Are free and open source templates, themes, self content management systems replacing the need of web designers?
You can find templates online for pretty much anything these days. There are html and css templates, templates for Wordpress, all sorts of different cms templates, e-ecommerce templates, etc. Many of these are pretty cheap and some are even free, so where do web designers fit into this picture? I’ve had many clients and potential customers ask why they should use my services instead of just buying a cheap template. Are web designers being replaced?
Are they all forcing web designers to reduce prices of service?
No. Where does the free templates come from?
No, because a human web designer can tailor a project for a specific need, whereas a template will always have restrictions. A web designer can make something unique that stands out from the crowd.
I think that templates and other similar systems make it easier for a potential client to make an uninformed, rash decision that may save them money up front, but will eventually be something they regret.
Not really, they reduce the burden of the designer so they don't have to do as much work. In some cases you can directly implement one of the ready available templates, put the client's data and its all good. But most of the times you'll end up modifying the design to the clients requirement(considering the client accepts a ready-made template). Here you'll need design skills. Also consider even though there are a large number of templates available, there are finite and if you're looking for something very specific - a template will just not cut it.
So weather you work alone or at a firm - Design skills and Web Designers are essential and will remain so.
If your potential customers are okay with the current selection of open source templates, designs and CMSs, go for it.
You still need to customize and deliver as a web designer/programmer. Does the open source projects offer free support? I doubt. People still need someone to do the job as well.
Web designers are not being replaced. If your work is worse than open source web designers and you don't offer any customization or support, you might be replaced.
There will always be a need for web designers. As Letseatfood said, a designer can custom tailor to fit a project to a client's need. There are also so many services offering "Do It Yourself" websites, but they can't replace designers. Some small businesses might go with a template or a DIY, but the final product will not be as good as a custom built website.
And also, if you aren't finding enough clients for custom websites, you can always try making templates to sell, haha!
If you want your site to look and act like everyone else's, then you don't need a web designer. However, if your site has the same "product" as everyone else, how do you differentiate yourself aside from price?
Free template only bring you up to the same level as everyone else. You need your own designers to give you the edge.
Related
I want to use some ASP.NET based CMS for creating my website and don't know which to choose...
I begin it in Sitefinity, but with it very hard to manage code as you want... And it generates ASP.NET WebForms code...
Now I heard about Orchard, which is CMS developed by some Microsoft employers, and is ASP.NET MVC 3 based...
Now I have some questions about that
What advantages have Sitefinity against Orchard?
Is there any issues and bugs with using Orchard? Is it comfortable
to use?
If you have any other suggestions about using other CMS, I will be pleased)))
full disclosure: I work for telerik, the company that makes Sitefinity, but these opinions are based on my own experiences with both platforms.
as is often the case, it really depends on a) your needs b) your environment and c) your abilities
Sitefinity is uses asp.net webforms so indeed that is the paradigm behind its pages and controls. This has the advantage that if you are experience with ASP.NET, you've already got a lot of the skills needed to customize and extend Sitefinity. Templates are simply master pages, widgets are simply ascx user controls, and themes are standard asp.net themes.
Orchard follows a parallel of this approach, but as you said, in the MVC world. It makes use of views, layouts, controllers, and other mvc patterns as its foundation. If you're strong with asp.net MVC, it can be a pretty solid platform.
As Mystere Man pointed out, it is relatively new CMS, and I might add seems to be mostly community based. When trying to figure things out in a project I was working on, I felt like I was at the mercy of whatever developer created that one component of the platform and whenver he or she had time to respond.
On the other hand, one of the many advantages of going with Sitefinity is the excellent support you get from Telerik, as well as an active community forum.
Sitefinity is also ramping up its release schedule, with major point releases coming three times a year as well as service packs in between to improve performance and constantly add new features, always based on feedback from customers.
Ultimately, it is always going to come down to your own experience and what is a best fit for all people involved. A site can have any number of involved people, from developers to designers to content writers and of course your visitors. Try each product and think about how each role will interact with the system, and see which feature set best aligns with your needs on all fronts.
hope this was helpful!
No fully featured CMS is going to be "easy" to program. They might have easy modes that let you color inside the lines, but as soon as you want to do something they didn't account for it gets very hard.
Orchard is a fine CMS, although it's not as mature as many others. You can create your own MVC based sites to go inside it. However, extending Orchard beyond the trivial becomes complex quickly (althought you can do a lot with the trivial).
It's extremely simple to install and use. I'd suggest doing it and playing around with it, also look at the developer pages on the web site.
I have only worked with Sitefinity 3.7. To be honest, and even despite the support from Telerik, I found it extremely difficult to use, once you went beyond the basics.
As regards Orchard, I agree wholeheartedly with Josh that the support is the big issue. Bertrand Le Roy will answer your questions once a day on Stackoverflow, sometimes very briefly. Over 3 or 4 days, you get to the bottom of the problem, but support is something that Orchard needs to improve on, despite Bertrand Le Roy's good will. So with Orchard you are in at the deep end.
The other downside to Orchard is that it has a very poor user interface for the END USER who isn't a programming geek. A programmer can cope with layers and zones and working with lots of them in lists. Ie, Sitefinity is MUCH more WYSIWYG and, I would say, better for the END USER.
For a programmer, however, I find Orchard, despite the minimal support, MUCH easier than Sitefinity.
Two examples of the differences between the two CMS:
Menus.
Sitefinity is great, because you have a drag and drop treeview to organise your pages, and this reflects instantly in the menu.
Orchard says they will have a built in hierarchical menu in version 1.5. However, you have to work with entering pages into a form, rather than having a graphical drag and drop situation like in Sitefinity.
Pages.
Again, in Sitefinity, you just drag and drop controls onto the page.
In Orchard, you have to configure layers and widgets in a VERY geeky (to an END USER) way.
Also, if for example, you have a site where each page is has a custom header image, plus custom content in left and right columns, then you are going to need a layer for each page that has these extra custom pieces. (Orchard "pages" only allow you one block of content). This can be a nightmare for anyone but the most geeky.
FEEDBACK from USERS:
I developed two Sitefinity 3.7 sites. One for someone with experience with WordPress, another for a couple who run a travel agency and were very IT challenged. I don't get any feedback from our users. Which is the best feed back you can get. Just look at one of the sites (the IT challenged couple):
PrestonReid
We set it up for them over 3 years ago, and haven't heard from them since. ALL the content is input by them.
If we had done the job with Orchard, we would regularly be setting up layers and widgets for them.
MY SUMMARY:
I really like Orchard. I find it easy to use as a programmer. It is a nightmare (I think) for the end user, but if you write a few modules, most of the obstacles are overcome.
For example, I have written a module called Wingspan.Views (not on the gallery at time of writing) that allows for 3 extra editors on each "page" or view as I have called them: one for a Main Image, one for Right Content and one for left content. You also have the plain old Body part to provide the main content. Menus are still a problem I am working on.
We will use Orchard for clients that we have continued involvement with, so we can set up the layers and widgets that are needed. We will develop funcitonality (modules) that will be as complex as the client needs and can afford.
For the IT challenged type of client, we will use Sitefinity 3.7. We will refuse jobs in Sitefinity if complex extra functionality needs to be developed.
NOTE:
One of the best bits of functionality in Orchard is the Shape Tracing tool. Not sure if Sitefinity has something similar.
SO WHAT IS ORCHARD AND WHERE IS IT HEADING?:
Orchard is open source and seems sponsored by Microsoft. As in I think Bertrand Le Roy is paid by Microsoft.
From reading blogs, etc, the idea is to provide code that can be used by other MS partners, eg, DotNetNuke.
To really zing, Orchard needs a MUCH more graphical user interface, otherwise End Users are going to find it way too geeky.
Which is a shame, because for a programmer, it is a great tool that is easy to work with and to configure.
The best way to describe Orchard is that the core works, but the rest of it, the interface is missing. You shouldn't have to edit XML files to configure where content is placed on a page. Ironically, the Orchard team thinks it is more important to automatically download and install modules than it is to provide decent content configuration and creation tools. It seems more like a project to demonstrate .NET's flexibility than a real product.
Sitefinity on the other hand is a more complete and functional product with years of history behind it. The new version 5.1 supports ASP.NET MVC, which unlike Orchard, doesn't add additional complexity to it. Sitefinity's backend is very easy to use. As for customization, it's architecture is very .NET centric. They leveraged as much of .NET as they could, making it fairly easy to understand.
I can't recommend Sitefinity, however, over Orchard for three reasons:
The Library Manager imposes a versioning system and likes to store information in the database. You can change it to a file provider, but this only creates a file type with a GUID as a filename. Don't expect your graphic designer to update images using FTP.
The performance is horrible and I don't mean milliseconds. It can take several seconds for the site to respond to a request even after warm up! Telerik recommends that you cache everything, but this doesn't seem to help either.
If you must have MVC, find a sample MVC application and customize it to your liking. It is likely to be more performant than Sitefinity and easier to get your head around than Orchard since your wrote it. If you don't care about MVC, I would suggest looking at the latest version of Sitefinity 3.x. Unfortunately, there aren't very many good options available in the .NET space when in comes to CMS.
I work for a small data management/warehousing company that also focuses heavily on web applications. We are looking to "beautify" our existing web apps into something along the lines of mint.com or sifterapp.com or any of the 37signals sites for example. We are a .Net shop so whatever framework used on the front end would need to play nice with a .net back end and also use asp.net.
My question is what skills should we be looking for and what is the proper title for a person that knows how to create very nice looking web applications like the ones I've mentioned? I think having some experience with photoshop is always necessary, but it seems like a lot of the design patterns can be done using css and/or other front end technologies, or am I off base here? Basically, what skills should we be looking for in a candidate if we are looking for them to have skills in creating beautiful web apps that are both very nice looking and also very usable and what is that position called? Web developer? Designer? UI Engineer? Web Experience Designer?
I am also aware of some UI oriented frameworks like YUI, is this something that we should be looking for in a candidate, experience with this? Is a likely candidate going to be someone with a graphic design/artist degree or will it be someone more programming oriented? Is this actually a task for 2 separate people, one doing the graphics and another doing the user experience/css layout? It just seems very confusing to figure out what exactly we should be looking for so the interviews have been rather hit and miss so far.
Thanks!
you need a Graphic Artist, a usability expert and a web developer.
it is rare/unlikely that you will find one person who excels at all three
the good news is that you'll only need the graphic artist and usability people short-term
I would look for a Javascript developer with experience in integrating with ASP.NET. You need to explicitly require experience with CSS layouts, Javascript, frameworks such as jQuery, Prototype, etc. I know a lot of people that are ASP.NET developers and think they are good web developers just because they can drop a few controls on a page and have no understanding of what is happening on the client-side. Also, make sure that they provide you a portfolio.
There are almost always 3 parts of a website:
1.) Design: The designer(s) is(are) planning the layout of the website, with the following in mind:
- maximalization of usability
- nice looking
- using only needed components (no elements to "fill the void")
2.) Backend: The backend guy(s) is(are) working on the functionality of the server
3.) Frontend: The frontend guy(s) is(are) working on the frontend
The backend and frontend guy might be one person, but programmers are code writers (with no artistic inclination), designers are artists. If you put a designer to write code (for example CSS), he might not solve the problems well enough, the same is the situation if you put a programmer to make a design. In my opinion you should hire a designer (some designers work for a very low salary) and a programmer.
In my opinion nobody can honestly say that he/she is a good backend and frontend developer and a good designer in the same time. For example I'm a good backend guy, a decent frontend guy, but I'm not a designer.
Currently whenever a client wants a website I provide my own CMS however I have been wondering whether a 3rd party CMS may be easier.
At the moment I have built it in ASP.Net & ASP.Net MVC (I'm thinking of moving to Ruby on Rails). A master page has 5 pagecontent areas, top, left, middle, right & footer.
I then create usercontrols such as Image_Top, Image_Left etc. In the CMS the user can create a page and then choose how they want that page to look by choosing from the list of usercontrols. This gives them complete control over their page.
Would you say this is a good approach or is there a better way to allow them to design their pages? I was thinking of instead of maintaining my CMS I would recommend using Joomla, Drupal, DNN, SiteInfinty or whatever to manage the backend. However do 3rd party CMS's allow for that much control or am I better off sticking to my own CMS? Is using a 3rd party CMS as easy as plug and play?
Thanks
DOWN THIS PATH LIES MADNESS.
As someone who has been a developer for two commercial CMS products, and implemented at least 4 others for projects of varying complexity and completeness I can only say DON'T DO IT.
The CMS is the technical equivalent of invading Afghanistan ... everyone has had a turn, but no-one wins.
Find some technology you are comfortable with, learn it's nuances and annoyances, and concentrate on the things that are interesting and add value.
Editing content is a commodity.
Personally I like Wordpress, but depends on your use-cases and requirements.
What you are descriping is possible with modX using template variables.
It got a quite steep learning curve in the beginning, but i think you'll like it.
It's open source and runs on PHP and MySQL.
Give it a go.
I think you need to investigate, perhaps build and try each so that you can accurately match the capabilities against your requirements. You may find that different CMS fit different scenarios, but you will need to determine which is which. Unfortunately the general answer is "It depends" and only you can really decide which is the best option.
In some respects CMS systems like Joomla have security and version features that may offer you an advantage. Potentially you can incorporate these features into your framework if you have the time.
There is nothing really wrong with rolling your own framework. If you've saved time and created something that your clients like, then this is a good thing. It brings the benefit to you in that you get the learn how to implement the CMS features with a variety of platforms. Why toss this out if it has worked for you?
I'm going to be moving my website to a CMS in the coming months I'd I need some help on choosing an appropriate CMS. Many of the websites I've seen tend to say "use Drupal, hands down". However, my website truly doesn't have a need for commenting or community features. Its pages will need to be modified occasionally, but not extensively. My website will also consist of many programs, each with their own sub-pages and menus.
There are probably 25 people that will need access to the content on my website and will need the ability to update it.
I do like the idea of being able to tag and categorize the content, and the modular aspect of Drupal but is it really right for my website? If not, which CMS may fit my needs better?
It sounds like Drupal would be an excellent solution to your company's needs. I used to recommend WordPress for smaller, single-blog type sites, but now, even for those, I recommend Drupal because you can start small and scale up as your needs grow. It has a very dedicated community and there is a module for just about any need you may have.
I would agree with Drupal. The thing about Drupal is that you start out very small and add on as you need things. There is a ton of documentation, it is well coded, always being expanded on, good forum support, and free. It's the easiest to install, most problem free, and most maintainable CMS system I've seen so far.
You can turn Drupal commenting off with the press of a button, and if/when you decide to add onto your website, perhaps you want an ad rotator, more extensive user permissions, etc, etc, it is all already developed for you and ready to go.
I am not sure if Wordpress supports multiple users on a site.
The smallest you can go for a CMS is something like 10kCMS or the more popular TinyMCE
If it is something small I will go with WordPress as it is easily themed and extensible. There are a lot of community plugins and support. Their documentation is also fairly simple as they don't have a thousand of functions and stuff you need to remember and understand. With some creativity the basic functionality of WordPress is sufficient to solve almost all problems that might arise in small to mid-size website.
I also like Drupal, but you may consider Umbraco as well. http://umbraco.org/ I'd use Umbraco over Drupal if your team is stronger in .Net than PHP. (Really, I think that's a larger concern - what are your organization's strengths? Play to suit them. You are making a decision that will pave the way for many developers besides yourself, and business decisions of your company.) Both are extendable and open source so you can write your own modules/components to customize. It may be cleaner to import into Drupal tables than Umbraco, since it goes down to xslt files. (EDIT: This looks to be no longer the case in the new version - http://umbracohosting.com/umbraco-4---get-excited/one-cms-any-database) From a front end dev perspective, both offer great control of the final output.
From working on legacy stuff a lot, you may end up hiring interns to do the gruntwork. There's bound to be tons of inline tables and all sorts of un-reusable code in there, it may be easier to scrape the content manually and start w/clean markup for the content portions.
I know that most people will consider this post as irrelevant, and yes, I've read tens of posts saying that Wordpress is "just a blogging platform". However, facts speak for themselves - people do use Wordpress a lot. Moreover, large projects are being developed using Wordpress as the underlying platform. Who doesn't believe it could check the showcase. Even my team has developed a couple of magazine websites full of rich media and different content types.
The point is: what can we do to make the development, and management process even easier? I hope that this post will draw the attention of Pro wordpress users and a lot of plugins, extensions, and techniques will be posted here. Please, do not hesitate to share your experience, if you have done a project with WP that is way out of its "blogging only" capabilities.
Thanks.
You're right, Wordpress can be extended to do anything. After all it's just a database with functions that put stuff in and take stuff out. Speaking from experience, I found that the API is pretty robust and can accomplish anything you want to, however, it's probably better to spec something out and build it yourself using a more agile framework like RoR.
Sometimes less is more.
It is amazing how much one could achieve using simple concepts such as posts, pages, categories, tags, and custom fields. The thing that I do not like in many content management frameworks and more advanced CMSes is that they often hinder development by putting too much abstraction on top of simple concepts like these. With Wordpress I could prototype a site in less than a day, again due to simple templating options which, of course can be extended on demand.
No one says that code should be written here and there with no structure at all. The thing is that WP API allows enough options to add abstractions when and where needed.
I remain a clear proponent of the use of WP for bigger projects than originally intended. All that is necessary is a little twist of mentality.
Of course, WP is not without its drawbacks. Its strongest side, the plugin community could turn out to be its weakest one, unless measures are taken to educate newbie plugin developers about some good practices. I've worked with some great plugins that fail in users's eyes because of weak API and integration hardships. Nobody would care about functionality if they cannot integrate the plugin at all, right ?
Anyone sharing any of this?
Two pretty good plpugins for extending wordpress beyond blogging are flutter and pods that allow you to do more with custom fields, in pods case much more.