White House Web Blasted
April 30, 2001 10:09 AM   Subscribe

White House Web Blasted for poor functionality. This Washington Post article says nothing about the use of electronic e-mail addresses (as opposed to...), the non-clickable e-mail addresses for the people in the White House, or the strange navigational constructs used.
posted by vanderwal (21 comments total)
 
Historical context.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 10:27 AM on April 30, 2001


They've only been in office for a couple of months. Web sites aren't built overnight.

I've built websites overnight, when it was important. The white house site has been criticized here at MeFi on several occasions for totally sucking. I remember checking back a full 3 weeks later and still finding the picture of Bush Sr. on the WhiteHouse bio page.

Is this a matter of national security? No, but it's a good indication (for better or worse) of who this administration is looking to appeal to.
posted by jpoulos at 10:29 AM on April 30, 2001


Well, I hope the article is right in that a relaunch is coming. The site is atrocious. But I'm curious as to what an "interactive State of the Union Address" is. Does that mean we can click on George's head in a Flash version and get to see it explode?

Now that's the type of "rich interactivity" I'm lookin' for!
posted by hijinx at 10:31 AM on April 30, 2001


jpoulos, you may have built web sites overnight, but were any of them scritinized as closely as the WH site is/will be? Everything that gets put on the site is supposed to be "official" and has to go through an intricate approval process. (So that nothing stupid/embaressing is posted.)

As much as anyone may thing, a good web site is probably the last thing anyone in the WH should be concerned about. In other words, there's no rush.
posted by Witold at 10:55 AM on April 30, 2001


capt. - thanks for the link back. There have been very few changes in the 100 days.

Since mainstream media is bringing up the problems, not just those of us who critique and build the Web everyday, it seems like it is worth a revisit.

In late 1993 or early 1994 the White House, actually it was an effort from the VP Office, was looking for Internet Development Interns. It was one of the few places doing Web development in DC, or even knew what HTML meant.
posted by vanderwal at 10:57 AM on April 30, 2001


As much as anyone may thing, a good web site is probably the last thing anyone in the WH should be concerned about.

I hope Shrub's handlers agree with you. WhiteHouse.gov is a channel that can be used to stay "on message" and spin directly to millions of people without going through the media. The longer it stays on snooze the better.
posted by rcade at 11:21 AM on April 30, 2001


There go the Lefties, the pinkoes again. Can never find anything decent to say about the President or his party! If it is not his tax giveback to the super wealthy, it is his friggin website.
What will it take to get you guys satisfied? Do you want Bill Gates to send in a team and write off the charges as a political contribution?
posted by Postroad at 11:30 AM on April 30, 2001


/anecdote

When the first whitehouse.gov opened I sent an email to the president saying something about "youth issues" and the upcoming election. Fast forward about a month and a half and I've got an official letter and "signed" picture from the White House in my mailbox. Cool.
posted by owillis at 12:17 PM on April 30, 2001


Everything that gets put on the site is supposed to be "official" and has to go through an intricate approval process. (So that nothing stupid/embaressing is posted.)

I wouldn't expect a complete redesign overnight, but the stuff that's been up there for the 3 months since the inauguration has been "stupid/embarassing". Christ, they put a picture of someone else next to the President's biography!

It's just very unprofessional. Plus, when you consider how much heat Bush catches for not being able to communicate effectively, you'd think this would be a pretty obvious place to start to make a change.
posted by jpoulos at 12:19 PM on April 30, 2001


they put a picture of someone else next to the President's biography!

jpoulos: I am not going to be the one to tell you not to go to town on the issue, but you should be aware that the example you gave didn't happen.
posted by thirteen at 12:29 PM on April 30, 2001


If they do update the site, will GW even be able to use it with his Macintosh?
posted by machaus at 12:31 PM on April 30, 2001


the White House Internet team -- a group of about 12 from the press, communications, strategic initiatives and correspondence offices --

Jeez, it's no wonder that nothing gets done with a team of 12 people. I hope at least one of those twelve is in charge.
posted by briandame at 12:42 PM on April 30, 2001


owillis, same here. I decided to invite the president to my high school graduation, though. Indeed, a few months later, Clinton wrote back telling me about his busy schedule. The letter was "signed" by him, but I didn't get a photo... :-(
posted by whatnotever at 1:10 PM on April 30, 2001


you should be aware that the example you gave didn't happen.

[john crawls under a rock...]
posted by jpoulos at 2:17 PM on April 30, 2001


if anything, not hyperlinking email addresses might have been done to reduce the number of crank emails the white house receives. i would do it. subtle factors can drop conversion rates precipitously. this could be one of them.
posted by halonine at 3:02 PM on April 30, 2001


Are you guys kidding? Whitehouse.com looks just fine to me!!!
posted by dogmatic at 5:14 PM on April 30, 2001


I agree that the White House has better/more important things to do than be concerned about thier website... and that it doesn't have to be the nicest looking thing in the world either... BUT, c'mon... do these people think no one uses a resolution higher than 640x480? Images missing alt tags? To me, this kind of thing does demonstrate a general apathy... I'm sure as taxpayers that we all pay goodly sums of money to the 12 people on this so called "team"...they should be held accountable for the work they do, just like anyone else.
posted by canoeguide at 9:35 PM on April 30, 2001


Not to mention missing ALT tags is probably an ADA violation.

Here's (again) a link to Luke's story, for those who think the Bush White House has a monopoly on website ball-dropping.
posted by rodii at 9:56 PM on April 30, 2001


"The 100 Days of Sod-All."

Roll on the relaunch.
posted by holgate at 1:34 PM on May 1, 2001


Frankly, I'm suprised they didn't use Frontpage for the whole damn thing either...BillyG might even throw in some "soft-money" for a linkback...
posted by canoeguide at 1:37 PM on May 1, 2001


Now this would have been a great candidate for the reboot.
posted by vanderwal at 5:04 PM on May 1, 2001


« Older Startup.com   |   Is Speech Recognition Software: What is it good... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments