[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.