Re: HTML Differences - Details

As our fellow list members have covered the office politics side of things I
thought I'ld do a little follow-up on the tech side...

The [xx min] is an estimated time to complete task

<reply inline>

----- Original Message -----
From: <patti.gettinger(at)email.riverwood.com>
To: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:48 AM
Subject: HTML Differences - Details


> Systems:  Graphic Services designed a new 125 page web site using Page
Mill
> 3.0 (HTML 4.0) on an NT operating system (PC).

While Page Mill doesn't generate the best possible code its not that bad.
(Once again while the program does matter, the OS you are running the HTML
generator makes no difference. Entering it on punch cards, while slower,
would produce the same result)

 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).

>From this I assume the pages are static (not generated by cgi or asp, just
plain old html linked together). There are several ways to do the rotating
photo, if you have all the images anyone that knows what they are doing
could produce the code for several methods in 30 minutes. Unless the titles
are very long (over 200 characters) the same goes for them. [I'll be a
pessimist and say 60 min for photos, 30 min for scroll, 2 mintes x 125 pages
to batch process a insert/replace]


 There are hot spots for sending emails
> to various contacts,

Not sure what you mean by "hot spot", however a client side image map, with
/ or a simple mailto would probibly cover it. [5 minutes per email if image
map, if the names are already in text in correct location 5 minutes per
email]

we wanted a counter, and there is a link where
> customers can email various company folks.

For the counter you can crunch the logs or use of of the 100s of well tested
free CGI scripts.

 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.

Not enough info...

  Part of the cost was  3
> days for CGI links at $1270,

CGI links for what? Have you left something out? For example shoping cart /
e commerce with realtime links to physical inventory?


 and 55 days for rewriting the code at $23,300.

To what standard, specs? Its sounds a whole lot like this person just closed
his eyes and picked a number....


> 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.
>

I think you are confused here, the company may be hosting on a unix server
and your work stations (department lan) is NT. Use HTML 4.0.... servers and
clients don't "run" HTML 4.0, its not software, think of it more as a format
description for the contents.

> 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.

No example, no writen standards = "not done by me standard"

> 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."

Hmmm about $50.00 us for CSE HTML validator pro ver4.0 add 10 bucks to fed
ex it to his desk. Are there a lot of animations? Other than the few you
mentioned at the start of this message?

> 3) The code provided could "crash our system" but IT could not explain
what
> in the code would cause a crash.

What code? HTML on its own won't crash a server however java, asp, and cgi
can. Not enough info about the contents of the site.....

> 4)  It is imperative that the pages on the web site load quickly, and the
> proposed material may not be written to do that.

May not be? But will take 55 days, $23,300 to be sure.... lol

> 5)  It is cheaper to completely rewrite the code than to edit what was
> provided.

Not even going to touch this one see the "standard"="done by me" comments

> 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).

1 pixel hmmm did he notice this visually with his bionic eyes or was he
searching the code for it.... color issue is easy to fix.

> 7)  Rewriting the code had nothing to do with sustaining firewalls.

Not enough info....

> 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.

The IT manager doesn't know what CGI is? By chance is he related to anyone
in upper management?

> 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.

This is a total load of .... Why not? Because then he would have to define
the standard, see above.

  We asked if there were some minor changes that could be
> allowed to "slide" to help reduce costs - the answer was no.

No comment.

> Fundamentally, IT said pay the full amount or the old site stays in place.
>

Can you say extorsion?

> 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,

Depends...

 and is the time
> requested to do this reasonable?
>
A guess without seeing a sample page no.

A few suggestions:

- take the cd you have burnt the site on. On any machine without Page mill
on it and IE 4+ or NS 4+ use file | open and surf the site from the cd. If
it displays as expected do the same for th IT guy, if that doesn't get a
response, climb the corporate ladder with the same demo. Make the IT manager
justify his 25k bill to the people paying it.

(Of course you may want to be a lot more tactful ;)

Steve

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