I have no idea how to read the table on that site.
What is the difference between a red check mark and a green check mark?
What is the difference between a red X and a green X?
Presidential candidate website tech, compared
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#22I have no idea how to read the table on that site. What is the difference between a red check mark and a green check mark? What is the difference between a red X and a green X?
Green check mark means its presence is good (i.e. HTTPS support). Red X means its absence is bad
Footnote [2] explains SNI support (where the red check mark is “bad.”)
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#23I have no idea how to read the table on that site. What is the difference between a red check mark and a green check mark? What is the difference between a red X and a green X?
[deleted]
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#24I think it's a stretch to assume that the way a presidential candidate's campaign webmaster chooses to configure a website will be any indication of how the candidate would lead the executive branch of government. It's probably better to look at the candidate's previous leadership performance and his or her positions (as indicated by voting records, not campaign rhetoric) on policy issues.
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#25I used to work in support at Rackspace and was fortunate enough to work on 2 presidential candidates and be the lead tech on another. I learned a ton.
The way they raise funds and advance through primaries made scaling out the infrastructure pretty interesting. It was basically, "If we make it through X with a big enough lead deploy gear by next Tuesday if not wait". Would have been a lot easier now that using "the cloud" is an option.
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#26I'd love to see a comparison of front end tech and general quality of their html/css/js.
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#27This is probably a relevant XKCD:
Campaign websites, especially at this point in the race, are as cheap and fast and possible. The tech that will win a presidency will be almost entirely behind the scenes--data collection, email segmenting, volunteer coordinating, etc.
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#28hillaryclinton.com: Mail server: Gmail
Ironic given she's such an expert on running her own mail server...
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#29All but Marco Rubio have wildcard certificates without an apparent use for them. It looks like whoever built their websites was keen on using all the budget they were alloted.
Who cares, their budget is in the millions. Better to spend the extra couple hundred bucks, and have it. They will most certainly need it (ex. donate.hillaryclinton.com, debates.hillaryclinton.com, vote.hillaryclinton.com).
The pervasive mindset is that mailings, tv/radio ad spots, and other traditional media platforms have a known and predictable return on investment. Using the web for organizing and fundraising is the new kid on the block. Despite the impressive showing in 2008 and 2012 on the Obama campaign its not a known/repeatable representative showing.
Every dollar spent on your web presence needs to return 5$ or more to funnel into these more stable predictable forms of outreach. Its not enough to be self sustaining or slightly profitable.
Re: Presidential candidate website tech, compared
#303 out of 4 candidate website do not support winxp. Wonder if this finally means that winxp compatibility is no longer worth the extra trouble from a business perspective.
What do you mean by "support winxp"? Websites are pretty OS agnostic. Do you mean they aren't compatible with IE6? Can't really test it currently, but I can't imagine these sites would work in the latest Firefox on Win8, but not on the latest Firefox on XP.