Comments on: A website unfit for a queen

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:49:08 +0000

Hi Peter — here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/4632685/Queens-website-is-behind-the-times.html

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:38:17 +0000

Oops! I don’t suppose you have a link to that article do you, Heather?

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:28:16 +0000

Just spotted this in the Telegraph:

Despite being set up with the help of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, dubbed the father of the World Wide Web, each royal engagement published on the British Monarchy Website is listed on the wrong day, 24 hours behind.

The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall could face a lonely reception in York this Thursday where they are due to launch a new steam locomotive, since avid royal watchers are currently informed by the site that they will still be in London.

By: Heather

Heather — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:20:29 +0000

That site actually reminds me of what sites were like when content management systems first became popular — very boxy and impersonal.

Run a quick TAW check on their accessibility page!

Browsercam is your friend.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:27:49 +0000

@Ade: Trying to find the name of the responsible party so I can see their other work; no-one's taken credit as far as I can see, however. @Neal G: Whitehouse.gov & Number10.gov.uk are miles ahead on this. Perhaps an allegory for democracy vs monarchy ;)

By: DavidMWW

DavidMWW — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:03:26 +0000

Maybe she got one of her grandchildren to do it on the cheap?

By: Neal G

Neal G — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:19:05 +0000

Looks like a hasLayout bug to me. Nothing a good ol’ overflow: auto; can’t fix on the container. Either way I must admit Whitehouse.gov is winning the battle of the sites.

By: Ade

Ade — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:06:51 +0000

That is deeply, deeply bad. Any idea who’s behind it?

By: Cole Henley

Cole Henley — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:29:45 +0000

I know that legacy systems can sometimes be restrictive and lead to invalid HTML

Now, it’s not as if the client was short of a bob or two ;)