@boblet

lest I forget (Oli Studholme)

CMS rant

Here’s a little rant on CMSs inspired by an Ordered List survey on CMSs.

CMSs treat the article as the atomic unit. This generally means i18n (one article, multiple translations) is painful; shared assets like photos need localised captions but CMS asset managers only allow for one= upload multiple copies, folder hierarchy (eg MT pages’ folders) are monolingual requiring two trees meaning translation links have to be done manually etc. I want the article to be like a folder, containing translations, associated assets and translations of their metadata etc.

Most CMSs don’t track internal links, so if you rename a file you break links.

Most CMSs don’t allow edit in place (like Flickr).

Most CMSs use wysiwyg formatting bars that truly suck and produce hideous code.

In addition to true i18n, link tracking, text edit in place and a decent wysiwyg editing mode, in my ideal CMS I’d like:

  • true versioning, with diff, releases, rollback, merging etc
  • wiki functionality (without having to use godawful wikitext)
  • easy deployment to staging and live servers from localhost
  • all templates as editible files which auto-sync
  • much simpler installation and setup
  • better admin interface
  • highly usable with sensible defaults (non-crufty URLs, able to use immediately, drop dead simple for clients to use etc)
  • support for editorial workflow

Of course open source with a great supporting community and extensive example-filled documentation (in English and Japanese) would be perfect, but as long as it’s affordable I’d be happy.

Notes

  1. hideoustriumph reblogged this from boblet and added:
    I see Boblet pretty often on the #radiantcms chat room, where he posted a link to this. I’ve found myself thinking the...
  2. boblet posted this