[Fission]

We use a similar (but clumsier) tool for our Gatsby site. It excels for quick content changes. However, for us specifically, we found that we didn't really edit the content as much as we anticipated, and that most of our quick changes boiled down to styling changes instead. So maybe an ideal product for us will allow editing of styling as well as text? It'd probably look a lot like webflow.

[chrisweekly]

Heh, this reminds me of my discovery, circa 2001, of a content manager who'd created a workflow for editing a key landing page:

1. visit page in prod

2. use browser's "save complete page as..." feature

3. edit the resulting HTML

4. SFTP her edited version to the server (a 3rd-party landing page SaaS platform)

She published changes this way for weeks (months?), mutually oblivious to her colleagues' standard workflows, before I tracked this down as the source of the mysterious "problems" with the nascent homegrown CMS used by the content team.

[RNCTX]

All things considered, I would defend her right to do so today, I think.

[chrisweekly]

I guess it wasn't obvious from my description that her rogue DIY workflow coexisted with a small team's properly-supported workflow involving a CMS, revision control, asset pipeline and test environments.

[RNCTX]

No, I get it, more of a comment on the unnecessary complexity of a lot of sites that have a minimal amount of dynamic content or user interaction, and yet implement very complex workflows for the content editors.