Re: HTML Differences - Details

Patti,

Here's my two cents....

Please take this with the utmost respect.  Judging from your response, I get
the feeling that you don't fully understand the situation your IT department
is describing.  This could very well be because they (your IT department)
don't understand it either or maybe just a breakdown in communication.

As a professional app developer, I have this suggestion for you.  You should
get a detailed description of this issue IN WRITING.  If your IT department
truly understands the scope of the project, it should take one person about
4-5 hours to write a professional document (1-2 pages max) describing it.
Things you should be looking for are technical specifics of the "current web
site": operating system, web server version, HTML version, rough estimate of
the number of forms, static pages, graphics, and any languages that may have
been used and what they were used for: ex: Perl for CGI scripts, serverside
JavaScript,  ORACLE databases, ASP, everything.  This document should also
include a description of the "desired website".  Again, operating systems,
HTML version, languages, etc.  This information should be presented to you
in a visual and graphical (MS Word lets you draw boxes and lines) format.
Again this shouldn't be longer than 1-2 pages.  Then ask them to describe
what has to be changed and why again all of this information should be in
1-2 pages.  (For example:  if the CGI was written in C and they want to redo
it using PERL, why is this necessary.  If the graphics are the wrong shade,
what will it take to change them.  If it the HTML was written using PageMill
and they want to use DreamWeaver can't they just import the HTML file and
modify it without rewriting it?)

If they have done enough analysis to tell you that this is going to take
$25,000 then this information should be at their fingertips.

With this type of information, you will be better able to decide for
yourself if it is worth it and better yet, be able to decide if you can hire
someone to do it for alot less than $25000.

Cassandra

----- Original Message -----
From: <patti.gettinger(at)email.riverwood.com>
To: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 9:48 AM
Subject: HTML Differences - Details


> Thanks to all who responded (what a delightfully witty group you are!!)  I
> really want to be fair in judging this situation.  Here's some detail to
> the story that may help explain what happened:
>
> Systems:  Graphic Services designed a new 125 page web site using Page
Mill
> 3.0 (HTML 4.0) on an NT operating system (PC).  The site was "complete"
> except for something like an applet, four sets of rotating photos and a
> scrolling title on the main page (important), and scrolling page titles on
> the rest of the pages (optional).  There are hot spots for sending emails
> to various contacts, we wanted a counter, and there is a link where
> customers can email various company folks.  A CD was provided to IT, who
> came back and said it was not compatible with the server, and would have
to
> be rewritten for $25 grand over a 58 day period.  Part of the cost was  3
> days for CGI links at $1270, and 55 days for rewriting the code at
$23,300.
> We have a UNIX server running NT software, and we do have firewalls (more
> than that I don't know).  They also use HTML 4.0.
>
> Yesterday we met with an IT manager (but not the IT html code writer), and
> asked alot of questions about what was incompatible and why the high cost.
> Here are the responses we received.
>
> 1)  The web material "does not meet IT standards," but no written
standards
> exist nor was IT able to give an example of how the proposed html code
> fails to meet those standards.
> 2)  A major part of the expense is analysis of the code provided to make
> sure it meets "standards," but there are the animations to consider
because
> what was provided was a "flat file."
> 3) The code provided could "crash our system" but IT could not explain
what
> in the code would cause a crash.
> 4)  It is imperative that the pages on the web site load quickly, and the
> proposed material may not be written to do that.
> 5)  It is cheaper to completely rewrite the code than to edit what was
> provided.
> 6)  There were some pages with graphic elements (lines) that were 1 pixel
> wider than on other pages, and a couple of buttons that didn't have the
> same shade color as the buttons on other pages (this is not professional).
> 7)  Rewriting the code had nothing to do with sustaining firewalls.
> 8) When asked to explain what the CGI links were, the IT person admitted a
> lack of familiarity  but that it had something to do with linking to
search
> engines, tables/forms, and email setups.
> 9)  We asked if IT could point out discrepancies to standards and let
> Graphic Services rewrite to avoid some of the hourly costs - this was not
> acceptable.  We asked if there were some minor changes that could be
> allowed to "slide" to help reduce costs - the answer was no.
> Fundamentally, IT said pay the full amount or the old site stays in place.
>
> Politics:  Our IT folks used to be in charge of the entire web site and
> team members.   There were some battles with marketing (i.e., IT
redesigned
> our company logo - we had a hard time explaining to them why they couldn't
> do that!).  About a year ago, our Graphic Services department was put in
> charge of coordinating the web team members, and given responsibility for
> the "look" of the site, to make sure it was in keeping with corporate
> image, printed literature and other sales tools.   Marketing was still
> responsible for copy and content.  IT was still responsible for everything
> else.  The old site is still operational at this point.
>
> My Question:  Is it necessary to rewrite the code, and is the time
> requested to do this reasonable?
>
> TIA
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA