Content Management Systems

   A content management system is a web application that ensures the ease of creating and managing a website, for people who are not web designers. Usually a CMS is made up of two parts, the CMA element and CDA. The CMA allows the creator of the site to customize it without having to know how to code HTML. The CDA element takes the information and changes the creator made and keeps it updated. Some of the most widely used CMS programs are Wordpress, Joomla and Drupal. All three of these CMS are free and have great advantages and disadvantages based on skill level.

 
   Wordpress was released by Matt Mullenwegg in 2003 and has by far the most users, due to it's easy installation and choices for customization. As it is the most popular CMS, Wordpress has the most themes and plugins. It can be tailored to create a website or a blog. Wordpress is a highly recommended CMS for beginners. Users of Wordpress are not required to have any skill in coding in PHP and HTML. A giant advantage to Wordpress, is that Wordpress will host sites from it's own server.


   Drupal was created in 2001 by Dries Buytaert. Like Wordpress, Drupal also offers a large amount of plugins. Out of "The Big Three", Drupal is considered the most technologically advanced and has the most flexible CMS. Users with at least a basic basis of knowledge in HTML, PHP and other programming languages have more control and flexibility considering customization and technicality in Drupal. Due to it versatility, Drupal fits the size and concept of any website.

   Joomla is the largest CMS for commerce and corporate sites. It kind of runs down the middle of Wordpress and Drupal. It does not require the amount of technical skills Drupal has and doesn't have as many themes and plugins as Wordpress, but is still a smooth operating CMS. Joomla makes it the easiest to set up a a social network or an online store. Joomla is the best CMS for those who desire a more powerful CMS than Wordpress, but want something easier to manage than Drupal.




Sources: Website Set Up, Tech Target

Storytelling vs. Reconciliation

   We tend to listen with our fingers in our ears, meaning people only hear what they want to. It is all to easy to dismiss someone's opposing opinion with a simple "you're wrong", but in order to understand anything, we must listen and understand the opposition. Ever since we were little, our teachers and parents have taught us there are always two sides to every story. This valuable lesson plays an important part in workaday life.

 The death of Michael Brown was a tragic event, as well as the proceeding unrest in Ferguson. The police are still trying to piece together the broken shards of what happened, but it is clear there are two sides. Some say Michael Brown had his hands up and was fleeing Officer Wilson, while others object that Brown was a dangerous, posing threat to the Officer. The media undoubtedly showed bias to one side or another. There were very few reporters and writers that maintained an objective stance on the whole of the situation. This brings about questions surrounding the future of news media outlets. If any of these outlets cease to preserve the smallest bit of objectiveness they have left, who is there left to trust?
   A few weeks ago, my e-Comm teacher told us that he sometimes prefers the BBC website as a news source, rather than sites like CNN or The New York Times. He then went on to say that the BBC often has a more unbiased and objective view than any American news media outlet. Is this what happens when we feel like we can't trust our own news sources? Do other countries find America's stories about their own country, less biased?
   When a story or event blows up globally, it is everywhere. Proof from campaigns like "STOP KONY 2012" show how fast a story can spread, especially if promoted over social media. The video and posters for this campaign spread like wildfire, but after a couple days it became apparent that the "STOP KONY 2012" campaign was not 100% truthful. Despite the "one-sidedness" of stories being spread over social media, their rapid spreading can be an incredible tool if used right. When the revolution and uprising in Syria began, social media became a more useful tool than anything else. The residents, rebels and refugees of Syria used social media expose what was happening — that is before the Syrian government shut them down. Even thought the exposure of the unrest was brief, it was enough to get people's attention and take action.
   Social media has become and incredible tool for situations like those in Syria, but some countries do not have this luxury. China, and some other Asian and Middle Eastern countries do not have access to social media. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, even Google is blocked. This is not because any of the countries are in a rural area or underdeveloped, but because the government decides what they want the people to see. For America this is a terrifying thought, and makes us wonder what kind of news China is fed. This proves that the levels of "bias-ness" have also flooded into politics.

   While the future of news media outlets is not set in stone, it is certainly headed in the wrong direction if it continues on it's current path.

 Peace in Ferguson - Casey Neistat

Index Revision

   In class, we were told to make an index site. This site would act as a page for links to out other projects, blog, etc. When our site was done, we were then told to evaluate each other's site on a scale from 1 to 4. This rating was used to rate its following of CARP and its use of defaults. A critique about my site that stuck out to me was concern about aligning the logo on the left side. They suggested switching the logo and the nav links so the nav bar's logo wouldn't overlap with the banner. I wondered why I hadn't thought of that and changed it immediately. When evaluating other classmates' sites, I didn't want to be harsh, but I wanted to remain truthful. To balance out the negatives of some critiques, I also added in a comment or two about something I liked. I tried to focus on being constructive rather than just stating what I didn't like. I tried to give suggestions and solutions to solve quick fixes.

   The other critique that stuck out to me talked about the "current projects" icons. They said that looked unfinished and unpolished. I really couldn't disagree, as they were unfinished. I wasn't entirely sure what kind of graphics I wanted to make for that section, so I threw together some flat design graphics and hoped it look decent. It was decent, but looked unpolished compared to the top part of the site. Changing them, I sampled colors from the banner and lowered the opacity. I then took the colors and layered them over a graphic of a crumpled piece of paper, for texture. I thought having the white part of the graphic filled in came off as a little heavy so I changed them to be just the outline. Making these changes, gives the site more of a put together and collective look.