From: Martin-S on
In article <hkgnhk$uq9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I still think it's a huge waste of money to get schools to pay for
> somthing like Contribute on a per-seat basis when once the website has
> been created any cheap/free tool can be used to update it.

As far as I recall Contribute is used to update *static* web sites as
opposed to dynamic ones, that run off a CMS.

Moving a large static site into a CMS can be quite a job. Depending on
how many authors there are and how often the site gets updated, it might
still be worth it.

--
Martin
From: Geoff Berrow on
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:40:46 +0000, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com>
wrote:

>> CMSs are so well developed these days (Drupal, Joomla) it would take a
>> pretty compelling argument to make me want to spend good money on
>> achieving the same thing
>
>The websites for our local schools are all hosted on our local
>education authority's server. There might be significant limits on what
>your school can run on a shared server.

Yeah, good point. As a former IT teacher I should have remembered
that.

Spoiled by the real world and my own VPS, me.

Contribute, despite the cost, may well prove to be the simplest
option.

--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

From: chris on
On 05/02/2010 09:19, Martin-S wrote:
> In article<hkgnhk$uq9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> chris<ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I still think it's a huge waste of money to get schools to pay for
>> somthing like Contribute on a per-seat basis when once the website has
>> been created any cheap/free tool can be used to update it.
>
> As far as I recall Contribute is used to update *static* web sites as
> opposed to dynamic ones, that run off a CMS.

Yes, that's the impression I get from reading the bumpf. It's very much
a lightweight WYSIWYG web editor.

> Moving a large static site into a CMS can be quite a job. Depending on
> how many authors there are and how often the site gets updated, it might
> still be worth it.

The site is very tired and dated so is getting a revamp anyway. I doubt
there'll be much migration of content.

Children will be allowed to modified areas of the site set aside for
them to put on artwork etc. This is a where a per-seat licence (as is
being proposed here) will be overly restricive for the children.
From: chris on
On 05/02/2010 09:51, Geoff Berrow wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:40:46 +0000, Chris Ridd<chrisridd(a)mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> CMSs are so well developed these days (Drupal, Joomla) it would take a
>>> pretty compelling argument to make me want to spend good money on
>>> achieving the same thing
>>
>> The websites for our local schools are all hosted on our local
>> education authority's server. There might be significant limits on what
>> your school can run on a shared server.
>
> Yeah, good point. As a former IT teacher I should have remembered
> that.
>
> Spoiled by the real world and my own VPS, me.
>
> Contribute, despite the cost, may well prove to be the simplest
> option.

The cost is what is worrying me most, in these times of tight budgets.
Apparently, there is a yearly, /per seat/, licence cost. I don't get
where that is coming from?

From: SM on
chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Apologies for the OT post, but I know there are a lot of Adobe users on
> here.
>
> Our local school is being sold on using Adobe Contribute for setting-up
> and managing their website. I'd never heard of it before this evening,
> but I'm worried it's not the best use of limited education budgets.
> Especially considering the yearly, per seat licencing costs. Does anyone
> have any experience of it as a user or developer and care to comment?
> How does it compare to other 'solutions'?
> Thanks.

My experience is that Contribute is bought, installed and never used by
the staff it's aimed at.

Stuart
--
cut that out to reply