[consulting] Drupal considerd dangerous
gerhard at killesreiter.de
Thu Dec 21 21:00:11 UTC 2006
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Kieran Lal wrote:
>>> There are no qualifications or "it's not always the best choice" type
>>> honest comments anywhere to be found.
>> By targeting specific uses we tried to highlight it's strengths.
>> Highlighting weaknesses is not very useful as it's frequently the
>> limitations of the users ability to use a tool that are the real
> Well, there we have it: "There are no weaknesses in Drupal, just
> weaknesses in users' ability to master it."
> You have me at a loss for words, I honestly have no answer to something
> so incredibly arrogant.
And I haven't even said anything yet. .p
>>> Small businesses are explicitly mentioned as a target group for whom
>>> Drupal is the right answer.
>>> In fact, the page offers no realistic appraisal of what Drupal doesn't
>>> do well, which is also what people coming to such a page are
>>> looking for.
>> What do you suggest?
> The kind of honesty that Bill suggested. An acknowledgement that Drupal
> isn't for everyone, and a frank analysis of its advantages and
The problem is that it is hard to see what is an advantage for somebody
and what a drawback. It might be reversed for somebody else.
> Respect for users' intelligence rather than contempt.
> Emphasis on understanding what users need, rather than what you expect
> of them.
Users often don't understand what they need, how should we?
I think the page in question is rather well written. For most of the
examples given it is listed that you need site-developer skills.
I'd however take out the blogging example. Drupal is not for bloggers.
These people expect a turn-key solution which Drupal currently does not
offer. Maybe it could be changed to "corporate blogging" or "group
blogging" and given a higher level of expertise needed.
More information about the consulting