Re: HTML Differences - Details
by "The Web Center" <admin(at)webctr.com>
||Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:02:08 -0400
They're certainly ambitious....
Is this a public web site? My hosting rates are on my site at
http://www.webctr.com. It will cost you a touch less to host with me than
to rewrite your site.
As I see it:
CGI @ 1270: depending on how many forms needed to be linked, and the type of
CGI being used, this might not be terrible. If they have to go through 125
pages and find form actions and install hidden files and etc, then it could
take a few hours.
Unix Server running NT: this is sort of mutually exclusive, Patti...:).
That may be why you are getting what *appears* to be double talk. I do have
to wonder if your staff was experienced enough to produce 125 pages of HTML
4.0...?? It's hard to judge without seeing the code...
IT Standards: this is so flexible as to be meaningless here
Graphics and buttons: its true that these should be done professionally.
Without seeing them, I would have to ask...are you happy with them? They
certainly are no danger to the server...
Why would they analyze the code for quality if they intend to rewrite it?
A 125 page site can be a big task, and can easily cost 10 or 20 times what
they are charging...or more. However, if the site you have built yourself
is adequate to your needs, I think they should be able to install it for
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:48 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> what was provided was a "flat file."
> 3) The code provided could "crash our system" but IT could not explain
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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?
HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA