Minerva

Cloud computing is a long ways from reaching its zenith. Its not a solution for everyone, and unless you're dealing with terabytes of data or logic or have a really high number of users (hundreds of thousands+) the cloud is probably not a good fit.

Along side of the complexities to determine the need to go to a 'cloud' environment are the even more complex engineering tasks of databases and security compliance.

Yes there databases in the cloud, yes there are successful implementations of data layers being stored across hundreds or thousands of servers BUT ensuring continuity and that the software is well maintained (including patching as needed) is a virtual (and real) nightmare. Compound this with not being able to test patches before they are applied is a logistical crisis. Whether it is on OS or a database update, the actual integration is out of your hands (remember you're in a cloud now). No programmer or engineer wants updates rolled out without their knowledge, so stuff can be tested to ensure nothing breaks or to fix it before its actually live. So just how does one ensure their content, data, or logic will perform as intended with updates? Ah, let me know when you can answer that.

Then there is the issue of security, namely HIPPA compliance and/or other mandated regulations. Do you really want your medical data flying around in the cloud? A lot of discussion is currently surrounding this very issue. Lots of pros and cons out there. Privacy versus access to accurate information by medical providers is the key pivot point in many of the arguments. We're talking way more than simple SSL encryption here. SSL is only good for the transport of the data, it doesn't affect the actual encryption of the data. Image 1 medical record, where almost every data point is stored on a different server in the cloud - thats lotsa data and lotsa servers. Now extend this to thousands or millions of records. The cloud just isn't THAT specialized yet.

Of late I am seeing NEW web sites still being designed with replicant text menus at the footer of some sites. Marketing and hybrid agencies will say these are for search engines. I have to laugh, because THOSE links were originally designed for browsers that didn't use images OR for designation as section 508 compliant alternative to a graphical menu.

See, back in the day when the first browser wars were just starting (circa 1998-2000) web sites were just coming into the equivalent of their 'teenage' years. No real standards existed but some general ideas were in place. The use of a text based altenate menu below the main site was used quite often for Mosaic style browsers or for visually impaired users. People also deisgned some fancy javascript menus, but since javascript wasn't fully supported and alternate text only menu was also sometimes used to overcome this issue.

Today marketing and hybrid agencies will tell you the footer menus are for search engines. Not so. They are just another set of links and are treated as such by search engines. Continuing to utilize such design attributes is basically 'old school' now. Search engines really do not know what those links are, and could care less if the are in the content or elsewhere of your website. Internal linking is more or less neutral, and generally doesn't improve your overall rankings - but it doesn't hurt either.

Not to mention, a well designed main menu system will use text instead of images anyway - so the duplication for screen readers (re: visually impaired) are also now a moot point. Modern screen readers coupled with good best practice design overcome many of the frustrations visually impaired users experienced at the turn of the century. The redundant text menu is only needed if the site is in Flash or uses images for its menu system.

Another common design myth is the design shouldn't exceed 800 pixels in width. This was true back in the 1990s when monitors were set up for the average user at 800x600 pixel resolution. Today, the most common resolution is 1024x768 as more and more wide screen monitors pervade the market this will probably expand to 1200 pixels wide in the very near future. Web sites designed for 800px are no longer the norm and can be a hinderence to the user in terms of content text site and textual real estate.

Content Management Systems - Updates and Custom Features.

Disclaimer: Digital Beckley does not use any commercial (free or otherwise) CMS products. We use our custom TDCMS to allow customers full editing capabilities.

If the company you are using created your site using a CMS, ensure the software is updated!! This is something YOU should be doing and that is watching the CMS softare of choice's web site for update releases. So say your web firm is using Joomla, you should be monitoring the Joomla web site when new versions (or updates) are released. Drupal's site is here.

Responsible web firms should be updating the CMS verions as new ones are released. This is something that you should discuss with the firm of your choice.

Keep in mind that this needs to be done perpetually for the life-cycle of your web site. Is this a bad thing? I guess that depends on WHO is monitoring for the updates and is the web company being proactive about ensuring updates are performed at release date or are they being reactive waiting on you to request an update. This is probably something you should see in writting.

As for custom features, there are a LOT of possibilities. Joomla and Drupal both have extensive capabilities to be expanded via the use of modules. But even these modules will have their own set of restrictions. Some may be free, others may have a cost associated with them. Oh, they probably have specific licensing criteria too. Ask if your site uses any modules and if so, ask to see the license for each one. And again, find out if there are updates for each module.

We're waiting on an update.
Ever heard those words? No? Sometimes its just not so obvious. Are there delays when you request updates to your site? If you've ever had to ask for the same update for more than a week or so, do inquire as to why. Sometimes web companies are backedup with update requests and sometimes they are just waiting on a CMS or module update.

Depending on the type of custom feature you need, the web company can either make the code changes theirselves (fastest) OR they can request the module's working group to make the changes (most stable). However, there usually is a caveat with the web company making any code changes. In many cases, if they change the underlaying source code they may be required to release the code base to everyone. For example, if the make changes to the core Joomla code, they are NOT required to distribute the code (but they can), but a module license may require that any changes be sent back to the module's owner or working group. Thats why its important to read (and understand) those licenses!

So when you request changes or custom features be sure to ask if this change is just for you or if you will be paying for everyone in the world to have the same update.

These are just some of the 'cons' of using off the shelf CMS applications. There are benefits to using these types of CMSs, they can save development time and usually can be deployed very quickly. But sadly in too many cases companies shopping for web sites are not aware of these issues. Its complicated, its technical and can have broad reaching legal requirements.

Open source CMSs have come a long way and they provide a great way for companies to get on the web. They are used for a broad range of organizations from individuals to Fortune 500 to Federal sites. Just like many companies prefer to have their sites custom designed, many will choose an Open Source CMS. There is no right or wrong, it just boils down to the intimate needs of the customer. Your web firm should take time and explain EVERY detail to your satisfaction.

Content management systems or CMS is the key to a real-time data driven web site. There are over 2,000 CMS applications, some free some cost big bucks.

But I'd like to kinda focus on just a few. Particulary Joomla! and Drupal. These are 'good' free CMS apps that can work with some really nice designs. Of course, taking a template and plugging the CMS into it is not rocket science, its barely even web development.

Lets examine all this for a minute. A "template" is a graphical user interface (GUI) that is pre-made and are sold by the thousands online for around $25-50. There are some that cost more, but most template shops are pretty inexpensive. It usually has the orginal graphic files so it can be somewhat customized. Oh one more note on GUI templates - the vast majority are made offshore. India, China, etc - places where people get paid very cheap wages to produce high-volume cookiecutter designs. But these things are sold and resold on the Internet, it would be difficult to find out the actual origin of who designed it. 

Template sites are pretty easy for an experience internet user to identify right off the bat. (psst - they all look the same).

Next are the popular FREE CMS apps. All designed to show a web site in a particular format, sometimes with a good bit of customization possible through the use of "modules" or "plugins" for that particular CMS. THese modules/plugins are usually designed for a specific use such as displaying weather, or getting some kind of Federal data, or providing a level of social networking - the possibilities are very creative.

So far we have a GUI that is under $100 (conservatively) and a FREE CMS that is going to be the basis of your web site.

Now for the hard core part - check your contract or proposal, if the web company is charging you money for or selling you the CMS application, ask to see the full license for it - it MOST likely has to be given away free of charge for any commercial use. Okay, to be fair, the web company CAN charge for the time they work on it - this is probably at best a few hours or days.

Now, I'm not knocking good companies that can take a GOOD template and creatively add a free CMS into it and deliver a good product to the client. It takes talent and experience to do that. What I am trying to drive home is what are/were you being charged? A couple thousand maybe? Thats reasonable, and maybe a little low in some cases. Did you or are you planning to drop oh say 15k or more on a web site - I would finding out what PRECISELY am I being charged for.

There is no real standard for how a web proposal is quoted. This creates its own set of problems. Potential clients are comparing apples to oranges when assessing web comapnies in most cases. The important thing is disclosure. Find out if your site is custom designed or a purchased template. Find out if your CMS is custom coded or if it uses a off the shelf CMS.

Custom designed web sites are just that. Fully custom designed and based off of the clients NEEDS. These are not 1-size-fits-all premade programming. Dedicated professionals design and develop a custom site from the ground up. Every element, every feature specifically tailored for the client. When you see a Digital Beckley logo, you KNOW that site was custom designed.

The analogy I would use is it takes craftsmen and artisians to create a masterpiece but anyone can paint-by-number.

Stay tuned for Part II where I take a hard look at updates and custom features.