Wysiwyg or CMS or whatever .... [Archive] - The Church Webmasters' Forum

View Full Version : Wysiwyg or CMS or whatever ....

Websquad

Sun., Nov. 25, 2007, 3:32 pm

I have a daughter-in-law who is a member of a medium-size church that has 600 - 1,000 members and a budget that approaches $1M (both of these are my estimates). They have a web site that is, in a word, pitiful. It was an old FrontPage creation that someone did several years ago, but the local church never got behind the Internet as an arm of ministry and the person who did the work left. After about 6 - 9 months of neglect I was asked to do something, but with little input. Someone on the ministry leadership team was kind enough to tell me what programs were no longer active, so I took them off. And I ripped out all the dead FrontPage stuff and converted it to straight HTML and CSS. I get about one or two updates a month.

She is very active in the church and is very plugged into the leadership. She also is computer savvy and a fast learner. She would like to take over the website. I'm encouraging her. She wants a wysiwyg tool. She wants fast results and doesn't want to take to time to learn HTML and CSSD coding details, so it makes sense.

We need a wysiwyg tool. FrontPage is out. I've tasted MS Expression Web on a Linux server, but it seemed to me to be an extension of FrontPage. While I didn't like that, she's coming from nowhere, so it may be helpful. However, I found it to be MS server biased when it comes to doing some of the advanced stuff.

I'm not familiar with other wysiwyg tools. I note that she and my son are not independently wealthy and their church has no budget for this, so acquisition price needs to be kept as low as possible.

It would be nice if it could be a product that would support a site hosted on the web server that I use: I have space available with http://hostingtruth.net/ that features cPanel-controlled Linux servers. Her church is now on a Linux server with a local ISP who does not specialize in web hosting - they do not offer cPanel or any other control panel - however, they are a wonderful ISP but do not offer much web site server support. Also note that she will do her development on a Windows Vista platform.

These options come to mind:

Micromedia Dreamweaver CS3 ($400)
Microsoft Expression Web ($260)
NetObject Fusion 10 ($200)
Microimedia HomeSite ($105)

Some Content Management System (CMS) alternatives come to mind:

Joomla Content Management System ($0)
The Web-Empowered Church (TYPO3) ($0)

These issues come to mind:

MS Expressin Web needs a Windows server to get full features.

Joomla has a high learning curve and a heavy setup time.

WEC-TYPO3 also has a high learning curve.

The CMS options appeal to me, since I'd likely do a lot of the setup work and hire out what I can't do. My home church is about three times larger than her church, and WEC-TYPO3 is in my viewfinder.

David Gillaspey

Mon., Nov. 26, 2007, 1:49 am

Hi Bob,

From your description, I would suggest that now is a good time for your daughter-in-law's church to switch to a Content Management System. It will be much harder to do this later.

WEC would be a great choice, but I think Joomla, Mambo, or Drupal should also be considered. (All are open source.) Plus there's many commercial CMS solutions designed for the church; my list is here (http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/CMS_main.php).

generalhavok

Mon., Nov. 26, 2007, 10:56 am

The CMS world can be a confusing one. I haven't done a ton of my own research, but it seems that many of the available CMS' out there have one or two big problems:

1. Bad Code
Most small organizations (like churches) need websites with decent (X)HTML + CSS to improve their search engine ranks. Unfortunately, many of the existing CMS' provide templates with outdated, error-filled code. That means that everything you do with that template is less effective than it could be.

2. Templates
Most templates look a lot like...well, templates. Having hacked my way through many templates, I can tell you that creating a customized website for a templating system is a difficult and time-consuming process. It doesn't matter whether it's Joomla or WordPress, only those with good web skills are able to polish a template into something noteworthy. Most organizations aren't blessed with someone like that, which is part of the reason they're looking for a CMS.

I'm not here to sell anything, so I won't link to my business site...but having just finished my own CMS, I can tell you that it's possible to have the best of both worlds. I'm sure there are other products out there that address both issues, but they're obviously hard to find. If you find a high-quality template to go with an (X)HTML-compliant system, you're in great shape.

Having spent some time looking through the WYSIWYG modules out there, I can tell you that most of the systems using a javascript-driven content editor do NOT create compliant code...it's a browser-driven problem that doesn't seem to have been addressed. The way that browsers use javascript makes most javascript-driven editors output non-compliant code.

I would never recommend to anyone that they use a non-(X)HTML compliant system for a CMS, and I'd never recommend that they use anything less than a fully-compliant template. Something is better than nothing, but it's difficult to address an organization's overall web needs with a non-compliant content system.

What my partner and I have created is a database-driven CMS that outputs only fully-compliant code. It's also design-agnostic...that means that it can implemented into ANY existing design, rather than force users into using a predesigned template. It's brand new, and lacks the features of larger and older systems...but we're working on it.

It's not cheap (right now the price is $1500 and it must be hosted on our servers) but, for my existing clients, it's a huge improvement. Most of my clients are non-profits, and they don't have a lot of budget...so they can't afford to pay a web professional's rates for simple page updates. Some of them went out on a limb and paid between $5,000 and $10,000 for a really bad templated design, and pay $100 per month for hosting...which gives them the ability to edit some parts of some pages. Most of these folks' websites are virtually invisible to the search engines, and so they wonder whether to budget for pay-per-click ads (Google AdWords).

When you can use your own (existing) website's design, and output compliant code, and pay half as much for hosting, $1500 looks like a very good deal. Again, I'm not trying to sell my product...not at all. I guess I'm on my soap box for the following reasons:

1. Most organizations are completely in the dark about how to succeed on the web.
2. Most organizations end up shooting themselves in the foot in an attempt to improve things.
3. There don't appear to be many options for them.

We've tried to address this issue, and it's been both fun and difficult. I can't imagine how frustrated I'd be if I were in the shoes of an organization who didn't know which path to take.

flutem3

Tue., Nov. 27, 2007, 11:21 pm

"I can't imagine how frustrated I'd be if I were in the shoes of an organization who didn't know which path to take."

Hey, General,

From my experience in the last few years, I would be willing to guess that a large majority of us have no idea what path to take. We just jump in. And usually it looks like it as well. However, that does not mean that we should not do it.

As you know, I barely knew how to use a computer when I began trying to build a website. Was it very good? No. Was it compliant? No. But it was there. In the meantime, I have learned a bit more and have redesigned the website. Is it compliant? No. Will it ever be? Probably not. But it is better than the first one, and I work on it as I learn more.

Most of the people I know who build church websites are just like me. Our church would not pay money for a website...a trust pays part of the money. I pay the rest, and if I need something additional, I buy it. I am thinking now of the equipment I needed to add the audio sermons.

Our Christmas cantata is coming up on December 16. I wrote about copyright clearance. Last year the Christmas and Easter cantata clearances were free. In my naivete`I thought they were all free. Well, I received a letter saying that it cost $200. Well, forget that. I wrote back and asked if there were another option. There is for $50. A kind person donated the money. The church did not have it.

If our church is like many churches, they are operating in the red and are having to cut...not expand expenses.

I think it would be great to have a wonderful website that would be compliant in all ways. I don't have the skills to do it, but I have the interest. The church doesn't have the money nor the interest to do it.

If you were in our shoes, you would find a path...and you would probably be joyful that you had a website, whether compliant or not, up and greeting the world in the name of the Lord. Churches don't put up terrible websites on purpose. Someone is doing the best he/she/they can with the resources at hand. Sometimes the resources are few and far between...including technical skill.

I know many people cringe at WYSIWYG. I am eternally grateful for it. Without it, we wouldn't have any website at all...and many other churches wouldn't either. In fact, I would guess that there are many more WYSIWYG websites than there are properly coded websites. Does that make it "right"? No, of course not. But I would guess that before long WYSIWYG will become more compliant and people will not need to hand code unless they truly love to do it...and I know some people do.

For me it is as if you are asking me at 66 to learn a foreign language and to be able to write it so fluently that I am not allowed one mistake or the reader would not understand. And that is one of the biggest problems. One misplaced / or > and the thing doesn't work.

I am not saying that people should not write compliant code. Of course they need to write compliant code if they use code. The rest of us have to muddle along the best we can with the limited resources we have at hand.

It sure is fun. :D Compliant or not!!

Carol

generalhavok

Tue., Nov. 27, 2007, 11:38 pm

Hey, General,

From my experience in the last few years, I would be willing to guess that a large majority of us have no idea what path to take. We just jump in. And usually it looks like it as well. However, that does not mean that we should not do it.
You're exactly right, Carol...that's why I said that something is better than nothing. You, however, are the exception and not the rule. You've jumped in, done your homework, asked for help, and tried to improve things. I work primarily with national and international non-profits, and you might be surprised at how few of them do what you've done.

I have two points of frustration in this area:

1. That there aren't more resources for them, and
2. That they don't do what you've done.

Something is WAY better than nothing...but many seem to think that something is always good enough. You don't think that, but many do.

It's always refreshing for those of us who spend all day on websites to remember that most websites are built by amateurs, and they do pretty well overall.

flutem3

Fri., Nov. 30, 2007, 4:40 pm

"I work primarily with national and international non-profits, and you might be surprised at how few of them do what you've done."

Hey, Tony,

Oh, my goodness. You mean that just leave their websites as they first learned to do them and didn't bother to try to improve them? Well, that is just plain lazy...even lazier than I am. :D And it is too bad as well. One of the things I notice as I look at websites is what terrible color some people use and what terrible spacing they use.

It is possible to make an asymmetrical design, but there must be some symmetry in it somewhere. And that is something I also notice...things look like they are stuck any old place. A guy I met on the internet who is a professor of computer stuff said that everything on a web page needs to have a reason for being there...and that includes color, etc. If there is no reason, it needs to go. I don't follow that 100%, but I do keep it in mind. I think it helps.

I still am trying to figure out how to make the website more interactive. I have something which I am going to hook in about the middle of December. It does not look great...in terms of looking slick, but it does exactly what I want it to do. I worked like crazy to do that. If you want to take a look, check out:

www.wabashfirstumc.org/bible_year.html (http://www.wabashfirstumc.org/bible_year.html)

Despite its awkward appearance, I am pleased as the dickens. Nobody has to log in to anything. They can just participate. However, it is moderated so that if someone gets "cute" and puts something untoward on there, I can delete it.

I put this URL here one other time, but I am now ready to go with it. Maybe I will hook it in on Sunday. The beginning of Advent sounds like a good time to me.

Thanks for the compliments as well.

Carol

JackWolfgang

Sat., Dec. 1, 2007, 1:37 am

I agree with Tony that whatever solution you find/help implement needs to be standards compliant.

I will add one more potential solution to the list: WordPress (http://WordPress.org).

While initially developed as blogging software, it's gained a number of CMS features. There are a ton of customizable templates available. Furthermore, it easily handles podcasting and feeds.

One final thought on this that I will offer to anyone using a CMS:
Avoid copying and pasting anything directly from a Microsoft Office product (including Outlook) into the CMS. The Microsoft Office products store HTML with publicly available styles that will break the graphical/textual consistency of your site. Example:



One final thought on this that I will offer to anyone using a CMS:
<o:p></o:p>


Avoid


copying and pasting anything directly from a Microsoft Office product (including Outlook) into the CMS.
 The Microsoft Office products store HTML with publicly available styles that will break
the graphical/textual consistency of your site.<o:p></o:p>

JackWolfgang

Sat., Dec. 1, 2007, 1:44 am

I'm going to add another thought into the mix here. When I was asked to come back to the web ministry at my church, the best decision I made was to decentralize and delegate. By using WordPress, I gave people who have ownership in the ministries (for example, my wife handles women's ministry, something I am not involved in) the ability to add announcements to the church web site. I handle the sermons and the main pages, still, but the news is typically not me. Right now as I post this, 7 of the 10 last posts were not done by me.

Try to get people excited about the internet as a ministry with global implications.

flutem3

Sat., Dec. 1, 2007, 12:43 pm

"One final thought on this that I will offer to anyone using a CMS:
Avoid copying and pasting anything directly from a Microsoft Office product (including Outlook) into the CMS. The Microsoft Office products store HTML with publicly available styles that will break the graphical/textual consistency of your site."

Hi to Jack and everyone else,

There is a way around the formatting problem. My experience is with a Word document which refused to behave. I talked to the people on UMConnect who gave me this solution which works for me.

1. On the File menu, click Save As.

2. If you have not saved the file before, enter a new name for the file in the File name box.

3. In the Save as type box, click Web Page, Filtered.

4. Click Save.

After that copy and paste to Notepad. Then copy and paste to whatever you are using. This gets rid of the formatting in the original Word document. This works fine for me when I copy and paste from a Word document to our website. Sometimes I have no trouble with the copy and paste. Other times I need to go through the above procedure. I have no idea why I have to do it one time and not another. However, I would guess that it will work with all of the MS Office stuff.

In fact, I was originally told to copy and paste to Notepad...and then copy and paste to the website. That did not work for the document I had, but I am told that it will work for most things. Adding the filtering enabled me to copy and paste.

I can tell you that in the time it took to find out this information and send questions and answers back and forth, I could have retyped the information. :D But believe it or not, this works...for me.

I hope this helps you or anyone else who has been stuck with the problem.

Carol

flutem3

Sat., Dec. 1, 2007, 12:49 pm

Hi, Jack,

I am back. I understand how to use WordPress for making blogs. I don't understand very well how you build a website with it. I will have to admit I have not studied it thoroughly so shame on me for asking before studying.

I have heard others say that they have used WordPress as well. However, I think all the pages would have to be the same basic design wouldn't they? For example, I would not be able to use different colors on different pages, would I?

Well, I am thinking...and that is a dangerous thing for me to do!!

Carol

JackWolfgang

Mon., Dec. 3, 2007, 10:20 pm

JackWolfgang

Mon., Dec. 3, 2007, 10:51 pm

I am back. I understand how to use WordPress for making blogs. I don't understand very well how you build a website with it. I will have to admit I have not studied it thoroughly so shame on me for asking before studying.

I have heard others say that they have used WordPress as well. However, I think all the pages would have to be the same basic design wouldn't they? For example, I would not be able to use different colors on different pages, would I?

Well, I am thinking...and that is a dangerous thing for me to do!!

Carol--

Here is an example from the Bible in a Year blog at WordPress.com you created: http://wabashfirstumc.wordpress.com/about/

That's the About page that all WordPress blogs come with by default. You can change it or delete it by logging into WordPress.com and selecting "Manage" from the top menu on the dashboard, then "Pages". You can add additional pages as needed (example, Staff Biographies, Church History, etc.).

With WordPress.com (and the self-hosted WordPress software), you can even use a page as your site's home page. For example, I tried it on my WordPress.com blog at http://JackWolfgang.WordPress.com/.

JackWolfgang

Mon., Dec. 3, 2007, 11:04 pm

I have heard others say that they have used WordPress as well. However, I think all the pages would have to be the same basic design wouldn't they? For example, I would not be able to use different colors on different pages, would I?

Carol--

Generally, yes, the pages have the same basic design and the same colors. However, when using the self-hosted version of WordPress (not WordPress.com), you can vary the look and feel of the pages as much as your XHTML, PHP, and CSS knowledge will allow.

As for changing colors, again, on the self-hosted version, for sure! However, it's generally not recommended. It can make people think they left the church site and moved on to another site. I know of one major company that does this, and it's FedEx. They change colors as you move from one part of the company to another: FedEx Headquarters/Shipping (Purple Fed, Grey Ex, Purple menu), and Kinko's (Purple Fed, Teal/Light Blue Ex, Teal menu structure). They also do this with their logo on the trucks to a greater extent, see this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx#Operating_units_and_logos).