http://landrules.com/2009/04/12/tulsa-online-20-presentation/ Everybody must get zoned. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:59:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 http://landrules.com/2009/04/12/tulsa-online-20-presentation/comment-page-1/#comment-277 Bob Webster Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:07:26 +0000 http://landrules.com/?p=201#comment-277 1. I like it! You covered all the main points I would consider important. 2. A developer should be able to get the information from the web site to decide whether a building project is legal and feasible. I think you covered this, but it bears repeating. 3. The GIS interface is good; definitely worthwhile. But it's possible to get bogged down trying to make it too integrated. It can turn into a money pit -- keep it simple. 4. It's common for a city to put a lot of effort into a site like this and then let it degrade over time. There will be some additional work required to keep it going in the future, when, for example, some source of data changes form or additional data is required due to new regulations. 5. One thing that wasn't on the presentation, probably shouldn't have been at this level, but is very important: Make the web site fast. It's common for cities and some companies to develop a sophisticated web site that's painfully slow. This keeps a sizable percentage of people from using it. The city may never realize it's too slow because the decision makers and developers always access the site on the local network or fiber optic connection. The site should be fast on a normal DSL, and the GIS server should be on a fast computer. 6. I agree that <a href="http://xpda.com/junkmail" rel="nofollow">sophisticated sites</a> support <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fxpda.com%2Fjunkmail%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0" rel="nofollow">W3C</a>. 1. I like it! You covered all the main points I would consider important.
2. A developer should be able to get the information from the web site to decide whether a building project is legal and feasible. I think you covered this, but it bears repeating.
3. The GIS interface is good; definitely worthwhile. But it’s possible to get bogged down trying to make it too integrated. It can turn into a money pit — keep it simple.
4. It’s common for a city to put a lot of effort into a site like this and then let it degrade over time. There will be some additional work required to keep it going in the future, when, for example, some source of data changes form or additional data is required due to new regulations.
5. One thing that wasn’t on the presentation, probably shouldn’t have been at this level, but is very important: Make the web site fast. It’s common for cities and some companies to develop a sophisticated web site that’s painfully slow. This keeps a sizable percentage of people from using it. The city may never realize it’s too slow because the decision makers and developers always access the site on the local network or fiber optic connection. The site should be fast on a normal DSL, and the GIS server should be on a fast computer.
6. I agree that sophisticated sites support W3C.

]]>