boy-oh-boy! 

it sounds to me like politics is where the main problem is.  in my mind,
it's entirely unreasonable that they have to re-write all the code.  i can
understand that editing code generated by wysiwyg editors is difficult, but
it sounds to me like your IT folks don't have enough to do.

writing cgi scripts and testing them can take some time.  however, there are
a number of sites on the web that provide free cgi scripts for you to use.
depending on your directory permissions and all that, IT might have to place
the files in a cgi bin, but that should take care of that.

if IT standards aren't being met, but they have no written standards, that
sounds unacceptable to me.  if they're going to hold you to their standards,
they need to document them.  then, they can point out where they're not
being met.  you should not have to pay for their lack of documentation.

one suggestion i recently heard on a situation here was, make them put their
entire case in writing.  if they can adequately document their concerns and
they sound reasonable, they might have a case.  but people can usually
verbally make things sound more imperative.  make them submit a written
report to the highest management level you can go detailing the problems
with your site. 

i'm sure you'll get tons of replies on this, so i'll not go on much longer.
however, i'm sure you can get many bids on this externally that would come
in at less than what your IT folks are estimating.  it sounds like they're
trying to remain involved as much as possible with the internet, which isn't
necessarily a bad thing, but "we have to do it, you can't" isn't generally
the best business practice.  good luck, and darn those office politics.

-rebecca
http://www.nerdygirl.com

-----Original Message-----
From: patti.gettinger(at)email.riverwood.com
[mailto:patti.gettinger(at)email.riverwood.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:49 AM
To: hwg-basics(at)hwg.org
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