Some of you know I have an extensive history of tinkering with things technical - I can do programming, HTML, server administration and occasionally small bits of design. For example, Cartridges4Charity - a project I've run for a while, runs using Django (my Lieblings web framework) on Amazon's Web Services. But this is a Google Site, which might surprise you. Look at the bottom of the page, it even says it ... to spite me. I did not code a single thing behind this web site, and I do not manage any of the computers or services that it runs on, and that's a good thing.
This is not necessarily because I love Google. I don't. It's because it's a suitable tool for the job, and reduces the complexity to a level where I can just get on and do it.
The majority of web sites only need a few key features to support a few core use cases - mainly up-to-date static content. No special functionality required. That's certainly the case here: I just want some articles, and some file storage. This way I can spend my precious time doing things actually of value: writing stuff, improving it, and keeping it up to date.
The rest is outsourced to Google: maintaining boxes, security, coding, updates in underlying software and architecture, new feature development. Lock in is non-existent. I own the domain name and the content, and there are plenty of other providers of similar things elsewhere. And it's free.
My options for design and features are restricted, but maybe they should be. Ultimately, what interest do I have in writing code for an obscure use case for a blog and a few static pages? I have other places to develop and demonstrate my technical skills. Why would I want to write my own stylesheet? I'm not a designer.
Getting myself involved in the things I'm not an expert at might be fun, but would then add my skills in those areas as a limiting factor for the usability and longevity of the web site. How many web sites are there that are not properly maintained because they're hard to update and use obscure content management systems? Are locked in to vendors? Have major security vulnerabilities? Rely on an overworked 'web technician' to fix or update the site? I would say over 90%.
And what about all the web sites that should exist, but haven't got off the ground because people are scared by the perceived high cost of delivering a web site, because of the perceived amount of technical knowledge required?
Google's managed service glosses over all the complexity to give a standard and reliable service that does not have people (an expensive resource) as a limiting factor, and I can get on with the real value adding (sort of): presenting myself to the world on the internet. |