give him a good kick in the ass. I think he deserves it. Really and truly.
read full story here
Since that fateful day when the idea was first pitched to the public, we’ve seen a stampede of low quality sites emerging. They probably weren’t always low quality sites, but I think you will find that, in general there is a direct proportional relationship between the decline in the quality of a site and the amount of time that the site owner has been self-managing it.
Then along came third-party site-builders with their ads all over Facebook encouraging the idea that with their software anyone can build a website quickly and easily. To some extent this is true. Anyone can build a website; but it does not necessarily follow that everyone shouldbuild one.
My five year old kid can draw a picture of a car. In a light-headed moment I might do something really crazy like stick it to the fridge. But I’m certainly not crazy enough to go out and display it in an art gallery. Yet that is almost directly analogous to what these amateur website builders are doing. I’m not saying there’s no place for amateurs — especially when it is clear that the website is intended to be an amateur website that somebody just built for a hobby — it’s quite another matter, however, when amateurish sites are being used to represent businesses and organizations.
The damage is done now, and unless there is a sudden mass enlightenment, it will continue to be the question every new client sets your teeth on edge with: “Will I be able to update and manage this site myself?”
Where once they were terrified to even think about messing with anything technical, they’ve now come to expect it as a right. Obviously as the customer and site owner they do have that right, but I wish I could be completely frank with them and say, “By all means you can manage the site yourself. But, if we’re both totally honest with each other right now, there’s no way to deny that you’re going to mess it up.”
I can’t say that though, instead I just quietly sigh and give a meek affirmative response, mentally wincing at the thought that this is going to be yet another site I will have to keep an eye on and eventually drop from my portfolio once the client has ruined it sufficiently that I’m no longer proud to show it off.
The main culprits in this shift in clients’ expectations and mindset are CMS products such as WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, etc. In an ideal world, the purpose of CMS would be entirely to make it easier for designers, developers, and content managers to design, develop, and manage websites.
Inevitably, however, some misguided fool decided at some point to pitch the idea that the client would have autonomous control over their site content. Which is how they end up with a 700px wide image into a column that was intended to hold a 200px image. And that image will be at 300dpi. And saved in GIF format. Or maybe BMP if they are really having a good day.
It is a rule, universally true, that the copy you crafted most carefully for search engines, will be the first content your client edits.
A CMS offers many advantages to designers, developers and content managers for rapid development and somewhat simple access to advanced features. But it is time that we stop promoting it as a way for clients to manage their own sites, because in reality, you’re going to be doing the managing for them (for free).
And honestly, how often do most clients need to update their website?