Simplifying modifications and updating pages on the website.
This advantage proceeds directly from the first. In the examination of the previous point I already touched on this question a little. I gave an example with a change in the firm’s logo on all pages of the website. But a flash website requires constant updating, especially with respect to content. Information must stay fresh.
Separating information and design on the site makes it possible to accelerate the process of updating and refreshing the contents of the website since it does not require people who perform these operations to know html-markup, graphics, etc. That means it is possible to prepare the website design (to order it from a firm that provides such services) and then to produce the contents using their own resources, without spending money on the constant employment of strangers or including on your staff design specialists, which would be required for a static organization of the website. Even expenditures of time for updating are considerably reduced.
Possibility of changing site content in response to to the actions of a visitor.
The third achievement was a breakthrough on the path to developing a global network. You be the judge, all the advantages described in the first two points facilitated the work of website creators and decreased their expenditures, but for the visitors, this was not very important. But now the third advantage was directed expressly to them. Only thanks to this can you see an enormous quantity of electronics stores, virtual clubs, Internet games, etc. Only the ability to change the site content by a specific visitor allowed these projects to be brought to life.
Imagine that you drop into an electronics store that uses static pages. In this Internet store you will not be able to look at your cart, you will not be able to trace the payment process and fulfillment of the order, you will see nothing but pages with products. Yes, you can still place an order, but would you call this a store, would you buy something there?
Another example is forums and chat rooms of which countless numbers have appeared on the web. They all are created dynamically, none of them could exist without the support to this technology. The bulletin boards, special interest clubs, virtual games and competitions – none of this could be there.
Add to this all the systems of electronic payment and you will understand how the web would be suffering without dynamic sites. More accurately now you can imagine how we acquired everything with the advent of these new capabilities.
Disadvantages of dynamic sites.
As with everything else in our imperfect world, dynamic sites have their drawbacks.
The first drawback is the need for additional software to construct a dynamic website. On a static site, all the pages are already prepared, the server only has to display them to the visitor, while on the dynamic site it is necessary to introduce some changes, and this requires corresponding program solutions.
The second drawback is an increase in the requirements for the functional power of server systems. This problem proceeds directly from the preceding one, since now it is necessary to run some program on a server that modifies the pages of the website, and only then to display them to a visitor. This problem becomes especially noticeable on websites that have a lot of visitors. Often in such cases it is necessary to produce additional optimization of the code for the site to operate normally.
Consequently, the cost of services for content on this site is considerably higher than for static webpages. Although now, even many free webhosts support the capability of designing dynamic sites, which goes without saying for the paid hosts, where everything needed is part of the standard collection of services.
The complexity of large structural changes in the site is the third drawback, which also proceeds from the first. You may be a little upset since I was talking before about lessening and simplifying modifications. But don’t rush, we can figure this problem out in more detail. In this case everything is tied to the software used on the website. Specifically, the software unites the pieces of design and data into one valuable site. But any program has its limitations, and, if you want to obtain something that it is not provided by the program, it becomes necessary to change the program. Either to fix the old or start new.
Imagine, you have a forum placed on your website, and you want it to be set up as a chat room. If this capability was not originally available, then no matter how you change the design or the forum, it will not be able to be a chat room. You will have to change programs.
Despite these drawbacks, dynamic sites are becoming more and more widespread on the web, and the disadvantages I described previously are outweighed by the advantages.
Conclusion:
Static:
• Pluses
- The site is cheaper to develop.
- The static site is unconditionally cheaper in technical support (hosting). Practically all providers can provide hosting of a static site.
- On a static html-site it is not compulsory to adhere to a strict information network, and it is possible to create any pages practically independently from any other.
- Using a static site creates a considerably smaller load for the server and uses the fewest server resources.
• Minuses
- For content editing on a static, html-website a specialist with html- experience is needed.
- With the addition of new materials, and in particular new sections, often it is necessary to change many (if not all) website pages to ensure the change in the navigation system. This very frequently introduces errors. Certainly, it is possible to use automated systems development, but such systems create an extreme excess in the code that is definitely reflected in the speed the pages load, incompatibility with certain viewers, and loss of many of the advantages indicated above.
- With further development of the website it becomes problematic to support its integrity, which is especially noticeable upon exceeding 1000 pages.
A static site is cheaper for development and technical support, but these merits are outweighed by serious deficiencies in the effectiveness of the publication of information and expenses for the content specialist (html-editor) or the need to pay a design studio for the publication of materials.
Dynamic:
• Pluses
- A dynamic site, as a rule, is managed entirely through a simple Web interface. It is possible to manage not only separate pages, but also structural divisions, and the site’s information network.
- Managing the site is accessible (and recommended) for managers who directly interact with clients and know what questions are needed to be operationally explained on the website.
- An important plus is the effectiveness in publishing new materials, announcements, and another important information, which makes contact by the visitors (clients) to the site “live” and interesting.
- A properly organized dynamic site can be developed without damage to material published earlier.
- Since a dynamic site is managed more easily, as a rule, it is developed more rapidly than a static site, and the increase in speed rationalizes its development.
- There is no need to retain expensive specialists (or to pay a design studio) for operational html-editing; all the work for the publication can be carried out by managers, working in primary activities of the firm, by themselves.
- An undoubted plus is the long period of service of a dynamic site. Since the site constantly changes with new materials, sections and so forth, it does not “lag behind life,” and the question of redesign of a dynamic site arises only with serious reorganization of the company or the creation of a new style of the company.
• Minuses
- A dynamic site, as a rule, is more expensive in development than a static site and comparable to a flash site.
- A dynamic site is more expensive in technical support than a static site since it requires that the company, from which it gets its support, use more highly qualified specialists.
- A dynamic site requires a server with a greater quantity of resources, and not all providers can achieve this technical support.
A dynamic site requires higher expenditures for development and technical support than a static site, but these expenditures are quickly rationalized by the reduction in the expenses for content editing and development of the information system of the site. A dynamic site stays in service longer and is more effective than the static site. It is better to assign the technical support of dynamic site to its developer, since not all providers can correctly support this site, and it is not always possible to figure out whose fault it is, the developer’s or the provider’s, when something goes wrong in his or her work.