Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrcoolbp on Saturday April 18 2015, @01:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the executive-material? dept.

Paul Schreiber blogs about the tech behind the websites of presidential candidates. "So, you want to run a country. Can you hire someone who can run a website? ...Here's how the (declared) candidates' sites fare." There's a table comparing 4 candidates' sites based on HTTPS, URL permutations, IPv6, SSL rating, and other related qualities. Schreiber mentions that he will "update this as more candidates declare or sites change."

From the blog comments

HillaryClinton.com was using IIS (and no https) until Sunday morning, when they switched over.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:51AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Saturday April 18 2015, @08:51AM (#172338) Homepage
    Wouldn't content, usability, accessibility, standards compliance, responsiveness, and web-bug-iness also be useful guidelines for comparing websites.

    On standards, complance, validator.w3.org says:

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ 6 Errors, 4 warning(s)
    https://www.tedcruz.org/ 13 Errors, 12 warning(s)
    http://randpaul.com/ 19 Errors, 5 warning(s)
    https://marcorubio.com/ 44 Errors, 16 warning(s)

    Hooray for the new more-semantically meaningful HTML5, which lets webpage designers prove that they're *still* clue-resistant retards. Insert Erik Naggum quote to taste.

    And here's a vague usability/accessibility measurement, based on my (w3m+images) and my g/f's (lynx) entirely subjective views:

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ decent in w3m, decent in lynx. 2nd link in page is for spanish and that works with no cookies.
    https://www.tedcruz.org/ pretty shitty in w3m, 403 Forbidden in lynx. No link for spanish.
    http://randpaul.com/ pretty decent in w3m, pretty decent in lynx. No link for spanish.
    https://marcorubio.com/ pretty poor in w3m, pretty poor in lynx. No link for spanish.

    Maybe someone would like to measure (cache-cleared) page load times for each of the front pages. With and without JS, preferably.

    Which reminds me - do any of the pages load *any* content (particularly CSS or JS) from third-party sites? If so, all the https vs. http debate is futile, content on that page is not guaranteed to be what the parent page thought it was putting on the page. And therefore https was pretty futile.
    --
    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @12:19PM (#172371)

    The level of spanish-unfriendliness is probably ideological, not technical. The republican base - the most extreme ones who are the only ones who vote in primaries - simply does not like teh brownies. I fully expect that each republican candidate has done focus groups and found that putting a spanish version up will piss off more of their base than it will draw in spanish-speaking voters.