The first stage of comparative testing of cms with
In March, the first stage of a comparative study of the leading
cms-systems of the Russian market was completed.
Testing was carried out by specialists of the CMS List portal by order
of the Yumisoft company. The peculiarity of these studies guarantees
compliance with the methodology and measurable results:
The first series considers the usability of systems when performing the most
standard actions of the site editor to add a new page.
Testing is addressed to potential users of
content management systems who are faced with the choice of SMS for their site.
The study is conducted from the perspective of the manager of a small enterprise
that needs an online representation.
Based on this, the following criteria for selecting cms were developed:
• Simplicity, a small set of functions, but with the possibility of an upgrade in the future
• Initial budget of not more than $ 200
• History of cms for at least 2 years, a serious developer and the
possibility of technical support
Free versions of cms are not are considered.
The test list includes Netcat, HostCms, Abo.Cms, Twilight.Cms,
Bitrix, S.builder, and UMI.CMS.
In the course of the study, our own testing was carried out, during
which a conditional site administrator posed some
typical task to perform a number of standard actions in each CMS:
1) Create a new page “Hello world!” in place of the third in a row
item of the main menu of the site.
2) Add the text “Hello, world!” typed in Word, aligning the text
with the formatting used on the site.
3) Make the page invisible to site visitors, see this
page on the site.
4) Make the page visible to all website visitors (publish).
5) Move the page to another place in the site menu (make it a
sub-item of the second main menu item).
After that, testers turn to the documentation and support services of
each CMS and find out the most correct sequence of actions to
achieve this task. After that, for each CMS, the
number of actions to complete the task and the time spent are compared .
During testing, the total time spent on the
implementation of the entire sequence of actions and the number of clicks
required to complete these actions were calculated . Along with this, the
study describes the characteristic features of all of the above
systems.
The difference between this approach is that the results are absolute and easy
to verify, and therefore unbiased.
In general, based on the results of testing, the following conclusions can be drawn: The
considered systems as a whole confirmed their reputation as leaders of the
Russian CMS market. All of them have established themselves as simple and
affordable solutions for the average user, however, each
of them has its own individual advantages and disadvantages, which
examined in detail and specifically in the study.
You can find a full description of the research methodology and its
results here
www.cmslist.ru/articles/cms_usability_test
cms-systems of the Russian market was completed.
Testing was carried out by specialists of the CMS List portal by order
of the Yumisoft company. The peculiarity of these studies guarantees
compliance with the methodology and measurable results:
The first series considers the usability of systems when performing the most
standard actions of the site editor to add a new page.
Testing is addressed to potential users of
content management systems who are faced with the choice of SMS for their site.
The study is conducted from the perspective of the manager of a small enterprise
that needs an online representation.
Based on this, the following criteria for selecting cms were developed:
• Simplicity, a small set of functions, but with the possibility of an upgrade in the future
• Initial budget of not more than $ 200
• History of cms for at least 2 years, a serious developer and the
possibility of technical support
Free versions of cms are not are considered.
The test list includes Netcat, HostCms, Abo.Cms, Twilight.Cms,
Bitrix, S.builder, and UMI.CMS.
In the course of the study, our own testing was carried out, during
which a conditional site administrator posed some
typical task to perform a number of standard actions in each CMS:
1) Create a new page “Hello world!” in place of the third in a row
item of the main menu of the site.
2) Add the text “Hello, world!” typed in Word, aligning the text
with the formatting used on the site.
3) Make the page invisible to site visitors, see this
page on the site.
4) Make the page visible to all website visitors (publish).
5) Move the page to another place in the site menu (make it a
sub-item of the second main menu item).
After that, testers turn to the documentation and support services of
each CMS and find out the most correct sequence of actions to
achieve this task. After that, for each CMS, the
number of actions to complete the task and the time spent are compared .
During testing, the total time spent on the
implementation of the entire sequence of actions and the number of clicks
required to complete these actions were calculated . Along with this, the
study describes the characteristic features of all of the above
systems.
The difference between this approach is that the results are absolute and easy
to verify, and therefore unbiased.
In general, based on the results of testing, the following conclusions can be drawn: The
considered systems as a whole confirmed their reputation as leaders of the
Russian CMS market. All of them have established themselves as simple and
affordable solutions for the average user, however, each
of them has its own individual advantages and disadvantages, which
examined in detail and specifically in the study.
You can find a full description of the research methodology and its
results here
www.cmslist.ru/articles/cms_usability_test