I got the email about the city's website, and in this time of trouble in the city, it's good they saved a bunch of money by using open source software-but the site still isn't all it could be. The design and UI aren't great - once you get a level down into the site, you have no idea you're on the City of Erie website. That should be front and center at the top of every page. Also, where's the RSS feed of news and events? A feed of council minutes? A feed of the videos they have?

Also, there are a ton of validation errors: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://ci.erie.pa.us/Default.aspx

It's a good start - but there's so much more it could be. The problem is that with all the budget woes and the termination of Mr. Kearney, it won't get better.

Thanks for posting about Archie! He has over $8,000 in medical bills. I'd hate to of seen the barn lose him, he's such a wonderful horse with a large heart and a will to live!

Any and all publicity for him is good, TREC really could use the money to help pay off his Vet Bills.

Thanks again Dennis! *hugs*

Mike - Probably one of the reasons they didn't include RSS feeds on the page is that half or more of the citizens of Erie don't know what the hell they are, or how to use them. Not a good reason (a reason to be lazy about the design, actually), but probably one of the reasons.

I agree that the page needs some work. The City of Erie seal in the bottom right in 1024x768 mode is semi-hidden, and when you click on some of the links that redirect you, the top banner with the menu should stay, as you had talked about. This makes for easier navigation without having to hit the damn Back button (or backspace if you're a keyboard geek) all the time.

I agree with what Mike has stated. Personally I don't think the redesign offers anything over the last site, not even a modicum of improvement. Open source or no open source, the site has very little to offer aesthetically and the whole drop down thing is pre-web 2.0.

As for not including RSS feeds, the same argument can be made for the web site itself. Since at least half of the residents of Erie won't use the web site, what's the point. The point of having a web site is to take advantage of a particular constituency that will use it, this includes ever evolving and advancing technology including RSS feeds.

I'm disappointed in it. For once I think I'd have to say CyberInks versionw as better (although marginally). I didn't say any of this to be mean by the way by those who worked on the new site. Consider it a challenge, however, to re-create something new and exciting.

Almost all DNN modules support RSS with the click of a button... Someone could very easily enable RSS feeds on any of the sections of the site your interested in I'd imagine. Why not shoot them a quick e-mail so they can gauge the interest?

Web 2.0? Bwaaahhaa.. What a joke.

Validation is nice, but I don't see it as a huge weight in deciding if a site is "good or not".

Given that they were smart enough to use a platform like DNN they have tons of options. They can easily re-skin the site, add functionality, and more...

I'd drop their webmaster a line (given there is contact info) and let her know your thoughts, since they're using a really customizable portal for their underlying framework a lot of changes can be made very easily.

the city website is a typical dnsllc site. all their sites use DNN and they all look the same. unfortunately businesses in erie think their only choices in internet companies is dns, cyberink, or bac. and those companies produce some of the worst stuff out there.

Nick Said:

"Validation is nice, but I don't see it as a huge weight in deciding if a site is 'good or not.'"

Dude, validation is a critical part of the development process. Web standards are a good thing, as are things like accessibility. For a goverment site, accessibility should have been discussed in great deal at the onset of the project, and coding to a standard ensures accessibility to a degree. When you take the time to make sure a site is coded correctly, that ensures the widest possible audience can view your site. It's beyond a Mac vs. PC thing, it's just a good thing to do.

Ron - DNS used to be located in the same building I worked at almost 5 years ago, on 2nd and Poplar. The owner, Nick, isn't the best when it comes to attitude, business relations and things like that. I'm not saying his actions reflect on his employees, but I can't say that builds a good working environment.

Validation is nice. But personally, if a site is 100% valid or 83% valid doesn't really mean much to me as a developer.

I do care that the pages render properly in all major browsers but I do not get hung up on whether or not I included an "id" attribute for every tag on my page. Honestly I have better things to do with my time then chase down most of these.

I relate it to trying to "fix" every problem FXCop would see with a windows application.

In terms of accessibility I think they'd gain more out of including the functionality to regionalize the site so that people who don't speak english still have access to the content then attempting to meet the W3C standards.

BTW, I bare no relation to Nick the owner, I am yet another Nick :-)

As for DNS, that seems typical for most development outfits I've run into here in Erie. People don't like to hear how their beautiful projects aren't as great as they think.

I see they did the Erie County Assessment search and it doesn't render wel in Firefox... While not directly associated with standards if they used better browsercaps it would render better for me.

Ron - i used to work for nick at dns. i can attest to everything you said. i have a few more choice words to add, but i will not go any further on here. i will say that the problem with dns is nick konzel. it's a shame too, because he has the connections, but unfortunately promises too much and can't deliver.

being perfectly valid isn't everything, but following the basic standards is very important. dnn was built on asp.net and asp.net does not play well with the standards (at least .net 1.1, 2.0 is supposed to be better).