Developing a few websites...

A few of the websites are basically text with some pics, some imbedded pdf files and a contact form..... I have no users to register and the person maintaining site is fine with html, css....

Should I bother with DNN for these sites?

First off I'll say that any other responses you get will likely be biased response (much like my own) towards the "yes, use DNN" arena.  I'll site an example or two and then leave it up to you for the real decision.

I say yes, use DNN, because, if nothing else, there are plenty of tools to make it easy to manage the content from an admin perspective rather than having a developer have to do everything any time you wanted to change content.  My step-dad, for example, has a small website for his music.  He goes and plays gigs for old-folks homes and wants a website for them to come look at.  Initially I helped him create the structure (several years ago) in straight HTML.  Over time the site got messy and just plain messed up.  By that time I was well-entrenched in DNN and thought that it would serve him well.

Long story short, my step-dad doesn't need (nor want) people to register for his site as it is purely informational and public.  However, he wants to be able to go change content, upload photos, etc, on a whim without screwing up the structure too much.  I found DNN to be a perfect solution because I could design a skin that would work for him, and then let him create/change content to his hearts content after a couple lessons.  His site works well for him:  http://www.bobwallacemusic.com

Another example is my mom.  She breeds show-quality dogs as a side business and, much like my step-dad, is not all that computer savvy but wanted a website to showcase her dogs, etc.  She is a little more forward about trying to manage her own site and, as such, it has become a little messy, but overall the fact that she can worry about managing her own content and leaving any upgrades or maintenance to me.  Her site is http://www.besemehavanese.com

So yes, I say go for it unless there are any really good reasons NOT to do it.

Yeah I agree. While maintaining an HTML site can be a pain, it seems like you have someone who can do that already. DNN does not make the site more navigable, more information, more search-engine friendly, or more of anything that you need. I think all you need to do is just click on those two sites that the DNN-promoter above posted. What I see there are two sites which take an impossibly long time to load, don't have a great layout, have that ugly/weird DNN menu that doesn't fit the rest of the site, aren't Google-friendly (look at the code) and while I just wanted to see some Havanese puppies - I couldn't stand the pink long enough to find the photos. So yeah, if your site visitors like to wait a long time for a site with bad design... then go ahead and use DNN.

Good design could be done with DNN, but it's so easy to set up a bad site that usually that's what you get. It's a lot of work to set up a nice site with DNN, and for someone who can code HTML - they are going to curse you and your ancestors if you make them work with DNN instead.

If you are just wanting to create an information site that doesn't need any interaction, I suggest going with one of the things I've done - either code it like straight-up HTML, or use one of the blogging engines and dress it up a bit.

http://www.smoothjazzy.com/index.html - straight HTML and Javascript - hard to update, as you can see by the dates

http://jazzyflight.blogspot.com/ - using a simple blogging engine - easy to update, but hard to make it NOT look like a blog.