Advantages of CD compared to FP
I have Frontpage 2003 and it lets you create templates (new to the 2003 version I think) with only certain areas editable. The template is then applied to any page and the page is updated whenever the template changes. This is sort of what CD does except Frontpage doesn't have any script ability in the template.
Content management systems help you manage your content, and they seperate you from technique and design/layout work. With 1 addition per month there's not much to manage, and if you know your way in Frontpage, I don't see how any cms will be of much advantage to you. So I would definitely use FP in your case.
Ruud van Soest
CD also has an advantage when building a web site for non-technical users. You can define the template and CityScript to build the index pages, then train them only on how to add articles to a folde, using Normal view, and how to publish.
I have FP 2000, did a few sites with it, then found CityDesk during the first beta testing. I think that if you already own it, go ahead and use it. CityDesk might come into play for you later. As for me, once I found CityDesk, I quit doing FrontPage sites and have converted all but two of them. Like your site, those two sites mostly just sit there.
With CityDesk, when I add a new news item, three pages change automatically -- a page for the item itself is created, my front page (which has the seven latest items) is updated with the new item, and my archive page of items lists the item, with a link.
"rt" has the ultimate CityDesk point. It takes some painful chores out of the process. You are more free to concentrate on the content of the site.
Yep. With frontpage every article added is 2 or 3 extra edits. With CityDesk it's... no extra edits.
Fog Creek Home