I'm curious about the title: "Spare the rhetoric..."

Are you meaning that rhetoric = meaningless bombast? I like the definition of rhetoric as "the study and misunderstanding and its remedies." I'd argue that the rhetorically saavy web content creator is astute to business needs and user needs. That "designer/writer/interaction architect" then crafts remedies -- creates thoughtful structures to support others.

So "rhetoric" might not be generalized as a bad thing. ;-) It's always easy to generalize ... but I agree, it's also important we respect the language we choose to use and how it can be interpreted.

I agree that the generalizations are uncalled-for. Too, I agreee that smaller sites/orgs could benefit from smaller CMS approaches--that's what Contribute's good for, unless you're on a Mac & your servers use some arcane Microsoft server software (see Macromedia for more info).

But I agree with McGovern in the sense that IT types usually go with the Broadvision or Websphere or Vignette solution that's all data modelled this and multitiered that but that has an incomprehensible interaction design for the folks who have to put content in and manage it. Usually, I hear, "Well, we'll just do more training" or, "Well, that's what the manual's for--they can read the doc!" or, "Well, that's just icing and fluff...and we can't afford that right now. Instead, we have to 'get it working.'"

Working for whom, I wonder?

Ah Thom, you're keeping me honest :). In the context of the title, I did mean rhetoric as meaningless bombast (I kinda liked the alliterative nuance of rod/rhetoric too). But I'm with you...rhetoric shouldn't be generalized as a bad thing (unless it is practiced by right-wing politicians trying to get re-elected...oops, there I go again).

But perhaps I'm wrong to think that our would-be gurus should aspire to higher standards than those of us way on the tail of the power law curve?

I think that one of the most telling things about these type of content-free pronouncements is that they are pronouncements, not discussions. All of the discussion about them happens elsewhere, which is unfortunate, because discussion could actually help to inform.

I too agree with a couple of the comments based on lots of experience in this field. The problem is one of trust for people without this experience. The comment about techno-phobic writers reduces the credibility of the rest of the comments... And really, the second paragraph + bullets is so grammatically incorrect that I didn't bother reading past it on the first read.

Beth:
You wrote: "But perhaps I'm wrong to think that our would-be gurus should aspire to higher standards than those of us way on the tail of the power law curve?"

I have always hoped this would be the case. But I know from my own experience that it takes time to "guru" and that time distracts from being truly available to "dig in and help users." I also know the challenge of attaining higher standards with limited resources. So we all make choices one way or another.

But I think you do a good job at reminding folks on the high side of the power law curve that they do have a responsibility.

thom

This article was a strange mixture of some sensible home truths and some very silly generalisations and comparisons.

The comparison with CRM is not really viable, CRM is in the interest of the company and, because sales people guard their contacts jealously, against the selfish interests of the people expected to provide the data.

Many well planned content management projects by contrast have benefits as great for the end user and for the organisation.

The article also fails to distinguish between ECM and WCM. These have entirely different requirements and different risks.

WCM applications can benefit many small organisations very quickly if the correct application is chosen - had the author spoken to many people running web sites prior to the advent of WCM, then he would know this.

Where Content Management applications have a strong feature set for the IT deparment, the end result is often strongly defined by the IT department's deployment. I would agree that these types of application are better targetted at larger organisations with the resources to deploy them well.. however please don't blame the tool for the workmen.

Moving on to the tools, it's easy for Salespeople to make bold claims in order to win sales, and the IT deparment are often MUCH better at asking the difficult questions that determine how flexible the solution is or how easy/diffcult/expensive its ongoing maintenance is likely to be.

IT and the business MUST work in close partnership if an optimal solutions is to be found that delivers the right benefits, without huge cost to every other bit of computing in the office.

Brian Harkness
(hands on CRM guru)