3 ms·
The headline is very misleading. If Oracle had just not built the Website, defaulted on the contract, the legal issues would be much simpler. But Oracle agreed
by lutusp 12y ago
The headline is very misleading. If Oracle had just not built the Website, defaulted on the contract, the legal issues would be much simpler. But Oracle agreed to build a Website, then did a terrible job of it. Meanwhile, the state of Oregon believed they were about to go online, so they spent a lot of money on advertising to alert and prepare the public. Then people tried to use the site and couldn't. Taking the money and running would have been less trouble for everyone involved.
There are any number of similar horror stories on the Web, many of them involving governmental agencies with which we must interact. The US post office Web site is perfectly terrible, and there's no one home. One example -- they have an autopay scheme, one of those features where you give your credit card number and your periodic bills are automatically paid. But someone forgot to include a location for the CVV code in the credit card form, the credit card issuers won't process transactions without the code, as a result of which the autopay scheme doesn't work. Each post office customer has to find this out for himself. And reporting the bug is pointless -- I reported it five years ago and not one character in the Web page has changed.
Some companies are so incompetent at Web site building that they've simply given up and require you to call them on the telephone to transact business or pay a bill. I must periodically update my credit card information, so I have a hot list of companies that I have an autopay arrangement with. First I log on to their Web sites -- about 2/3 of the companies accept an online update, the remaining 1/3 either have a nonfunctional Website that they think is working (like the USPS), or they just don't have a way to update payment information online, so they list a phone number to call.
When you see a terribly designed Website, you naturally enough wonder how secure the overall operation is, given the incompetence reflected in the front end -- which is by far the easiest part.
- _delirium 12y agoThe magnitude of Oracle's incompetence here is really surprising to me, though maybe it shouldn't be. I don't see any real excuse here. Yes, I can believe that in any Enterprise procurement project (which is almost all of what Oracle does), there are conflicting and changing requirements, multiple bosses, the usual mess, and government projects are no exception. But that's not an excuse for building a website that literally doesn't work on a basic technical level. It should respond to requests, display some stuff, and accept what people submit through forms, even if nothing else works. A small-time consulting shop can build a website meeting those requirements! The client or requirements mess can be a legitimate excuse for why your website doesn't really serve the intended use-case, or is confusing, or fails to integrate with an important component, etc., etc. But delivering something that doesn't even run?!