Report
on Content Management Systems
Management
Summary
Below are my conclusions from research on content
management systems for Lynnwood Bowl and Skate. In researching content
management systems (CMS), I chose three systems that could meet Lynnwood Bowl
and Skate’s needs. The company is well aware of the importance of keeping fresh
content on their pages and wishes to be able to easily update their pages. The
company operates a combination bowling lane and roller skating rink in
Lynnwood. They are curious as to whether there are content management systems
that they should consider.
My
Tasks
I was asked to research and recommend a content
management system the company might be interested in using. To accomplish this,
I got a list of CMSs that appeared to be relatively easy to use. I chose three
different systems to do further research on – Ingeniux, Drupal and Alfresco.
Drupal and Alfresco are open source applications. Ingenuix is not. I drew up a
list of general considerations for recommending a CMS and focused on those that
I considered to be relevant to the company’s needs. The areas I examined to the
extent possible are:
·
The ease of use of the authoring interface
·
Site structure
·
Link management
·
Workflow
·
System installation requirements
·
User management
·
How it handles templates
·
How it transfers content for publishing
·
Image handling
Conclusion
I have concluded that of the three systems that I
examined, I would recommend Alfresco for Lynnwood Bowl and Skate’s CMS.
Below is a summary and comparison of the three systems.
It is a summary of the features, advantages and disadvantages of each system.
CMS |
Features |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Ingenuix |
AJAX
web client, support for outputting to multiple destinations, automatic link
checking, has content life cycle and scheduling features, has multi-lingual
publishing and versioning features |
Web
client – no installation necessary, has a WYSIWYG XHTML editor, automatic
link checking, automated redirects, in-context editing |
Ingenuix
is not an open source application, therefore, more expensive. |
Drupal |
Primarily
uses XHTML, CSS and PHP, structure consists of modules as the core, output
from the modules is provided by blocks and menus, user has the ability to
alter and extend the Drupal’s capabilities, has a very large user base |
An
open source application (free), has a large user base or “community”, has
almost 10,000 community-contributed add-ons, the site looks identical
to editors and anonymous
users, except editors have the tools
for managing content, users can create their own content types |
Drupal
has overlapping functionality with the use of modules and add-ons. This may
be confusing to some users. Some users may have a steep learning curve in
using it. |
Alfresco |
Simple
user interface, easy for adding new navigation links, workflow stages allow
comments, content can be repurposed for delivery for various platforms (web,
smart phones, tablets, etc.) |
An
open source application, users can modify content within the web application,
you can upload and modify content using Sharepoint, can be used remotely by
mounting the application on a client computer like a network drive |
Alfresco
is a recent newcomer to web content management and therefore will have a
smaller user base (Their original product is document Management
software). |
In concluding that Alfresco would be the CMS I would
recommend, of primary concern for me was how easy it is to become proficient at
using the software. I found the interface to be pretty simple for opening an
article or creating a new one. Drupal has a flexible interface and a large
community of users, but the way it is structured may prove to be more difficult
for users to understand its complexity. Ingenuix uses a Web client and has a
number of desirable features, but unlike Drupal or Alfresco, it is not an open
source application. (I did not request a price quote because I didn’t want to
mislead their sales staff into thinking I was interested in a purchase.) Alfresco
does not have these disadvantages.
Alfresco users can choose from a number of different
interfaces for creating and updating content. I don’t know if Lynnwood Bowl and
Skate plans to have employees work remotely, but the ability to do so by
mounting the application on a client computer makes this possible. Alfresco is
fairly flexible, and the ease-of-use factor put this software at the top of my
list. I am not alone in this opinion. In 2007 Alfresco got a top overall score
by InfoWorld (http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-management/open-source-cmses-prove-well-worth-price-915 )
for ease of use, features, security, scalability and value.
Summary
I have researched three content management systems –
Drupal, Ingenuix and Alfresco. I looked at several factors in determining my
choice, such as the ease of use of the authoring interface, link management,
work flow management and costs. I have chosen to recommend Alfresco for
Lynnwood Bowl and Skate’s CMS. I have concluded that with its feature set,
Alfresco will best meet the needs of content creators at the company to create
fresh content in written text.
Sources:
Ingenuix Web site; http://www.ingeniux.com/products/ingeniux-cms-website-content-management-software?_kk=content%20management&_kt=1d59f546-a5d4-44a7-bf0d-dee2fe746d74&gclid=CI-TxIu_kakCFQcBbAodWze-ow ; visited 05/27/2011
Drupal Web site; http://drupal.org/ ;visited 05/27/2011
Drupal (Wikipedia search); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drupal ; visited 05/27/2011
Alfresco Web site; http://www.alfresco.com/products/web-content-management/ ; visited 05/29/2011
Alfresco (Wikipedia search); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfresco_(software) ; visited 06/02/2011
Alfresco (InfoWorld,
2007); http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-management/open-source-cmses-prove-well-worth-price-915
; visited 06/02/2011