|
CMS Matrix is unhelpful because it doen't provide context. I'm of the opinion that only the most complex of sites such as the New York Times relly benefits form a full fledged Content Management System (CMS). To me "Content Management System" means a generic content repository that supports publishing static content and can be extended to support dynamic "plug-ins". Maintains a configurable workflow, stores content in a presentation neutral format. Is helpful for very rge organization that demands a tool that facilitates wide collaboration.
Unfortunately, what you end up seeing is small products trying to stretch to become "Enterprise Content Management" systems when they were really designed to capture that band web site or one specific company website. I'm not explain myself well at all, but what I guess I'm trying to say is that I understand you entiment even if I can't explain it.
CMS without context is a useless tool, and people shouldn't assume that a generic CMS system necessarily makes things "easier". The world needs more CMS systems for specific niches and less general CMS systems.
I'd almost like to see less choice in this market.
|