Why I do not like Russian commercial CMS
Continuation of my first post about CMS .
I am the project manager of one regional web studio, I have been engaged in this craft for a long time and I really love my job. For the time being, we sat on a samopisny control system, but having expanded the staff of programmers and having received more, less serious projects, we realized that our system is not suitable. And then I began to study the market.
So, I began to pick everything up and see how the systems offered by the market meet my needs. I studied Russian commercial products. With each new system it became more and more sad and sad.
And the task was simple, to find a ready-made system that would not take time from employees to create the same type of functionality. The second task is to find a system with the fastest possible setting of the template to fit your needs, and of course, the corresponding customization of certain modules. I myself am a programmer in the past, but lately everything is closer in spirit to the designers (the phrase is crude but I think you caught the point). I treat the different design mini-features on sites quite anxiously, and in every way I defend the right of the features to exist. A former programmer will look at the feature and say: - “Oh, what you came up with, gentlemen, it's full, nobody needs it, and I’m going to pick it up with it for a long time, let's do it like on the last site.” With such an order of affairs, I do not agree at all, and when choosing a management system I considered fine customization of certain parts of a module as the main parameter of the quality of the system.
')
With a quick tweaking of the template, some systems still coped, but customization is more difficult. I got the impression that some developers create a system for a once designed demo site. For example, news: title, summary, detailed content and another billion parameters. Well, what the fuck? At least one parameter (from the set title, announcement, content) is superfluous. Well, who will herachit a hefty press release each time, with anos and pribluda? In fact, someone will surely be, and because of them, the developers are doing all this (Alan Cooper is about concentrating programmers on exceptional occasions). The developers are trying to create a Swiss army knife, equally suitable for the website of the company "1C", and for the repair shop in Uryupinsk. And in the Swiss army knife, it’s not convenient to use the knife itself.
In this place, attentive reader, throws me at me with criticism. They say everything can be screwed, unscrew, hammer, put on glue, etc. Yes, I understand that with good knowledge of the system, you can squeeze out oh how much. I'm talking about something else: for me personally, all this is the very reason. Developers do not set a goal to make a flexible and simple tool. All make the system - installed and ready.
In all these systems, the primacy of programmers is visible. By creating the functionality of a module, they impose the use of their standards (again, the example with the “standard” 3 news parameters is well suited). Which in turn disfigures the site, unless of course studio developers do not process the system with a file.
And the delusionalness of individual modules is generally striking, for example: a catalog of links. What is it and fuck?
As for the systems architecture (I don’t know what they have inside), they are all of the same type. Well, see how Bitrix differs conceptually from UMI, or Khost from Amiro? Nothing, the same page oriented structure, the same modules. Moving from one system to another, the differences saw one - another interface. But basically everything is the same. “So what?” You say, well, actually nothing. The fact is that I don’t understand why no one wants to try new approaches and find new solutions, and not to develop a dead-end page-oriented architecture.
And these terrible WYSIWYG. This is generally a nightmare. You sit and make styles for the site, check the line spacing, headers and other bells that make the site tasty. And these WYSIWYGs spit on all this and generate their “mighty” code. And what do they say to me: the secretaries are easier to work with him. Well, what is the result? My friends are lamentable, pitiable.
Vkratse essence: all I know Russian commercial content management system - not suitable as the basis for creating different types of sites. Developers impose their own standards of information architecture (which are far from perfect, and far from people). Although CMS should give a priori flexibility.
If anyone is interested to give examples in the comments. You call the system, and I say that I do not like it.
In general, I suffered for a long time with the above problems. Not yet found ExpressionEngine. But this is a completely different story post.
UPD: I forgot the most important thing. Thank you so much habrachelovek sonsay . If not for him, this post would not exist.
I am the project manager of one regional web studio, I have been engaged in this craft for a long time and I really love my job. For the time being, we sat on a samopisny control system, but having expanded the staff of programmers and having received more, less serious projects, we realized that our system is not suitable. And then I began to study the market.
So, I began to pick everything up and see how the systems offered by the market meet my needs. I studied Russian commercial products. With each new system it became more and more sad and sad.
And the task was simple, to find a ready-made system that would not take time from employees to create the same type of functionality. The second task is to find a system with the fastest possible setting of the template to fit your needs, and of course, the corresponding customization of certain modules. I myself am a programmer in the past, but lately everything is closer in spirit to the designers (the phrase is crude but I think you caught the point). I treat the different design mini-features on sites quite anxiously, and in every way I defend the right of the features to exist. A former programmer will look at the feature and say: - “Oh, what you came up with, gentlemen, it's full, nobody needs it, and I’m going to pick it up with it for a long time, let's do it like on the last site.” With such an order of affairs, I do not agree at all, and when choosing a management system I considered fine customization of certain parts of a module as the main parameter of the quality of the system.
')
With a quick tweaking of the template, some systems still coped, but customization is more difficult. I got the impression that some developers create a system for a once designed demo site. For example, news: title, summary, detailed content and another billion parameters. Well, what the fuck? At least one parameter (from the set title, announcement, content) is superfluous. Well, who will herachit a hefty press release each time, with anos and pribluda? In fact, someone will surely be, and because of them, the developers are doing all this (Alan Cooper is about concentrating programmers on exceptional occasions). The developers are trying to create a Swiss army knife, equally suitable for the website of the company "1C", and for the repair shop in Uryupinsk. And in the Swiss army knife, it’s not convenient to use the knife itself.
In this place, attentive reader, throws me at me with criticism. They say everything can be screwed, unscrew, hammer, put on glue, etc. Yes, I understand that with good knowledge of the system, you can squeeze out oh how much. I'm talking about something else: for me personally, all this is the very reason. Developers do not set a goal to make a flexible and simple tool. All make the system - installed and ready.
In all these systems, the primacy of programmers is visible. By creating the functionality of a module, they impose the use of their standards (again, the example with the “standard” 3 news parameters is well suited). Which in turn disfigures the site, unless of course studio developers do not process the system with a file.
And the delusionalness of individual modules is generally striking, for example: a catalog of links. What is it and fuck?
As for the systems architecture (I don’t know what they have inside), they are all of the same type. Well, see how Bitrix differs conceptually from UMI, or Khost from Amiro? Nothing, the same page oriented structure, the same modules. Moving from one system to another, the differences saw one - another interface. But basically everything is the same. “So what?” You say, well, actually nothing. The fact is that I don’t understand why no one wants to try new approaches and find new solutions, and not to develop a dead-end page-oriented architecture.
And these terrible WYSIWYG. This is generally a nightmare. You sit and make styles for the site, check the line spacing, headers and other bells that make the site tasty. And these WYSIWYGs spit on all this and generate their “mighty” code. And what do they say to me: the secretaries are easier to work with him. Well, what is the result? My friends are lamentable, pitiable.
Vkratse essence: all I know Russian commercial content management system - not suitable as the basis for creating different types of sites. Developers impose their own standards of information architecture (which are far from perfect, and far from people). Although CMS should give a priori flexibility.
If anyone is interested to give examples in the comments. You call the system, and I say that I do not like it.
In general, I suffered for a long time with the above problems. Not yet found ExpressionEngine. But this is a completely different story post.
UPD: I forgot the most important thing. Thank you so much habrachelovek sonsay . If not for him, this post would not exist.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/37651/
All Articles