On 2014-3-23, at 14:57, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:43 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In terms of look & feel: I'd like the main web site (and the datatracker, but that's not covered by he SOW obviously) to have a clean, modern look and feel, be fully usable by clients with small screens, and follow ARIA accessibility standards. > > It may be worth pointing out that there are competing needs here. What you are asking for is something called "responsive design," and this is generally done with a substantial amount of fancy css and a bit of javascript for flavor. The alternative is those stupid mobile sites that don't actually work for your particular mobile device because they assume the wrong screen size. Yep. But I'd leave the details about CSS and JS out of the SOW, and instead describe the desired behavior of the site. > The desire for a clean backend is a valid one, but in fact most of the time CMSs store this stuff in tables in a database, which are easily extracted if you want to migrate later. There isn't a way to store web pages that doesn't require a bit of data analysis and transmogrification when you are upgrading—even a directory tree will have a layout that's specific to the particular deployment you have chosen. > > So while I think the point you are making about that is a good one, it doesn't preclude CMSs that store information in databases—it just argues for the use of a CMS that does so in a way that's not needlessly complex and confusing. Exactly. Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail