Compare CMS and HTML websites

HTML websites are how all sites were built in the past.

CMS websites - and similar systems like ecommerce, forums, blogs and wikis - are how (nearly) all business sites will be built in the future.

How are they different? What are the pros and cons for each? How do you compare HTML and CMS? First it will help to start with a description of an HTML site, because this is where it all started.

What is an HTML website ?

An HTML site is one built on the traditional system where there are web pages that physically exist on the server. There are slight variations such as PHP and ASP, which are modern variants that give more functionality.

The pages all need to be coded by hand, using a visual editor such as Dreamweaver, or an HTML text editor. Any changes need to be actioned by the website builder / webmaster / web publishers, as page changes are essentially code changes and cannot be actioned by the site owner unless he is a coder.

The web pages can all exist loose in the main web page directory, called the webroot, if it is a small and simple site. Otherwise, they are grouped in directories, which is just the name for a folder on a server. In addition there are image folders, where the graphics on the web pages are drawn from. Links between pages and between directories are a major issue.

Creating new pages is not a simple task, and creating new sections - groups of pages - is strictly a job for coders. A large site is expensive because each page must be built by hand. Adding modern functionality is mainly done with custom work.

These sites are very fast to display by the server as the pages tend to be simple, and there is no server overhead to build them. They are referred to as hand-coded or hard-coded. An HTML website is also called a 'flat' site, as it is a static site in contrast to a database-driven site, which is dynamic. Web pages of this type are fixed and cannot be changed except by code changes.

What is a CMS website ?

A CMS or content management system site is one that runs from a database. There are no pages on the server. The text and the publishing instructions are held in the database (DB) and the page is built on demand by the server. Images are drawn from the usual folders.

You can see immediately that there are two important differences from HTML sites:

• The server has to do a lot more
• It will be easier to change page content as and when needed

In fact there are a very great number of differences and you'll find more the deeper you go. Some of the most important are:-

• The owner and staff edit the pages. No technical knowledge is needed. Some brief training is necessary, though no more than an hour for most staff, and perhaps two hours for those with additional duties.
• The look and feel of the site is controlled by templates. These are a very fast way to get site design resolved. Templates can normally be altered and customised fairly easily.
• Content is separate from design. This means you can alter either one drastically but it doesn't affect the other, and this is in direct contrast to hard-coded sites.
• The capability for visitor interaction is unparalled. A vast range of different ways that visitors can use the site is possible. Think forums, wikis, comments, webforms, video, music etc. These are sometimes hard or even impossible to run on a flat site. The site can also do things like display the correct language for the visitor's browser, change content according to the time of day, display different content items for those from different areas or membership groups, and so forth.
• New features or even major functions can be plugged in with a few clicks. It takes 10 minutes or less to add a Flash image rotator to a CMS, and the code should be perfect on completion. Hand-coding this and then validating the result so that the code is correct takes a lot longer.
• A CMS can be completely re-purposed, for example as a directory site or a download site. A major function such as a forum or blog can often be added without much difficulty. This is impossible with a flat site, which would have to be totally rebuilt.
• All links are automatically corrected and updated whenever any changes are made. There are no dead links on a cms unless the owner has placed them in the text body and then forgotten to update them.
• A big site is much faster to build as the pages are automatically generated, not hand-built. This doesn't make much difference at under 20 pages due to additional tasks that exist for the cms set-up, but for over 200 pages it makes a big difference. At over 1,000 pages the difference is massive, and you don't build a flat site of this size unless you have a monster budget and very good reasons.
• There can be website members of various levels and privileges, who can access different pages or edit different areas.

You can see that a dynamic website application has enormous potential, most of which is impossible or very difficult with hand-coded sites. Frequently a function or addition that takes 4 hours to add to a hard-coded site takes 10 minutes on a CMS - and it might even be free.

A good CMS will have a cache facility so that recently-served pages are held in memory and don't need to be rebuilt every time.

Other website systems similar to CMS

Running websites from a DB is the modern way to manage them because it is far more flexible and has much more potential. In fact many types of website couldn't exist at all without this database-driven functionality. Here are some other types of website that use this method:

• ecommerce applications - large direct sales websites
• shopping carts - smaller direct sales sites
• blogs - basic publishing tools, though some are really micro-cms websites
• wikis - a wiki is a community-edited reference resource
• forums - discussion-based websites, aka bulletin boards
• membership-based sites - websites that depend on a community

Why have an HTML website ?

An HTML site normally gives better control over the exact look and style of each page. If you run a website that is art or design-based and has a different look on most pages, then designers can give you varying styles and a different look on every page. This would only be possible in a CMS that permits a different template on every page, and these are comparatively rare.

But your budget needs to be able to take advantage of this, of course. It's far cheaper to run a CMS, especially where there are many people editing pages, and where additional features need to be added.

HTML websites are better at small detail differences on every page, of a graphical nature. They are easier for a beginner to construct a small site with. They may be a better proposition when the entire site has to be built with a custom function that no one has used before.

Why use a CMS ?

A CMS gives you a lot more options for management and control. It's far quicker and easier to edit, and to add functions and features as needed. As long as you choose a CMS specifically for this aspect, adding functionality is very fast and far cheaper than for HTML sites - the extra widgets just plug in. Another benefit is that you need zero knowledge of HTML or any other code in order to run a CMS on a day-to-day basis, either for editing, adding pages, uploading images, or any other regular function.

WCMS (= website content management systems) are based on templates, which control the look and feel of a site. This system means that the content is independent from the design, which is opposite to the situation on HTML pages, where the content basically is the design. On a CMS you can remove text or images and the page stays the same, the outline and design are still in place, but empty of content. If you did this on most HTML pages then the structure would collapse. Therefore WCMS pages are easier to edit - so easy in fact that you can do it online through your browser in a couple of minutes. A quick text edit, of a price or a colour for example, can take under 30 seconds in some cases - and that's from having the idea to seeing it live. Try that on your HTML site run by a webmaster / web publishers.

Initial cost

Because costs vary so much by market and by location, no direct comparisons can be applied. However, if you take things in general then costs are higher for a CMS site initially, but it is cheaper to run when there are frequent content changes. It is much cheaper to add functionality to a well-known content management system than to an HTML site, unless the function is unusual.

One interesting factor comes into play that is not seen until an enterprise has owned a CMS for a period of time: changes - and change in general - become a matter of fact, on the site. Because it is so easy to make changes of any kind to a cms, it becomes a normal part of the site management to implement minor and even major changes in every area. This of course would have been out of the question with a flat site. Marketing is one area that benefits in a big way from this facility.

With larger sites there is no comparison, a CMS is clearly better in every department.

Rollout time

A basic CMS with an advanced design is faster to implement than an HTML site with an equally adventurous design. Custom coding for either comes out at the same timescale. A large site is much faster to build on a WCMS than by hand-coding. A 'skinny' cms handling basic publishing only, with no fancy frills, could however be online in 2 hours from the get-go.

Capability of CMS v HTML

A WCMS will always be more capable than an HTML site. One well-known CM system has around 5,000 plugins to enable various additional functions and features. Visitor interaction of any kind is easier to add in a CMS, and web sites are tending to become more interactive.

Ease of design adjustment

Nothing beats a popular CMS for design capability. You can have a totally different look on every page with some of them - and change it in 5 minutes. Templates can be adjusted slightly, or heavily modified, or totally rebuilt in order to get a unique look. Even novice webmasters can alter the templates in many cases.

Long term issues

Which is best in the long term? The market has already decided that and there is a massive switch toward dynamic sites like CMS. Hosts are becoming overloaded, though, as they find that while they could run hundreds of flat sites on a server (sometimes thousands in fact), 300 database-driven sites is another matter - this number of DB-driven sites on one server will result in page load times being extended, and even occasional off-lines as individual sites with issues hang up the database server.

Quality hosts restrict the number of DB-driven sites on any one server to 50 max. If you go over this then various issues start to appear. At 300 CMS sites on a server, the pages load at a crawl. The hosts' metrics and measurements of server resources use are irrelevant, they are often useless as they don't measure the database server activity - the only metrics of value are the average page load time, and site offlines measured on a one-minute basis by independent network monitoring.

Hosting is thus the major issue. At present the vast majority of hosts are not fully conversant with dynamic sites and tend to treat them in the same way as flat sites, as if DB-based sites can simply be run on the same servers with no adjustment. Server set-ups are commonly wrong in any case, and although this doesn't affect flat sites much and may escape notice for that reason, when DB-driven sites are installed the situation is very different. The smallest irregularities in PHP and Apache settings become an issue, and software upgrades that could once be ignored now become critical for security. It's hard to exploit a flat site and gain access - the server itself has to be attacked - but dynamic sites are another matter and provide many attack vectors if not run correctly. And server settings have a big part to play here.

Hosts in general don't run independent network monitoring services on sites on their servers, so they have no idea of page load time and site offline figures. Although these metrics might seem crucially important to those managing business sites, hosts however have yet to figure that out.

The future of websites

Hard-coded sites will always have a place, for small 10-page sites and big custom developments with a massive budget. CMS and other DB-driven machinery will take over everything in the middle.

Other issues

Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that - there are very many kinds of website. What about Flash sites, ASP, and so on?

Flash sites are a disaster commercially as search engines disregard them, since search is based on text and there isn't any on a Flash site. Eventually, buyers will see that and react accordingly.

There are various workarounds that may or may not produce vaguely acceptable results. Recently we decided to work on this problem and came up with a new system to mitigate this, and can now offer good results to Flash site owners. We regard this as a breakthrough and look forward to seeing how we can help owners of Flash sites get much better results.

Compare PHP and ASP

ASP and PHP sites are a halfway-house between HTML and CMS. They used to be a good bet but now things have moved on a long way. Although it depends on the exact application and market, ASP sites have an unfortunate habit of displaying the worst features of both types: like an HTML site everything has to be custom coded, and it can take a long time; unlike a CMS, there are no plugins to add functionality. In addition they run on a minority server, and of a type where there are no open-source options available. Open-source means two things very clearly on the Net: very high quality together with many low-cost options.

Site design can take forever with ASP / PHP, but in contrast a simple CMS could be online in 2 hours from the domain name purchase if you needed it to be. And that's with 10 pages up and running.

PHP is a script type that adds functionality to HTML-type pages. It is designed to run on a standard webserver, which is called a LAMP server (Linux / Apache), and these are the majority on the Net. Many CMS are a rational integration of many individual PHP scripts. PHP is open-source technology, and as is typical of this type of code management project by vast numbers of distributed developers, of very high quality.

ASP is a script type that adds functionality to web pages and is designed to run on a Windows server. These are also referred to as an IIS server, and the most common configuration for these is Windows Server 2003 + IIS Server Manager. There are many fewer Windows servers on the Net. ASP is a proprietary technology of Microsoft.

PHP will run on a Windows server that is correctly configured but ASP cannot run on a LAMP server (except with an infrequently-seen commercial hack).

PHP also works closely with MySQL and other open-source SQL (database) platforms. Many CMS use a PHP - MySQL code and database set-up.

ASP uses MS SQL Server as its DB partner. Some CMS therefore use the ASP - SQL Server Microsoft-based dynamic site construction. These run on a Windows server - which could include Windows 2000 (W2K), Windows 2003 Server (W2K3), and Windows 2008 Server (W2K8).

Most servers run on PC computers, that is to say standard PC computing hardware that derives from the IBM family of personal computers. In fact a low-specification or old machine can run most office LANs as the workload is not high. A webserver though needs to be a PC of high spec, as the workload is high. Memory and hard disks are the two critical areas where money needs to be spent.

The future for website builders

If hand-coded websites are on the way out, what is the future for website builders and web designers?

In a word: retraining.

To be fair, the changeover process from HTML to CMS / ecommerce etc will be a long time in the mix. But anyone with foresight will be planning ahead. Remember, we are talking about the web here - and the web = change. Change is the foundation of the web. Nothing stays the same on the Net. A successful business in any area connected to the Net is a business that can see changes coming, and change rapidly in order to get a lead over competitors.

HTML sites will always have a future, for small personal sites and small sites for local businesses. The largest projects of all may still be hand-coded. Business buyers, typically owners of small local businesses who know nothing about the web, will always buy small hard-coded sites from local web designers.

The typical web designer in five years time will probably be dual-skilled in HTML and CMS design, specialising in one or two popular content management systems. Many will also feature shopping carts / ecommerce in their portfolios.

How will I earn a living if clients can edit their own website?
This is a common question from website builders now. The answer is that the work changes, but there is still the same amount of it. This is because clients will earn more money from the web, and the entire market will expand massively. The web will be the business arena in the future - icommerce will eclipse the high street and the phone book.

Text edits and page builds will not be the bread and butter of website builders, the work moves onward to bigger and better things. Briefly, there are less small jobs and text edits, and more large changes such as site expansion and design upgrades.