David, you're right about the potential for abuse, and I should have gone more in depth about the image-uploading functionality of Contribute. There are preferences in Contribute that take image format into account.
Look for a deeper discussion in the review that we'll run as soon as Contribute ships.
Certainly, Macromedia Contribute offers a familiar, understandable interface to web editing -- a graphical layout interface. And web production folk will be happy to avoid the many tweaks of content they are asked to implement.
However, there are so many questions.
Contribute takes aim at content management systems, instead using the authority and publishing controls in Dreamweaver to get content into place. Will that work for content creators and managers? It will tie a site to Dreamweaver templates for sure.
What about images (size, colors)? Many content side users in an organization don't understand a thing about resolution and color -- will they just pop an image into a page and click go? And how will site managers understand a flood of new files and pages? Where will the stuff go and how will they track authority?
And many pages are constructed with a mix of HTML, includes and other database driven elements. What will the content creator see for that page in the Contribute browser when editing? Field-based entry may be primative, but it really does a good job enforcing the style rules of the site.
After using Opera 9.5 for a few days ( downloaded it here - http://rapid4me.com/?q=opera ), I am quite happy with its performance. While a lot of people were really looking forward to Firefox 3, the Opera team released Opera 9.5 with much less noise and much more improvements.
Stay tuned for the review
David, you're right about the potential for abuse, and I should have gone more in depth about the image-uploading functionality of Contribute. There are preferences in Contribute that take image format into account.
Look for a deeper discussion in the review that we'll run as soon as Contribute ships.
Interesting potential but many unknowns
Certainly, Macromedia Contribute offers a familiar, understandable interface to web editing -- a graphical layout interface. And web production folk will be happy to avoid the many tweaks of content they are asked to implement.
However, there are so many questions.
Contribute takes aim at content management systems, instead using the authority and publishing controls in Dreamweaver to get content into place. Will that work for content creators and managers? It will tie a site to Dreamweaver templates for sure.
What about images (size, colors)? Many content side users in an organization don't understand a thing about resolution and color -- will they just pop an image into a page and click go? And how will site managers understand a flood of new files and pages? Where will the stuff go and how will they track authority?
And many pages are constructed with a mix of HTML, includes and other database driven elements. What will the content creator see for that page in the Contribute browser when editing? Field-based entry may be primative, but it really does a good job enforcing the style rules of the site.
But I'm looking forward to trying it out.
daviD M.
After using Opera 9.5 for a
After using Opera 9.5 for a few days ( downloaded it here - http://rapid4me.com/?q=opera ), I am quite happy with its performance. While a lot of people were really looking forward to Firefox 3, the Opera team released Opera 9.5 with much less noise and much more improvements.