MartinG wrote:
Also of note, hiring a pro and software customization is why we are where we are. Years ago when we moved to this new system there were a lot of competing asks. It involved extensive customization through a professional IT company. It's these customizations that have lead us to a site that doesn't easily adapt to change. Off the shelf tools that have mass acceptance would be a good thing.
I wasn't suggesting customizations - rather, I would recommend against them, for exactly the reasons you mentioned, chief among them being that customization makes subsequent change very difficult. It's still something I argue should be done with professional help though, even in the absence of a bespoke implementation.
I'm happy to lend what help and advice I can, but like I said, I'm not a web designer. My expertise lies in systems engineering. Succinctly, I make it work good, and someone else makes it look good.
Ted wrote:
No thanks.
With the amount of advertising on this site, some of which I found offensive, surely that funding over time should cover your upgrades.
Sorry but the advertising on this site is
well within reason. I assume it pays the bills, but doesn't pay for major changes. The advertising budget covers operational costs, but not capital costs, if I'm right. As for offensive advertising: I've worked for online advertising companies. It's a far more insidious problem than you think it is, and there are no easy solutions.
elGuapo wrote:
I would pay money to leave the site the way it is. User interfaces change often, but they seldom improve. Bah humbug.
I would pay money to have image links work properly here. And we can't leave it the way it is forever, or it
will break eventually, horribly and irreversibly.