Since then the welder has proven quite handy - I was able install the new floor in the trailer, and have also been able to create a tandem bike for my kids:

And a piece of artwork for our mantle:

Over the years I’ve also used the welder to make repairs and add-ons on the 1964 CJ6 Jeep that I’m working on, as well as small repairs for friends, relatives and neighbors.

So - what I’m thinking now is that if this web development gig doesn’t work out for whatever reason, I’ll be able to go apply for any welding job because I have eight years of experience welding.

Wait - why are you rolling your eyes like that?  And what was that small huffing sound you just made?

Well, OK.  You’re right.  Picking up a small welder and dabbling in it periodically doesn’t really add up to 8 years of experience that an employer would be interested in, does it?  I have a friend who is a certified welding inspector - he owns a business that does metal fabrication so he employs professional welders and has to inspect their work.  He likes to wander around my projects and point out which welds would and wouldn’t be acceptable to him - and I usually feel good if I shoot 20%.

Yet - I see this pitching of hobby work and playing around as “experience” in the web design and development world and it seems like people fall for it in a way they wouldn’t with my welding experience.  A few weeks back I was contacted by a person who just took on a internship with a client that I had done a site for.  The project included a new custom design and deployment on a content management system so all content on the site could be updated or changed without them needing to know HTML.  It was the perfect fit for them as a business because they are small and not in a field of business where they’d naturally have people on staff with web skills. The site was immediately beneficial to them - with their previous site you couldn’t Google their name directly and get their site in the results, and the new site got them in #1 spot for their own name in short order.

However it was the classic case of having all the available tools at hand and never taking the time.  The site has sat, relatively unchanged, since we launched it roughly 4 years ago.  Then here comes the new college intern who assures me that he has been “designing websites for about 8 years now” so I wouldn’t “need to be concerned that he would end up damaging the site.”

Right.

I went to look at it yesterday and sure enough - the main navigation has been moved, the nice little main nav icons that tied into the company’s business area (and they paid for) are gone, and in the place of the main nav is now a “doesn’t quite fit in that space” blurb for “latest news”.  Latest news - for a company that had nothing new to say over 4 years time.  All the new content could have been integrated without requiring the design changes.

Specifics aside - what bothers me is my former client probably heard the same “8 years experience” line and, even though it’s coming from a college senior and therefore means that this persons “experience” started in roughly the 8th grade, gladly handed over their most prominent piece of business marketing to this person.

So business people - listen up:  Periodically noodling around with web technologies as a hobby doesn’t equal “experience”.  Sites built out of that context are rarely based on any real-world constraints of time, budget, or business requirements.  When someone uses the word “experience”, what they should be implying is “I spent a considerable portion of my day for that period of time working with this stuff” and (ideally) “people paid me for it”.

You wouldn’t look at my welding projects and hire me on to do structural, mission critical welding.  Don’t do the same with your website.

I re-read that post this morning and have a few red flags to add.

7. Previous Web Developer Baggage
Once in a while I’ll be approached by someone with a project that has already been taken on by another developer and the project has failed.  In these situations the potential client always blames the previous developer for the failure, saying they had misrepresented themselves, or were over committed, or were just flat-out not able to do the work.  The potential client will then appeal to my ego with statements like “After reviewing your portfolio it’s obvious you would be a much better fit than the previous developer was.”

But - like stories of dating relationships and marriages gone awry -I’m only hearing one side of the story.  Might the issue really have been a client with unrealistic expectations, or who were unable to pay their bills on time?

I always feel like the only real way to seriously think about taking on a project with baggage would be to interview both sides of the failed project and see if I could determine what really happened.  But the time investment for doing that is such that it never makes sense because neither side is going to want to reimburse me for that time.

Additionally, if the site is sitting there half-baked and “just needs to be finished” then I’m faced with the prospect of it being started poorly and either having to rebuild it from the ground up or being responsible for issues with the site due to poor decisions being made at the foundational level by someone with less experience than I have.

8. Emergency 911
It’s amazing the number of contacts I get for projects where the timeline is “ASAP”.  Here’s an actual request: “We need a complete EE build with content and user migration from a Drupal install, the design is in Photoshop and needs to be converted to HTML, and looks like we either need some custom EE code or use of a 3rd party module.  Oh and the deadline is in 11 days”. 

Not 11 business days, just 11 days.

So after I’m done with the gut-reaction snide response that I won’t post here, the first question I have to ask is “How did the project get to be in this state?” And if the answer is “poor project management” then the follow-up question is “What other aspects of the project are suffering due to being managed poorly?” Is the design going to be right?  Has the proper functionality been identified?

I’m reluctant to take on projects that come with a red flashing light to wear on my head - I didn’t create the crisis situation so feel no urge to shoulder the responsibility of resolving it.  Although - I have toyed with the idea of proposing to take it on, but at 2 or 2.5 times my normal rate.  So far the stress potential hasn’t been worth the possible financial gain.

9. The Client Who Knew Too Much
Maybe the better title is “The Wanna-be Developer as Client”.  When I get communications from clients that include nonsensical statements like “we like the idea of separating content from presentation for SEO reasons”, or they want to talk about URL structure before the site design or IA is done the hair on the back of my neck goes up just a bit.  It’s not that I don’t appreciate technically-savvy clients, but when they have things just a bit “off” it makes me wonder how they got there, will they be open to and capable of being re-educated, or will it be a constant struggle to get them to understand how things actually work?

10. Hi, My Name Is Tom Sawyer
Once in a while I will be contacted to put a proposal together for an ExpressionEngine site, but the real reason for the proposal request is to determine if EE is actually well-suited for the project.  The challenge with these types of requests is that in order to do a quality needs assessment and (if EE is the right fit) a proposal it requires a lot of time - which is likely why the client hasn’t done it.

ExpressionEngine provides a pre-sales forum for answering questions like this - and I’ll often even pitch in on those threads.  But if the project needs an in-depth requirements analysis then that’s really outside of what I should have to provide at no charge in the form of a quote - that’s work that should be defined as it’s own project and I should get paid for as an internet consultant with specialized CMS knowledge and experience.

11. You Don’t Know Me
Boyink Interactive was a charter member of the ExpressionEngine Professional Network, and it’s been a valuable source of leads on new projects.

The downside is I’ll often be BCC’d in on emails along with multiple other members of the Pro Network.  I’ll have to be honest—if I’m elbows-deep in projects when these emails come in they do have less weight than email addressed to me specifically, or email that has come through Boyink.com instead.  I wonder if they’ve even reviewed my work at all, or are just blasting everyone on the Pro Network to see who responds.  I don’t immediately discount these emails, but if they have any other red flags (and they often do) then it’s not likely I’ll respond to them.

12. Can You Hear Me Now?
I’ve had a few interchanges with potential clients where they just couldn’t answer simple direct questions put to them via email.  And asked two or three times in different ways.  In one case after email exchanges hadn’t worked well I scheduled a phone call with the potential client instead.  When I called at the appointed time they answered with “Uh, hello?”.  This didn’t exactly instill confidence that they could communicate well enough to work with and that they were a marketing & communication firm was the deciding factor in passing on the work.

So there you have it - now the “dirty dozen” of client red flags. Will there be more?  Only time will tell…

Hello! We are here to give your website a marketing edge over your competition! Because people judge whether to remain on your website within the first 4 seconds, you must grab their attention quickly. There is no better way to do just that than with internet personalities called NetGreeters. Imagine a customer’s surprise when a talking person invites them to personally browse your site during those four crucial seconds.

See this “marketing edge” in action here, link provided by Jambor-ee..  I can imagine site visitors being surprised to get a talking head, alright—and then annoyed that there is seemingly no “close, go away or shut up” button, clicking on it in frustration takes you to the site of the company who produces the...thing...and the talking head covers up most of the links on the page which forces you to wait before proceeding.

This is nothing more than a Flash intro overlaid onto the home page with no “Skip Intro” button...and really - if all you have to say is “welcome and there’s alot of great information here”, then you’re simply wasting people’s time with something that could be done via a photo and and a paragraph of text.

Oh - and please...if you’re going to do audio on a website record it somewhere without all the distracting background noise....

I keep re-playing that moment in the conversation trying to figure it out, and wishing I had responded differently.

What I said was, “Well, before starting my business I worked for several years at Herman Miller, and I don’t know of another company - at least here in West Michigan - where design was so important and such a strong part of the brand.”

In other words, I didn’t answer the question.  At least not directly. 

What I wish I would have said is, “Well, tell me what you mean by “real designers”?

After this conversation took place of course I got naturally curious about this company so I went to their website.  And it was - you guessed it - all Flash.  Every bit of it.  And their portfolio was more of the same—lots of Flash work.  In their defense the project they were looking for help on wasn’t all Flash - but it still used Flash in a very prominent way with a number of movies that needed to be randomized in a header area.

I really wish I knew the reason behind the question - was this a sense of pride in their own work, or a commentary on my own portfolio?  While I never pitch myself as a “designer” I have, over the past 12-ish years of building stuff on screens, probably “designed” hundreds of processes, interfaces, and reports.  Does that qualify me as “real”?  What about the talented local guys I work with who do focus more on the design aspect of web development - would they be considered “real”?

What I can’t help but think - after reconciling the conversation along with the accompanying company site and portfolio, is that I’ve placed myself in a bubble of web development professionals who, for the most part, “get” the web and understand how design decisions can affect site performance, usability, search engine indexing and placement, and accessibility.  And I’m reminded that outside of that bubble are still people and companies who continue to thumb their nose at those bottom-line business concerns in favor of fluffy designs meant to look good in a portfolio. 

If that’s what being a “real designer” means - putting my own goals before my clients, then I guess my answer to the question is “No, I guess I haven’t worked with “real designers”.

I’m probably making a much bigger deal out of the conversation than I should...it’s just been one those interchanges that stick in my head. 

In the interest of overall length, I’m only going to focus on the elements of the document that seemed odd or downright silly.  I hate for this post to come off as totally negative, but there didn’t seem to be much value in reproducing parts of the document that weren’t note-worthy.

I should also note - this RFP was not from a large company, or national organization - it was from a non-profit located in an area of the state that isn’t considered “urban”.  Near as we could tell, the site was only moderately bigger than the average small business website. Some of the requests below might make sense if the project is either larger in scope or for a larger company.

Proposal Guidelines and Requirements

• If you wish to submit alternative solutions, please do so.
• The price you quote should be inclusive.  If your price excludes certain fees or charges, you must provide a detailed list of excluded fees with a complete explanation of the nature of those fees.
• If the execution of work to be performed by your company requires the hiring of sub-contractors you must clearly state this in your proposal.  Sub-contractors must be identified and the work they perform must be defined.  In your proposal provide the name, address and EIN of each sub-contractor.  The [Organization Name] will not refuse a proposal based upon sub-contractors; however we retain the right to refuse the sub-contractors you have selected.

OK - starting to see some questions here.

On #1 - this will become a bigger question later.  Can the alternative be outside of the guidelines in this document - essentially restructuring the whole project?

On #2 - This just gave me a bit of a chuckle - essentially saying “Your price should be inclusive.  If you have left any fees out, please include them.”

On #3 - This one caught me a bit off-guard.  Often—especially in smaller companies - subcontractor arrangements are quite critical to the proposal.  In other words, if you tell me I can’t work with a certain subcontractor then I can’t do the project as I’ve proposed it.  I just didn’t react well to being told that I didn’t have the ultimate say in who I could or couldn’t work with - especially so early in the document.  If this is a true requirement and not just a power-play, it should go in a footnote somewhere.  I’m also not sure why the sub contractor’s EIN is required, if the submitting entity is going to be handling all the invoicing.

Contract Terms

The [Organization Name] will negotiate final contract terms upon selection.  All contracts are subject to review of the [Organization Name]’s legal counsel, and a project will be awarded upon signing of an agreement or contract, which outlines terms, scope, budget and other necessary items.

Not a big deal here, but my first thought was - so they’re going to accept quotes but still try to negotiate the price?  Probably not - just other contract terms but it was my first reaction.

Purpose

The proposed site will serve as a hub for:

• Announcements, news releases and other communications concerning [organization’s purpose].
• The site will also serve the staff internally, supporting some operations.

OK - pretty general stuff here, very typical.  However we’re getting a bit vague:
On #1 - What are the “other communications”?
On #2 - what are these “operations”?

Description

The site must have the capacity to deliver large amounts of dynamic information to our key audiences.  Administration of web content should be based on roles that allow the control of access and workflow. 
In summary, our web site must be:

• Easy and intuitive to navigate
• Visually pleasing
• Informative
• Safe and secure
• Quick to load pages
• Convenient to maintain
• Flexible, programming should allow for additional functionality

Yes, well.  I guess when I see a part of a website RFP called “description” I just expected more detail This is filler, subjective stuff that’s impossible to quantify- (is content “dynamic” because the content is in and of itself exciting, or is it dynamic because it’s getting pulled from a database?).  Actually the document attempts to quantify some of these things later.

Oh - and that role-based workflow thing.  How many people/layers/steps will there be?  That one sentence alone could drastically affect the choice of tools and the amount of time to implement.

Timeline

• Phase 1 of the project must be complete and delivered by [date]
• All further deliverable date will be determined during Phase 1.

What-hey?  Phase 1?  One of how many?  Read on…

Budget

The budget must encompass all design, production and software acquisitions necessary for development and maintenance of the web site.
Costs and solutions for hosting should be separately addressed.

Provide pricing separately for:

• Phase 1: Discovery, Requirements Planning and Site Definition
• Phase 2: Site Development, Test and Deployment
• Phase 3: Hosting

Wait.  Go back and read that again.  Here’s where it gets really wonky.  The budget needs to be all-inclusive, yet the project has been split up into a Discovery Phase that’s separate from the Development.

In other words, “We don’t know exactly what we want, we want you to help us figure that out, but you need to tell us what the whole thing is going to cost to build in advance.”

Yes - us web people.  Nothing short of Carnac the Magnificent with laptops.

Only two outcomes are possible by structuring a project like this—either you are going to pay too much for the site (because we guessed way high to cover ourselves), or we’re not going to get paid enough to develop it (because we guessed low).  The odds of delivering a quality site at a fair market rate are minimal.

Oh - and the discovery phase due date was set in the RFP - so even though they aren’t web experts, or do they know what exactly the discovery process will involve or what the deliverables will be, they know how long it should take.  One month, as it turns out.  Oh, and by the way, the organization is new and not all the board members have been selected or elected yet.

Development Guidelines
(Inappropriately named, these actually specific features desired in the solution)

Once the site is completed and accepted, the [Organization] would like to be able to easily update the infrastructure, such as adding an additional main link (tabs, main menu item, etc.)

I’m sure this differs by CMS, but I’ve yet to work on a CMS-driven site of any scope where main navigation could be easily changed by the end user.  And adding a link is one thing, the bigger question is what are you linking to, and who is building that?

Easy to navigate - Information should be grouped and presented in a logical manner and generally require no more than a few clicks to find the desired information

Uh oh - someone’s been reading usability research.  Danger!  Rather than focus on the number of clicks, how about we organize it the best it can be organized?

Ability to deliver and change mini-tours via the site.

Sure.  Oh wait.  What’s a “mini-tour”?  Video, images?  VR?  Don’t make up things and then not define them.

Strategy for optimizing the site’s search position.

How about we wait for the discovery to tell us whether a good search position is necessary, given the site’s purpose, audience, and other marketing/promotional methods?

Secure section where documents can be shared and accessed.

OK, an extranet as well.  How many people will need access?  What types of documents?  How many?

Gather email, name, business/organization information and other demographics from web site visitors in a format that permits the [Organization Name] to maintain a single database of contact information.

Our question here was around expectations.  Is the intent to use a fill-in-the-blank form to collect this, or is the expectation that the server can magically gather all this automatically?

Site Specifications

Site must be compatible with IE and Netscape browsers.  Compatible browser versions must be specified in the proposal.

Netscape?  What’s that?

Site should be developed with the intent to meet ADA requirements - Federally-mandated access requirements adopted by the Federal Access Board under section 508 subsection 1194.22 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Fuzzy langauge here - should or shouldn’t the site meet the ADA requirements?

Site should be built with the considerations of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 provided by the W3C and should also be accessible to the novice as well as the experienced internet user.

Again, fuzzy language here - should or shouldn’t the site meet the Accessibility Guidelines, and to what level?

Web pages should load quickly.  The site should be designed with a balance of text and graphics such that each page loads in 6 seconds or less on the average computer.

Um, yea.  First question - what’s the “average computer”?  What about connection speeds?  Why 6 seconds?  Real red flag here - if the site happens to take longer than 6 seconds to load on some remote person’s 28.8 dialup connection and they complain, do we still get paid?

Testing

Testing of the site should occur on all applicable platforms to ensure web site works as promised.  Test plan and testing process should be explained in detail in the proposal.

I’m curious around what people do for test plans.  In former jobs we had these really detailed step by step test plans that outlined every link you had to click on.  Essentially, though, it seems like most web testing can be boiled down to “does it look right” and “do any plug-ins used work cross-browser”?  This statement had me wondering if someone was coming from a more involved software application development background, and concerned around test-plan expectations.

Delivery

Delivery and uploading of the site to the hosting entity is required and should be specifically addressed in the proposal.

Addressed how?  Just saying that we’ll do it?

Qualifications

Briefly describe your firm’s organizational capacity to produce our web site (e.g. staff, equipment, software, physical space, office location, etc.).

Huh?  My equipment?  Space?  Location?  What in the world do these have to do with our ability to produce a website?  I’m guessing they don’t want to hear “My laptop, sitting at the local coffee shop”...yet that’s how many sites get developed these days.

What also concerns me here is the idea that they as an organization somehow know or can determine the best equipment and software necessary for developing a site.  Just feels egotistical.

Briefly describe the percentage of your web staff that would work on this project relative to your entire staff.  For example, if you would use five staff on the project and you have ten web designers and developers, the percentage would be 50%.

Well, sure.  100% of the staff, 100% of the time… Again, the feeling I get from this is they feel they know the proper percentages required to complete the project on time.  From my perspective this is my business - all you as a client need to know is that the site will be on time, on budget, and meet the requirements.  Let me make the sausage.

Briefly describe the type of team that will be assigned to this project.  What will each person’s role be?  Include a background summary for each key staff member that will be assigned to this project.

Uh, a web development project team SIR!  Are you getting a feel for the sheer amount of data required in this RFP?  But wait, there’s more....

Briefly describe your firm’s project management process.

Again, I wonder what their expectations are.  At smaller web firms the process can be “We figure out what to build, then build it.”.  I’ve had jobs where the project management process was much more involved with numerous documents (project charters, etc) had to be filled out, then a bunch of MSProject templates employed. 

Provide a description in percentages as to the total revenue derived from site development and other business ventures.

I’ve never had this question asked of me before. I guess I can see the logic of it - that a firm that does a higher percentage of web work would be better at it, but I don’t see where that precludes a quality offering coming from a company whose income is only 25% related to web development.  Still, I’m a bit hesitant to discuss my revenue - either in numbers or percentages - in an RFP.

Explain your business model.

I build websites and people pay me for it. 

Discuss any planned IPOs, mergers or acquisitions your firm is considering.

Yes, I notice that companies planning these sorts of things are willing to discuss them with anyone who asks. 

Discuss your testing and support plans.

A detailed testing plan has already been requested, so not sure what this is after.

Explain your service level agreement (SLA) structure.

Well, it has a beginning, middle, and end.  I’m curious if other web developers have formal SLA’s in place, obviously the expectation with this RFP is that they do. 

Communicate any terms and conditions your organization use in contract agreements.

I’m certainly not a lawyer, but my contracts are full of terms and conditions.  Why discuss them outside of the contract itself?  Why not just provide the contract?

Project Plan

Value/Pricing Structure and Pricing Levels - The price is commensurate with the value offered by the candidate.  As a non-profit institution, the [Organization Name] is able to accept pro bono service and recognize the provider to the full extent allowed by the Internal Revenue Service, including naming the provider within the web site and other collateral as an [Organization Name] supporter and partner.

I referenced this one before, but still get a chuckle from it—“Give us a free website and we’ll let you put your name on it and speak really highly of you.  I’ll bet we could send more free-website-seeking people your way”.

Depth and Breadth of Staff - The candidate firm has appropriate staff to develop the site in the time frame needed.

Because, being not in the web development business, they know exactly what the appropriate staff is required to develop the site in the time frame needed.

Hosting

• How often do they upgrade software/hardware?
• Describe their technical support.
• Describe their security.
• Describe their technical speed capabilities.
• Describe their methodology and service level agreements.What are their pricing, terms and conditions?

Upgrades - as often as makes sense?
Tech support—Good?  Or...they’re middle aged and a bit thick around the middle?
Security—Good?  (How do you describe web-host security to someone who likely doesn’t know the lingo?)
Methodology?  Uh, They have computers hooked to the internet, you put your website on them, they charge you for it.
Pricing, terms and conditions....good grief - how about I just link you to their website where all of these questions are probably answered?

In Conclusion

Maximum proposal length including title page, cover letter, proposal, qualifications and budget should not exceed 25 pages (not including Hosting proposal and information).

In other words, “We’ve asked you for 50 pages of data and would like to watch you squirm in order to fit it into 25.  Then we can rule you out based on it being incomplete”.

So there you have it (and those are just the highlights). 

What this specific RFP did was virtually guarantee a non-response by:

• Asking for so much data that it would take days to put it together
• Structuring the project such that it puts too much risk on the part of the responder by having to quote a fixed price on a site that is undefined.

The end result is that in order to respond at all you have to spend 20-30 non-billable hours just putting a response together with already little hope of being selected and making up for that time—all for a project that’s doomed to fail in one way or another, and not incredibly profitable to begin with.

If you’re reading this because you’ve Googled for input on Website RFQ’s - please, hire a competent web developer and have them help you put together the RFP in a way that ensure a better response for you, and makes the project more enticing for other web developers.  I can do that for you - please contact me.

As part of that withdrawal, I took myself a bit outside the “internet hype-loop”, which I was reminded of this week.

I was reading an announcement regarding an upcoming site launch, and I hadn’t a clue what it was about.  I’m guessing if I had stayed subscribed to all those feeds, and read Digg faithfully I would have known what this announcement was talking about.

But I don’t think it was entirely due to my withdrawal.  I’ve noted that the marketing around so-called “Web 2.0” sites seems to be done in a strange way - with all sizzle and no steak.  I recently bumped into an old co-worker, and asked him what he was doing now.  For a couple of minutes he went on, talking about “new channels to market”, and “Web 2.0” and “Community” and when he finished up to take a phone call I sat there, still wondering “Yeah, but what does the site do?” After spending some time on Google I found that it’s a place for film buffs to interact with other film buffs, and the site will also sell films online.  OK, why not just say that?

Again this week, I read another announcement about a site. The first thing that struck me was that the site hadn’t launched yet - it was yet another teaser announcement with no projected launch date for the site.  It went on to hype up the features that are “in the works” and that I should subscribe to the nifty AJAXified mailing list.  Then I could help out with the private beta at some point in the future.

My reaction...was a large stifled yawn.  First - if you didn’t already know about another site that this one is related to (and I didn’t) the whole announcement was pointless.  Second - do people still get excited about sites that don’t yet exist?  Call me cynical - but call me when it’s actually launched.  Third - why is it still about the “features”?  Is AJAX still the Web 2.0 Pied Piper - gathering users in it’s wake?  And fourth - do people actually have time they are willing to spend helping out these sites during a “Beta” phase?  Methinks Tom Sawyer would have made a killing in Web 2.0 marketing…

And so your point is.....

Good question.  I guess my point is I’m still somewhat mystified over the whole Web 2.0 thing, I’m amazed that people continue to spend time, energy and money trying to make a better MySpace, and I’m surprised that the “hyping up fluff” marketing methods around these sites are still getting used.

Isn’t it time for another round of innovation?

On the other hand, we dropped cable for our single 13” TV.  I have a cell phone, but if I use it twice a week that’s a lot.  I absolutely will not allow any game consoles in our house.  I don’t use IM, PDA’s, or any social networking tools. 

Overall - I just want to make sure that each addition of technology to my life really makes something easier, saves me time or money, or leads to more income and I’m not using it just for the sake of using it or because it’s the latest thing on Digg.

Which is a long lead-in to the reason for this post.  I visited a client the other day - a large client, the type that has a formal reception area and the typical “sign-in” book where you write your name, your business name and who you there to visit.  And (if you’re like me) you scan the other names of the book to see if your competitors are there and who they’re visiting.

On my previous visit some months ago the normal reception book had been replaced with a computerized system.  The receptionist had to walk me through how to use it, I typed in the data, and the system printed out a label which the receptionist affixed to a badge for me to wear.  The tag had my name but largely had the client’s logo on it.  I had to estimate how long this project was going to go on - as the tag had an expiration date, after which I would have to go through the whole process again.

I walked away with mixed feelings.  First off - I didn’t like being literally “branded” with the clients logo on a tag I had to wear.  No good reason, really, just that if I have to wear something branded on my person I’d prefer it be my brand - however insignificant it is compared to the client’s brand. 

Second - the whole check-in process took at least 5x longer than the old-fashioned sign-in book - mostly, I know, due to it being my first time using it. However, even if familiar with the system if I had to start over again it still would take longer.

Third - what are those sign-in books there for anyway?  I’ve questioned them in the past and the only answer was from the head security guy—saying that if there were an emergency they would use the sign-in book to know what visitors were in the building.  I had to wonder if this new system would be valuable in that respect - if an emergency occurred, assuming it was one that didn’t lead to loss of power, how long would it take to get that data out?

Back to my most recent visit.  I entered the building and out of habit went to sign the book.  I then remembered the new system and started to move to it.  The receptionist caught my eye, shook her head, and waved me into the building.

I wasn’t able to speak to anyone about it - but can only assume that this was another case of a complex technological “solution” replacing a very simple “problem” and being rejected by it’s users because it made their job harder or just wasn’t worth the effort.  The bigger question is how long that system will sit there, gathering dust, until the people behind it are willing to admit that it has failed and bring the “old fashioned” sign-in book back.

All in all it’s reaffirmed for me that there is much logic to starting simple. Yes - setting up an eCommerce section for a new project is fun and exciting.  But how about starting out with a phone number?  Or taking advantage of existing services like CafePress?  Yes, we can create fancy web contact email forms that route email to different people based on subject, but how about we start simple and see how often that contact form gets used? 

How about it - have you seen cases of mis-applied technology?  Have you developed something yourself that seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect wasn’t?

But today I clicked before thinking, went to the new church site, and immediately found myself groaning and shaking my head.  Why are we - as the “online church” still making the same mistakes that we were making 6, 7 or 8 years ago when building the very first websites for churches?

That mistake?  Making the most prominent element on the page a picture of the church building.  I just don’t get it.  Do we think people choose a church by architectural style?  By quality of paint job?  By the color of it’s shingles?  The fact that it has a star on top of it’s steeple?

I’d bet you a fiver if I went to that specific church, walked in the door and asked the pastor, a staff member, or any 5 year old in a Sunday School class to “tell me what the church is” they would say with reverence - “Oh, the church is really the people.  The people make it what it is.  Without the people it’s just a building.”

So where does that thinking go when it comes to designing what - arguably - represents the “most public face” of the church?  Why do we suddenly choose pictures of the building as our first impression?  It makes me wonder if we truly believe what we say about what the church is.

Your visitors may wonder the same thing....

And it seemed like the rest of the web development world was entranced by this so-called “Guru” of Usability - when Jakob published a new article I would receive links to it through a dozen different RSS and email subscriptions.  That article would fuel the discussion for at least a week afterwards.

But these days?  I hardly even think about Useit.com, don’t “use it” as a resource, and hardly see reference to it in the various web-development circles I frequent.  Is it just me, or have we “gotten over” the whole usability Guru thing?

In fact - it seems the only time I see reference to Jakob’s work is when a client wants to do something on their website, and the developer putting the site together doesn’t agree with the idea.  The designer then starts doing what I was guilty of years ago - sending links to something that Jakob wrote as “proof” that the client’s decision is wrong.

Essentially - Jakob and his writing becomes the “usability stick” with which the designer uses to beat the client into submission.

The main problem is that the “guidelines” that Jakob publishes are sometimes at odds with other studies.  Take, for example, the whole issue of content length and a client who wants to put a fair amount of text on the home page.  But, the designer notes that Jakob says keep it short as people scan, and won’t read all the content.

But - is the goal of the page being usable, or selling more of the client’s product?  Does being more usable equal more sales, and therefore all of Jakob’s “recommendations” should be implemented?  I ask because there are studies from outside the Usability world that indicate that longer copy can increase conversions.

So what’s a web designer/developer to do?

While I’m sure both sides of the fence could be debated (and that’s not my intent with this post), I think what bothers me most about the situation is that Jakob and the whole “usability guru” thing have made it seem that usability and building the best website for a client is as simple as following a set of (often high-level, vague or altogether outlandish) “recommendations”. 

Jakob has actually done a disservice to the web development community because we’ve just accepted his “guru-ness” and fail to think critically about the issues with a specific website and how to evaluate it against it’s own specific goals, using it’s specific audience.

It’s time to set the usability stick down, let the gurus be the talking heads at the conferences, and be more involved in our specific projects—finding our own ways to test and improve for ourselves and our clients.

I write this as much for myself as anyone else.

While in our specific case the extranet has a very limited audience, the extranet nicely shows how one copy of ExpressionEngine can easily power both a public website and extranet (complete with different site designs) - be it for one geeky family or a business.