Recently I came across a thread on Suprb’s micro-forum site Qonversation about what kind of CMS (Content Management System) is best to use when creating a website. After having a think I decided that I would do my own breakdown of some currently popular CMS engines that I have had various experiences with, covering two mainstream, larger, engines as well as two smaller indie/experimental platforms. Which cater more to aesthetic, and which offer more functionality? Well that’s what I’m going to tell you.

WordPress.org

Beginning in 2003 the WordPress CMS/Publishing platform has become one of the biggest names in the business. To start with the server-side interface (seen above), it presents itself very unobtrusively and condenses all of its information in an easy-to-understand format when it comes to editing a page, or creating a new feature post.

As far as the visual customization of it’s client-side interface (the actual website that is shown to the browser) the user and designer are not limited in the slightest as themes can be built from scratch using CSS/HTML, PHP, Javascript, jQuery plus an endless variety of Plugins. Lastly, the most successful aspect I find in WordPress it is that its open-source developer community is growing by the second constantly bringing out new functions and ideas to create even better website experiences.

Example site: You’re on one! The Alchemist design|print is built on the WordPress 2.9 engine.

Square Space

Squarespace definitely hits it off at the start as a more design conscious system, with it’s soft interface, and condensed information only alluding to the most important details. One thing I find with this CMS is that the variation of websites made with it is quite large, from large news-based webzine sites, to smaller blog/portfolio-based formats.

Like WordPress, Squarespace has a large developer community with many Plugins available, as well as functions to edit HTML/CSS but the downside is that to use the CMS itself is subscription-based, charging from $8USD to $50USD a month. All in all I think it’s a worthy fee for such a well presented system.

Example sites: ExecutiveEdits / RifleMade

Core (CMS)

Moving on now to the more experimental platforms Core claims to be “a CMS with the designer in mind” focusing on aesthetic simplicity through images and type, unlike the heavily interfaced WordPress. Core has taken it’s aesthetic and functional inspiration straight from the Cargo CMS, but unlike Cargo which cannot be hosted with your own server, or database, Core offers a download so the user can implement, customize, or completely redo the CMS.

Visual customization such a themes are very functional too, as all of the content seamlessly integrates into any HTML/CSS/Javascript-based theme. Because of the simplicity, complicated websites are not really on the cards, but that all of course depends on the depth you’re willing to take a custom theme, for if you look at the examples I listed they are have totally different looks thanks to their distinct themes. The fact that Core only requires a single applicant email it is definitely an attractive option when setting up a website and choosing a CMS.

Example sites: intro1 / Diftype

Stacey App

Getting deeper into some experimental web development the Stacey platform is literally a  CMS “without the interface”. Come to mention it, Stacey doesn’t need a database either. It’s workflow simply relies on its custom PHP folder structure. The best use I find for Stacey is for a portfolio website, or a website on a project to project basis, as with bigger content management systems on is often bombarded with too many options.

I don’t mean in this is reference to a bad interface, but rather than giving the user too much choice may jeopardize the websites purpose and context. So in combating this, Stacey keeps it simple through editing everything by using your favorite text editor.

Like the previous CMS platforms talked about, creating a theme in Stacey works fine for those who know there way around with HTML/CSS/Javascript/PHP, but unfortunately because of Stacey’s “without the interface” design, things can get a little complicated for those of us who aren’t tech savy.

Adding a website with content is by no means hard, as everything content-based is done through simply moving files and inputting text  but when creating a theme you are probably wanting to buddy up with someone who knows some web languages. Other than Stacey’s quirky site structure, style is never a problem, to see some range of sites check out the links below.

Example sites: tin&en / AndMelbourne