July 5, 2009 at 23:39Freak Sites
The problem of interaction between the state apparatus and citizens in our country has existed for a long time. And there is a need for information from government agencies. Here, for example, some minister will say about the “first” about the introduction of certain benefits. Sweetens, so to speak, a bitter crisis pill. And where to look for them, how to achieve the exercise of their rights is not clear.
It would seem that the 21st century is the time of the leap of telecommunications, the Internet. There should be no problems. But it was not there! You look at any site representing the state structure. For example (and let the admins of these homemade products rejoice at least to some links to their obscene web resources):
State Duma
Moscow Training Foundation
Any third-rate online store has a decent design. The problem is not only in design. The information is structured and presented simply awful. You can list the shortcomings for hours. In general, these “products” do not stand up to criticism either from the point of view of a professional or from the point of view of an ordinary user. Oh, to throw a couple of these creations into a business link to Lebedev. Why, they can cover it ... And now imagine what budgets are allocated for these "Internet crafts" ...
[imagined ...]
But that's not quite true. Government agencies that have deeper goals in public relations have taken the site building process more seriously. This, for example, the sites of the president , government and prosecutor general’s. We are unlikely to find information useful to a specific person on them, but in abundance we can enjoy fairly high-quality PR materials in different languages with vivid pictures and pathos phrases.
Like this. And in your collection there are government sites worthy of the Internet cams?
It would seem that the 21st century is the time of the leap of telecommunications, the Internet. There should be no problems. But it was not there! You look at any site representing the state structure. For example (and let the admins of these homemade products rejoice at least to some links to their obscene web resources):
State Duma
Moscow Training Foundation
Any third-rate online store has a decent design. The problem is not only in design. The information is structured and presented simply awful. You can list the shortcomings for hours. In general, these “products” do not stand up to criticism either from the point of view of a professional or from the point of view of an ordinary user. Oh, to throw a couple of these creations into a business link to Lebedev. Why, they can cover it ... And now imagine what budgets are allocated for these "Internet crafts" ...
[imagined ...]
But that's not quite true. Government agencies that have deeper goals in public relations have taken the site building process more seriously. This, for example, the sites of the president , government and prosecutor general’s. We are unlikely to find information useful to a specific person on them, but in abundance we can enjoy fairly high-quality PR materials in different languages with vivid pictures and pathos phrases.
Like this. And in your collection there are government sites worthy of the Internet cams?