3 ms·

That doesn't really answer the question - no static site generator {that I know of} is WYSIWYG in the same way as Wordpress. Yes, you can train people how to us

That doesn't really answer the question - no static site generator {that I know of} is WYSIWYG in the same way as Wordpress. Yes, you can train people how to use a generator, but compared to a dynamic CMS they have a _much_ steeper learning curve {based on my experience training people about web publishing}. The closest I've seen is using Sandstorm with their static Wordpress site publishing but it's still nowhere near as smooth as plain Wordpress. (Edit: let's add some qualification because downvoting)

indigodaddy 9y ago
Sandstorm also has a static producing Ghost instance, which is pretty decent, yet very dated in it's version.
kot-behemoth 9y ago
Lektor (https://www.getlektor.com https://www.getlektor.com) is a static site generator with a simple admin interface (with WYSIWYG editor for markdown) which can be run locally. Publishing can also be done via a button in the UI. For even more user-friendliness, the site can be stored in Dropbox, so the user doesn't even need to know git.
mattkevan 9y ago
The static generator is completely hidden to the end user. They log in, click add new post, add some text, style it in Markdown or HTML, upload a few images, add a few tags and click publish. Forestry commits the changes and Netlify runs a build. All the user sees of this is that their new post is now published. When I first started using static sites I would have agreed with you: there's no way I'd hand a normal user a markdown editor and a git repo and expect them to get on with it. But these new services do, in my opinion, solve the experience problem. However Wordpress is really good if you want to leverage the module ecosystem and do more complex stuff further down the line. Having used Wordpress for years I get excited about static sites' speed, simplicity and lack of constant security updates but it's not a one size fits all situation.

indigodaddy 9y ago

Sandstorm also has a static producing Ghost instance, which is pretty decent, yet very dated in it's version.

kot-behemoth 9y ago

Lektor (https://www.getlektor.com https://www.getlektor.com) is a static site generator with a simple admin interface (with WYSIWYG editor for markdown) which can be run locally. Publishing can also be done via a button in the UI. For even more user-friendliness, the site can be stored in Dropbox, so the user doesn't even need to know git.

mattkevan 9y ago

The static generator is completely hidden to the end user. They log in, click add new post, add some text, style it in Markdown or HTML, upload a few images, add a few tags and click publish. Forestry commits the changes and Netlify runs a build. All the user sees of this is that their new post is now published. When I first started using static sites I would have agreed with you: there's no way I'd hand a normal user a markdown editor and a git repo and expect them to get on with it. But these new services do, in my opinion, solve the experience problem. However Wordpress is really good if you want to leverage the module ecosystem and do more complex stuff further down the line. Having used Wordpress for years I get excited about static sites' speed, simplicity and lack of constant security updates but it's not a one size fits all situation.