Monday, June 01, 2009

David Peercy says no way, on proposed APS website funding.

Winston Brooks proposal for
spending the $16M that they just
discovered, included $300K to fix
the APS website.

David Peercy said, no way.

For one of two reasons,
I would suppose.

Either he has no idea how bad
APS' website really is.

Or he does know how bad APS' website really is, and would like
to keep it that way; no searchable database, user unfriendly,
and essentially useless.

photo Mark Bralley


Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I honestly think the website is in"acceptable" condition and isn't a high priority to improve, considering how much they say it will cost.
And about that cost, why so high? That's fishy to me. I know many company people who had websites built and not nearly for that much.
Ched, iF you please, can you elaborate on what the website needs, and why it would cost so much? I can see you support that, but I don't get it.

ched macquigg said...

The current website is unacceptable because it is impossible to search. There is no way to locate any information without reading everything.

All the information is in PDF files which cannot be searched, copies, or conveniently linked to.

I would support spending money on the website if that were the only option.
Personally, I think a class of "geeks" at the career enrichment center, in a web design class, could whip out a better site in no time, and for nearly free.

If APS won't do that, they they are going to have to pay someone to do it. And I agree, $300K is way more than that should cost. Maybe they're figuring in Monica Armenta's three new staffers.

Anonymous said...

Before, they argued that students or novices couldn't write in "legally weaselry political correct" terminology. However, Monica Armenta and company usually write and edit and approve everything that goes out on the website regardless of adult, professional or student that was a foolish point to try to make on their part.
Even celebrities only dish out about $6-8,000 to start a website, then have 1 webmaster for a nominal fee that often services multiple clients.
This is a "let's blow some money" fiasco in the waiting. Really fishy....