Macromedia has released a technology preview of Contribute, a client-side-only content management tool that allows web developers to maintain the control they need while providing content editors the freedom to make changes to web content without assistance. Contribute is an extremely simple-to-use, relatively robust, and inexpensive alternative to other costly or unwieldy content management systems.
Contribute requires no server component; it uses FTP and saves utility files on the server (which adds a bit of clutter, but the tradeoffs may well be worth that inconvenience). All you have to do is install Contribute on an internet-enabled PC (or a Mac with OS X in early 2003), add sites (just as you would in an FTP application), and set up users for each site. An administrator can dole out privileges as lenient or as restrictive as necessary. Users then also install Contribute (which is being introduced at $99 per user) and gain their privileges by receiving a special file from the administrator with an encrypted password. (Users dont ever see the FTP settings, so if you decommission a user, that user cant reconnect to your site.) Once the users click on that special file and enter their password successfully, they can edit pages in a nicely refined browser-like user interface. Macromedia did a nice job here: on first use, I encountered no major usability obstacles.
In fact, the smooth usability of its editing interface seems to be Contributes strongest feature, whether an edit involves only text or everything from links, images, and table content. Even in its most restrictive editing environment (viewable text only), Contribute will save web developers especially those who work with one or many content editors tons of time, since probably 85 percent or more of post-publish edits are textual. For an administrator, Contribute might be a better alternative for making quick edits than either connecting through FTP via an HTML editor or working offline and uploading a new file. Unpublished drafts can be saved and reviewed, too. With a single command, Contribute will conveniently generate a please review email with a direct link to the draft page. Contributes rollback capability (which saves up to three previous versions of a page) is a solid and welcome feature. What about database-generated content? Only static portions of the page show up in Contributes editing screen, and the underlying code is untouched.
Contribute can also allow editors to delete pages, change text styling, add or delete images, or add new pages based on templates (which are either existing pages or previously-defined templates). Though I havent yet had a chance to test these more advanced capabilities with actual content editors, it seems to me that they could work well with seasoned editors who have some sense of design and information architecture. However, I can see how too much editorial control over site architecture and design elements could cause disarray and inconsistency if pages are added or styles changed willy-nilly. Still, at least the options are there if administrators decide they want to use them.
This kind of tool has been in the minds of developers for a long time, and Macromedia seems to have scored a major goal against its competitors. There is practically no barrier to the adoption of Contribute, except perhaps the cost if many licenses are needed. Its a snap to administer and use. But the biggest win is that web developers will be unshackled from the requests of zealous, well-intentioned content editors who can drive us crazy. Conversely, content editors will be ever so happy to have a tool that is easy to use and empowers them to really own their content.
Comments
similar to other stuff out there
This reminds me of a product called "eZ publish desktop edition" that I've come across: http://shop.ez.no/trade/productview/25/2/
I'll be very interested and eager to see the final product from Macromedia.
very informative
FTP required on web server? This is secure?
What's wrong with FTP?
FTP is the only way Contribute will work
What does this mean to the small developer?
Without even playing with a demo copy of Contribute though, I can tell it will offer more than we can, for much less than we charge. I don't expect this to break the company, but I do see it as a commoditization of the support and development necessary to keep a CMS competitive, especially with the name 'Macromedia' stamped on it. It's certainly a consideration for change of focus, to say the least.
More of my thoughts in a post I made earlier today: http://www.mezzoblue.com/ (11/12/02, 3pm)
A Couple Quick Answers from Macromedia
Contribute at first glance
Promoting to clients
Fair enough - it's your business and it's a reasonable income stream. But that won't be the case for everyone as many agencies find that content updates are high risk and (compared to development) low reward. What you may find is that Contribute - like most full-blown CMSs - lowers the skills required to update the site accurately. And if you can give the work to lower-skilled (therefore cheaper) staff, your margins improve. Plus you won't need to splash out on so many copies of DW, reducing your capital outlay.
Don't be fooled
Not a CMS?
Alex, you're right. Contribute is not a CMS, but then again, I don't think Macromedia would claim that it is (actually, they explicitly don't).
However, some of the reasons why you'd consider a CMS - in particular distributed publishing by non-web skilled staff - are addressed by Contribute.
If you lock down the User permissions to style-based formatting (rather than allowing hard-coding font sizing and colours), enforce the accessibility options and lock down the editable regions of templates then you strongly mitigate the risk of users wanting to play designer and breaking the site.
It does what it does, it does it well (I'm particularly impressed with the Word/Excel integration), and the price point is right - assuming of course that non-US customers aren't discriminated against. If Macromedia have thought through integration with a range of standard CMSs and volume licensing, I would expect to see it popping up in increasing numbers of enterprise installations.
point of clarification
Points well taken. I specifically used "content management tool" to avoid branding Contribute a CMS, which it most definitely isn't. MartinB is also right: it addresses many of the needs an organization might need without having to lay out the (very often prohibitive) cost of a true full-functioning CMSwhich most likely would be overkill, at least in the many small- and medium-sized organizations I've been involved with.
I am indeed wary of the ability for content editors to become "designers," and that's why I will be cautious about what permissions I give as I test out the product with real content editors.
Awaiting the final product.
New title, but old conception
New title, but old conception, it is not fully new idea, many software in market can do the same, I had used some called knowledgetree, it can allow your organization to secure, share, track and manage its documents and etc. As I see, many of these software can work fine about this feature, it is old conception.