dn.codegear.com
Magnus Flysjö
Rick Beerendonk
Well done!
I don't like the tabs "flying in the air". Don't understand why the globe is
the only picture with dropshadow. Doesn't look like a progessional design.
Then again, the Borland logo on bdn.borland.com is also poorly resized.
Maybe they don't have the proper GraphicsGear.
Rick
Magnus Flysjö
CodeCentral is also up and running now
http://cc.codegear.com
"Rick Beerendonk" <rick_nospam@_remove_beerendonk.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:45829d56$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Rick Beerendonk
> moment.
I like the content, I don't like the design.
Rick
insert name
>> http://dn.codegear.com/
>
> Well done!
>
> I don't like the tabs "flying in the air". Don't understand why the globe is
> the only picture with dropshadow. Doesn't look like a progessional design.
Be kind. Poor overworked John Kaster probably did it during a spare moment.
Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)
from marketing as part of overall strategy
Luke
> >> http://dn.codegear.com/
Why do I see "Borland" in so many places? Copyright note: Borland. Site
icon in the address bar: Borland's "B" And so on...
L.
Liz
> Why do I see "Borland" in so many places? Copyright note: Borland.
> Site icon in the address bar: Borland's "B" And so on...
As its not announced yet, perhaps we should hold off ripping it to
shreds till they reckon they've finished?
--
Liz the Brit
Delphi things I have released: http://www.xcalibur.co.uk/DelphiThings
"Leonardo M. Ramé"
and reputation of Borland simply can't come with a crappy design like this.
Developers must be seduced not only by the tools produced by a vendor,
but also its web site and printed material. Just take a look at these
smaller companies sites:
http://www.37signals.com/
http://www.activestate.com/
http://www.mono-project.com/
I'm sure there are a lot of great graphic designers around the world
that will be very happy to take the position of Borland's actual
designers that (i think) cost simply too much.
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com
insert name escribió:
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]
Crap design.
Crap use of space but design it okay.
> http://www.mono-project.com/
Quite similar to the first, only nicer. I like the bit at the top and the
icons, the general content presentation I think it quite poor though.
--
Pete
Blessed are the geek, for they shall public class GeekEarth : Earth {}
====
Audio compression components, DIB graphics controls, ECO extensions,
FastStrings
http://www.droopyeyes.com
====
Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)
very similar to the second one but bigger name :o)
so many companies, so many designs... why to copy?
plus you are commenting on something which is not yet finished.
"Leonardo M. Ramé"
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com
Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft) escribió:
Brad White
news:4582...@newsgroups.borland.com...
So, a quick recap:
Non-Tech: Hurry, it's been a week already and no website up.
What have you guys been doing? We need to have
this up yesterday so we can catch the momentum
of the spin off announcement.
JK: There's a lot to do, to make sure everything is right.
NT: Hurry. It's better to have something up, than this mostly
blank page. Surely you can put something better than this up
in a day or two.
JK: Um, there's a lot to do, to make sure everything is right.
NT: Ooh. Hurry, hurry. I can't stand it. The spin off is complete
and there's no web site yet. Aaaargh.
JK: The spin off is "announced." We'll have the site up before
the spin off is completed.
NT: Surely you can put something up! It's just a temporary site.
It doesn't have to be perfect.
JK: Um, that's up now. http://www.codegear.com/
NT: It's not enough!
Hey, dn.codegear.com is up!
NT: Oh, it looks like they rushed into it. Guys, what's the hurry?
Take the time to do it right.
To be continued.....
Pete Fraser
"Brad White" <bwhite at inebraska.com> wrote in message
news:4582bf62$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Larry Maturo
stuff, unlike the Borland website. Great Christmas present. I've seen the
comments on people not liking the design, but I got to ask, do you like the
Borland site better, because I sure don't. This is definitely a step in the
right direction. Kudos to whoever did it.
-- Larry Maturo
"Magnus Flysjö" <magnus@nospam> wrote in message
news:4582...@newsgroups.borland.com...
John Jacobson
news:1166191779.8...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Why do I see "Borland" in so many places? Copyright note: Borland. Site
> icon in the address bar: Borland's "B" And so on...
Because CodeGear is a Borland company, obviously. Come on people, haven't
any of you ever worked for a subsidiary before?
Florent Ouchet
& video tab)...
- Florent
John Jacobson
""Leonardo M. Ramé"" <marti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4582b43d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>I don't like the design, too amateurish for me. A company with the size and
>reputation of Borland simply can't come with a crappy design like this.
I happen to like the design quite a bit.
>
> Developers must be seduced not only by the tools produced by a vendor, but
> also its web site and printed material. Just take a look at these smaller
> companies sites:
>
> http://www.37signals.com/
Not my cup of tea, but I suppose some people somewhere like the color
scheme.
Eh. So-so. Nothing really great, though nothing bad either.
> http://www.mono-project.com/
Yuck. That's one of the most unattractive supposedly professional sites I've
ever seen.
>
> I'm sure there are a lot of great graphic designers around the world that
> will be very happy to take the position of Borland's actual designers that
> (i think) cost simply too much.
Hopefully they won't take your advice, given the web sites you used as
examples.
John Jacobson
"Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)" <pooh996.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4582b98e$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> why not www.ibm.com ?
Wow, that is a superb design. Now THAT is a web presence.
John Jacobson
"Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]" <pete@NO_droopyeyes_SPAM.com> wrote in
message news:4582b69a$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> See, I knew people would only complain once it arrived anyway :-)
What, negativity in non-tech? Who'd a thunk it?
Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)
John Kaster (CodeGear)
> Developer Network for CodeGear is taking shape.
Correct .. "taking shape" is the operative term. There's still lots of
changes that may (or may not) happen before we officially launch.
At some point, we needed to make the domain live to test things. So we
did ;)
--
John Kaster http://blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: http://qc.borland.com
Get source: http://cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: http://ec.borland.com
John Kaster (CodeGear)
> They'll have to find a new name for BDNtv (image displayed on the
> image & video tab)...
Yes, we will
Bob
> So, a quick recap:
LMAO! I think they need to figure out how to get cheese on their site
to go with all the whine around here.
--
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> NT: Oh, it looks like they rushed into it. Guys, what's the hurry?
> Take the time to do it right.
LOL --
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
Rick Carter
>At some point, we needed to make the domain live to test things. So we
>did ;)
As if you were going to do it anyway! John, you know in non-tech we
prefer to believe that nothing would happen if we didn't do enough
shouting, ranting, and raving about it! <g>
Rick Carter
cart...@despammed.com
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
Nathaniel L. Walker
>> http://www.37signals.com/
>
> Crap design.
>
>
>> http://www.activestate.com/
>
> Crap use of space but design it okay.
>
>
>> http://www.mono-project.com/
>
> Quite similar to the first, only nicer. I like the bit at the top and the
> icons, the general content presentation I think it quite poor though.
>
And that?
- Nate.
John Jacobson
> being sarcastic, aren't we?
[No, I actually was quite impressed.]
I can see that my overuse of sarcasm is now making me look like I am always
sarcastic. I don't know why. I was never sarcastic before! <g>
John Kaster (CodeGear)
> As if you were going to do it anyway! John, you know in non-tech we
> prefer to believe that nothing would happen if we didn't do enough
> shouting, ranting, and raving about it! <g>
LOL
Brad White
news:4583...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> "Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)" <pooh996.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4582f58f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> being sarcastic, aren't we?
>
There you go again. 8:-)
--
Brad.
Serge Dosyukov (Dragon Soft)
John E. Wilfong
> At some point, we needed to make the domain live to test things. So we
> did ;)
Darn kids! Went and peeked at the presents early!
--
John
John Jacobson
> you did in the past so often that it just became your nature ;o)
I know, I know!
John Jacobson
Well, at least I'm not addicted to sarcasm! <g>
Q Correll
| Correct .. "taking shape" is the operative term. There's still lots of
| changes that may (or may not) happen before we officially launch.
Any chance of getting rid of the "from BORLAND" under CODEGEAR?
--
Q
12/15/2006 15:34:49
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> John,
>
> | Correct .. "taking shape" is the operative term. There's still lots of
> | changes that may (or may not) happen before we officially launch.
>
> Any chance of getting rid of the "from BORLAND" under CODEGEAR?
Eventually. Not now.
--
Anders Ohlsson - http://blogs.borland.com/ao/
CodeGear Developer Relations
"A golf course that does not have a pub after the 18th hole
is like an acupuncturist who does not offer needle removal."
John Jacobson
"Q Correll" <qcor...@pacNObell.net> wrote in message
news:458330f8$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> John,
>
> | Correct .. "taking shape" is the operative term. There's still lots of
> | changes that may (or may not) happen before we officially launch.
>
> Any chance of getting rid of the "from BORLAND" under CODEGEAR?
Geez. Am I the only one here that understands what a subsidiary is?
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Any chance of getting rid of the "from BORLAND" under CODEGEAR?
It's going to shrink over time.
Q Correll
| Eventually. Not now.
Figures. <g> Oh, well,... it seems to be only a small string. ;-)
--
Q
12/15/2006 18:29:50
Q Correll
| It's going to shrink over time.
<chuckle>
--
Q < preferer of clean breaks ;->
12/15/2006 18:31:54
Q Correll
| Geez. Am I the only one here that understands what a subsidiary is?
Nope. I fully understand. However, it is NOT a legal requirement nor
even necessary to advertise the relationship in the logo. <shrug>
--
Q
12/15/2006 18:30:46
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> <chuckle>
;-)
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
I.P. Nichols
>Q Correll wrote:
>
>> Any chance of getting rid of the "from BORLAND" under CODEGEAR?
>
> It's going to shrink over time.
Like the effects of Viagra?
I.P. Nichols
> John,
>
> | Geez. Am I the only one here that understands what a subsidiary is?
>
> Nope. I fully understand. However, it is NOT a legal requirement nor
> even necessary to advertise the relationship in the logo. <shrug>
A common reason to carve-out and form a subsidiary is to isolate or build a
firewall around certain assets and this often includes masking the ownership
of the sub.
Now days it's hard to tell if Capt John is in his preeminent economist or
sarcastic gadfly mode, in this case I'll be generous and assume the latter.
;-)
John Jacobson
> Nope. I fully understand. However, it is NOT a legal requirement nor
> even necessary to advertise the relationship in the logo. <shrug>
Might not be necessary, but it sure seems to be common practice.
insert name
>>> Be kind. Poor overworked John Kaster probably did it during a spare
>>> moment.
> it is not just up to John, colors, visual team and design might be coming
> from marketing as part of overall strategy
I find it hard to believe that any professional designer had input into
that web site. Surely it must have been done in their spare time by a
member of Borland.
insert name
> http://www.droopyeyes.com/
>
> And that?
Ouch !
Those colours are really garish!
That web site screams, "I am a one-man-band and do the web design,
developing, answering phones and taking out the garbage myself !"
Lars Fosdal q
insert name <nospam@nospam> wrote:
You didn't read the "About", did you ...
And - Peter Morris is one man ...
The colors give good contrast and readability, although I think there
are a little too many of them, but garish? Nahh - not that bad.
insert name
> You didn't read the "About", did you ...
No.
The visual noise made me switch away from that web site in a couple of
seconds.
> And - Peter Morris is one man ...
I know, but the idea is to give the impression of being a well
established, solid company with years of experience and an impressive
client portfolio.
For instance have a look at the website of the people that Borland have
hired. They only have six or seven employees, but the web site oozes
quality and reliablity.
Lars Fosdal q
>Lars Fosdal wrote:
>
>> You didn't read the "About", did you ...
>
>No.
>The visual noise made me switch away from that web site in a couple of
>seconds.
I would hardly call that noise. Compared to millions of MySpace pages
- droopyeyes.com is the epitaph of serenity and visual calm.
Admit it - you just didnt like the colors.
>> And - Peter Morris is one man ...
>
>I know, but the idea is to give the impression of being a well
>established, solid company with years of experience and an impressive
>client portfolio.
... that give away stuff for free ...
Q Correll
| Might not be necessary, but it sure seems to be common practice.
Yep, it is.
--
Q
12/16/2006 10:26:32
Q Correll
| Now days it's hard to tell if Capt John is in his preeminent
| economist or sarcastic gadfly mode, in this case I'll be generous and
| assume the latter. ;-)
<chuckle> I think he's just knee-jerk firing at anything that moves.
;-)
--
Q
12/16/2006 10:25:22
Nathaniel L. Walker
The point was: why say the Mono project (that gives away stuff for
free?????) has an ugly web site when your own website if even more horrific.
Same for ActiveState (they give away free stuff too).
Judge and be judged.
- Nate.
I.P. Nichols
>
> | Now days it's hard to tell if Capt John is in his preeminent
> | economist or sarcastic gadfly mode, in this case I'll be generous and
> | assume the latter. ;-)
>
> <chuckle> I think he's just knee-jerk firing at anything that moves. ;-)
OMG - you think he's Vice President Cheney?
Lars Fosdal q
argue opinions based personal taste. What is important is whether it
fills it's functional purpose, not if it satisfies your personal
taste.
Personally, I think the new CodeGear site fills its function - but I
would have chosen a completely different menustructure and layout.
The menu and logo behaviour is inconsistant between the home page and
the dev.net. The dev.net menu choice on the main page have two sub
items - which each point to much larger submenus, and should have been
split into two top level menus. Downloads / Support should be merged
into "Support and Resources". ... the list goes on - it would take a
complete redesign of the structure to satisfy me. It's current form
seem to reflect a "how do we make sure we get all we had on the old
site in there" kind of approach, instead of rethinking the structure.
The logo and top area has way too much dead space.
That is my opinion reflecting my personal taste - and you don't need
to agree.
Lars F.
Nathaniel L. Walker
> argue opinions based personal taste. What is important is whether it
> fills it's functional purpose, not if it satisfies your personal
> taste.
Of course, a point that most people don't get (where does this NG get
about 60% of its traffic?). Like I said in another thread, I will simply
not goto CGDN, the same I did with BDN. The website it very unintuitive;
almost to the point of primitive, poorly structured and hard to navigate,
IMO.
http://www.freestandards.org/en/Developers
That's the Free Standards Group Linux Standard Base new "Developer
Network" site. It's nicely structure, with nonrepulsive colors (almost neon
green on the CodeGear site, hard on the eyes...), and is very nicely
formatted. The CodeGear site looks like like an OpenOffice HTML
export, the fonts choices are horrible, and the semi-transparent menus
do not go well with the small text in them (with the text that shows through
in the background). I look at a computer monitor all day, text and colors
like that give me migraine headaches, I'm tired sitting at my computer with
a stick of HeadOn handy to mitigate the effects of websites like that.
They are still using the ugly tabs that Borland Developer Network used.
Table spacing is still horrible. CodeCentral still is as hard to navigate
as
always (this is my opinion), a link of "1" is not intuitive, those groups
should have been implemented in the menu system with a site map
breadcrump control on the top allowing you to easily navigate backwards.
They have an entire suite of application and web development tools,
and accompanying tools/frameworks (i.e. IntraWeb); they should be
able to come up with something better than that.
http://www.morfik.com is smaller than CodeGear and they manage an
awesome job with their own tools. I understand John Kaster does alot
of work on these sites, and totally appreciate it (after all, it wouldn't
exist AT ALL if he didn't do it). CodeGear should at least hire some
Web Developers to take over this, and let him do what he does best
(work on Delphi/BDS/etc).
Amatuer web developers can do better than this using Microsoft
FrontPage/Macromedia Dreamweaver, using ASP.NET makes this
very easy. I assume IntraWeb would make it equally easy. I'm not
sure what they use, but it just isn't that attractive. One of the things
that got me excited about the "new website" idea was that they would
have improved the Developer Network/CodeCentral modules to make
them better than what was at [bdn/cc].borland.com.
> Personally, I think the new CodeGear site fills its function - but I
> would have chosen a completely different menustructure and layout.
Agree.
> It's current form seem to reflect a "how do we make sure we get
> all we had on the old site in there" kind of approach, instead of
> rethinking the structure.
That's exactly the "problem" I have with it. It looks like the same web
applications on a much worse template.
> The logo and top area has way too much dead space.
Well they merged alot of "subtitles" with the logo, they should have
moved that out into that dead space.
> That is my opinion reflecting my personal taste - and you don't need
> to agree.
The thing about your post that I commented on was:
> ... that give away stuff for free ...
Because the Mono Project doesn't sell any software; and all those
websites had software on them, for free. I also only expressed my
opinion on the website in question, and thought it was even more
horrible than it's authors critiqued sites. Only my opinion, however.
- Nate.
insert name
> Of course, a point that most people don't get (where does this NG get
> about 60% of its traffic?). Like I said in another thread, I will simply
> not goto CGDN, the same I did with BDN. The website it very unintuitive;
> almost to the point of primitive, poorly structured and hard to navigate,
> IMO.(almost neongreen on the CodeGear site, hard on the eyes...), the >
fonts choices are horrible, and the semi-transparent menus
> do not go well
You are being too harsh. It was made by a busy employee who had many
other tasks and had to be done to budget and in a short space of time.
> They have an entire suite of application and web development tools,
> and accompanying tools/frameworks (i.e. IntraWeb); they should be
> able to come up with something better than that.
They probably did not have time to use their web tools.
> http://www.freestandards.org/en/Developers
> That's the Free Standards Group Linux Standard Base new "Developer
> Network" site. It's nicely structure, with nonrepulsive colors and is very nicely
> formatted.
It is not fair to compare CodeGear with a free volunteer run website.
Sites like that dont have to worry about cost since it is all done free
by volunteers. And many of the volunteers have a lot of time and are
often fairly talented.
insert name
> I would hardly call that noise. Compared to millions of MySpace pages
> - droopyeyes.com is the epitaph of serenity and visual calm.
>
> Admit it - you just didnt like the colors.
They are bad. :-)
Nathaniel L. Walker
> You are being too harsh. It was made by a busy employee who had many other
> tasks and had to be done to budget and in a short space of time.
I'm not being too harsh, no. If they want a good website then they need to
allow JK to work on Delphi/BDS and hire a web developer to develop a
good website for them. That what businesses do, they focus on what their
strengths are and outsource things like these (at least for initial
development,
and then maintain it themselves since it is less monumental).
Then have multiple executive departments, and teams for their separate
development tools. Why can't they hire some people to develop usable
and attractive web applications for them?
"You are being too harsh." is a tired, over-stated, worn-out rhetorical
expression these days.
> They probably did not have time to use their web tools.
That is too bad. Maybe they should "make some time"?
> It is not fair to compare CodeGear with a free volunteer run website.
>
> Sites like that dont have to worry about cost since it is all done free by
> volunteers. And many of the volunteers have a lot of time and are often
> fairly talented.
They also don't generate revenue from this website. I'm sure they recieve
runding from other organizations, however. But that's besides the point.
I would think that a company like CodeGear would think of their web
presence as an integral part of their business. First impressions are
lasting
ones (and it's been the first impressions that have always killed them in
the
past, e.g. like quality of products on release [i.e. trial versions]).
It doesn't seem fair to compare anything CodeGear does with anything
anyone else does these days. Can't compare them to MS because MS
is bigger, has more money for marketing, et cetera and a bit more...
Can't compare to Eclipse/NetBeans because they are OSS and many
contributors that submit code for free. Can't compare to IBM because
they have different core strategies and markets (Dev Tools vs Services,
etc.).
What can you compare them to? Family Dollar General?
Maybe it's their size, budgeting, marketing funds, everbearing ties to
Borland...
What is it this time?
FSF provides free information to developers, given/donated/provided by
volunteers, CodeGear provides Professional & Enterprise level development
tools and support. They should be able to afford to hire web developers to
develop/work on this website.
If JK is doing most/all of the work on this web site, then that is another
problem in-and-of itself. I admire his determination and resilience in that
he
is going out of his way to provide something that it seems the company
itself
doesn't deem worthy of funding, etc. Having a profesionally designed web
presence will not hurt Delphi, only help it, even if they have to take a bit
of
its money to hire some web developers to create/maintain that web presence.
That's part of the package of running "independent" of Borland Software
Corporation.
Of course, they prolly need more time than they've had to freshen it up.
I reckon 2008 will be a nice time to revisit it, cause I'm confused. Maybe
they've just jumped on a new "Rave" (no pun intended) and by that time
most web sites will be using eye-gouging colors and font types and repulsive
widget choices. I don't see that happening, but I'm willing to give them
the
benefit of a doubt.
I thought it would be hard to go lower than Borland's website (corporately
speaking), but they definitely make it look like the best thing since the
IBM
PC XT.
Ciao.
- Nate.
insert name
> I'm not being too harsh, no. If they want a good website then they need to
> allow JK to work on Delphi/BDS and hire a web developer to develop a
> and attractive web applications for them?
Well, they are losing millions each year and have to cut costs
somewhere. Since web sites dont earn them money, it makes sense to use
an already existing employee to do the web site design. When they have
had to sack 100 employees in their ALM section, it doesnt make a lot of
sense to hire web design experts for a small and soon to be
sold-off/shut-down subsidary.
Plus I get the impression that John likes doing the web sites. Perhaps
it is a sort of hobby for him. (He does need to take some design lessons
though..)
> I thought it would be hard to go lower than Borland's website (corporately
> speaking), but they definitely make it look like the best thing since the
> IBM PC XT.
It is pretty bad, but not THAT bad !I would compare it with the Amiga, a
machine that tried valiantly but was eventually beaten.
However, I agree with the basic point. The web site is bad and gives a
very poor impression of CodeGear's viability.
Bill Mullen
>Nathaniel L. Walker wrote:
>
>> Of course, a point that most people don't get (where does this NG get
>> about 60% of its traffic?). Like I said in another thread, I will simply
>> not goto CGDN, the same I did with BDN. The website it very unintuitive;
>> almost to the point of primitive, poorly structured and hard to navigate,
>> IMO.(almost neongreen on the CodeGear site, hard on the eyes...), the >
>fonts choices are horrible, and the semi-transparent menus
> > do not go well
>
>You are being too harsh. It was made by a busy employee who had many
>other tasks and had to be done to budget and in a short space of time.
>
And you know this, how?
>> They have an entire suite of application and web development tools,
>> and accompanying tools/frameworks (i.e. IntraWeb); they should be
>> able to come up with something better than that.
>
>They probably did not have time to use their web tools.
>
Again, is this an unbased assumption?
>> http://www.freestandards.org/en/Developers
>> That's the Free Standards Group Linux Standard Base new "Developer
>> Network" site. It's nicely structure, with nonrepulsive colors and is very nicely
>> formatted.
>
>It is not fair to compare CodeGear with a free volunteer run website.
>
>Sites like that dont have to worry about cost since it is all done free
>by volunteers. And many of the volunteers have a lot of time and are
>often fairly talented.
I would think that a company with funding behind it would/should be
able to create a better site and I don't know that it isn't fair to
compare CodeGears site with this one. If a few volunteers can
generate something that looks good and works well, then paid employees
certainly should be able to do so.
My feelings on the site is that is better than Borland's yet there is
room for improvement (just like most other web sites and software
packages). If the web site development is taking away from wrapping
up Delphi 2007, then I would hope they would hire someone to focus on
the website. If they are using an outside source, hopefully they are
not paying too much as there are several minor issues that have
already been pointed out.
Bill Mullen
>Well, they are losing millions each year and have to cut costs
>somewhere. Since web sites dont earn them money, it makes sense to use
>an already existing employee to do the web site design.
What? A great web presence will cultivate thousands sales and will do
wanders for CodeGear. A crappy web site will only drive away business
as new visitors will quickly move on.
>When they have
>had to sack 100 employees in their ALM section, it doesnt make a lot of
>sense to hire web design experts for a small and soon to be
>sold-off/shut-down subsidary.
>
CodeGear didn't lay off 100 employees - Borland did.
>Plus I get the impression that John likes doing the web sites. Perhaps
>it is a sort of hobby for him. (He does need to take some design lessons
>though..)
>
And if he is hit by a bus tomorrow morning, is there another employee
that will pick up the ball and run with it or will it just sit idle?
If CodeGear doesn't already have dedicated web designers or if they
are not outsourcing the development, then good grief I would hope they
would seriously consider it.
insert name
>> When they have
>> had to sack 100 employees in their ALM section, it doesnt make a lot of
>> sense to hire web design experts for a small and soon to be
>> sold-off/shut-down subsidary.
>>
>
> CodeGear didn't lay off 100 employees - Borland did.
But Borland have to pay for the website.
The finances are still not seperated.
So there is not much money floating around.
It was therefore entirely reasonable to get John Kaster to do the web site.
Cheaper than hiring web professionals.
>> Plus I get the impression that John likes doing the web sites. Perhaps
>> it is a sort of hobby for him. (He does need to take some design lessons
>> though..)
> And if he is hit by a bus tomorrow morning, is there another employee
> that will pick up the ball and run with it or will it just sit idle?
> If CodeGear doesn't already have dedicated web designers or if they
> are not outsourcing the development, then good grief I would hope they
> would seriously consider it.
Cost.
Can they afford it ?
Nathaniel L. Walker
> The finances are still not seperated.
> So there is not much money floating around.
> It was therefore entirely reasonable to get John Kaster to do the web
> site.
>
> Cheaper than hiring web professionals.
Huh? The same way Borland could derive costs out of DTG's
budget, they can attribute the costs to CodeGear. CodeGear
is hiring personnel, when Borland would not have added to
DTG. You have no idea what you're talking about IRT that,
and it's no excuse.
> Cost.
> Can they afford it ?
If they can't afford that then they have more problems than the
quality of their website, and would be better off staying a component
of Borland, rather than a seperate subsidiary.
- Nate.