Slashdot Mirror
Attitudes in IT - Mediocrity Wins?
podo asks: "I've spent the past two months of my life working almost full time on a PHP/MySQL based web site for a client. Today I received an e-mail from the client point me to a similar web site set up by a competitor. 'Doing exactly what we are doing.' The site in question is not doing what we are doing, they have no dynamic content, no web forms, just e-mail addresses. They scarcely have any content (I counted only four HTML pages) at all. The client is chastising me for taking a long time and because the other site is 'much more impressive visually' than ours. Has anyone else found themselves in a situation where their painstaking work is compared to work which is a showcase for mediocrity? How have you dealt with such clients who fail to see the difference between a shoddy rush job and real quality?"
It's called The New Jersey Approach.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The site in question is not doing what we are doing, they have no dynamic content, no web forms, just e-mail addresses.
Yes, but was that in the specs? Or was that something you voluntarily done for your client? If the client's requirement was "a simple Web site showcasing our products and allowing people to contact us", then he's right in pointing out that some things can be done cheaper and faster. You might have implemented scalable multi-processor algorithms for error-checking the text in the Web form, what does he care?
Keep in mind that clients rarely know what they want until they seem something tangible, be it something you develop for them, or something they see.
Regardless, satisfying a client without a very detailed spec (which they sign off on) is a very difficult thing. It's never good enough, or is never matches their conception of what they were looking for.
Always, always, always, have a spec document that details exactly what they're getting for their $$$. Then, when they bitch and moan about what you gave them, point at the document. It's not a fail-safe way to do business, but it will help you not get sued. It also helps prevent scope creep, which if allowed will impact *your* bottom line, not theirs.
In my opinion, this points to a decided lack of a proper design phase in you development process.
Does the client really not know enough about the design of what you are building for them, that they have made such an 'obvious' mis-comparison with the other project?
Design is more than just 'its going to work this way', its also 'its going to work this way, because'
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I think you missed a word: visually. A good layout and visuals are not about coding and they require a totally different set of skills.
Only a plumber would care mostly about plumbing when buying a house. Most people will first judge on how it looks and how they feel it would be like to live in it.
Could it be that your client is right? I mean, if your pages have a beautiful back end, but a front end that looks like processed yak's droppings, isn't there a good chance that a prospective customer will go for the more 'professional' website?
You might have an amazing database engine, but if it is not visually appealing, there is still a major issue.
To sum up: Customers like shiny things. Make it pretty.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
The best lesson any developer can learn is to make sure you have a good graphic designer on your team.
:S
Sadly, it has been my experience that flash always beats substance. My bosses/clients have always spent all their time niggling about design, layout, and color selection, rather than the actual functionality
Oh, yeah. It's happened to me many times in the past. The key is to:
1) Write a report explaining the importance of each and every piece of your project;
2) Schedule partial presentations at least every other week;
3) Write another report showing the weaknesses of your competitor, and providing information as to why your project (and in consequence, your client's project) is technically superior.
But don't forget that from a layman's point of view, prettier is almost always better (and the case is not necessarily true).
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Then you can explain to the client in question why "visually impressive" means absolutely nothing if the site is functionally inadequate.
Have fun.
This sig no verb.
No -- it's not.
As many others have already pointed out, this was a design flaw. Apparently there is some disconnect from the user (client) and the developer. The developer is creating something different from what the user is expecting, wasting lots of time.
If the above isn't true, then the developer hasn't created a valid requirements spec which can be shown to the user to explain the difference between "crap product X" and "your product". Needless -- it sounds liek the client/user isn't being involved nearly enough.. where's the ongoing UAT?
Yeah. It's not like I'm paying your money or anything, so why in the hell would you want to do what I say?
The arrogance of programmers is only exceeded by their snottiness.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Off topic answer to previous poster.
The cost of a flat in london with the same interior volume as that of a 42u rack at a colo is about the same as renting a 42u rack at a colo. Just rent a rack and live in it.
On topic answers to ask slashdot.
A) get paid and walk away.
B) hire a talented graphic designer.
C) hire a student who aspires to be a talented graphic designer.
D) try to improve your own graphic design.
E) customers are impressed by shiny things. Put more shiny things on your website.
F) make it look good first and make it functional later. The sooner the client has something that will draw in customers, the sooner they will start making money. The sooner they start making money, the sooner you will get some of that money to improve the back end.
G) if you don't like dealing with customers, don't work freelance.
Do you need more options?
Bob.
Then concentrate on layout, but in the first place:
Make shure you have the fsck**g content for the site.
Then go back to refining the layout.
The backend should never take two whole manmonths for a single customer.
No wonder you have bitching customers.
Speaking as a long time consultant who runs into this all the time - it's not a case of quality vs mediocrity, it's a case of ignorance. :)
The problem is conveying the value to someone with no foundation of knowledge to build on.
In this particular case I would use real-world examples of how your implementation is better. E.g. "If you decide to do XYZ or ABC or whatever down the road you can with my design because I've taken the time to analyze your needs and plan for the future. The site you're looking at would cost more in the long run because of the lack of forward-looking infrastructure."
That said, I would definitely see about partnering with a good graphics designer to make your site just as pretty (or more so).
Looks sell, ask any beautiful woman!
Yes I've dealt with this one.
First, if your client doesn't appreciate what you are giving them, you are either giving them too much or not selling them on what you're giving them.
Giving them to much - there is no point in giving your client something they will not appreciate. If you can't get them to appreciate it, it's not worth your time to develop it.
Not selling them - If you are dead set on giving your client something they don't value, you have to convince them that they need what you are offering. This is an uphill battle, this can be a full time job.
They key is to find out what your client truly wants, and then build that for them. When a client doesn't know what they want, you're in big danger, those are the kind of clients who won't appreciate what you give them (they can't appreciate it if they don't know they want it) and who will come to you with new bizarre requirements late in the project (they feel they haven't asked for much up to this point).
---
I support spreading santorum