Is it hard to have a manual website instead of CMS?

I've worked with CMS's my whole life. I've recently looked at these Website html templates, and wondered if it would be pretty diffucult manually managing things through the FTP each time?

 

its not really that hard, i've used one CMS since starting out in web design and i really dont think that they are necessary unless you are expecting that your site will encounter a huge amount of visits, or you need the functionality that a CMS offers.

I'd say personal preference.

Regards,
Nick

 

yes, but using a standard template, you should always php include() things like menus which often need to be edited,

BP

 

It is not hard to have a site without a CMS if it is coded well.

I usually code all my sites into one file with PHP and I use variables for absolutely everything, so I can edit the entire site in one file then I just re-upload.

But if you are planning on having a very complicated site with a large volume of users I would recommend the functionality that having a CMS provides.

1. If FTP goes down how are you going to update your site?
2. If the site is just HTML are are you going to update the site, you will have to edit every page if you are not using includes of some kind and like I said if your site is very complicated lets say like IMDB you will need a CMS with categorys, descriptions, etc you are not going to be able to manage such a site with just HTML or manually editing SQL (lul).

But then theres the down side, if you are using the CMS just to manage link names, style sheet locations, link locations and page titles etc etc for a simple site it is probably not worth the effort to built a entire CMS from scratch but if you have the time and it's for a good site go ahead

 

I use both. Though, I always use some kind of template system. If you don't have a template system then designing "manually" is an absolute chore and is very bad practice.

CMSs are GREAT for websites with a consistent design and that are expected to hold a large enough amount of content to make the time invested in setting up the CMS worth it. I personally love wordpress and drupal Thank you, Open source

So all in all, static and CMS both have their places - they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

I agree, using plain html pages can be a pain to constanly update. It's best used for small content sites or eBay Affiliate stores. If you can learn how to do PHP includes, then updating is much, much easier. One problem with CMS such as Word Press etc. is they're a bit complicated to move if you need to move them to another server or hosting account, which is something that should be considered when planning your site.

 

It's more work. I'd stick to a CMS if I were you

 

Is not hard and sometimes is better!

 

if you have a 100+ page website yes it will be hard to maintain, if your site is 5-15 pages that is no problem

 

What if you have 15 - 100 pages?

 

I think if you define your project well in Dreamweaver, it'll be easier to manage. Rather everything in plain folders.

 

5+ and I'd be looking at a CMS system, unless there is going to be a fixed number of pages and no updates to be made.

The heardest part is looking into the future and understanding where the site may go in 12-18 months time. Easier to put everything into a CMS, even if you don't think you really need, than create 100+ pages only to find you did need that CMS after all.

 

I think it depends on the content and purpose of your Web pages. My Website currently consists of 42 pages that I maintain by hand with no problem -- but they are reference/educational pages that entail very little upkeep, requiring only occasional additions and updates.

James
http://jp29.org/