This week it goes to Kingston Council.
For why?
For their £275K newly relaunched website that, according to the Surrey Comet, is riddled with errors.
Kingston Society member Matthew Rees tweeted:
“The new @RBKingston website is riddled with errors but I cannot report them as the contact us page is one of those that is broken.”Classic!
David Cooper tweeted:
“It really is crap. They haven't managed to [do] a simple thing such as setting up redirects from old URLs to the new ones. Basic stuff.”Conservative councillor Andrea Craig said councillors should have been involved.
“It is a great improvement but...we were not happy that, as usual members, were not consulted properly about it. There were spelling errors in it and there wasn't a small focus group of residents to canvass their opinion/input before implementation.”A Kingston Council spokesman said:
“The new website is a huge improvement, already successfully handling about 500 transactions (e.g. payments, requests, bookings) a day.Clearly it was not tested rigorously enough!
It reflects what our customers have told us they want. Many people have complimented its design, new features, content, accessibility and mobile-friendly layout.
The council spent a great deal of time testing the site before it went live.
With several thousand pages of content there are bound to be a few things that need correcting.
We have a feedback form on the site for people to tell us what they think and help us to make the site even better.”
Kingston Council, well deserving Prats of The Week!
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
"councillors should have been involved"
ReplyDeleteGuaranteed if they were it would have been far, far worse.
I have to say that as a web developer of some 15 years, I think this is very well designed site - clean and clear. But for £275k it should be!
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's pretty naff that regular users have to suffer dead links and the main way to contact the council was faulty. But hay ho can't have everything. This is the public sector we're talking about.
What do Councillors know about web design? F all!