September 10, 2004 | View Comments (46) | Category: 9rules
Summary: The reasoning behind WDDB and why recoding content is no fun at all.
Moving a site from tables to CSS. For people first coming over to the world of CSS this is probably the greatest experience one can have. However, rarely do we get to hear about people who convert nasty HTML 1.0-4.0 code to XHTML. Why not? I have the answer to that question.
It's no fun. Not fun at all. Their is no enjoyment in it. Trust me. I did it.
Back in November of 2003 I was researching a drug called “Abilify” and wound up on the Food and Drug Administration's page for it. Great information. Not to easy to read, but it was doable. In any case, I got curious and looked under the hood. The table tags didn't surprise me, but all the rest of the crud did.
So then I had this crazy idea to convert the page to cleaner XHTML code. Then I figured if I could do that page, then I could do all 137 drug info pages. How fun would that be? Well I already answered that question already.
Also if you look at the actual site to where you get the drug info you will see frames and scrollbars and all other types of fun stuff. Surely the US government could do a better job than this right? Well if they couldn't I figured I could. God bless my ego.
So in January I bought webdrugdatabase.com and started to clean up the pages one-by-one. Now I wasn't going to clean up the code formatting (spacing and whatnot) that much, but I just wanted to get rid of all the unnecessary formatting tags (<small>, <font>, etc.). I also decided to keep the top information in a table because changing that would just add to my workload and I made the conscious decision that it counted as tabular data so the table was justified.
Notice I said I started this project in January. 9 months ago. Yes it took that long because again it is no fun to recode pages. There was a large 5-6 month break in between because I had no urge anymore to continue on. But then the dollar signs rang in my head and I started to see how a site like this would be a great example for the community (this writeup), great for visitors looking for information (CSS is always good baby), and great for me in general. So I finished up the content and that is where I am at now.
So now we have the same information that the FDA provides, but without frames and can be viewed in any browser or screenreader and is easily searchable by the search engines. Would I ever do something this crazy again? No and I can see why the government stays away from updating a lot of their pages. It takes a lot of effort and I am sure they have millions that are even worse than what I had to work with.
In any case the site is up without any design. I wrote this entry to go through my experience of recoding pages manually and to get Google to start spidering the site :-). More features will be added this weekend along with more content and design work.
We all know the advantages of CSS so it's interesting to see if this whole ordeal was worth it from an organization's perspective. Code-wise, the coding of the content shaved off about 2kb. This does not include the whole page size, just the content's size. For small sites that is definitely not worth it, but for larger sites some of the benefits may be better realized.
Time-wise I would say it wasn't really worth it at all. I don't know if my approach was the only way to go about this venture, but I can't really see a better way happening either. It's one thing to CSSify a site's layout because that means changing some templates around, but changing the actual content is a whole other matter.
But for future proofing the content it is definitely worth it. I relate it to fixing the Y2K bug before you even need to worry about it. You never know when this crazy coding will hurt you in the future so the sooner it's cleaned, the better.
So with that I give you the latest site in the 9rules Network. Most of you out there probably will never even use the site, but I didn't really make it for you designer types anyways :-P. Unless of course you need Viagra and are looking for information on it.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/332
So, Scrivs, regarding that viagra... j/k
Nice writeup. That makes more sense and answers the question to the email I sent.
Bryan (http://www.juicedthoughts.com)
Well Keith the content is public domain so I have no issues with the FDA and was the only reason I was even able to do a site like this. Once the site is done the ROI will be well worth the effort. You should know by now that I just don't do sites to do them ;-)
But there is definitely a business out there for someone if they wanted to start a "code-cleaning company". Hmmm....:-)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
While I think your reasoning of taking on the challenge is cool, I can't believe having it publically available, spidered, and part of the "network" is a good idea.
Even the FDA's original page has an FAQ and disclaimer on how the public is to use the information presented by them.
Wouldn't it be better to just have it as a secured (or at least non-indexed) portfolio piece to present to the FDA? They ask for submissions on how to better their experience anyway.
My issue is that people looking to do research on a drug (like you did initially) are going to find your site and consider you an expert in the area.
If they take a look at any of your other sites, and see your really not an expert in pharmacuticals, don't you think you're risking credibility - arguably one of the hardest things to gain on the net?
You've posted several articles and offer several books on the importance of building a brand. How, in the most miniscule way does WDDB have anything to do with your brand?
Again, my point here is that it's not really part of the "network", it's a portfolio piece / study by Paul Scrivens - and I think you'd be better off presenting it that way.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
You know what's funny Mark? I was just going to write a comment saying how you were going to come in and gimme the legal speech :-)
In any case the added content will reflect that the information is freely available and was provided by the FDA along with other stuff. There are plenty of other sites that offer the same content and if the FDA wishes to close me down then I have no problem with that, but until then...
Also this site is now part of the network because it will make money. I wish I had another explanation behind it, but that's all it is. This site has mega-potential and there is really no other reason why I would even venture to finish something like this.
I have been intending to write another entry on the brand of the 9rules network and my intentions with it so I guess I will have to get on that soon.
As for my own credibility I would have to find out how people perceive me. Do people perceive me as a designer? Entreprenuer? Suicidal maniac? Questions to ask for another time. But I totally understand your point of view.
Now back to the entry...
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Oh and I forgot to mention that the content up there now is not the sole content of the site. It does provide a foundation to larger plans.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Whatever, dude.
Somebody's got to look out for you.
Here's another issue you might better look into.
The information on the FDA site is dynamic - meaning that several of those drugs have information which changes. Look around and you'll see that a good number of them have the original post date, and then a history of revisions.
I didn't see that on your version. Might be some of that diceyness that Keith referred to going on there.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Yeah the updated information aspect is being looked into. I would possibly have to do a review of the content quarterly possibly.
If the government was smart they would just pay me my 6 figure salary to keep things running smoothly for them :-)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Instead of being negative, like everyone else seems to be for some odd reason - I say "Kudos Scrivs".
I think what your doing is a very good service to those that are looking for that information. I don't see this being a bad thing no matter what the outcome or recourse.
Colin D. Devroe (http://theubergeeks.net/)
I think it's great (can't see the site myself for some reason right now, but I hope there's some accesskeys/tabindex/skip nav to boot!)... but I do agree that not having the proper medical information on a timely basis could pose a problem for you and users. Who's to say you won't be liable if your med specifics aren't updated as promptly and they receive the information from you... when the Fed site is proper? That's not safe for anyone, and though I think the FDA is a backwards organization which is a WHOLE other discussion, they still would be a little irked by your site, if it has their information. Just a helpful hint -- but the volunteer work has great intentions and is exactly what they need!
Brady J. Frey (http://www.dotfive.com)
I don't think it's negative to question the potential issues here. I work at a hospital and they are deathly afraid of putting up information on medication that is incorrect or out-of-date.
It's a fact. People have gotten into all sorts of hot water over less.
I wish Scrivs the best and think it's a great idea, I only hope he's not opening a door that might get him into a legal mess.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
Heh, I wish me the best as well.
And thanks for the legal worries talk. It shows you all care :-)
So yeah, recoding content sucks along with Google PSA ads.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
A few months ago I did a similar job (but paying!) for http://dermnetnz.org - over 1,000 pages, frames, html chock-a-block with font tags, javascript redirection... (you can check out the old version at http://old.dermnetnz.info).
First, I used htmltidy to convert the pages to xhtml, and then I used xslt (which I'd never used before - it's not too hard to learn) to rip out the crufty markup and replace it with shiny semantic markup. I won't claim it's perfect (there's still a few stray body tags floating around on some pages), but by and large it looks great.
The whole process probably took about 40 hours, and has reduced hits by 90% (by removing the old image based navigation frame), page views by 50% (no more frames!) and bandwith by 50% (from 60gb/month -> 30). Overall, a very sucessful and rewarding project!
Hadley
Hadley, that is an approach that I wanted to go as well, but all the pages were coded at different times and therefore the markup was not consistent throughout so I had no idea how well that would work.
I am sure I could have saved myself a bit more trouble though.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
You could always use a site like Change Alarm to watch the original pages, Paul. It just emails you when a page is updated. I use it all the time for sites that don't have RSS feeds.
The site doesn't work for me right now either.
What is Abilify used for?
Abilify is used to treat schizophrenia.
Now we know how Paul gets so much done, there is two of him!
Derek (http://www.onethreeone.com/blog/)
I love it. Honestly I think this one is going to make some good money for you if you do it right.
You could place a short disclaimer below the information of each drug saying that the actual drug information may have changed since the last update or post date. And then you could even provide a link to the actual website of the drug, or the FDA page.
Like Derek (16) mentioned, the change alarm may be a good idea.
Your credibility shouldn't really be at risk, as Mark (4) mentioned. As long as you are providing some useful and acurate information, you should be cool. So I definitely think you should safe guard yourself with a disclaimer and some links to either the FDA's detailed drug info or the actual drug's site. I mean, the whole point is providing useful information right?
Another thing you could consider is providing a link (sponsored of course) to a medical group that specializes in treatment with specific drugs. Or maybe a link to planned parenthood with any STD related drugs. Or maybe a sponsored link to any physician or website that provides discussion or other info about the drug. And there should be some affiliate programs out there for the over-the-counter drugs.
My uncle owns a small medical supply group. It's hard work, but it makes a lot of money, and most of the money it makes is repeat.
The fact is, there's a lot of people out there looking for this kind of information. Keep it up Scrivs.
Jason Marble (http://www.afriendapart.com)
Great job Scrivs, and good luck. A nice little *cough* project.
Some good ideas above for keeping up with content too.
Now, three drugs a week, time to add some original content. Click that amazon aff link of your and get a good book!
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/sandbox/weblog/)
Looks really great--excellent job! I'm a medical student and was planning to do something similar for the RxAssist list that provides free pharmaceuticals to patients (I started a program at a local community health center to take advantage of these programs), but the site's a pain to navigate. I was going to try to throw them all into an xml doc and use the LiveSearch php functionality to make them easier to search.
It'll probably take me longer than I expect, I'm sure. Thanks for the warning. Again, great work!
Graham (http://www.grahamazon.com/anatomy/)
I cant believe you are actually proud to present a drug database as a member of your highly ranked network. At least be smart and stay low with projects like this, and use regular advertising on your own sites. I for one have a really hard time taking your design writeups for CSSvault or whitespace seriously now that I know what you are really after. But hey - you do what you please and respect for that. I know you never expected people to trust you or take your words seriously, but people do. But soon they wont anymore.
Frodo
Hmm, yeah I can see the problem Frodo. Why should I advertise a PRESCRIPTION drug site on my network that provides useful information that people are looking for. A site that is done in CSS and was a good example of what it takes to convert rotten HTML code into clean XHTML.
A site that I put a lot of work into. Your right, I shouldn't be proud of something like this.
I know you never expected people to trust you or take your words seriously, but people do.
That's interesting because I can't remember a time I asked people not to trust me. And what am I really after? Money? How old are you? Do you have bills to pay? Credit card debt to get out of? Student loans to cover? Car payments? Insurance? Guess not.
If you think this site threatens my credibility as insert whatever here then I wish I could apologize, but I can't. I hate to write comments like this, but I think some people only see half the picture.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Derek: Just because it's a pet peeve of anyone who's studied Psychology - I feel compelled to point out (for about the 5000th time) that Schizophrenia refers more to a 'split from reality' than a division of self. What you are thinking of would more probably come under the umbrella of 'multiple personality disorder'. It's a common misperception.
Jim Amos (http://graphikjunkie.com/)
Scrivs,
Your inovative ideas for web sites are giving me something to think about in my insomniac like state that I'm constantly in. Not that I have the will to make a site, I just like having good ideas to give to other people. I'm thinking that maybe I'll make a site that gives other people ideas on what to make sites about. I don't know I'm probably just a crazy bastard who rambles on late at night on the computer because he can't sleep (GOD DAMNIT). I really should see a doctor about that but doctors scare the hell out of me.
Andrew (http://kempt.org)
How old are you? Do you have bills to pay? Credit card debt to get out of? Student loans to cover? Car payments? Insurance? Guess not.
This will quickly become a silly discussion if you start speculating in your visitors "right" to ask you such questions. I am 27, have a zillion depts, two apartments in two countries with 8% loan interests, kids, office etc. etc. You are not alone trying to make a buck here. Still, I know many ways to make good money in a good way, that makes people happy and enhances the beauty of this world. I prefer to take that path and keep my credibility. If I would start a similar project, which I have thought of many times, I wouldnt brag about it since my business is dependant of my credibility and image. You have just lost your cred and your image is defenitely changing. Sorry, but thats how I feel and probably many others. Considering your last reaction in this discussion, I guess you thought about that too.
Another thing, you might be proud of what you did, but are you proud of why you did it?
Frodo
Scrivs, I'd think carefully about the legal disclaimers that you need to have in place in a site such as that... seriously, the medical business is a big one, with high stakes (ie, people's lives).
I also thought it was quite absurd that you posted a copyright statement that only mentioned yourself... clearly you don't own copyright to the content -- mark-up, design & styles at best, with the content copyrighted to the FDA (who gathered it), the makers of each product, or maybe in the free domain? More research and a clearer copyright notice is in need here.
Basically, I can't see why you'd need such a headache -- all that re-coding, the legal responsibilities, rubbing shoulders with the FDA and other Gov't departments? No thanks!!
Justin French (http://justinfrench.com)
Vast improvements on the site. I aree with another one of the post about submitting it to the GOV. They may come up with some duckets somewhere that will make it more worth you time and effort.
I cant seem to understand the credibility side of the comments. First, there is no covering up of why the information was converted. There is no "I had to go look all the information up myself statements." I haven't heard Scrivis once say "the only reason I did it was for kicks."
I'm sure one of the main reasons for anything the vast majority of us do, to include reading the posts, we do to earn money. No credibility issue there either.
I think anyone with any sense would have expected to get hammered for writing the origional post from some and I think that writing it anyway and being truthful about the reasoning speaks alot about ones credibility.
Maybe we could all learn a thing or two about the very basics of credibility, hiding your reasoning, or not showing your work because it was a "cash cow" and you didn't want to offend anyone making a little dough would suggest something differently.
wes
The copyright was meant to change so that it reflects the site design (blah, blah, blah) is copyrighted and not the content.
Frodo, I really don't know what to tell you. So what kind of sites am I allowed to make that won't ruin my credibility? Just web design sites? The FDA site is riddled in frames, bad colors, and not usable at all. I created a site with no frames, simple colors and is usable. And now I am bragging?
I see there is no way to change your perspective of things. You can ignore the site completely and just visit here and the Vault.
Am I proud I made a site that was meant to help people out and make money? Yes. Why shoudln't I be. Are you proud to go to work because you need to pay those bills? I am sure you are. Ahh, I see we are both in the wrong. We shouldn't be trying to make money at all. You should work for free for the higher good of mankind. You shouldn't waste your time creating accessible sites. Stop wasting your time with CSS.
You get this reaction not because I though "about that too", but simply because you make zero sense in everything that you state. You don't like the site and that is obvious, but you are calling me out on bullshit that I have no idea where you are even coming from. Oooops, did I say bullshit? There goes my cred even further.
Oh well, people know who I am so at least I was man enough to put my credibility at risk I suppose. You are safe with Frodo. Props to ya. Hopefully you don't see the heroine and crack cocaine portions of the site, or then you really might think I am super slimy.
Last stupid comment like this by me. I apologize for showing the site and reacting this way. And oh, you really might not want to know about my next site...
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Damn Wes, wish I saw your comment first. I wouldn't have had a need to waste my time. Thanks :-)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
I agree that honesty has a diverse meaning when it comes to being really honest. But to be really honest myself, I would never hire a designer, programmer, copywriter or carpenter who is clearly in it for the money only. That takes away some of the credibility and quality assurance for sure.
If you want to make real money online - a drug database is only scratching the surface. Go for referal marketing, comment spam, email harvesting, TGP and adult services. Forget all about public relations - just grab what you can and go throw yourself in the garbage can with your pockets full of greens. Sounds tempting?
David
C'mon guys, give Paul a break here. He saw an opportunity to do some good for some people, along with make some money, and he took it.
Another reason that he thought this would be good (I'm sure he won't fess up to this, but oh well) is because his PageRank is so high that when people search on Google for these drugs, they will probably start to filter in to this site that more clearly displays information without extra crap. I'd much rather my grandmother find information on webdrugdatabase than on another site with flashing banner ads, illegible typography, unclearly-marked data, and so on.
He redesigned a website that needed a CSS overhaul, and added it to his network of sites. A lot of people are missing the pretty cool part about this site, in that it is still a weblog. People who have bad experiences with certain drugs in combination with other stuff could leave a comment that might save someone's life someday (off the deepend I know, but it's possible.)
You haven't lost your cred. Whitespace will continue to get 50,000 pageviews or more (what's the latest count?) a week, and people will still read what you have to say. And even if that all goes away, I'm still fortunate and proud to have you as my business partner.
Mike (http://www.businesslogs.com)
Mike...you're right about giving Scrivs a break, but please...not every site with a commenting app is a weblog!
Is the php help site a weblog? Is a guestbook a weblog? no! Heck, it isn't even a wiki. (what you should call it, I don't know. It's kinda like the php.net system, so ask them :)
As for the rest: The site is usefull and will provide Scrivs with a bit more money. What's so wrong about that?
AkaXakA (http://akaxaka.gameover.com)
Poor old Scrivs.
He can't do anything without someone laying in to him about some aspect of his plans.
Yep, it's been me in the past - but now I say...
"Leave the guy alone".
Andrew Hume (http://www.thedredge.org)
And just as I'm about to embark on a similar mission, Scrivs already has it done. I'm not talking about the drug site, but rather the recoding. I'm about to get into a site that's straight out of 1998: frames, crappy Flash intros, images for almost everything, font tags, and more, not to mention the sheer size (100+ HTML pages) of the site. I'm still in the analysis phase though and the client just wants content updated, but it might be so difficult (since the PSDs, FLAs, and the original designer are nowhere to be found) that a total rewrite could be a cheaper option for him. Congrats on doing a tough job Scrivs, and wish me luck; I'll need it! :(
Vinnie Garcia (http://blog.vinniegarcia.com/)
Good luck Vinnie. It is no fun at all and really starting from scratch might be the best option. If you are going for a recode then get a comfortable chair and keyboard and make sure you type properly to avoid carpal tunnel. Heh, I had some symptons of it while working on the site.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
A couple of thoughts here
Mike (30) There a two sides of the coin here. Sure, you'd feel good about your granny using Paul's site, because you have a relationship with him. If you had no previous relationship w/him, I think (hope) you'd think otherwise about granny getting vital drug information from a web designer / geek who runs "big money tips" on the side.
While Scrivs' is "looking into" the aspects of keeping potentially life saving information current (8), the site is still being spidered and made available to naive grannys and others who don't know any better.
Also - yeh people can leave all kinds of constructive, helpful comments - but they can also not, as both this site and Businesslogs have discovered recently.
I honestly don't think the "naysayers' on this project are trying to keep Paul down - at least I'm not. I think we are just recognizing that you are dealing with the government and a highly regulated industry, where all those things which seem like they should be common sense - aren't.
You should consider this news story from CNN concerning drug makers and the FDA and whether releasing information on a wide scope is a good idea or not -
"...representatives of the companies said they also are concerned that releasing all of the information will be so unwieldy that it could confuse doctors and patients...
You're gettin' into deep water here, buddy.
Sure, you can make money off this. Here's how I see how.
Show your skills as a "code cleaner."
Present this in the same type model as "37Better..." or post it as your first case study for BusinessLogs. Put the skills you've gained and learned on CSS / XHTML...and show them off.
That way, should somebody visit the site, they'll understand the magnitude of what you did, and they'll possibly see the usefullness of it and hire you to clean up their site.
Otherwise, you end up looking like someone who's just out to make a buck and prove to your community how much you can make in the month of September from adsense revenue.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
just slap a disclaimer on the site and give credit to the proper people. Easy as that.
Andrew (http://kempt.org)
Props to Scrivs for trying to help people and "do good", but I think instead of launching it as a competing site, I'd have offered it to the FDA as a proposal for redesign/relaunch with a quote that covered your time so far, etc. In other words, I would have tried to join forces with them, rather than launching a competing site.
Justin French (http://justinfrench.com)
Quote David:
"But to be really honest myself, I would never hire a designer, programmer, copywriter or carpenter who is clearly in it for the money only. That takes away some of the credibility and quality assurance for sure."
I love what I do, and I love that I design, as most of us do -- but make no mistake, we're all here to make money. If my intention for doing corporate design wasn't money, I'd be a pretty bad artist. Why? Because why else would I make designs that will most likely not be 100% what I want.
If I wasn't in it for the money, I'd spend four hours a day designing whatever I wanted, I'd have a million worthless printed posters/brochures/business cards/POP displays and you'd be talking to the owner of about 50% of the url's out there.
That means I have to do two designs: one for my clients which pay bills and give me a comfortable living. One that I do for myself, which most business execs would have little knowledge why it was or wasn't good.
If you think it takes away from the credibility, I think the opposite. Any designer/developer that tells you they AREN'T in it for the money is:
1. A trust fund inheritant that is onto a second career for no monitary purposes but for the fun of it, while he lives on his beach condo. You will most likely be forced to abide by his time restraints and design requirements -- if he doesn't become bored with the job and return your money.
2. A designer who is an excellent salesman who is telling you what you need to hear so that your feel as though your product is prestine.
In short, if they tell you they love designing Bob's construction site for a low cost build because they were undercut by a college designer, while taking art direction from Bob who knows little of web or design (and can't actually coordinate his ties and socks to match his other accessories + suit), they are lying to you.
I love art, and I am passionate about it, I get a fantastic feeling creating and designing -- but doing someone else's design and marketing needs is more so for money than the love of art and design and development. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be a corporation around -- designers want quality professional work and businesses what quality professional work that is the cheapest possible and the fastest. They don't see eye to eye, and usually why I teach my designers to look at their freelance as a business need and their art for art's sake as their love for it, otherwise you'll feel cheated and unaccomplished for the majority of your careers.
As a side note, when I have to negotiate with businesses, and you get slammed with "...I need a quality website in two days for 50 dollars" remind them of the pyramid of freelance, as we used to call it.
On each side there is one of these options: Quality, Time, Money. Your client gets two, you get one. If they want it fast, and cheap, they lose quality. If they want quality for cheap, you get to control the time frame. If they want to control the time and the quality of the product... well, you get compensated for that. Just because they run a business, doesn't mean you have to starve running yours because you love it and you don't care about the money.
...and I hope this doesn't come off as greedy, so you know I offer free designs for non-profits and I volunteer for many design organizations, so my love for the industry is very potent.
Brady J. Frey (http://www.dotfive.com)
Just to confirm, anyone that knows can answer this: This data is static? It is not drawn from a database? yes I know the navigation is dynamic and such but the actual CONTENT is static? I just wanted to get a "yes" confirmation so I can grasp the magnitude of work in such a venture (though not of such a risky industry as medical information).
eddie wilson (http://www.emllabs.com)
Site uses MT so the data is static, but I guess it's also dynamic since it's in the database :-)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Brady J. Frey: To quote myself I wrote "I would never hire somebody who is in it for the money only". What I meant was that if I was to hire a business shark who claims to be a designer, I would most likely end up with a fast, rough, sketchy, half-finnished job. Why? Because good design takes time and time is money. And Im talking about first-time contracts here.
I never mentioned that I dont care about money. Money is good and it makes my business work. But I didnt start designing things to make money - those who did found out pretty soon that the customers didnt trust them to be good designers. Thats all Im saying.
Think about it - if you where to hire a carpenter to build a sauna or whatever, would you go for the guy that says "Ive doing this since I was a kid, I do quality work for a competitive price" or the guy who says "Im a businessman and saw some money-making potential in the carpenter market".
Everyone has their own approach to their business. If you found a recipe that works, then good for you. Nothing more "right" than the other, Im just arguing from my own point of view. To wrap it up with the topic, I wouldnt hire Scrivs to buy medicine for my grandma.
David
http://webdrugdatabase.com/prescription_drugs/starlix.php
You've got some interesting font tag problems here! It goes into Greek halfway down!
Nick Stenning (http://nickstenning.me.uk/)
Good point David, I think I interpreted it wrong -- I believe you are right in that aspect, if it was only for the money, I think we'd all agree their quality would suffer.
...Scrivs can buy medecine for my Grandma, just double check that that med section is up to date, ok:)?
Brady J. Frey (http://www.dotfive.com)
To be completely honest. on the overall, the old site worked better.
it was 500x times faster. and i never lost my position on the long drug list. so, it was easier to navigate.
frames on the old site was nicely used (maybe they could just whipe the top one.
But they sure could work on those fonts and colors
gabriel
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
I feel for you. I do. I've been there so many times...Frontpage,etc.
Legacy content and markup were the bane of my existance for years, and still are to (thankfully) a much lesser extent. The thing is, for every project like this out there, there are 1,000 that still need to be done.
Guess this stuff will keep Web standards developers in buisiness for awhile. I just can't believe you did it for free...shoulda contacted the FDA and did it for them. Maybe you tried that...anyway hope you see some ROI on it.
I've got two questions -- How are you going to keep it up to date? Do you worry about legal issues at all since you aren't with the FDA?
I know we deal with this kind of info at the hospital and it's very, very dicey.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)