Tweet
I have started a new thread ( hope this is OK ) in order to try to pull together the multi-reply threads of the main prior thread. Here is what I recently posted on CFC Chess Forum:
A New Website - Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up until recently, I have not been convinced by the arguments that CFC should spend part of its hard-earned surplus on a new CFC website ( likely expected to cost in the range of $ 10,000 ). But I have now been convinced. Here are the arguments as I understand them:
1. Appearance - The CFC site was generated in 1999, and shows its age. The presentation is old style, and easily recognized as such in comparison with modern, more attractive sites
My comment - the site is quite acceptable to the ordinary member visually. And we don't need to spend $ 10,000 for a mere cosmetic reason.
2. Age - the site is 10 years old and has old style programming and webdesign. Modern technology makes running a website and upgrading/enhancing it much easier.
My Comment: This may be true, but the existing program runs fine despite its age. Many old things continue to be useful and beneficial long after their expected expiry dates. If and when CFC wants a major enhancement, that cannot be done with the existing code, then we should look at a new website - but that may be many years down the road yet. If it aint broke, don't fix it applies here.
3. Hodgepodge - It is said that the CFC site is composed of 3 different applications ( I'm no techie, so my language may be innaccurate here ). It is difficult to change things with such a variety of knowledge needed.
My Comment: It may be cobbled together, but it runs and provides all the basic members' services the membership wants and needs. And surely there will always be the expertise around to deal with dated programming.
4. Coding Errors: It is said that buried in the old codes are many errors.
My Comment: These seem to be errors that don't make a difference. The program is running as it should, despite the errors. So no need to fix them for $ 10,000.
5. Lack of Documentation: When Troy Vail wrote the website program, apparently he did no manual ( " documentation " ). This is a handicap to those who have to deal with it. No one knows how it runs.
My Comment: Tom O'Donnell has stated that he, Deen Hergott, Brad Thomson begged CFC to get Troy to do documentation , to no avail. But they nevertheless, as ED's, were able to continue to provide for years all member services without the documentation ! And so have Gerry Litchfield and Vince Chow ! So this is not a serious problem. And Bob Gillanders has said that on some occasions where work had to be done on the existing coding, Vince was able to figure it out and do what was reguired. Why all of a sudden is lack of documentation so critical. Let's keep going with what we have until we run into an impasse.
6. Requires ASP support,; It is said that this is old and not generally available anymore.
My Comment: Though this may be dated, I understand that it is can still be fairly readily obtained in good support packages ( but I'll have to defer to techie experts on this point ).
So....so far I agree with 2/3 of those voting in my ChessTalk poll on the need for a new website - " NO ".
But then comes the 7th factor:
7. Security: Because the site is written/designed in old programming, it is particulary vulnerable to hacking/virus. New modern technology has better anti-virus/anti-hacking qualities built into it - example - the recent attack that caused the CFC website to be down for 2 weeks.
My Comment: This I don't have an answer to. It is most important that the website continue to be functional - we cannot have it down regularly because even the most amateur hackers can wreak havoc on it. And worse, we cannot have visitors to the site, picking up viruses from our website when visiting, before we know about it and get it cleaned.
Steve Karpik, a CFC member and IT specialist, has written me on this aspect as follows ( I also posted it above ):
" I believe there are compelling reasons to rebuild the web site. First and foremost is security. We’ve already seen the CFC web site compromised at least once. Beyond the fact that this is embarrassing to the organization, security breaches like these pose a risk to CFC members visiting the website. Potentially your computer could become a zombie in a large attack net or personal information like credit card numbers etc. could be harvested by criminals..... In my work managing the development and maintenance of million dollar web site projects, I have experienced situation in my work not unlike that which the CFC faces. Management cannot necessarily see how a rewrite of the web site code is worthwhile. Customers aren’t clamoring for it. Tweaks can be done to the appearance and content to keep the web site functioning. But then everything comes to a crashing halt when hackers compromise the web site. Sometimes the consequence is just embarrassment, sometimes it does serious harm to the business running the website because of organization losing credibility with its customers especially if they web site visitors have their information stolen by hackers. "
I find Steve's reason compelling. For this reason alone, I am convinced that CFC should get a new website, even at the cost of $ 10,000. Of course with this will come all the benefits those wanting the new site have been espousing - we will definitely get a new, visually more pleasing and improved webiste, in addition to a more secure one, and thus will get our monies' worth.
Bob
A New Website - Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up until recently, I have not been convinced by the arguments that CFC should spend part of its hard-earned surplus on a new CFC website ( likely expected to cost in the range of $ 10,000 ). But I have now been convinced. Here are the arguments as I understand them:
1. Appearance - The CFC site was generated in 1999, and shows its age. The presentation is old style, and easily recognized as such in comparison with modern, more attractive sites
My comment - the site is quite acceptable to the ordinary member visually. And we don't need to spend $ 10,000 for a mere cosmetic reason.
2. Age - the site is 10 years old and has old style programming and webdesign. Modern technology makes running a website and upgrading/enhancing it much easier.
My Comment: This may be true, but the existing program runs fine despite its age. Many old things continue to be useful and beneficial long after their expected expiry dates. If and when CFC wants a major enhancement, that cannot be done with the existing code, then we should look at a new website - but that may be many years down the road yet. If it aint broke, don't fix it applies here.
3. Hodgepodge - It is said that the CFC site is composed of 3 different applications ( I'm no techie, so my language may be innaccurate here ). It is difficult to change things with such a variety of knowledge needed.
My Comment: It may be cobbled together, but it runs and provides all the basic members' services the membership wants and needs. And surely there will always be the expertise around to deal with dated programming.
4. Coding Errors: It is said that buried in the old codes are many errors.
My Comment: These seem to be errors that don't make a difference. The program is running as it should, despite the errors. So no need to fix them for $ 10,000.
5. Lack of Documentation: When Troy Vail wrote the website program, apparently he did no manual ( " documentation " ). This is a handicap to those who have to deal with it. No one knows how it runs.
My Comment: Tom O'Donnell has stated that he, Deen Hergott, Brad Thomson begged CFC to get Troy to do documentation , to no avail. But they nevertheless, as ED's, were able to continue to provide for years all member services without the documentation ! And so have Gerry Litchfield and Vince Chow ! So this is not a serious problem. And Bob Gillanders has said that on some occasions where work had to be done on the existing coding, Vince was able to figure it out and do what was reguired. Why all of a sudden is lack of documentation so critical. Let's keep going with what we have until we run into an impasse.
6. Requires ASP support,; It is said that this is old and not generally available anymore.
My Comment: Though this may be dated, I understand that it is can still be fairly readily obtained in good support packages ( but I'll have to defer to techie experts on this point ).
So....so far I agree with 2/3 of those voting in my ChessTalk poll on the need for a new website - " NO ".
But then comes the 7th factor:
7. Security: Because the site is written/designed in old programming, it is particulary vulnerable to hacking/virus. New modern technology has better anti-virus/anti-hacking qualities built into it - example - the recent attack that caused the CFC website to be down for 2 weeks.
My Comment: This I don't have an answer to. It is most important that the website continue to be functional - we cannot have it down regularly because even the most amateur hackers can wreak havoc on it. And worse, we cannot have visitors to the site, picking up viruses from our website when visiting, before we know about it and get it cleaned.
Steve Karpik, a CFC member and IT specialist, has written me on this aspect as follows ( I also posted it above ):
" I believe there are compelling reasons to rebuild the web site. First and foremost is security. We’ve already seen the CFC web site compromised at least once. Beyond the fact that this is embarrassing to the organization, security breaches like these pose a risk to CFC members visiting the website. Potentially your computer could become a zombie in a large attack net or personal information like credit card numbers etc. could be harvested by criminals..... In my work managing the development and maintenance of million dollar web site projects, I have experienced situation in my work not unlike that which the CFC faces. Management cannot necessarily see how a rewrite of the web site code is worthwhile. Customers aren’t clamoring for it. Tweaks can be done to the appearance and content to keep the web site functioning. But then everything comes to a crashing halt when hackers compromise the web site. Sometimes the consequence is just embarrassment, sometimes it does serious harm to the business running the website because of organization losing credibility with its customers especially if they web site visitors have their information stolen by hackers. "
I find Steve's reason compelling. For this reason alone, I am convinced that CFC should get a new website, even at the cost of $ 10,000. Of course with this will come all the benefits those wanting the new site have been espousing - we will definitely get a new, visually more pleasing and improved webiste, in addition to a more secure one, and thus will get our monies' worth.
Bob
I hope we're past all that.
Comment