Slashdot Mirror


Tips for Selecting a Web Development Firm?

cyrano asks: "The organization I work with is looking for nothing less than a complete re-launch of its web site - upgrading from cobbled together static HTML and ASP pages to nothing less than a dynamic, database-driven site with a full-featured Content Management System and a secure eCommerce component. I have already collected proposals from several firms, each advocating the benefits of Java and Struts vs. ASP.NET vs. PHP...however, the technology used by each firm will only form a small part in my final decision. My true concern is ensuring that the firm I contract will be professional, cooperative, timely and will ultimately deliver their services as promised. What sort of questions should I be asking them, and what sort of warning signs should I look out for to make sure I find the perfect fit?"

106 comments

  1. what they've done by zerkon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simplest answer is the most obvious, look at their website, look at websites they've created, and if they've used the languages you want on your website, and have done it well, it stands to reason they are able to do it again.

    1. Re:what they've done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, look at their previous work.

      At my last job, they had a similar project. They wanted to port all of our existing applications to a web based system that would be accessable to outside clients and offsite employees.

      The company ended up choosing a consulting company who had just started, and didn't have any previous experience. They just happened to have the slickest marketing, so they won the contract.

      Long story short, the last I heard, they are still developing the project (Which was supposed to be done in mid 2002). It's pretty much useable now, but it isn't fully functional. It is also several years late, and the final cost ended up being about 3 times what was originally estimated.

      From what I've heard from friends who still work there, the company is suing the consulting company.

    2. Re:what they've done by a2wflc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Make sure you look at websites created by the indivuals who will be working on your site. I've had a case where the 5+ example sites we saw were VERY impressive and for large & famous companies. But the team assigned to do our site was not quite as competent as the teams that did the other sites we looked at.

    3. Re:what they've done by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      As someone that use to do design work, I second that. Many companies have several developers, but they only do simplistic things most of the time. I had a room mate that ended up working for a firm as a contractor and did a few templates for some high-profile companies. He ended up signing about 3 NDA's for various topics including not talking about the contract with anyone, not contacting the clients in anyway, not being able to use the work as his own, etc... While it sucked, he was paid about $18 an hour, spending about 1.5 hours on each template (taking a photoshop image and chopping it for web use).

      Make sure you meet the team that is doing your work - in person is best. Outsourcing has hit many companies now days and while one company may put on a happy face, it may be contractors doing the actual work. Heck, I'm a contractor to a contractor that is contracted (umm...yea, thats right) - its a shitty, feeble existence, but it pays some of the bills.

      The other thing that I would recommend is that your internal crew should start learning the languages that the website will be built in (or, preferably, already know it) and audit the code as much as possible so they can understand how it works. Its a pain in the ass later to be handed a full application and have someone say "this was just built - change this, this and this by tomorrow" when you have no clue what is what. They should be checking on security, comments, standardization, etc. Your internal people should also have 1 to 2 trips planned to the contractors location to meet with the designers if you plan on keeping this company around for awhile. If its a 1 time deal thats only going to last 2'ish months or so - its not needed, but 1 trip about 2-3 weeks in is recommended to check on progress and get developer thoughts . This also ensures that the contractor is not bait & switching their contractors somewhere else. If you do meet them, make sure to specifically ask if they where contracted for the job...

    4. Re:what they've done by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much the truth for any kind of development, not just web development. There is a project that I was handed, which had been in development for about four years prior. It had been through two code changes and rewrites, and was continuously in a state of "beta." I cleaned it up, and got it to about 90% production quality in less than a month.

      I agree though, it is important to know the history of the individuals that you will be dealing with. Keep in mind where the code is going to be written as well, and whether or not you will have contact with the devs. Though there may be some fine code coming out India, I would make sure that I'm not hiring a front-end firm for a bunch of off-shore developers. The language barrier is painful. The same goes for eastern Europe, which I hear is the new off-shore development hotbed.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    5. Re:what they've done by SIGPUNKT · · Score: 1
      The company ended up choosing a consulting company who had just started, and didn't have any previous experience...

      It is also several years late, and the final cost ended up being about 3 times what was originally estimated.

      That's why you want to go with a major consulting firm -- they'll get your system delivered several years late, and five times the original estimate!

      Seriously, I used to do LIMS for pharmaceutical companies, and the number of failed systems created by Anderson/D&T/PWC/E&Y is just staggering. My line used to be "Give me what $FIRM is charging you for the prototype, and I'll deliver a complete system." My first job was paid for out of the completion bonus the big company failed to earn when their completed system didn't meet *any* of its targets (functionality, security, response time, or hardware requirements). After my client threw US$3M down the tubes on that one, I picked up the slack for well under US$250K.

      Oddly enough, I'm working with an e-commerce company now who does exactly what you're looking for. They've been around since before the dot-bomb meltdown, and have some fairly impressive names on their resume. Impressive enough that I'll assume you've already heard of them, so I won't shill for them here. Bottom line: contact their current clients and ask. If they hem and haw or say "we don't comment on vendor performance", then cross them off the list. Happy clients are good references and shouldn't be afraid to share their experiences.

      --
      Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
  2. Preference by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    This comes down to a matter of preference, and also what type of skills your own organization has.

    Personally I would stay far away from PHP. I prefer jsp/servlets, however Struts has gained a reputation as an albatross. Is there anybody proposing using Spring, or some other lightweight framework?

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Preference by redog · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      PHP RAWKZ!

    2. Re:Preference by karnat10 · · Score: 1

      Very OT, but as a non-native english speaker, I'd like to know what having a "reputation as an albatross" means.

    3. Re:Preference by magefile · · Score: 1

      It comes from a well-known poem called "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner". The albatross was a sign of good luck, and a sailor shoots it (in a story one of the characters tells another). As punishment, his comrades make him wear it around his neck. The other sailors die from the curse, but he survives after seeing visions and praying. Basically, it's considered a curse, or a deadweight. More explanation can be found here:

    4. Re:Preference by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 1

      It's a reference to a story "Rime of the Ancient Mariner"( (also a good Iron Maiden song). In short the Mariner shoots an albatross, the shipmates sees it as bad omen, and hang the dead bird around the mariner's neck, which would be a very heavy burden to carry.

    5. Re:Preference by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

      Is there anybody proposing using Spring, or some other lightweight framework?

      Not yet. I myself have no practical experience with the frameworks, but I have read Rod Johnson's J2EE Development without EJB.

      As a result, I've in fact been wondering if a AoP/IOC framework should be a requirement should we go with a Java-based solution.

      Do you have any practical experience with Spring or other AOP/IoC frameworks and did you observe any performance hits in production?

  3. return -EWRONGBIDNESS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My true concern is ensuring that the firm I contract will be professional, cooperative, timely and will ultimately deliver their services as promised.
    Sorry, wrong industry: web-developers provide none of the above.

    1. Re:return -EWRONGBIDNESS by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Even though this was posted by an AC and modded funny, sadly in my experience it is mostly true.

      Very few web development firms I have dealt with had any of these qualities, let alone all of them.

      I think the best advice has already been given in multiple other posts: Ask for references, check those references, and check out their past work. Ask your questions of the references that they supply.

      As for technology... This sounds like this will be a fairly involved site, who will support/maintain it going forward? If the answer is you (or internal staff), then you will want to consider technology you or your staff are comfortable supporting.

  4. prior work by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just a simple bit of advice , but have a close look at the company's portfolio .
    There is no better gauge of skill ,a consistant quality is a fine gaurantee .
    Personaly i would also do some background checks , perhaps contact your peers in the other firms for which the web deisgn/development company has worked for.
    content first , style second (no mystery meat)

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:prior work by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Just a simple bit of advice, but have a close look at the company's portfolio."

      Unfortunately, that tells you more about their clients' [lack of] taste than about the designer himself. It's one of the reasons I'm not doing webdesign for my company ("it must use flash, and it must be 500px wide, and images must be unreadably small, and we can't put any useful information on it, and we have to show how innovative we are with unique "features" and navigation systems and non-underlined links, and borderless linked images, and fixed 8-point text, and text-in-graphics...)

      It might be better to look at the designer's personal site, although webdesign companies don't seem to spend much/any time updating those.

    2. Re:prior work by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      As someone who has worked as a web dev in my life ,I whole heartly agree.
      I should perhaps of made myself more clear , when i was working as a web dev , I kept a portfolio of works i had done for personal use(I still do infact) or concept work .Also the profesional sites i had done were , whilst not always being a testimemt to my design skill ,were a testiment to my coding ability

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  5. Rabid dislike of anyone approach... by haplo21112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...you want people who will complete the work you are asking for...not evangelists rtrying to prove their tech choice is better.

    If someone crying the superiority of Java over PHP over ASP, Windows over UNIX/Linux...they are not going to be making the best choices for the various parts of the product.

    Each has strengths and weaknesses, and integrates better or wrose with certain things. A key question to ask them if if they know the best X to integrate thier solution with (X). The mythical (x) need not even be what they will be ultimately building against, its thoery question but they don't need to know that when you ask.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:Rabid dislike of anyone approach... by Dr.Opveter · · Score: 1

      True, and if some things need to be done using a different language which the company might not have any expertise in, i'd rather hear them say that honestly and see if we can sort it out anyway, instead of them trying to change my requirements for the site to 'fit' it into whatever they know how to build.

      --
      Sample this!
    2. Re:Rabid dislike of anyone approach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If someone crying the superiority of Java over PHP over ASP, Windows over UNIX/Linux...they are not going to be making the best choices for the various parts of the product.

      I think this is bullshit. Clients generally don't care what language it's written in (if they knew about that stuff, they'd do it themselves!) And if any of them asked, I'd say that I'd use Java or PHP over ASP because ASP is a proprietary system that only works on one platform*. Because that's a business risk for them, they need to know about stuff like that.

      This doesn't mean I'm trying to push my favourite language on the client, it means I'm trying to push a language on the client that is best for them.

      Furthermore, perfectly competent web development firms can only work with one language. Their employees may know a variety of languages, but if they've just hired a junior developer that only know the language they specialise in, it's not going to be worth their time to build stuff in other languages. So it's not uncommon for them to say "yes, it's possible to do it in ASP, but wee won't do it" or "we'll charge extra if you want ASP".

      * Yes I know about the crap emulation like Chilisoft and iASP.

    3. Re:Rabid dislike of anyone approach... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      If someone crying the superiority of Java over PHP over ASP, Windows over UNIX/Linux...they are not going to be making the best choices for the various parts of the product.

      This is not necessarily true. I'm on loan to an internal organization to help them get a data driven web site up and running. Eventually they're supposed to be able to do stuff on their own. One has some experience with desktop databases, the other is a graphic designer who has maintained several mostly static web pages. Anyways, if I advocate PHP over Java, .NET, or ASP, that's not evangilism, it's sanity.

      There's also other reasons for pushing a specific technology. For example, a firm's core competency's might be in a particular area. If the client doesn't care what technology is used, then should they care if the contractor is going to use the tools with which they are most proficient? ASP sucks. But it's possible that a contractor has a superb set of custom libraries and knowhow that make his ASP solution better than a competing PHP solution.

  6. One Word: Portfolio by Flooded77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These are all questions that a development firm's previous clients would have answers to. Most company sites I see usually have some sort of portfolio listing previous and current clients. If you like the firm's work, start contacting their previous clients and ask them your questions.

    As far as what technology they use, I'd say that as long as it fits your needs (each tech has it's own strengths and weaknesses) and is quality work, it doesn't really matter unless you've got something in mind.

    Good luck.

  7. Watchout for... by redog · · Score: 1

    anyone who claims to guarantee search rankings with their design strategys.

  8. One warning sign... by Singletoned · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was in a discussion with our web developers and I said that the back end of the site needed to be easy for the administrators and moderators to use, which they disputed.

    They said that they could just give everyone a day's training on how to administrate the site and then it didn't need to be easy to use.

    I was so shocked I couldn't reply, and once I had gathered myself together I couldn't persuade them otherwise. The website still isn't easy to administrate.

    1. Re:One warning sign... by syntax · · Score: 1

      This all depends on the size and budget of the website in question. A thorough backend can run anywhere from a couple grand to 50k+, but I find they usually are around 5k. For small to medium-small businesses, it's cheaper to train someone to use a prewritten SQL admin utility (like phpMyAdmin) over than to spend thousands on a custom backend that only one or two people will end up using.

    2. Re:One warning sign... by rednip · · Score: 2, Interesting
      once I had gathered myself together I couldn't persuade them otherwise.
      Oh, they know better. Ask them to document those proceedures and then ask 'anyone' to follow their instructions from the documentation alone. I'd bet that the instructions are like "telnet to the server as root, log into the database as 'sa' do then do a complex SQL update affecting at least 3 tables." Keep asking questions until the documentation is complete.

      The trouble is that once a system is up and working it's hard to get the authorization to make changes unless there is a critical business need for the update, and someone willing to pay for it. Asking for proper and complete 'idiot' documentation is the least which is needed.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    3. Re:One warning sign... by Singletoned · · Score: 1

      No, we had a backend, the issue was just over how easy it should be to use, as in whether links to 'delete this item' should be in an obvious place or not, and whether commonly performed actions should be hidden deep in a cryptic menu system or not.

      It was little things that I had previously thought were self-evident. Not only that, but they were selling the back-end to other people as well (not a custom made job) so I would have assumed it would be in their interest to make it good.

      Probably the age old case of job-security through code-obscurity.

    4. Re:One warning sign... by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1
      Probably the age old case of job-security through code-obscurity.
      Well when you play this game you write obscure code, not obscure GUIs.

      And as a writer of a general purpose CMS myself, i'd say that writing such beasts in a way that allows each clients to do his own thing, and keep it easy for everyone is often something really hard to do. Since each client seems to have different needs, you end up coding a sort of meta CMS where everything is configurable. But it still has to allow the webdeveloppers to build the website in a few hours, and have a GUI that makes the client thinks that it was done so solve his own particular problems (if it doesn't look like that, the client *will* be confused).
      And on top of that, the PHB tries to push specific developpments for each client, totally breaking all the efforts you make to keep the things as general and "meta" as possible, just because the client wants an image to do x instead of a link, or whatever.

    5. Re:One warning sign... by Singletoned · · Score: 1
      But when you have one CMS for everyone, you might as well make it easy for _someone_ to use.

      But it still has to allow the webdeveloppers to build the website in a few hours, and have a GUI that makes the client thinks that it was done so solve his own particular problems (if it doesn't look like that, the client *will* be confused).

      Not at all. Lots of clients can cope with something that doesn't look as if it solves their particualr problem, as long as they can work out what it does.

  9. Get references by torninfinity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Get references from them and actually check them out. Sure you'll get only what they want to give you, but if you ask the right questions you'll be able to sort through the fluff. The only other thing I would say is put in deliverables into your contract. Many times development has been hindered by lack of planning and set timelines.

  10. W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by Trevelyan · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would check their existing work against the w3c validator
    http://validator.w3.org/
    and open them up in a selection of browsers.

    Its is unlikely you will find any non trivial site that passes the validator, but you can see who's is worst.

    You may not be that concerned about browser compatibility, but it does show how much care they take when writing their code (in case of dynamic) or html

    You could go as far as putting it in their contract that their pages pass the validator.

    But note that passing the validator is not absolute proof that the page is correct, just that the sgml/xml is valid.

    1. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by white1827 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You actually SHOULD go so far as to state in the contract that all content MUST validate against W3C standards in one of the "strict" modes. If they even bat an eye when you request this, I would seriously be suspicious in the quality of their work. This will help insure that your investment in your website will work with future browsers for as long as possible.

    2. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      I would agree that the pages should validate cleanly, but I wouldn't go so far as to say against strict mode. To get things to work properly cross platform, you may very well need to work with "transitional." This is largely because of problems with IE. This depends a lot on requirements - strict might be appropriate in a given situation. For a general usage, publicly accessible site, I wouldn't shoot higher than transitional. You'll be giving yourself more hurt than it's worth.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    3. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      The people they're likely to talk to will probably not be the people who wind up actually doing the work, and they'll likely agree to anything, whether they know what it means or not. "Surrre, we can do that in a week, no problem!"

    4. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Transitional?

      Transitional my buttox.

      XHTML1.0 strict is an XML document.

      If a software company can't generate valid xml, give then the boot.
      BTW, making a website is the same as making software.

      Make sure they make the design completely modular to allow you to use different images, colors, and fonts scrictly by changing the css file(s). See CssZenGarden.com, (especially like http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/149/149.css&page =0, but that's me)

      And if they use tables for layout, kick them out too. You are not hiring a company in 2001 to do a 2001 website. You are hiring a 2005 company to to a 2006 website. Don't let them tell you they have to build for IE. The current IE will be history this time next year.

      Finally, you can pay average money, and get an average website, or you can pay extraordinary money and get an extraordinary website (example: maps.google.com). You pay little, you get a little website. There's no magic there.

      Ask happycog.com for the job, or who they would recommend.

      Again finally: If you're going to hassle them about color, font, and page layout, your project is already doomed. The reason why your company does NOT have an amazing website is because your company CAN'T make one. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get our of the way of professionals web designers who make amazing websites in their spare time.

      Finally: there is no more finally.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by arkanes · · Score: 1

      An XML document full of crappy non-semantic markup (like the CSS Zen Garden) is just so much text. It's stupid to insist on XML validation when you aren't going to work with it as raw data, and if you're going to work with it as raw data your an utter cretin if you store it in XHTML instead of a usefull XML dialect thats transformed via XSLT. In addition, in the real world, browser compatability is important (maps.google.com doesn't validate against strict, for example), and IE 6 isn't going anywhere for at least 3 years, whether longhorn ships on time or not.

    6. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by log0n · · Score: 1

      Can anyone tell me why tables are so bad for layout? A bad designer is a bad designer, regardless of what they craft in. A competent graphic artist will know how to build a mockup that is adaptable to non-fixed-width window, and a good web designer will know how to put that into code. There's more to design (annd tables) than that, but most of the complaints seem to be about layout.

      Yeah, the potential to make asshorrible tables+layouts is there, but the potential to make asshorrible ANYTHING is there if you aren't very skilled with what you're trying to do. It all comes down to the skill of the designer.

      $.02

    7. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      Generally, I agree. Especially on the table layout bit. There's no reason to be doing that in this day and age, unless you've got some seriously ancient browser requirements. Yes, budget is going to be a major factor in how the site turns out - underfunded web projects fail the same way any underfunded software development project will fail. And I definitely agree that you should let the dev company worry about the things that you're hiring them for. Micromanagement is going to result in a crap project that misses deadlines and is over budget.

      I'm not quite sure where you were going with "XHTML1.0 strict is an XML document", though. Of course it is, but that's likely tangential. It's just a fact of life that IE6 screws certain things up, and to get around them, there's a good chance you'll have to bend a corner here or there. Do I like it? No, it pisses me off because it makes my life harder. But as arkanes says above, IE6 is going to be with us for at least the next three years, and we have to deal with it.

      Note that I didn't say strict was useless, or that it was never appropriate. Part of good web development is pragmatism. Chose your tools and standards wisely. Don't overburden a project with unnecessary strictures. If you only advocate strict to be strict, then it's the wrong reason. If it's because there's a good business case for it, then by all means, use it.

      And of course anyone that builds solely for IE should be shot. Vigilante justice has it's place.

      And I'm sorry about your buttocks.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    8. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by slimak · · Score: 1

      One thing (that I know of) is that there is a lot of extra markup that must be used for a table-based layout. All the table's, tr's, td's and extra options (border=0, cellpadding=1,...) makes for much larger HTML files. This data is sent for every request, which results in a lot of wasted bandwidth ($) compared to using CSS. Good use of CSS allows for relatively small content pages that all share the same layout. Overall this translates to less traffic for the same result.

      A second issue is flexibility. Tables lock you into a layout and requires a rewrite all your pages to change a layout. CSS on the other hand allows for flexible layouts that can be drastically different -- sort of like a website skin.

      You are right that it is very possible to make a nice table based-layout and a horrible CSS-based layout. Tables to not necessarily lead to bad layouts. IMHO, they (tables, not the layouts made with them) are just not as good as CSS for layouts

    9. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      The browser is the xml parser.

      You are producing a valid xml document for the browser. I define that as "work with" the document.

      XSLT is only workable on the server. Fine, use it on the server, store your data as semantic xml, but the output of the XSLT should still be XHTML 1.0 strict (or 1.1) :)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    10. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1
      Can anyone tell me why tables are so bad for layout?

      Table layouts are a bitch to maintain. It's much easier to work with good CSS and proper semantic markup. CSS layouts are lighter. Search engines don't like table based layouts as much (all that extra markup pushes your content further down in the actual file). If you want to move page elements around (say putting the menu on the right instead of left), it's much easier to change a couple lines of CSS than sorting out a bunch of nested tables, counting columns, etc. One of the happiest moments of my career was when we decided we could start moving away from table layouts.

      ...the potential to make asshorrible ANYTHING is there if you aren't very skilled with what you're trying to do. It all comes down to the skill of the designer.

      Yep ;)

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    11. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I see no reason why. There's no objective advantages to outputing XHTML as opposed to HTML. The only advantage at all is that you can check off a list on your buzzword compliance list, which is a pretty crappy reason to make technical decisions.

      Anyone who tells you that you should use technology X without being able to provide some concrete reasons, including comparing it to other similiar technologies, is someone you should toss. Personally, I think you can get a lot more done a lot faster if you consider HTML to be a rich-text markup language, as it was originally intended, and largely dispense with the dreams of purely semantic markup. The existing tools simply don't realize that goal. Store your source data in XML and transform it on demand if you want/need effective programmatic access to your data.

      Some people do use client-side XML/XSLT transforms, by the way. It's more portable and supports a wider range of clients to do it on the server, though.

    12. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Browsers check the doctype and will render differently based on that. Not rendering in quirks mode, a browser will render a page faster. And faster is important. And XHTML1.0/1 valid documents specifically tell the browser not to render in quirks mode. Is that point valid enough for you?

      Yes, I do this for a living. I've taken html 4.0 pages to xhtml1.0 scrict on the company intranet and gone from 5 seconds to 0.3 seconds. Same data. Of course, I optimized everything, not just the html, but you get the point. If I wanted to go to 0.2, I would streamline data object marshalling. The page in question went from 1.5MB to 100Kb.

      I store my source data on databases. MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle.

      Also, when I use the xmlhttp + client-side xml-rpc, it helps to have a valid xml document, with good ID tags and clear sections I can drop and add to without reloading the page. (I get sub 0.2 seconds response on a lot of those)

      Finally, what do you do if the client (lynx, google) does not support client-side xslt processing? Mmm?

      One more thing while mentioning google. xhtml1.0/1 pages that validate seem to get much better ranking. Example: I wrote a story in 2001, and made it xhtml1.0 a year later. Now, google puts it up first, out of 400,000 results for "federal trooper". I don't advertise the page, and nobody links to it. You tell me. I did not even optimise it for google, and I was suprised it was first. YMMV etc.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    13. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by schon · · Score: 1

      XHTML1.0/1 valid documents specifically tell the browser not to render in quirks mode. Is that point valid enough for you?

      I think that's a point to make your page validate, but not necessarily to XHTML; you can make your page HTML 4.01 Strict and get the best of both worlds.

      Not that I agree 100% with arkanes - specifically I disagree with his(her?) comments about foregoing semantic* markup; using semantic* markup really streamlines development, and makes eases maintenance (especially if someone else will be maintaining the site.)

      Your anecdote about google rankings is intriguing though - do you have anything else to support it?

      *god I hate that word.

    14. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      On Google:
      Not that I want to share here, but it's been my experience.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    15. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I use the W3C dom for client-side RPC and don't have any trouble, but I can see how it'd be usefull. I'm not against the use of XHTML if thats what floats your boat, but I'm against mandating it without a specific reason. Your performance results are interesting but don't match my experience, I haven't seen any difference between HTML 4.0 Strict (or Transitional) and XHTML 1.0/1.1, assuming everything else is the same.

      I wouldn't neccesarily recommend using client-side XSLT, outside a closed environment, just mentioning that it is possible.

      Google giving priority to validating pages is interesting. I suppose it's possible, as an effort to promote web standards (which I generally support, although I have quite a few rants I won't bother you with).

    16. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

      I am already convinced that CSS layouts is the way to go. I hate working with HTML tables, and was "wowed" but the power & flexibility of the approach from an article I saw on A List Apart:

      Retooling Slashdot with Web Standards
      http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slashdot/

      However, I am concerned that only a minority of web developers out there will be experts in using CSS layouts. Further, I know first-hand that most web programmers are acustomed to laying out database query results, forms, etc. with plain old HTML tables.

      Thus, we might be severely limited in our selection of web designers, potentially leading to crisis situations if we need site layout/content updated quickly. What has been your experience with such issues?

      Also, anybody who has tried to extract data from documents in HTML format (either local or on the web) knows that there is an immediate advantage to XHTML compliance. Five years from now, when Management tells me they want the 500+ pages from the old web site migrated into the new web site/database/what-have-you, I will be thankful that each page is also a valid XML document.

    17. Re:W3C Validator and Browser compatibility by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Well,

      Tables are not useless. They should be used to display data that is in tabular format, such as database query results and lists of things.

      As far as finding developers, it's only a matter of money.

      Remember that anything you build today will have to compete with things built next year.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  11. References... by blacksway · · Score: 1

    Look at the sites they have listed on their web-site. Contact these companies and get references. If these companies wont give references (or you can't get in contact with the correct people) then as a last resort ask the web company themselves for references, or contacts at the companies you tried to talk to.

    1. Re:References... by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid this is exactly what the companies want you to do rather than what you should do. This way you'll only get the sites that worked well and were delivered more or less on-time and within budget. There may well be 4 or 5 of these on the site, but you'll have know clue about all the stuff that they never finished, or delivered with broken functionality 2 years late. You're gonna have to speak to the company - while they won't immediately fess up to delivering late expensive crap, if they keep talking about the same 2 projects - you should smell a rat, they're the ones that worked. They should be able to comfortably discuss just about any project they've worked on, and if you know the size of the company and how long it has existed for, you can guess more or less how many projects that should be.

      --
      Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
  12. Where's the focus? by beegle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want to find a company that's concerned about how you're going to use and maintain the system. If they're developing use cases and trying to assess the technical knowledge of people who will use the system, they're on the right track. If they're worrying about whether to use Windows or Unix or something else, worry. If they're pushing a specific technology or product, worry.

    When they present their proposals, ask why each piece is needed, and take the offensive. Ask why they didn't use something smaller or simpler. "Upgradeability" and "future growth" are, more often than not, excuses to sell you crap that you'll never use UNLESS you specifically told them that those things mattered to you. It amazes me how many people end up with a database-backed CMS for a relatively static site with a miniscule archive.

    Ask about things like standards compliance and handicapped accessibility. A good company will either do that by default or jot down that it matters to you. It won't be a big deal to them. A bad company will try to convince you that IE on Windows (or whatever their technology of choice supports) is the only browser that matters.

    You also want to be a little bit of a pest early on. Cold-call them a day or two after you meet to see how things are going. If they have -any- progress, you're in good shape. If the answer is "Oh, uh, we're still looking into that" or something equally evasive, well, it's not going to get better.

    --
    --
  13. Portfolio, experience, and sacrifice a chicken by rho · · Score: 1

    Check the other sites they've done. See if they look like something you could use. Ask the other companies if they were good to work with.

    See how much experience they have. If one of their developers is an active participant in a Free software project of some sort, that's a good sign.

    Finally, sacrifice a chicken and mutter an incantation from the darkest magick of Voodou. The project will go over-time, over-buget, and will be atrociously broken in unexpected ways. The only way to avoid this for any non-trivial system is to pay a lot of money, or do something highly derivative.

    I wouldn't bother with trying to measure which language/technique is "best". They're all good and bad in different ways. I myself like PHP because it's easy and fast, and if I get hit by a bus there are gobs of people who can spend a week looking at the code and pick up where I left off.

    Check out Drupal. You might find it to be a perfect fit for you. I use it almost exclusively as it's very powerful and very easy--and very fast, incidentally. I'm not so thrilled about a few things--that it uses the database as a less-dangerous filesystem and not as a true RDBMS, mostly because of a MySQL mindset; that some of the modules (image.module) requires a Web server-writable directory--but by and large it solves 90% of the problems and isn't as difficult to use as Zope/Plone.

    --
    Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    1. Re:Portfolio, experience, and sacrifice a chicken by doperu · · Score: 1

      Plone and Zope isn't difficult, because they based on very undersandeable language python. I'm Zope developer and can say that Plone is very easy and scalable platform. Plone is good start point for corporative sites and intranets systems.

  14. Basically basic by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1

    Although not the absolute best way of going about it, it might give you the best feedback:

    Look up existing sites, call the client, and ask them about thier experience.

    Some people may not talk about it or may get upset, but eventually you should find a few that will share thier experiences.

    This is still a bit tricky because clients that stay with a firm do so because they like the results. It's hard to find people that have a strong dislike for the company they're still with - strong bonds are formed between client and firm.

    Aside from that, go with yoour gut instinct. Humans have natural reactions to situations for a reason ("intuition"). Follow that feeling when you talk to them. If they come off unconfident, fly-by-night, or anything bad, steer clear: the situation is probably worse than you think it is.

  15. I work for a development firm by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Informative
    I work for a company that does web development (no I wont plug them here unless asked). I would say the most important thing is to look at previous sites done by them. Call some of their clients and talk to them. We give our clients a list of past clients to call.

    You should also check their work in a few browsers (safari, Firefox, IE6, etc). There is no excuse for a professional website not working in all major browsers. Make sure you own the work (A lot of our clients had been screwed in the past by this).
    Try to stay away from a company that pushes one language over another. We do whats best for the client, if that means php, asp, perl, java, or even .NET thats what is going to get done. The only thing we really push hard is use of CSS for all layout. It saves bandwidth and makes the site easier to modify in the future.

    Finally, if you are also going to host with them, find out who owns their servers, and where they are located. Inquire about their backup system and make sure they have standards for uptime.

    1. Re:I work for a development firm by Dr.Opveter · · Score: 1
      Make sure you own the work (A lot of our clients had been screwed in the past by this).

      It would indeed be nice to make sure you get source files of images and such. This will help a lot when you need to make small changes to the existing website, but you don't want to use the same developer for some reason

      --
      Sample this!
  16. I'll do it by Fished · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll give you realll gud website for $500!

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:I'll do it by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      I'll do it for a slab!

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  17. Philip Greenspun and Ars Digita by RobotWisdom · · Score: 1
    Start with Philip Greenspun's online book on database-backed website design. Read the hilarious Book behind the Book essay on why computer books are so bloated, but buy the dead-trees version anyway.

    Explore his other books and the websites built by his company, Ars Digita (eg the elegant NY Review of Books site). Research the tragedy of Ars Digita, via Google I guess. Somewhere in here there used to be a long rant about how the venture capitalists got their toes in the door and proceeded to destroy the company, which was a very idealistic and efficient company that did just what you ask-- look for alumni or fans.

    1. Re:Philip Greenspun and Ars Digita by RobotWisdom · · Score: 1

      That rant is here, linked (along with a few supporting points-of-view) from his Wikipedia bio.

  18. Some basic things by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Web design - The current trend is away from flashy sites that slow or distract the user from what they're looking for and confuse search engines. Fluid layouts are good. Another trend is reducing the space between the top of the page and the content, and sometimes moving the navigation bar to the right to reduce mouse movement between the nav bar and the scroll bar and allow the content to be closer to the top left, drawing the user's eyes to the content and putting it higher up on the page for the search engines.

    SEO - Search engine optimization. If they've researched it they should know the acronym. Most of the old techniques no longer work in Google. Some will get you penalties. No javascript based links that the search engines can't follow. Repetition is bad. Very similar pages are bad, often the case with product pages where a product has many similar configurations, each having its own page. Dynamic pages with long urls or a countless number of possible urls (like with session ids) are bad because search engines will only spider a small number of them to avoid getting thousands of really similar pages from one dynamic page. Aside from avoiding repetition and things that confuse the search engine, content is mostly king.

    Security - They should at least know about sql injection.

    Content organization - As a plus, they should be able to organize your site based on what your customers are most likely to be searching for, what you sell the most of. This decides things like front page links, what images best represent each category, and so on. It's not enough just to have an online catalog with every product having equal weight. It might help if they took microeconomics in college.

    As for which language, php, java, or asp.net, it doesn't matter as much as the quality of the programmer. A lot of things seem to take much less effort in php though.

    1. Re:Some basic things by quamaretto · · Score: 1
      As for which language, php, java, or asp.net, it doesn't matter as much as the quality of the programmer. A lot of things seem to take much less effort in php though.

      I agree with the basic point - that language doesn't matter as much as the programmer - but to some degree, I think that it is important to know that the techonology being used is appropriate. PHP may be fine for some types of web sites, but the kind of thing I do (data-driven business/management applications) requires a lot of interactivity, and it would be hell to try to do all of that in PHP. (We currently use ASP.NET.)

      Being easier to learn or simpler in some situations doesn't mean that the tool is better. An example would be using well-factored CSS versus using whatever mix of HTML and in-line styling gets the job done. One of these options makes the site design flexible and reworkable, and one of them will force you to do massive work to even change the color scheme.

      My opinion with ASP.NET versus other techonologies is that power of the tool (ViewState and event driven programming, as well as DataBinding, just to name a few) more than justifies the learning curve and the development complexity. (I have a lot of gripes about ASP.NET, also, having to do with how MVC is handled and WHY THE HELL THERE ISN'T A WEB CONTROL THAT GENERATES UL/LI TAGS. Oh well.)

      Also of interest are things like O/R Mappers. Sure, you have more control if you don't use them, and your grid is just a little loop with some copy-pasting action in there; but is it easily maintainable, and extensible, etc? How much time do you spend writing and maintaining SQL Code? It adds a layer of complexity, but ulimately saves you a lot of work. (I use LLBLGen Pro; things like Hibernate are similar.)

      Anyway, like I said, I agree with the basic point that people are more important than technology used, but I have a different viewpoint on how technologies should be chosen and used. YMMMV.

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
    2. Re:Some basic things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do ASP.net websites with event driven stuff work in firefox?

  19. Don't fret the language by dFaust · · Score: 1
    Unless your organization has some vested interest in a particular language (ie: you know you'll want to make your own modifications to the site and your IT guy only knows PHP), don't worry about the language. Someone could in theory write equally capable code in any of those languages... but more importantly, equally BAD code can be written in any of those languages. Fact is, no matter what platform they use, the people coding it could be idiots and make a total mess of things.

    Sadly, as a Senior Web Developer having worked at a variety of companies over the years, I've seen this firsthand too many times. It really depends on the skill of the people creating the site. But making an accurate assessment of that skill is near impossible. The companies will sweet talk you with a very professional proposal, show you amazing sites from their portfolio, let you talk with their very intelligent Senior Web Developer.... but they'll forget to metion that 75% of the proposal was from a template that they've honed over the years to look as good as possible, the people responsible for the amazing portfolio pieces no longer work there, and the Senior Web Developer won't ACTUALLY be involved in architecting the site. Assuming he's not retiring in 2 weeks.

    I've unfortunately seen first hand alot of clients get the wool pulled over their eyes, and am sad to say that the only advice I can really offer is to go with your gut and/or get a reference from someone who's opinion you value, because most of the time when a company is courting you, it's 50% smoke and mirrors and 50% bullshit.

  20. References by invisik · · Score: 1

    Ask them for references. Ask for positive ones and one that projects completed successfully but took longer then planned, problems arose, etc, and tell them you are looking to evaluate the professional side of their business as well as their technical. If they refuse, I'd think they might be one to stay away from. Also, toss their name into Google and see what comes up.......

    Would I give a semi-negative references to a prospective client if they requested it? I think I would, knowing the reference I gave had given the customer 100% satisfaction after the problems arose. I think someone hearing "This blew up and that blew up that we didn't expect, but they stayed here all night to have us up and running in the morning" (or something like that) would consider that a positive thing. You always hear the "Everything went great!" references, which really don't tell the prospective customer that much...

    Good luck.

    -m

    --
    http://www.invisik.com
  21. Get a kick at the cat... by CETS · · Score: 1

    We worked with a company in regard to a content managment system for about 6 months and then decided it wasn't appropriate for us. It started with a on-line demo of the product. Then we had them come in-house for another day long demonstration that was divided into 2 parts, one targeted at end users and one target towards the technical staff. So far so good, all the right answers from the sales people (of course). They convinced us that a proof of concept (on their dime, just our time and some spare hardware) would completely convince us. They left the product with us in a test environment for 90 days. It was during this important testing phase that we got into the day-to-day grind and found the ugle details which decided us not to go with the product. See if you can get a similar opportunity to work with it in your "real world". Also, get an SLA (Service Level Agreement) with us much detail as you think you need.

  22. Make them give you at least one bad reference! by phallstrom · · Score: 1

    Get references. Then call those references! And make them give you at least one reference they had a bad experience with. Everyone has had at least one bad reference and if they can't come up with one they are lying.

    Also, just because the company is small or comes in low, doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. I ran a small (4 person) firm for 5 years and we would lose bids to the big boys in town because the client wouldn't believe we could do it. I'd say half the time they would come back 6 months later wondering if we could "fix" their new site.

    And finally, you should get to meet the team that's going to work on your project. Ideally they'll be at the meetings (at least one of them). Otherwise a *lot* gets lost in the translation from you, to the account rep, to the project manager, to the lead developer, to the people who do the work.

  23. Push for standards by t_c_gull · · Score: 1

    I have been contracting out web development work recently and I have not used the same firm or person twice. I am surprised with how few web developers know how to properly do CSS, well-formed HTML/XHTML.

    Most of stuff they've designed is entirely table-based, 800x600 layouts that are cluttered and difficult to maintain.

    What I am considering, is doing the page layouts myself and contracting out the photoshop-type stuff.

    1. Re:Push for standards by drspliff · · Score: 1

      What you've mentioned is one of the major problems of what I call the 'Dreamweaver generation'.

      If you go to any website template site (such as 4templates) you'll notice that 90% of the templates are high res, table-based and mostly based around a Photoshopped design with Flash and extra gizmos added to wow the clients into buying them.

      Then you look at your competitors sites, how many high-profile websites have +70kb of images on the first page?

      The problem we're facing in the web design and development industry is a lack of knowledge on the buyers behalf of what really makes a good website. For example I've just finished deploying a mid-sized college website, the previous site was an 'All Flash Solution' with a 400kb intro animation, dance music playing in the background, buzzing when you roll over the menus etc. And the only reason that developer was chosen was because 'The Suites' fell for the wow-factor.

      My tips for anybody looking for web design and development are simply: Would your grandma on her 32kbit dialup be able to browse the site easily? And have you ever thought to yourself 'yes, but why do I need to have a dynamic one of those'.

      If you answered Yes, then No... add them to your list of prospective companies, and remember, if you don't like their own website, you probably won't like yours.

  24. This question is the crux of our marketing by dborod · · Score: 1

    I own a small web development company that develops dynamic, content managed web sites built on Zope. We are in the process of writing a document entitled The Tough Pointed Questions to ask any web developer before you sign the cheque (and the only answers you should accept).

    The idea of this document is to provide prospective clients (many of whom are not very knowledgeable) with a resource that will help them in choosing a firm to partner with, even if they don't choose us.

    There is no one thing that you should ask or look for, there are many. Unfortunately the document isn't yet in a state that can be shared, but I'd be pleased to email a copy to anyone who'd like one once it's ready to disseminate. The 3 components of my email address are 'david', 'com' and 'emergence.'

    1. Re:This question is the crux of our marketing by Leonig+Mig · · Score: 1

      well that's putting the cart before the horse. next time i'm in macdonalds i expect to see "ten tough pointed questions any person should ask about what to have for lunch (and the only answers you should expect.)

      one of them will be "should be a bigmac" i'm sure. ;>

  25. Vendor Management - sort of like looking for love by wfgwebmaster · · Score: 1

    CLARIFY YOUR REQUIREMENTS: Know your business objectives and mid to long term goals for the web site. Express them as Business Requirements to be sure you have scalability, localization, internationalization, accessibility and cross-browser compatibility in tow. Know your functional specs and express them as critical use cases. Be clear about what if must do, for how many at a time, how fast .... etc. To 'rate' the vendor, listen for questions. If they are asking question they either aren't listening or have already made up their minds, neither of which is a good indicator for you. HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF IT IS ANY GOOD? What is the vendor's test methodology? Functional testing, load testing, usability testing? How has it been done in the past (by the prospective vendor)? Look for certification: HFI Certified Usability Analyst or CPE/CHFP certifications. Are their testing tools ones that you have experience with and can use in the future? HOLD THE VENDOR'S FEET TO THE FIRE, BUT PAY FOR EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS, TOO. Consider a risk/reward contract where missed deliverables have consequences that hurt. What is their preferred development process? Agile? Waterfall? Iterative waterfall, etc. How does that match you company process? Process matching is often as important as technology matching. Insist to standards based development but most important get documentation that is clearly written and comprehensive. HOW WILL THIS FIT INTO YOUR HOUSE? What are the core technologies you use? How will the solution integrate? New technology means increases in total cost of ownership. Request an integrated implementation and training proposal. Who will do what? In the training proposal look for thoughtful 'user skill' analysis. EVERY KID WANTS A PUPPY BUT WHO WILL WALK THE DOG? Know your internal resources skills. What skills will be needed to keep the site going? Do you have them? Would a different technological approach align with your needs? Watch for skills transfer support if it is needed, don't short yourself here. The site developer may not be qualified to provide the training but they should be able to tell you, in detail, what skills and technical knowledge will be needed. If it is needed, will the cost to 'get ready' be significant? Will the time to build the skill be significant? Is there enough time? Site maintenance and ease of use for the CMS component are foundational to 'the day after' impacts. If you expect post-project support get a detailed SLA.

  26. Past work is not an gauge of future performance by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    There's a reason why (a variation of) this is written on every prospectus: it is the dead honest truth.

    If you want to know how well a given firm will do, ask them to do one of your pages up front. Of course, you will not use their code if they are not selected (and you will sign a contract to that effect).

    It has been my experience that most firms will not do this -- but then (as others have noted), those are not the firms you want to bother dealing with. The few who do provide a "live sample" will be the ones that you will want to do business.

    Think of it this way: when you're accepting bids for a design for your new building, you make the design firms submit their designs up front. You don't say, 'Oh, let's see your portfolio. Okay, that building you did __ years ago looks good, so you win the bid. Now design our building.'

    --
    Yeah, right.
  27. Basic business practice is important! by quamaretto · · Score: 1

    I think the best thing you can do for your company would be to get a tour of their facility, talk to some programmers, and try to gauge what kind of operation they are running.

    If you need some pointers on this, a good start would be The Joel Test. Grab a copy of Joel On Software and take it over there and say, "How does your company score on this test?" They may look at you funny; just tell them you're trying to be sure they're a high quality organization. You can check off some of the boxes yourself, like the "quite working conditions", but on others, you will just have to trust them. If they refuse to talk to you about that sort of thing, take them off your list and go on to the next place, because they are not worth your attention. (Keep in mind they may try to do the "Manage the iceberg" thing to you; this is probably actually a good sign. Just tell them to cut it out. :)

    The most important aspect of the development practice, though, is PEOPLE, not tools or platform or methodology or any of that. Unfortunately, it will be very hard for you to get far enough inside an organization to figure out if they people are SMART and GET THINGS DONE. But if you get a chance to talk to someone like a lead developer or project manager within the company, look for intelligence and resourcefulness.

    Things to avoid are places where you walk in and they tell you "We'll do your site in $TECHNOLOGY, and nothing else." Also, aviod any place that doesn't try to figure out WHAT EXACTLY YOUR ARE ASKING THEM TO DO before they commit to it!

    Unfortunately, you probably will not select the company at which I work. Ces la vis.

    --
    *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
    1. Re:Basic business practice is important! by JimDabell · · Score: 1

      If you need some pointers on this, a good start would be The Joel Test.

      Or even the Joel Test for web development.

    2. Re:Basic business practice is important! by SIGPUNKT · · Score: 1
      Things to avoid are places where you walk in and they tell you "We'll do your site in $TECHNOLOGY, and nothing else."

      I don't think this is really the big point that many people are making it out to be. If you've got a small firm that has a proven PHP/Java/ASP infrastructure, then I wouldn't count them out of the running. If you can't hire a large firm, then it's better to get a firm with a half-dozen $TECHNOLOGY developers than a firm with a half-dozen developers of which only two know any given technology. Then you'll likely have your technology dictated by which developers are available, rather than by requirements.

      --
      Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
    3. Re:Basic business practice is important! by quamaretto · · Score: 1

      Good point... I think maybe what I was thinking, or trying to say, is don't go with a firm who believe in the One Great Platform and insist that everything else is crap. I work at a one-platform company myself, and we have done most of our work in ASP or ASP.NET, but we could handle J2EE or a LAMP application if one needed to be maintained or extended. But of course, ASP.NET is what we mainly offer our clients, because we have experience and structure there.

      And, when I said $TECHNOLOGY, I was also referring to client-side stuff; such as if they insisted it should be done in Flash or Java applets or should be targeted at IE or anything like that. So, I was more trying to say, "Avoid OS/platform/language/editor fanboys", or something. :)

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
  28. Do it incrementally by dubl-u · · Score: 1

    Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

    Find a vendor you think will be good, have them break the project down into chunks of no more than a couple of weeks each. Have them do the first chunk only, with the understanding that if they do a good job, they'll get more work.

    Then make sure the first chunk is done completely and well before giving them the next chunk. Accept no excuses or promises that they'll make you happy down the road. Do not give them the final payment until things are 100% complete. An incremental approach will substantially reduce risk of project failure.

    Also, I strongly recommend that you pick somebody who writes unit tests and acceptance tests for their code. Having automated tests makes it much easier for other developers (yours, theirs, or new vendors) to work on the project.

  29. Here's a suggestion by DaveJay · · Score: 1

    My true concern is ensuring that the firm I contract will be professional, cooperative, timely and will ultimately deliver their services as promised.

    If that's really what you're after, look for an established and stable company that works on a "fixed-time, fixed-price" model, and keep an eye on any existing vendors that you want to have involved with the project.

    Speaking from first-hand experience, the "fixed-time, fixed-price" model (done correctly) does more than help deliver what you want on time and on budget; it also forces everyone involved to do the proper amount of planning up front (the proper amount being significantly more than usual).

    It also means that if your business and budget requirements are not reasonable, the project will end before you get past the planning stage, and you will burn very little money. Contrast that to finding out you won't get what you want (or you will have a larger bill) near the end when it's too late to turn back, and you can see the attraction.

    As for the vendor thing, it is fairly common for existing vendors to poison the relationship with consultants to prevent them from becoming the new standard vendor, even if the services being provided only overlap slightly. If the consultant is good, this won't make the project crash and burn, but it is important to know where the trouble is coming from. So keep an eye out, and keep a representative around for all vendor-consultant contact.

    I would love to tell you the name of the company that I work for, as we are very good at delivering services as you have described them, but I don't feel that would be appropriate here. If you look for a strong reputation, professionalism, stability (growing, profitable and tons of cash on hand), and adherence to the fixed-time, fixed-price model, you'll likely find us on your own. :)

    Good luck.

  30. One very important thing by JamesP · · Score: 0

    First - visit their Webside using Firefox or Opera. If it doesn't work properly, forget about it.

    Second - good balance between HTML, Flash, dynamic pages - What if the browser doesn't have Flash installed? Is the Web Site usable (or useless)??

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  31. Web development is development by Chipaca · · Score: 1

    Web development is development, so everything that runs for getting "ordinary" develpment work done run for web. The technologies are different, but they are always different. I'd recommend asking this question in one of joel spolsky's forums, such as this one

  32. Advice from a consultant by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Informative

    Context: I've been doing web development professionaly for seven years, the last four with my own small web development company. We've worked with other firms, and been called in to clean up other people's work (the latter more often than I'd care for - that kind of work is zero fun).

    As many other have pointed out, language doesn't matter a whole lot. We do recommend open source platforms, for the reasons familiar to anyone that reads this site often, but the most important question about this is whether the tool will fit the job. I've told clients before that what they really want is a Microsoft solution (because it fits the requirements) and that they should really find another firm to do it (because I'd rather put a hot poker in my eye than work with ASP).

    Portfolio is important, but there are a million ways of fluffing it. Maybe it was subcontracted work, maybe they happened to have a really good person working for them for a few months, and they left because the company sucked. Maybe they're a large company, and their portfolio is all A team work, but you'll be getting the B team. On the other side, we've done work that would never make our portfolio because the client insisted on a nuclear orange and blue color scheme, or 500 links on the main page.

    Picking a good web development company is difficult, largely because a) most of them are truly horrible and inexperienced, and b) the important things are difficult to quantify. There's a few things that are immediate warning signs, though. These should be rampantly obvious, but this is Ask Slashdot, and I've encountered each of these from companies that a client thought looked good on paper:

    • where does the design phase come in? If it's early in the process, run away. You don't know what the design requirements are until you've worked out the site architecture, at the very least. Design usually shouldn't happen until somewhere around halfway through the project. (We don't touch design until the information architecture is done, we've seen any print materials you have, and layout grids are produced)
    • they tell you that as long as it works in IE, browser requirements don't really matter
    • can you talk to the project lead? Many companies will have a suprememly non-technical person doing the client liason. While I think this is generally a bad idea, it's the way a lot of companies work. But if you can't talk to the person that's going to be making technical decisions, run away.
    • print is not the web. There's still this strange idea floating out there that print designers are interchangable with, or even superior to, web designers. The web is a whole different medium, and requires different skill sets. If they try to sell you on their print designers, it's a bad sign. Similarly, they shouldn't be selling their web designers as print designers.
    • they make any kind of guarantess about search engine optimization. SEO is this week's snake oil. There are common sense things you can do to improve your ranking, but if they're promising top ten rankings, they're blowing smoke.

    Some of the things that you should look for (this list keeps growing, I had to stop early):

    • do they make recommendations? There's usually some aspect of a site that can be improved by a slightly different approach than what's outlined in the RFP
    • do they provide source files for creatives? You don't want to be asking them to hunt down some graphic two years from now.
    • ask about process. There isn't necessarily a "right" answer to this, but they should have a design process in place, and be able to explain to you why they do things this way. They should be able to explain this in a way that's understandable to a non-technical user.
    • ask about usability. Budget is going to be a factor here. It's not necessarily cost-effective to run the site through multiple usability labs, but at the very least they should know about general usability guidelines (keeping content above the fo
    --

    This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    1. Re:Advice from a consultant by quamaretto · · Score: 1
      print is not the web. There's still this strange idea floating out there that print designers are interchangable with, or even superior to, web designers. The web is a whole different medium, and requires different skill sets. If they try to sell you on their print designers, it's a bad sign.
      This is so true it makes me want to cry. In my case, it is even worse; we are doing the IMPLEMENTATION of a 'web design' being done by a print designer in a marketing firm that doesn't have any grip on good web design. Worse, this is a data-driven site that is expected to have an admin tool at some point, and involves some different technical details of things, and involves one HELL of a lot of magically turning Excel spreadsheets into normalize data.
      (because I'd rather put a hot poker in my eye than work with ASP).

      I hate to rake this over the coals, but are you referring to the old ASP, with VBScript and so forth? If so, I absolutely and completely agree that it is awful and not to be touched.

      On the other hand, ASP.NET is a pretty cool system, as long as you know that the interactive parts just won't work it Links or NN 1.0 or the like. There are a lot of details in ASP.NET that I don't like, mostly having to do with the ASPX/ASCX format and use, and the god-awful web forms designer (ARGH) and other things having to do with CSS. BUT, the power of ASP.NET, the event-driven programming and ViewState and control hierarchy, make it a joy to use once you know what you are doing. C# is not bad either; I would rather be using Python or something, but at least I know where I stand. (Vs. VBScript)

      And by the way, ASP.NET runs under Mono. I've run the ASP.NET demos on Mono under both Linux and Windows using XSP, and I'm sure mod_mono isn't much harder. Since the web forms designer is such a shame and I do everything in source anyway, this makes it all the more reasonable. I don't know about performance though.

      Again, if you were just referring to the old ASP, I concur totally. I've worked with that stuff. Uuuugh.

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
    2. Re:Advice from a consultant by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1
      I hate to rake this over the coals, but are you referring to the old ASP, with VBScript and so forth? If so, I absolutely and completely agree that it is awful and not to be touched.

      Yeah, I should have clarified - I haven't worked with .Net at all, so can't speak to it. I don't suppose there's a lot of old-style VBScript being done anymore, but that was what I was referring to.

      I don't really have a great desire to work with .Net...we're a Linux shop (as far as server stuff goes), so until mono becomes commonly offered by hosting providers, there's not much point for us. The next thing I'll probably pick up is J2EE. I have some small exposure to it, and I like the model. I find that I'm mostly doing PHP these days. Not because I'm crazy about the language (I'm not), but it gets things done, it's everywhere, and I've got a ton of code for doing common things with it.

      I'm not a language zealot, but there are certain tools that I like working with more than others, and I have the luxury of being able to choose projects for which those tools are best suited.

      Regarding print design, I feel your pain. We did a small project in a similar way once (design was done when we came in, and obviously not by a web designer). The complete lack of consideration for very basic things like variable browser window sizes, accounting for browser chrome, (yes, it was fixed-width, and couldn't be changed), etc. made it take at least twice as long as it should have. Fortunately, we only decided to do this because it was a small project at a slow time. Never again. Ever.

      I'm lucky in that our designer is very good. A good designer is a joy to work with.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

  33. simple flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) do you care about usability? If NO, it doesn't matter which you choose, you'll be redesigning it in 12 months anyway. If YES, confinue to next question.

    2) Are you working with 37signals (http://www.37signals.com/)? If NO, it doesn't matter, you'll be redesigning it in 12 months anyway. If YES, congratulations, you made the right choice!

    Seriously, these guys are great, if you're looking for *usability* and simplicity and iPod-ness.

    1. Re:simple flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you working with 37signals (http://www.37signals.com/)? If NO, it doesn't matter, you'll be redesigning it in 12 months anyway.

      Considering they can't make a page that validates, I'd say that an answer of YES means that they'll be redesigning it in 12 months.

  34. easiest thing to do is... by araczynski · · Score: 0

    ...look at previous work, but more importantly, contact the people that the work was done FOR. ask them their opinons of the other company and the results/process, just because it looks sexy doesn't mean it didn't cost 5 times more then promised or took twice as long or a myriad of other 'gotchas'.

    in any case, they will ALL give you that figurative BJ while they're courting you(r money), but what happens AFTER you sign the line is where they all become a different company...hence, contact previous employers of theirs.

    --
    sigs suck
  35. A few heuristics by JimDabell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I'm a web developer, and I don't always do things this way myself. They are rules of thumb, not laws that must be followed.

    The most important thing to bear in mind is that you need to know what it is you want to achieve with the website. Some firms are all too happy to sell you an all-singing, all-dancing e-commerce haven (and charge appropriately), when all you actually need is a contact form, address and phone number on a single page.

    Business stuff:

    • Use a contract. This is for your protection and theirs. If they don't use contracts, the chances of them getting sucked into a legal battle with one of their other clients rises. It also outlines exactly what you expect from each other in clear terms, which is, amazingly, an overlooked step in building a site a lot of the time.
    • Get concrete deliverables. Example deliverables:

      1. A systems requirement document detailing exactly what it is you need.
      2. A mock-up of a couple of pages to see how they look.
      3. A demo version that doesn't work in all browsers.
      4. A beta version that is supposed to do everything.
      5. Final version.

      These deliverables will be missed a couple of times. The important thing is that your contract states what constitutes acceptable quality and how slips will be resolved - if they lose money every time they miss a date or forget a feature, they'll keep to schedule and not rush things out the door.

    • Every time you pay them, get the copyright for the work they have done so far signed over. If they start acting badly, you need to be able to take the work elsewhere instead of being forced to either put up with them or writing off the current investment.
    • In a similar vein, make sure that the code they write isn't dependent upon any in-house tools. If you get your code off them, but it is built on top of their proprietary shopping cart API (for example), it's useless.
    • As everybody else said, talk to a few of their clients.

    There are a few signs to watch out for from people selling snake-oil.

    • Unlimited bandwidth or disk space. The truth is, there are limits, and you won't know about them until they decide you're using too many resources.
    • Guaranteed search engine placement. They can't do that. Additionally, ask them if they can guarantee stuff like this, how come they aren't #1 in Google for "web design"?
    • "Meta tags". Virtually no search engine has used these in the past decade, so if they tell you they'll add them to each page, they are working with very obsolete information.

    The human touch. Visit their offices a couple of times.

    • Do people seem relaxed?
    • Is it some guy in his parents' basement?
    • Is it the same people both times?

    Technology:

    • Validate their HTML. If they have no errors, that's a good sign. If they have one or two errors, ask them about it. If they have dozens or hundreds of errors, stay away, they don't have any Q.A.
    • Validate their CSS. If they don't use it, stay away, they are using 90s technology in the year 2005. If they have a couple of errors, ask them about it.
    • Look through the validator output to see if they have any lines starting with width and ending in px; (percentages etc are fine). If any of them are setting anything to a width greater than 200px, it's a sign that they use fixed width layouts. This is a negative sign, but not the end of the world. Ask them what steps they take to deal with people on small screens - a technical explanation like "we offer alternative stylesheets" is okay, being blown off with "nobody has small screens like that" is very bad.
    • Go to the front page of the most recent addition to their portfolio. View source. Are there <table> tags in there? Look at the
    1. Re:A few heuristics by gmletzkojr · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you have said, but I do have a question (or two).

      What is your take on people that use the html generation tools (such as Netscape Composer)? These tools historically violate the 'good rules' of html form. Also, what about companies that end up supporting a site that was written partially/entirely with what I would call sub-standard tools? It is almost never in the budget to re-write an entire site. I would guess a common response to a request to rewrite would be 'It works, doesn't it?' And, as ugly as the code might be, it *does* work.

      Like I said, I agree with your comments, but I have been given more than my fair share of sites written with some utility (with 5000 nbsp's at the end to make up some sort of room), and I wondered how you handled those situations.

      --
      I for one welcome our new [insert main topic] overlords.
    2. Re:A few heuristics by JimDabell · · Score: 1

      What is your take on people that use the html generation tools (such as Netscape Composer)?

      WYSIWYG is a myth on the web. Or rather, what you see is pretty unimportant. Rendering can, will and should differ depending upon the individual circumstances of the person visiting a website.

      When you pay somebody to develop a website, you aren't paying them to draw you a picture that happens to have text in. The web is not like print media, it's fluid. What you are paying them for is a set of pages that adapt to the circumstances under which they are viewed.

      WYSIWYG tools such as Netscape Composer are not very good for this purpose. They give a decent impression when all you do is type out a few pages and look at them on your computer, but to get results that are suitable for professional use, there really isn't any substitute for coding by hand.

      Of course, many professionals code the front-end by hand, and use a CMS with a nice GUI on the back-end to make things simple for their clients. This is a good thing; hand-coded websites aren't better because they are harder to create, they are better because the HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc has been crafted to work appropriately - something an automated tool simply cannot do. Pouring content - that may have been entered by a nice GUI interface - into a hand-written "mould" like this is good practice.

      So GUI tools aren't intrinsically bad, so long as they are simply the means by which you enter content into a high-quality front-end. The trouble is, many tools, including Netscape Composer, don't distinguish between the two tasks and also create the front-end for you - something they are unable to do effectively.

      In terms of how much credence I'd give, it's roughly this order (best first):

      1. Developers that have developed their own CMS specifically for the task at hand.
      2. Developers that use an off-the-shelf CMS with templates they hand-coded.
      3. Developers that hand-code.
      4. Developers that use an off-the-shelf CMS.
      5. Developers who use "WYSIWYG" tools to manipulate pages using templates that they hand-coded.
      6. Developers whose websites are generated through "WYSIWYG" tools.

      Most organisations will get the best quality:price ratio by hiring people somewhere in the middle - anything more is often overkill.

      Also, what about companies that end up supporting a site that was written partially/entirely with what I would call sub-standard tools? It is almost never in the budget to re-write an entire site.

      This is quite common, yes. One situation that is sadly very frequent is when a professional firm takes over something the manager's nephew did, or something that is otherwise awful but that they spent a lot of money on.

      I know I've been trapped in the situation of maintaining hideous messes until the client can afford a redesign, when the only reason they can't afford a redesign is because they got ripped off by somebody who didn't know what they were doing.

      Depending on the size of the website in question, it's sometimes quicker to simply start over from scratch. If the people who originally developed the site didn't know what they were doing, chances are, reorganising all the information is badly needed anyway.

      I would guess a common response to a request to rewrite would be 'It works, doesn't it?'

      It's an oversimplification, but a hard one to shake. Jakob Nielsen argues that a poor-quality website is harmful in the long run.

      In some cases a poor website can directly lead to business risk. For instance, a website that doesn't follow the W3C specifications is more likely to break when a new version of a browser is released. This is a historic trend with concrete examples that goes back to

    3. Re:A few heuristics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of your Technology rules, such as not using DHTML for layout are just wrong for some clients, like, for instance, a cutting edge architect.

      Too many rules for them to be "rules of thumb".

    4. Re:A few heuristics by JimDabell · · Score: 1

      Some of your Technology rules, such as not using DHTML for layout

      I said no such thing.

  36. More things to look at... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

    In addition to paying attention to previous bodies of work, and what part of the world that they will be working out of...

    Try to find out what their ideal design philosophies are. Keep in mind that your company is ultimately going to be the one that maintains that code. Make sure that you agree on those aspects, but don't let on to what you think is right.

    Try to find people that are flexible on the platforms that they can write for. The reasoning for this is to avoid the vast number of cookie-cutter developers, the ones that take a version of .NET Nuke and make interface changes to it. If they can accomdate more platforms and languages, it is more than likely that they are more concerned with the design than the language.

    Don't let politics determine the language. I view that having strong feelings about the type of language being used as pure idiocy. I can do in Java what I can do in C#, which I can do in PHP, ASP, C/CGI... whatever. They produce the same results. Having someone pound your head with "PHP ROX/ASP.NET SUX" does not affect the inevitable, which is: you will end up with the code in the end.

    Lastly? Make sure that none of the devs read /.. It leads to a drastic decrease in efficiency, and increases the likelihood of polarization of opinion.

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  37. Ask, ask, ask. by JavaRob · · Score: 1

    I would have thought you couldn't do this, but I used to work for a web dev company, and some clients would actually ask to see resumes of the developers who would be working their project. I was a senior developer and/or tech lead so I had to keep my resume updated -- for clients to see.

    There are obviously complications for them providing this info (because schedules are often quite fluid), but once you've narrowed down your choices, sort out a rough schedule and ask for the resumes of the lead developer/architect for your project, and the probable developers. They won't be able to guarantee you the general dev team (because of last minute shuffling when other projects run over, etc.), but they should be able to tell you who the lead will be.

    A thought -- you might want to get a quick process rundown from them first to figure out who the "important" developer(s) will be -- what they call the "lead architect" might just be a senior guy who glances at the spec and says "Yup -- PHP, MySql, copy the basic layout from that site we did in March", then passes it off... then there's probably a team lead or something like that (and *that's* who you want to know more about).

  38. Ditch the contractors proposing ASP.net. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    Seriously, immediate toss out any single-vendor solutions like ASP.net or ColdFusion. They're nifty, they're quick-to-market, and they're completely and utterly locked to a lone platform. Your future upgrades are dependent on the whims of one company that may or may not have your best interests in mind. On the other hand, PHP, Perl, Zope, Java, and other crossplatform solutions are a good business decisions because they allow growth in the direction most convenient for you.

    Put another way, I can still install PHP3 on a brand-new FreeBSD webserver if I want to. Are you 100% certain that a proprietary solution will run on Longhorn a few years from now, especially if its vendor has been marginalized by Free or Open Source competitors? Are you willing to bet your business on it?

    As a side note, I know this sounds like flamebait but I honestly mean it: contractors who advocate Free/Open solutions will probably do a better job than one who wants to use the latest closed offering. Why? Because there's currently a higher barrier to entry, meaning that the ones who have the initiative and smarts to get up and running on their own are the ones competing for your business. Contrast with "Be a certified web developer in just 14 days!" commercials on TV - do you really think they teach those courses on Tomcat?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Ditch the contractors proposing ASP.net. by quamaretto · · Score: 1

      First, I don't see why it is important that a web application or web site be developed on a cross platform backend. The whole idea behind HTTP is that the web browser doesn't care whether the server at the other end is Windows or OpenBSD or Contiki. And I will say that, yes, if you program in PHP or Perl or use Zope, you can probably move back and forth between BSD and Linux and Solaris with impunity. Are you really going to be changing your server OS every few months? Even every few years? Universal portability of those things is a solution to a problem that hardly anyone has.

      Second, If ASP.NET is supposed to be easy and has no depth, they forgot to tell me. And apparently, you've never used it, and don't know anything about it for a few different reasons:

      1: It isn't actually locked to the Windows/IIS platform. System.Web is fully functional in Mono, and there is both a small reference web server (XSP) and an Apache module (mod_mono) that can be used to serve pages that are identical to those served under IIS. So ASP.NET pages are portable even though it isn't gravely important. (Of course, Mono itself doesn't run properly under BSD yet AFAIK; it runs under Linux, Windows and OS X.)

      2: ASP.NET is not a 'lego bricks' platform with no depth. Despite the gripes I do have about it, it is remarkably cool in certain ways. Once you grok the event driven programming and OO model behind it, master databinding and figure out how to get it to do what you want, it is a great tool to have.

      And your entire last paragraph is hogwash. You seem to be saying that the best programmers do it the hardest way on purpose. The opposite is true; only an idiot would intentionally do it the hardest, longest way. Are you seriously saying that companies should pay more for development firms to do it the longest and hardest way, on purpose because that means the programmers are smarter? Absolute bullshit.

      Allow me to illustrate. This is like saying that you should have your portrait painted by a man who cut his own fingers off and paints with his feet, because it means he is more dedicated to painting. No, he is more dedicated to painting with his feet. If he really wanted to paint portraits, he would have kept his fingers, because that is what the damn fingers are for.

      Lastly, I couldn't tell you about Tomcat specifically, but I just saw Jakarta Struts For Dummies at Borders the other day, so apparently the J2EE learning curve is not as steep as you would have us believe.

      --
      *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
  39. don't want to work themselves poor! by pbhj · · Score: 1

    So, you ask the web-designer to make the admin so simple that they won't be needed to administrate it ... and you wonder why they "can't" do that!?

  40. Point 1 is an antithesis of point 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I tried the site you plug in lynx, and here's what I saw:

    This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.


    Considering that none of their sites are accessible, and they don't care about web standards (none of their pages come close to validating,) I'd say stay as far away from these bozos as possible.
  41. Number One Priority by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    Do they have their content ready?

  42. It's all about the working relationship by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

    You know what, the simple fact is that nowadays, there are thousands upon thousands of people who have the technical knowledge to do everything you want. The bottom line is that they're all going to feed you a line of crap and you're going to get as many answers as people you consider. I think you should treat it the same as if you were trying to find a GP. Just use your instinct.

    1. Do you feel comfortable with the consultant?
    2. Does the person seem to understand your goals and character of your organization?
    3. Does the person try to oversell a particular service as opposed to offering a reasonable explanation and comparison of the options at hand?
    4. Do you feel assured the person can provide the variety of needed services and where they can't, can they delegate to an appropriate specialist?
    5. Does the person show a commitment to their job both now and in the past.

    You can go and poll references from past jobs but the reality is that most clients don't know what a good job is, their working style is probably totally different than yours and in most cases the job was compromised by time, money, poor taste or poor business decisions. Until you meet with the consultant face to face you never really know.

    I've had hundreds of jobs as a designer and I can say that the jobs that turned out well were the ones where there was a mutual respect and a minimum of compromises from both sides. If you're fighting all the time and have different styles of working it doesn't matter if you agree on the technology or the implementation or anything- the end result will suck.

  43. Just get some referrals by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Have them send you a list of companies they've done work for with a personal number for their contact there and ask questions. You should be able to tell if they are a team worth paying good money for pretty quickly.... ie: did they educate their customer enough to tell you anything of use.. if so then they probably know what they are doing... what sort of maintenance contract did they propose... is the cusotmer satisfied with their followup work as much as the initial development effort... read belwo for more good questions to ask.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  44. What choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always use Sluggy Freelance.

  45. Re:Vendor Management - sort of like looking for lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea, and make sure their responses are readable and dont use all caps.

  46. Selecting a Web development Agency by Spunlogic · · Score: 1

    How to write an RFP - www.HowToWriteAnRFP.com This site offers a great guide on how to write an RFP for interactive projects and manage the vendor selection process.

  47. Followup Question: Copyright Issues by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response.

    I was wondering if you could expand upon the issues surrounding copyrights and code licensing.

    One of our candidate firms is advocating development with their proprietary java libraries, as the libraries' use will "ensure quality and speed development." It seems to me that this would incur a substantial risk. I.e. if we contract this firm, a larger firm might acquire them and immediately start charging us a licensing fee for the code for which we don't have a copyright/license (unless we obtain such a copyright). Is this a correct reading of the situation?

    1. Re:Followup Question: Copyright Issues by JimDabell · · Score: 1

      It sounds correct to me, although you should consult a lawyer. Essentially, you would be locking yourself into a single vendor, because you wouldn't be able to operate your website without their proprietary libraries.

      As somebody mentioned elsewhere, it might not be feasible to get copyright signed over to you for components like this, but you should get something in writing entitling you to use of the libraries should you want to take your business elsewhere. Remember, you need source, or you might have showstopper bugs that you can't fix (or pay somebody to fix).

      You always have the option of taking the risk and locking yourself into that firm. It just seems to be an unnecessary risk as far as I'm concerned.