Part of the openDemocracy Network

Power2010

Breaking the monopoly of the professional politician: Guy Aitchison's idea for popular forums in Parliament
 

When you're in a hole, stop digging: Pam Giddy's advice to MPs who still don't get it
 

Ending the divine right of political parties: Steve Hawkins makes a radical suggestion
 

Les Miserables and Power 2010: John Jackson diagnoses the political class's selective crisis-mongering
 

A call to oD readers: Helena Kennedy calls on oD readers to support Power2010
 

More in this series

Submit your idea for the Power 2010 pledge.

The British Crisis

Do the public really want to change ‘the system’?: Stuart Wilks-Heeg presents polling evidence
 

Don't trust MPs' constitutional poker: Guy Aitchison supports the call for a citizens' convention
 

Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal': Anthony Barnett on the Prime Minister's desperate proposal
 

More in this series

Navigation

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Syndicate content

Expensive .gov website is expensive

OurKingdom, 19 - 08 - 2008
delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Happy Man: Well, gosh, the Prime Minister has wised up to the tiny amount of UK residents who know what twitter is, and has launched number10.gov.uk, the official website of the Prme Ministers office. Or, as it was apparently billed for a while:
“10 Downing Street website, the official website of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair”

Oh dear. That link, by the way, from Dizzy Thinks, whose comprehensive coverage is better than anything I'll manage. As he hasn't deigned to use a convenient tag, here's the litany of fail:

  • Copyright
  • Somewhere, this freelancer is cussing the government, who've taken the hard work he gifted to the world under a creative commons licence. All he asked for was some attribution, and hiding it away in files that 1% of your audience might check out is just a bit weaselly. And given that all the guy asked was that you paid what you felt you could (donationware), the fact that he wasn't paid at all looks a bit mean. Still, let's hope he gets some business out of the scandal. Seriously though, for a government that loves the idea of copyright so much, this is poor behaviour.

  • Accessibility
  • So the site doesn't match .gov standards for accessibility, but then those standards are not entirely up to date with current web standards, so it's difficult. Unforgiveable; some content is currently inaccessible to people with javascript turned off. So this is a big fail. And so deliciously hypocritical.

  • RSS feeds

    The addresses of the RSS feeds on the site pointed to the internal server addresses at whatever (hopefully .gov) network centre is hosting the site. Not just sloppy, but a bit of a security fubar.

  • Performance

    Easy enough. The site fell over. On the day it launched.

  • Cost & wordpress

    This is the big one, and I'll have more to say below. The taxpayer paid £100K for this. And despite all that cash it was built with a tool that's not entirely suitable from either a security or scalability perspective.

  •  


    That £100K is a big sum. I work for a company that does just this sort of stuff, and, well, I'm entirely aware of how much time it takes, and how much work is needed. Wordpress is an amazing piece of software, and a star in the open source firmanent, but this is a wordpress install that's been laden down with a few too many addons, and is now a long way from it's roots as a personal publishing tool. Wordpress (the company this time, not the software), runs a massive, multi-user installation of wordpress at wordpress.com, which serves millions each days. This is not the same as the wordpress software that number10.gov.uk is using. It can be made to work, but there's something about wordpress used like this that reminds me; given a good hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. There are better solutions out there for large scale installations. Especially when they are this public facing and you've got some cash to play with. Wordpress is, again, really great, but even amongst open source software it isn't the right tool for this job.

    The petitions part of the site, which has been far and away the most successful web-democracy initiative of this government, is still there. It was built by some lovely and incredibly talented people at mysociety, who are doing very good stuff like TheyWorkForYou and making FoI requests much easier. Not that you'd now know it was built by mysociety, unless you made a big effort to click around and check it out. You might even be confused enough to think that our Hoxtonite media agency did some actual web development for that £100K, but rest assured, they just prettied up the work of mysociety.

    I'm going to be generous in discussion of the £100K; let's say that covers the whole years worth of support for the site, paying for the web servers and a lot of croissants at a lot of morning meetings. How can it not cover paying the person whose design you are using. Only you've made it a little less accessible. Outstanding. And I'm still looking at the large majority of that cash remaining in my estimations. We need to know more about what has been done with the site to understand if, say, vast sums have been spent on security consultants to beef up the inevitable problems when an update to wordpress is released and the administrators take a little while to get round to updating number10.gov.uk. Speaking of New Media Maze, and to top all this off; here's their MD exhibiting an incredible amount of butthurt in the comments on Mike Rouse's blog:

    # dave Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am

    I’m the MD of New Media Maze. The site build didn’t cost anywhere near £100k so everyone can get off their highhorses.

    You know nothing about the complexity of the project or the parameters within which we had to operate so please don’t pass judgement without knowing the facts. This isn’t just a standard Wordpress install and Downing Street isn’t a ‘normal’ client to work for.

    I'll leave Ted to respond to that:

    Protip: if you are the subject of a takedown, the worst thing you can do is try to defend yourself in the comments. It makes you look like you care what some shithead blogger has to say about you. If you do care that much about the critics, maybe starting a company isn't for you.

      'Happy Man' is known to the Editors

    AttachmentSize
    what-is-fail.jpg40.18 KB
    This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    dave smith (not verified) said:

    Thu, 2008-08-21 10:36

    Hey Happy Man,

    I've posted at length about this elsewhere and on our blog: http://www.newmediamaze.com/index.php/antbags-theme-the-facts/, and i REALLY need to get on with some work after dedicating days to sorting out this issue.

    In summary:

    1. The only file that was drawn upon from Ant’s theme was the css file. Ant accepts this fact: http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/.

    2. Under Ant’s theme license (CCL), there was no requirement to attribute the work to him in the footer.

    3. Under the CCL, he was correctly attributed in the CSS file that was used.

    4. Therefore we have abided by the license of Ant’s work.

    My response to the article on this site was about how to deal with a spiralling issue like this. My offer to view the code under supervision was the only way to put the matter to bed. It seems however you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    I'm not going to be drawn on whether we were the right agency to build the site, however we were warned in advance of the build that when it comes to this type of high profile government project, it's kind of difficult to win.

    The focus now is on fixing the bugs, and looking at how we can build upon this great platform.

    Incidentally, anyone can pitch in with that, we're not retained, and we're not guaranteed any future work from Downing Street, so if you've got any great ideas, pitch them in to the DS comms team.

    Surely that's democracy?

    opendemocracy said:

    Thu, 2008-08-21 09:30

    Hi Dave, Happy Man here. You're right, it is hard to know how to handle the differences between bloggers and journalists, and I've certainly seen some coverage that was very hasty on some blogs (I'm looking at you, Dizzy, and your GPL accusations!).

    But here's the thing. We are talking about facts; we are talking about the contents of files that were on that server on the day it launched. These are screenshot, cached and what have you, and they show the signs of a very sloppy, not QA'd launch. And that's just deeply, deeply frustrating.

    There's a few media agencies out there (none of whom, unfortunately, I get to work for) who do really great, amazing work in e-democracy. I've mentioned mysociety, but they're mainly about the tools. Your agency, while very good at producing 'new media packs' and handling PR for brit rom-coms, is an interesting choice for a site that is promoting democratic interaction.

    And so there's a lot of frustration I think, amongst us bloggers, that something that could have been a great, usable, accessible tool for engagement, is in fact a very pretty, but effectively feature-less PR site.

    And then, yes, there's the whole theme thing. We've all done what your developer/designer apparently did, but at least we can say we left the attribution in the footer. The fact is, you started with someone elses work, and you simply should have either paid the man or given him appropriate credit. I hope you can see that it just looks incredibly mean of your company to have ignored the designer in this fashion.

    You have blogged on the NMM site about how you would be prepared to allow a blogger to inspect your code side by side with the original Networker theme and then spread the word that it is completely different. Well, that's simply not good enough. The argument that there is a security risk in releasing the theme is at best disingenuous, and at worse an indictment of some awful coding practices in your agency. There is simply no way that you should be exposing any security items in the theme. It might be worth doing a quick straw poll in your office to see how many of your developers understand the Model/View/Controller design pattern if there really is any business, database or functional logic present in the theme files.

    Happy man

    Posted by openDemocracy for Happy Man

    dave smith (not verified) said:

    Wed, 2008-08-20 14:08

    On Ted's advice, the problem is that the boundaries between blogger and journalist have blurred, and the chinese whispers nature of the blogosphere quickly turns insinuation into 'fact'.

    You're right, i shouldn't have to care what some blogger says, but as a result of what those bloggers have been saying for the past few days, i've been fielding calls from the likes of the Daily Telegraph and the BBC (interesting to note it's only the journos who've called to check the facts).

    So what do I do, sit and wait until the story turns into a national story, or try to correct the facts at the outset?

    Post new comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
    • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
    • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
    More information about formatting options

    Books from Amazon

    Email Alerts

    Fill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).

    Enter your Email


    Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz