A client designs a new experience for one of their brand sites with the following parameters: - The new experience should behave like a desktop application - There is a lot of dynamic content in the app - SEO and initial page load are a top concern for the client - The client's marketing team needs to be able to author the content with a WYSIWYG editor Which approach should the Architect use to meet these requirements?

B. Use the traditional server side components on the website

C. Use the SPA Editor SDK with Server Side Rendering

Adobe

AD0-E117 · Question #36

A client designs a new experience for one of their brand sites with the following parameters: - The new experience should behave like a desktop application - There is a lot of dynamic content in the a

The correct answer is D. Create a set of API-driven components. Option D satisfies all four requirements simultaneously: API-driven components allow dynamic content to be fetched and rendered on the server side (addressing SEO and fast initial page loads), while AEM's component model still supports full WYSIWYG authoring through the Touch UI

Design and Architecture

Question

A client designs a new experience for one of their brand sites with the following parameters:

The new experience should behave like a desktop application
There is a lot of dynamic content in the app
SEO and initial page load are a top concern for the client
The client's marketing team needs to be able to author the content with a WYSIWYG editor

Which approach should the Architect use to meet these requirements?

Options

AUse AEM as a headless CMS
BUse the traditional server side components on the website
CUse the SPA Editor SDK with Server Side Rendering
DCreate a set of API-driven components

How the community answered

(40 responses)

A
5% (2)
B
8% (3)
C
18% (7)
D
70% (28)

Explanation

Option D satisfies all four requirements simultaneously: API-driven components allow dynamic content to be fetched and rendered on the server side (addressing SEO and fast initial page loads), while AEM's component model still supports full WYSIWYG authoring through the Touch UI - and client-side API calls give the experience the responsive, app-like feel of a desktop application.

Why the distractors fail:

A (Headless CMS): Going fully headless decouples content delivery from AEM's authoring tools, breaking the WYSIWYG requirement unless a separate authoring layer is built.
B (Traditional server-side components): Standard SSR handles SEO well but produces largely static markup - it doesn't support the "dynamic content / desktop application" behavior the client needs.
C (SPA Editor SDK + SSR): While tempting (SPAs feel app-like and SSR helps SEO), the AEM SPA Editor SDK has significant authoring limitations and adds architectural complexity; it struggles to deliver full WYSIWYG fidelity at scale.

Memory tip: Think of the requirements as a checklist - Dynamic + SEO + WYSIWYG + App-like. Only API-driven components check all four boxes without sacrificing authoring control. If you see "WYSIWYG + SEO" together, headless (A) and pure SPA (C) are almost always traps.

Topics

#API-driven components#Server-side rendering#SPA architecture#Content authoring

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full AD0-E117 Practice