It’s a common idea to have a site designed and then take over the maintenance.  Usually the request is pretty simple.  Create a design and leave a system for updating text.  At times this is a reasonable solution.  Most of the time I encounter it, it was a disaster waiting to happen.  Why?  The answer typically comes down to a lack of qualification either from the site designer or the site owner.

Most potential clients are skeptical when I advise they don’t use a template.  The thought is usually that I am trying to get an unnecessary maintenance agreement.  So I thought I’d use my criteria for deciding if a template is a good idea or not into a written outline here:

• Is it a Free-bee or add-on from the web hosting company?
  I can’t tell you how many people have become clients after getting into some kind of web template product.  Many simply don’t work.  The most common ones that fail come free with a website hosting package.  Usually they have a handful of templates which are customizable (meaning you can upload a logo somewhere).  I have yet to find one that actually lays the page out usefully and gives enough flexibility to update any content and expand the site.  Most of the time it won’t even render tect edits where the user intended.  Doing simple things like form submissions is usually out of the question.  It either isn’t an option at all or doesn’t actually function.  Remember, you get what you pay for and free templating is often as valuable as the price-tag.
• Can the designer/developer set up a usable site template?
  Unfortunately in the web world people are quick to make promises and slow to deliver.  If a designer or developer is putting in some kind of template that is editable by the client, do they understand it.  There are a lot of good designer/developers and good template services.  Unfortunately there seem to be more bad ones.  Make sure when hiring the person that they can tell you what platform they will build on and how you will have access to it.  I recently got a client who had to scrap an entire site template system because it was set up so strictly to initial demands and had absolutely no room for growth.  Understand what you are getting and how it can adapt to you or your organization’s needs.
• Who is responsible for updating the content?
  Many times the failure is not with the designer or developer but with the site owner.  They place demands on what should be editable but never get to the editing.  If I speak with a potential client and they can’t provide one or two names of dedicated people within the organization that will be responsible for the site, I always recommend not setting up a template.  The reason is it won’t get changed.  People are busy and unless someone has volunteered or been assigned the responsibility, it will fall through the cracks.  That means wasted money on the setup for something that won’t get used. 
• Is the assigned person technically competent?
  When a person has been chosen, is it realistic that they can manage the process?  The most common platforms used for templates can usually be set up with a simple interface.  It isn’t uncommon to do an hour  tutorial and have the user comfortable with the interface and features.  However, this assumes that the individual responsible for site updates is relatively proficient on a computer.  I once struggled through a tutorial with an administrative assistant at a small organization and told her the editing features were much like Microsoft Word.  She let me know she didn’t know how to use that either.  That site never got updated because the poor woman didn’t know the basics of computer use.  It’s not her fault, the task never should have been given to her until she learned some basic competency skills.

So if you are contemplating having a site set up that you can edit yourself, think through these 4 questions.  If you find that you are uncomfortable with your or the designer/developers ability to execute, rethink the idea.  You’re likely just putting off the inevitable and handling the problem initially can save a lot of money and effort down the line.  Having an editable feature almost always costs additional set up fees and if set up poorly will increase the cost of getting it transferred to another platform or technology.  Often times a small maintenance agreement or a la carte change pricing is far less expensive and much less of a headache.  Don’t assume in this case that handling it yourself is less expensive.  Figure out what is most realistic and is most cost effective.

It’s becoming more and more common for web design and programming professionals to advertise a CMS with site creation.  These usually state a wonderful site that you can update yourself.  Sounds good on the surface but there are some key questions to ask before jumping on board.

The first is how the site is set up.  Many companies have stock templates that they put in place.  These are built on top of packaged CMS systems.  Sometimes that’s not a problem and is usually cheaper (though watch out for companies that try to hide their template use). Many times it is a problem.  Imagine if a client or prospect sees half a dozen sites just like yours but with the words changed.  It leaves a bad impression, the company looks canned.  So the first question: Is the site a template or original layout?

Another issue is how the site is put together.  Many times the web professional builds the site on a technology they don’t really understand.  This becomes a problem because there are often glitches in the layout.  As things change the website will start breaking down.  Unfortunately, many times the site creator is unwilling or unable to repair the damage.  Second question: Will ongoing support be provided?

The next problems have nothing to do with who puts the site together.  They are internal decisions.  Is someone available to make updates to the site?  Paying extra for the ability to change a site is a waste of money if no one has time to do it.  The person responsible needs to work with the web creator to fully understand the CMS, what it can do, what it can’t do, and effective ways of using it.  If there isn’t someone available with at least moderate computer skills, the CMS will be left unused.  This happens to at least half the sites I’ve seen using CMS.  So who will be responsible for the updates?

The final question is whether the person updating the content is comfortable and qualified.  Some basic copy-writing and proofreading skills are essential.  If the person updating the site can’t put a well structured sentence and paragraph together, the site will be confusing and unprofessional.  So does your site updater have some content skills?

If you have someone internally that will update the CMS and a good site creator, this is a great solution.  It’s typically more of an up-front cost but it saves money over time.  If you lack either a good creator or good updater it will be a wasted up front cost and only a matter of time before more money and time is spent repairing problems.  So as a review here are two questions to ask yourself and two for the site creator:

• Do I or someone internally have time and computer skills to dedicate to keeping the site updated?
• Does this person have basic copy-writing skills that they can be trusted to keep the site updated with current and relevant information?
• Is the site creator making an original layout (not a template)?
• Is the site creator available for troubleshooting if their original creation has technical flaws after using the CMS for a while?

If the answer is yes to all four, a CMS is probably perfect.  If even one is lacking there is a potential for disaster.  Weigh your options before assuming a CMS will “let you update your own content.”  In a good scenario that can be a great blessing, in a flawed scenario it will be a terrible curse of wasted time and money.

I’m amazed at the sites I work on that aren’t using some basic means of keeping their site up to date.  This can be a time consuming task for anyone, don’t make it harder than it has to be.   One example is the Server Side Include (SSI) code.  It’s an easy piece of code, it works on almost every server technology, and it can make life much easier when you decide to change a section of your site that should be consistent everywhere.

 So what is this magical piece of code:

<!–#include virtual=”filename” –>

That’s it, this tells the browser to go find that file and place it here in the code.  Rather than go on about the code itself I’ll talk about some prime places to use it. 

First, navigation.  web usability has preached for years that consistent navigation allows users to find what they want.  Using SSI allows a web designer to hold themselves accountable to that rule.  Make a navigation and stick to it.  Have every page include that file for it navigation.  The ultimate benefit is when something changes in the navigation, one file can be changed instead of every single page.  It keeps good usability standards and saves time, what’s not to like?

Another place it can commonly be used is in a footer section.  Many sites have copyrights and/or analytic code at the bottom of every page.  Once again, set that up as an include file.  That way if your analytic data or copyright notice needs changed, it gets changed everywhere.  One note on this, if content on a site has a copyright that needs to stay constant it’s a good idea to leave the include file out of that page so it isn’t accidentally changed down the line.

Explore the parts of your site that would benefit the most.  This is not a hard piece of code to use.  Practice with it a bit, I know I had a few hiccups with not putting the right code in the right file at first, but with a little effort that’s easily overcome.   Once the pages are set up to use this, maintenance becomes a heck of a lot easier.

– Eric
www.emarketinginnovation.com