Setting up a website for my gite.

[Théière]

Scooby,

 

I never claimed to be a programmer, what are you claiming to be?

 So far you have posted ever changing criticisms, you have not stuck to a single point.

“There are free / cheap packages that will do this, but from my experience they are much more vulnerable to hacking / spamming”.

What experience? Unless you have actually used the program I am discussing that comment has no founding. It is a generalisation of the whole market.

 

You then changed your argument to “Site is not DDA compliant”.

My response was to post a comment from a disabled user who completely explained the situation.

 

Next post, you changed your argument to “Re the hacking - open source software is vulnerable because the source code is easily available to hackers”.

The code is available to anyone, It’s not websites that get hacked it’s the servers.

 

Now you have changed your argument to email details. No one gets access to the server stored files via the code or email address.  Companies do collect email details from websites via robots as they do from you visiting sites. The graphical (CAPTCHA) system now adopted throughout the industry and included in Webplus, currently prevents robots from doing this.

 

When I posted my comments following Albert the infogypsy and yourself , the comments were in direct response to criticisms of the Webplus package, basically debunking what had been said.  I went on to post responses re DDA from someone directly involved in promotion of DDA compliant sites.

 

I expected to be corrected and educated by people who really know what they are talking about. My sources of information are all professionals and I checked with them before posting.

Your arguments are all rhetorical, not one shred of evidence to back up your criticisms or claims.

 

“Badly written code will leave your website vulnerable – period”.

No badly written code (bloat) will leave you with a slow responding clunky website as additional code has to be read.

 

“You're obviously not a programmer so it's pointless trying to discuss with you”.

Try me, if you explain to me exactly how via the scare tactics you speak of, you can get back to the server stored files maybe I would agree with you. Before I designed my website and subsequent web sites I knew nothing about the subject. Unfortunately for your arguments I now do and hence question your postings. 

 

[Scooby]

I don't need to justify my background - but fyi I am qualified (post grad level) and experienced (ran a web development consultancy doing custom back end server programming and integration for several years).  Mainly larger corporate clients.  

You are just feeling pi-ssed because I ran the two most basic tests that any decent (professional) website should pass (you know, the industry standard thing??) and your friend's site failed them - pretty spectacularly.  If anyone posted on here to say that they'd had a rewiring job done and it was great because it looked lovely you would think them slightly bonkers.  Or that a car was amazing because it was a wonderful shade of blue.  Yes you want the end product to look nice - but it's what's under the bonnet that makes it work.

As an aside you seem to be confused about what constitutes program code.  Neither HTML nor CSS is programming code - both simply format the text and images that are displayed but, nevertheless, should be written in a way that is web standards compliant (and so cross browser compatable and accessible to disabled users...e.g. the comment about using relative font sizes).  Code (in my previous comments) is a reference to ASP, PHP etc which isn't visible on the pages that are served to the visitor as it is parsed on the server but provides interaction between the server and the user (i.e. a database / data file, mail programme etc).  Webplus etc are HTML editors. Open source 'add on' software that you can down load on the web to add functionality to the site will (because its free) be used by many websites.  The ASP / PHP etc files are downloaded (to then upload onto your server).  Just as you (the genuine user) can download the files, so can a potential hacker to identify vulnerabilities.  For a practical example, a charity had used one of these open source packages (PHPbb) but hadn't updated the software as new patches were released.  They lost their entire forum over Christmas one year.  30,000 posts holding a wealth of information - much of it provided by medical professionals.  It was salvaged by restoring the back ups.  Fortunately they used a half decent ISP rather than one of the cheapy ones so this could be done (and the forum software updated!) fairly quickly.   If code was not vulnerable then there would be no need for patches.

As glacier1 said - this discussion is getting tedious and monotonous now.  As you say, now you've built your first website, you know everything there is to know on the subject, so this is my last post on this topic. 

Btw - I agree with your comment about some of the so called 'professional' websites that are out there.  But as, has been said on another thread, web design is an area that attracts enthusiastic amateurs armed with a copy of frontpage, webplus whatever.  Another 'string to the bow' for those touting for gite handover and gardening.  As I mentioned else where re the autoentrepreneur thread (where web designer isn't listed), that it's probably a good thing and may get rid of some of the idiots - forcing people to register as either a qualified programmer or graphic designer.  Maybe those looking for a professional webdesigner should ask for a link to a sample site of theirs and run it through the validators.  If it doesn't pass - avoid them like the plague.

[Théière]

Changing the subject again?

I did not request your life history, the only thing that is anoying me is just and as a post graduate you will understand the need to answer the question:

Try me, if you explain to me exactly how via the scare tactics you speak of, you can get back to the server stored files maybe I would agree with you. Before I designed my website and subsequent web sites I knew nothing about the subject. Unfortunately for your arguments I now do and hence question your postings. 

 

I do understand that there is a slim chance that a hacker may be able to read the SQL and if lucky could launch an injection attack but only if they get the correct command line and then they still have to overcome the ISP's security and the server security and password, none of which has any reflection on the code. Interesting that the larger corporates get hacked as they take less notice of security than ISP's

 

Did you run the most basic tests on the Complete France website? It too has issues, presumably it was designed by professionals like you [:P]

 

Sven Goran Eriksson has just been sacked for the umpteinth time, he's a professional too, just no good at his job.

 

Scooby, you have unfairly criticised Webplus and unless you can backup your statements with facts drop it. 

[Scooby]

As I already said above, I don't wish to participate in this discussion as it is becoming increasingly circular and pointless.  Nevertheless, this is an interesting review of webplus, which I think independently backs up what I said: http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmleditorreviews/gr/aaprwebplus10.htm.  Quote...'this is not a Web designer's tool. You won't have any access to the

code it generates and it can create very bloated sites that download

slowly.'  As Ali's site was built with webplus (and failed vaildation) it also produces non compliant html / css as well.

[Théière]

Is that the second time you have (patched) edited your post? Must be waiting for Patch Tuesday.

As I have said before you don't know the product. You certainly can edit the HTML and other codes, that journalistic satatement applies to older versions of Webplus, BTW we are on X2 version now.

It is also possible to copy the entire code and edit it via notepad which is how some prefer to do it. I do agree it can produce bloated areas, that is the trade off against a really good designer.

As I said on my previous posting, there are many sites that have errors including this one, too all intensive purposes customers of websites never know of these and providing the site functions well it does the job.

For the record, Webplus isn't open souce, it's in house, confirmed by a call to Serif moments ago.

[krusty]

" Or that a car was amazing because it was a wonderful shade of blue." Whats wrong with a blue car .......is someone having a go at me ? [;-)]

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

[quote user="teapot"][quote user="Albert the InfoGipsy"]

Just a further general comment.  ... if I ever need a Web site to sell my goods or services I'll hire someone who knows what he/she is doing.

Making a site look pretty is not the same thing as making it easy to use, reliable or professional-looking. ...

[/quote]

Albert the InfoGypsy, I have always enjoyed reading your posts. You often bring valuable comment and information to a thread.

It is your absolute right to employ a web designer should you need one, I gave an example of a website produced by a friend of mine who definitely knows what she is doing.  I agree making a site look pretty is not the same as making it easy to use, providing that the code runs on all the browsers reliabilty is more down to the servers than anything else.

One guy who uses Webplus did so as a response to his boss hiring a professional company that produced a poor website. His site looked and worked far better and is now the companies adopted site. He did it because he was worried that the professional site would loose them business and therefore his job.  It's like anything in life, good tradesmen and bad, good doctors and bad, yada yada yada.

As I said of my site, no time was spent that was valuable earning time, all out of hours, possibly time better spent than some on this forum [:D]

Just one request, pleased don't follow some on the forum that criticise a product without ever owning or using it.

 [/quote]

Firstly, thank you for the compliment. Much appreciated.

I wasn't aware that I had criticised any particular product. I stand by my original statement that no DIY Web package can provide proper search engine optimisation -- it's something that needs experienced human intervention.

Similarly, I've seen all sorts of cases where a good, conscientious amateur (in the best sense of that word) has produced work rivalling professional stuff. I also know that it's the exception.

For me, there is no such thing as 'out of hours'. I'm a freelance and my time divides into working and doing what I want. Building Web sites or acquiring the knowledge to do so is not my idea of leisure activity, so it must be work. If I tot up how many hours it would take me to build a decent site starting from my present knowledge base and multiply by my hourly rate the result is a lot more money than I'd need to pay a decent Web developer.

I agree that your friend's site (The Falcon Inn) is a good one, but I need to scroll every page on my 1280x800 screen. There is no real online booking feature -- sending an email via a form, giving at least 48 hours notice is not the same thing. For a small hotel that may not be an issue -- for a gite operation a booking calendar is more important to potential customers. Actually taking bookings online could make the difference between making a sale or not. I'm not able to check if that site will work properly with a screen reader (for blind users) but that's the sort of thing that you need to think about nowadays.

Checking that all the pages run correctly on all the main browsers and operating systems currently in use is something else that most DIY people are not likely to be equipped to do. I would expect it from a professional.

I hope I haven't come across as attacking what people can do with DIY Web design software. I just believe that when your Web site is the public face of your business then you need to ensure that it gives your customers the right vibes and makes it easy for them to buy from you.

 

 

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

By the way, on the subject of security, I picked up the following from another thread on this forum:

One excellent result from all of the above, they prevented my from accessing a website for an animal charity that I advise on telling me that it had been hacked and was downloading onto computers re-directs to porn sites.

It's near the end of  http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1608899/ShowPost.aspx

Just shows the sort of thing that can happen. I don't know if it was due to poor programming or something else.

[Scooby]

Thanks Albert.  Your previous post is exactly the message I have been trying to convey (albeit with great difficulty!).

Teapot - the reference to open source wasn't to webplus but to the online calenders etc that you can download and 'add-on' to an existing website ( a website that has been built with webpro or similar).  It's this sort of (serverside) software that can leave your website vulnerable.  Webplus is no better (or worse) than most budget range html editors aimed at those with no knowledge of web design.  It enables the production of a reasonable looking page quickly and with minimal effort or knowledge.  Because these packages have to be easy to use, the html they generate is bulky, proprietary and in the 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' category.  This is fine for a home site but, because of the numerous problems mentioned above, it isn't really suitable for a serious professional / business site.

[Théière]

The example of the Falcon Inn was not posted as a state of the art site, in fact it has been around for some time. If the customer does not want to pay for an upgrade so be it.

The numerous problems mentioned can be sorted out  as the solutions are all current features of the software:

Online booking with full e-commerce inc Paypal etc is available.

Calendar, available.

Checking all the main browsers, can be done via the forum or Serif technical services if your computer is not equiped with multiple browsers.

CAPTCHA security to prevent malicious "spam bots" from automatically obtaining user accounts. A certain charity could probably have used that service.

Even bloated code is not that greater issue, loading a picture that is too large for practical use slows a website down so some extra non graphical code does not take serious amount of time. There are plenty of companies utilising webplus for business. 

Hackers go after two main things, money and kudos, attacking a small gite business is neither, as I posted on the anti virus thread it's not really security it's risk management, how much are you willing to pay?

What would you call a serious professional website?

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

Teapot,

I see elsewhere that you've tried your site with Clara Wordread -- I don't know that one and Google can't find it.

The thing about blind access is whether you can use a site literally with your eyes closed -- does the navigation work? are all the images suitably tagged? stuff like that -- you might like to try the freebie they have here:

http://www.screenreader.net/

I don't have any experience of it but it will probably give you a feel for what's going on if you turn your screen off.

[Théière]

Ah, a different screen reader site.

http://www.screenreader.co.uk/shop.php?shopcatid=3

I will try yours in a while, must have coffee.

[Patmobile]

[quote user="Scooby"]As I already said above, I don't wish to participate in this discussion as it is becoming increasingly circular and pointless.  Nevertheless, this is an interesting review of webplus, which I think independently backs up what I said: http://webdesign.about.com/od/htmleditorreviews/gr/aaprwebplus10.htm.  Quote...'this is not a Web designer's tool. You won't have any access to the code it generates and it can create very bloated sites that download slowly.'  As Ali's site was built with webplus (and failed vaildation) it also produces non compliant html / css as well.

[/quote]

Most interesting.  I followed the link in the post above and found the page - created by a professional, one supposes - was riddled with html & css errors according to your validator.  And the professional Web Designer's own blog page, linked to from the review page, contains even more.

Seems like you have just as good a chance of getting a well made site if you buy the software and sack the professional.

What needs to be remembered is that a website is a marketing publication.  People form their impression of a business on the internet not by the quality of the web developer's coding, which they can't see, but by whether they like a) what's on the page b) how it looks c) the access it provides to the information they want.  (Not necessarily in that order).  Many, perhaps most, website developers know little or nothing about marketing, which is why they create so many bad, albeit possibly technically correct, websites.

If you want a website that works for your business, either do it yourself with some software like Serif WebPlus, or go to a marketing professional who can create a website, rather than to a web technician who knows all about code but nothing about marketing your business.

By the way, would any gite owner agree that an instant online booking  facility is a good idea?  I currently have 4 gites and I would certainly not install such an impersonal booking system.

Patrick