At the risk of ruining your chips guys, please remember that the banks and Amazon(s) of this world have extremely reliable websites because of two very important reasons:
1. If they fall over you WILL go elsewhere
2. They transact through them, thereby making money (strongly linked to 1 above)
The Yahoo(s) and other "service" sites make money from advertising.
So, are NATS/AIS to sell us the NOTAMs to pay for the site?
Or are pop-up ads de-rigueur?
No.
Neither thanks.
Just SORT IT OUT!
Or roll back to known good.
Edited to add this:
(I appreciate that NATS is no longer "Government", per se)
BRL if this breaches copyright, please edit it out...
From Ananova:
GOVERNMENT WEBSITES UNDER FIRE
Ministers are being urged to suspend their £5 billion e-government programme amid claims that hundreds of official websites were experiencing "serious problems".
An independent survey of 20 "flagship" Government websites found that three-quarters needed "immediate attention" - with the Prime Minister's own site one of the worst offenders.
It warned that the Government's target of fully on-line government by 2005 was "not realistically achievable" and urged ministers to halt the web aspects of the programme while existing faults were rectified.
The 200-page review was commissioned by the Interactive Bureau - a website strategy and design agency - and the research carried out by Porter Research which also publishes an annual review of the FTSE-100 web sites.
It said that its findings were a "strong indication" that hundreds of Government and quasi-Government websites were in need of attention in one area or another.
The 10 Downing Street site was said to be "a mess - in need of a thorough overhaul from top to bottom".
"What is the point of the Prime Minister - the prime mover in bringing the Government to the people via the web - having a site which announces the opportunity for foreign journalists to ask him questions, yet gives no opportunity for members of the British Public to do so ?" the report complained.
It gave the website a score of just 40.75% - marginally higher than the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency which was rated the worst of the lot.
The Number 10 site scored so badly "because its navigation is inept, because of a lack of attention to detail, because it is poorly maintained, because the coding of it is of a low standard, because whole sections of it are inappropriately named, because of its slow speed of loading, because it does not work properly with some browsers - and because it allows no provision for members of the public to contact either the Prime Minister or his office".
In contrast, the best of the 20 sites surveyed - the Department for Education and Skills - scored 78.5%.
(c) Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved.