<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: University Content Management ;P</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/2007/11/05/university-content-management-everyones-got-an-opinion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/2007/11/05/university-content-management-everyones-got-an-opinion/</link>
	<description>Spotlight on random items from the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 10:58:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nick</title>
		<link>http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/2007/11/05/university-content-management-everyones-got-an-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator>nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/?p=56#comment-170</guid>
		<description>Thanks Patrick, sounds like you&#039;ve got a very good system and the right attitude (IMHO). I&#039;ve always feared the tendency of some system implementers/providers to lock things down as a matter-of-course due to a lack of trust in the users (in this case users being web providers) and extending from this, a lack of ability to oversee everything users post up to the web. There has to be trust, I suppose to get that users need training etc. and like you say, some of this requires fundamental changes in culture. Not impossible, but the last institution I worked for found that very hard in amongst the other normal politics. Still it&#039;s good to know someone&#039;s still pluggin away at it with good intentions intact, where I wimped out and decided to move on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Patrick, sounds like you&#8217;ve got a very good system and the right attitude (IMHO). I&#8217;ve always feared the tendency of some system implementers/providers to lock things down as a matter-of-course due to a lack of trust in the users (in this case users being web providers) and extending from this, a lack of ability to oversee everything users post up to the web. There has to be trust, I suppose to get that users need training etc. and like you say, some of this requires fundamental changes in culture. Not impossible, but the last institution I worked for found that very hard in amongst the other normal politics. Still it&#8217;s good to know someone&#8217;s still pluggin away at it with good intentions intact, where I wimped out and decided to move on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick H. Lauke</title>
		<link>http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/2007/11/05/university-content-management-everyones-got-an-opinion/comment-page-1/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick H. Lauke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/?p=56#comment-169</guid>
		<description>Completely agree. Of course my article was using very broad strokes to only highlight one particular facet of the problem. Also, the CMS I have in mind is one that offers quite granular control/access levels, allowing the technically proficient authors to have far greater influence on the markup and behind-the-scenes code (creating sub-templates themselves, for instance, rather than having to use one centrally mandated template for everything; also the ability to actually write special modules that integrate into the CMS framework to allow for their very specific needs or special applications). I certainly don&#039;t want to see anybody downgraded because their only reason for having the job was their technical proficiency ... it&#039;s more a case of freeing up those who have been burdened with both the technical and content writing / organising aspects. A CMS is, of course, not a panacea, and also can&#039;t be implemented in a vacuum...it needs fundamental changes in culture and roles to go hand in hand with the (far easier, in comparison) technical roll-out.
So yeah, this is all spot on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Completely agree. Of course my article was using very broad strokes to only highlight one particular facet of the problem. Also, the CMS I have in mind is one that offers quite granular control/access levels, allowing the technically proficient authors to have far greater influence on the markup and behind-the-scenes code (creating sub-templates themselves, for instance, rather than having to use one centrally mandated template for everything; also the ability to actually write special modules that integrate into the CMS framework to allow for their very specific needs or special applications). I certainly don&#8217;t want to see anybody downgraded because their only reason for having the job was their technical proficiency &#8230; it&#8217;s more a case of freeing up those who have been burdened with both the technical and content writing / organising aspects. A CMS is, of course, not a panacea, and also can&#8217;t be implemented in a vacuum&#8230;it needs fundamental changes in culture and roles to go hand in hand with the (far easier, in comparison) technical roll-out.<br />
So yeah, this is all spot on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

