AUK Finances and Website Project was: AUK Chairman Statement

[stefan]

"The quick and dirty tip is to use “farther” for physical distance and “further” for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. It's easy to remember because “farther” has the word “far” in it, and “far” obviously relates to physical distance."

So maybe it is correct after all the hand wringing.

BB

In the USA. Not standard UK usage.

[frankly frankie]

Anyone else not able to log into the old site? Doesn't recognise my creds but I definitely haven't changed them. Apologies if posted in wrong thread but I thought it may have something to do with the new site.

As of now, passwords on the old site are case-sensitive.  If you're not sure what password you set up, you can still get that using the forgotten password facility under 'Members', although that too will soon change to a 'regenerate new password' facility.

Failing that you may have found an obscure corner of the old site where recent login upgrades haven't reached, in which case you'll need to explain precisely what is the problem you're encountering.

[Ajax Bay]

On the event page, for an event that I've entered, "enter online" and "enter by post" are greyed out.  That makes sense.  But there's a "delete my event" button.  If you've entered I don't think this should be enabled, as audax entries are (99% of the time) non refundable.  I don't think this should be enabled for entered rides, or at least if it is it should have a different name.

It's also enabled for ones that I have as "maybe".  In this case it's fair enough but I think it should have a different name, like "remove from Maybe list" (something better than that).

Removal of entered rides from your calendar is on aukweb too, it's a good question though why would you want to?

Because once a subscribed member downloads an entry form (or maybe goes to the 'pay by paypal' screen), the system adds that event to the 'The rides you've entered' list. But if one doesn't actually make that entry (ie by post or electronically), it's good that the button allows one to "Delete My Event" in the same way as the red cross allows one to 'Remove item from your calendar' on the current site. Otherwise the entry (in the list) will sit there (and be 'wrong'). As that (current site) page says (Note 2):
"Enter a ride from the web site. When you get to the point you open the prefilled entry form, or click to go to online payment an entry is added to your calendar. You still have to complete the entry process. Please don't think of the entries in the your calendar as being proof of entry."
I think this note should be added to the 'new' site.

[JonJo]

Anyone else not able to log into the old site? Doesn't recognise my creds but I definitely haven't changed them. Apologies if posted in wrong thread but I thought it may have something to do with the new site.

As of now, passwords on the old site are case-sensitive.  If you're not sure what password you set up, you can still get that using the forgotten password facility under 'Members', although that too will soon change to a 'regenerate new password' facility.

Failing that you may have found an obscure corner of the old site where recent login upgrades haven't reached, in which case you'll need to explain precisely what is the problem you're encountering.

I used the forgotten password link to retrieve my old password. It has had two characters trimmed from the end. I don't remember doing that so is this a 'feature' that's been added as part of the migration to the new site?

[frankly frankie]

 Not to my knowledge.

[Ivan]

I notice the new site doesn't obfuscate organiser emails, they're available cleartext in the page source. Not sure how effective the old site's javascript code was at halting spambot email harvesters, but it's a bit disappointing that we don't even have that now.

[Ian H]

I notice the new site doesn't obfuscate organiser emails, they're available cleartext in the page source. Not sure how effective the old site's javascript code was at halting spambot email harvesters, but it's a bit disappointing that we don't even have that now.

As far as I'm aware email security is built into reputable CMS frameworks.

[Manotea]

Obfuscated email addresses are up there with beards, pipes, and cardigans with elbow patches when it comes to presenting a fuddy daddy image (as is, so we're told, the very concept of 'email').

Having said that, a 'contact' button on the event listings putting up a contact form with a shopping list of reasons for the contact would be useful in helping orgs with larger events and kill off any reasons for orgs not to provide an email address, which has been a stumbling block for some time.

Also, the contact us link really should be at the top of the page somewhere, not buried in the footer.  Took me ages to spot it browsing by phone.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'd have thought that was something organisers agreed to. They can set up a separate audax email and they don't have to accept postal entries if they don't want to, or they could use a PO box if concerned.

[Manotea]

If you make a search for, say, 'awards', you get a response that looks like:



Pop Quiz: What do you click on?

Answer: The page name, shown in bold black text (which is actually a link), not the URL/link shown in blue, which isnt.

Intuitive, it isnt.

When activated (hover over or selected) the heading turns to the active link colour (dark blue) but its very subtle/easy to miss.

Trying this first by phone I was left jabbing the link and wondering why nothing was happening...

Google handles this on a PC by presenting the page name in a high contrast link colour which is underlined on mouse hover-over, and on a phone the heading and link are effectively a block giving a big target for a pudgy finger. This is UX101.

We're going to pay £,600 a day to fix things like this?

[Jaded]

Conspiracy theory: Would an experienced contractor ensure that things like this were set so they had to be fixed?

[grams]

Yes and no. I don't think they've *actively* done a bad job, but they're clearly doing the bare minimum they can get away with and just not caring.

The problem is there's no pressure for them to do a good job, because AUK have made clear they'll be awarded phases 2...N regardless of the quality of what they deliver, at whatever price they ask. I've certainly witnessed project managers become *much* more interested in what's being delivered when lucrative future work is dependent on it.

(what is AUK's ability to walk away? Do they own the source code?)

[Chris S]

(what is AUK's ability to walk away? Do they own the source code?)

The question of who owns the code came up at he reunion presentation, and was expertly ignored.

[quixoticgeek]

(what is AUK's ability to walk away? Do they own the source code?)

The question of who owns the code came up at he reunion presentation, and was expertly ignored.

How would one go about finding out an official answer to this question?

J

[andyoxon]

Searching cyclinguk for "awards" gives... https://www.cyclinguk.org/search/site/awards

On audax.uk, strange to see the url listed at all really, normally the url appears when one hovers over the search result heading...

[grams]

How would one go about finding out an official answer to this question?

You can have a dig through the reports here, although there's a lot of documents to go through and a lot of them are pretty vague on important details:
http://www.aukweb.net/official/minutes/

You could also try emailing it@audax.uk .

[whosatthewheel]

I guess this put AUK woes in perspective

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46561779

[Bianchi Boy]

The out source company are not called "Crapita" for no reason.

I guess this put AUK woes in perspective

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46561779

Sent from my H8216 using Tapatalk

[jsabine]

(what is AUK's ability to walk away? Do they own the source code?)

The question of who owns the code came up at he reunion presentation, and was expertly ignored.

How would one go about finding out an official answer to this question?

Fairly sure that when he was asked at the Reunion, Richard Jennings said that we own the code.

In any case, unless I've misunderstood or misheard several presentations to the board, we own the code.

[Manotea]

Ownership takes many forms. For example, how many AUKs have access to the code, or the tools necessary to access / navigate through the code, or would understand what they were looking at if they could?

Regardless, this should not be an issue of debate; what does it say in the contract?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The contract says AUK owns the code but it is not written in straightforward language.

[Ian H]

The contract says AUK owns the code but it is not written in straightforward language.

Code seldom is

[FifeingEejit]

Ownership takes many forms. For example, how many AUKs have access to the code, or the tools necessary to access / navigate through the code, or would understand what they were looking at if they could?

Regardless, this should not be an issue of debate; what does it say in the contract?

If I remember the stack right its a CMS on top of a .net based backend
Which on the face of it sounds like it should be fairly easy to get people who can work on it.

But then according to the press release at work we picked up a code set that was written for us on the basis that we owned the code and tidied it up for release... the reality is rather different.
Likewise some of the diabolical architectural messes my predecessors wrote are only fit for rewriting from scratch if we want to do anything with them.

[frankly frankie]

I've lost track of the details but the language used is (I quote) "similar to C#".  That sounds pretty rarified to me, compared with good ol' PHP (as used for the old site and this forum).  So I'm not convinced ownership will help us all that much.

[Chris S]

I've lost track of the details but the language used is (I quote) "similar to C#".  That sounds pretty rarified to me, compared with good ol' PHP (as used for the old site and this forum).  So I'm not convinced ownership will help us all that much.

My assumption would be it's C#, if it's .NET.