March 16, 2009 at 14:02On the life of sites after the transfer to the customer
At the heart of this note are personal observations about how illiterate management can ruin a good business and make the desired result practically unattainable. It will be about site support by ordinary employees of the company.
This is a cross post from my site . I'm just interested in the public opinion on this issue.
Being engaged in the creation of Internet projects, I have recently become more and more disappointed in Customers. And the reason for this disappointment is banal - a misunderstanding of people that it is important not only to make a high-quality site, but also no less important to maintain this site adequately - to keep it in proper form. Otherwise, the very essence of the action “We order a good site” is lost.
After all, as it happens. Contact, order a site. For example, this is an established company - it has a website, but it is hopelessly outdated, does not meet the modern goals and image of the company, and besides, it is completely impossible to manage. The director rightly decides that it is time to update the online representation of his company.
The concept is discussed for a long time, the tasks of the new site are specified, the goals are determined. Then the design part, programming, content preparation, testing. And now the site is ready, personally approved by the Director, a bunch of instructions and recommendations has been attached, personal presentations and training of employees have been held, acts signed, the calculation made. What's next?
I will not consider options when site support is carried out by a development team based on a separate agreement. Or when there is a qualified employee in the company of the Customer who is engaged in the full support of the site, optimizing the instructions of the guide so as not to harm the site, and if something is not clear or is not sure of something, it does not consider it shameful to seek the advice of the site creator. Such sites after delivery, live a long happy life, fully fulfilling the tasks set, contributing to the development of the Customer’s business and delighting the Visitors eye.
More frustrating for me, as an author, are cases when a new site after delivery-acceptance falls into the hands of a mega-manager, unfortunate administrator and / or bydloder. He is certainly a professional in everything - a programmer, a designer, and a content manager. What is the difference that initially in the design each distance between the elements was measured, each word was thought out, each pixel was located not just like that, but with meaning? It doesn’t matter! Rearrange, change. We won’t listen to the recommendations of the site’s creator - here I’m the king. I do what I want. To be sure, we’ll delete the developer’s copyrights - who cares that there was a separate clause in the Agreement about this? The contract was signed by the boss - it is far (high), and this signature is like a callous to our royal gaze.
In the end, what do we have? The company ordered a website. A stylish website, so that it matches the chosen image, attracted customers, showed that this organization is not a “Sharashkin office”, but a solid company. After going through internal “managers”, the site lost everything that they couldn’t understand, got new “utilities” (for example, rating counters, glued according to the principles “to be” and “where they could”) and eventually turned into an updated old site - equally awkward and messy. Money spent, the desired result from the emergence of a new site is unlikely to ever be achieved. And then one of the acquaintances will inform the Director that the site is yours, my friend, rubbish. And the story is likely to repeat again - with the involvement of new developers and subsequent edits of new "mega-managers."
Of course, these are isolated cases. Of course, the one who pays the money is right. A developer could just close his eyes and forget. But it’s just a shame when the invested efforts are wasted. Similar situations give rise to "professional indifference." In addition, this indirectly negatively affects the reputation of the developer himself - completely undeservedly, which makes the situation doubly offensive.
Morality? There is no morality. The customer is the owner. The site is his property, whoever wants it, trusts management. Close your eyes and forget. You won’t drive everyone by the handle. Or not, not so. Close your eyes, take into account experience and continue to work, trying to instill something good, advise, recommend as far as possible.
What do you think? Surrender and forget, or still try to “instill good”?
This is a cross post from my site . I'm just interested in the public opinion on this issue.
Being engaged in the creation of Internet projects, I have recently become more and more disappointed in Customers. And the reason for this disappointment is banal - a misunderstanding of people that it is important not only to make a high-quality site, but also no less important to maintain this site adequately - to keep it in proper form. Otherwise, the very essence of the action “We order a good site” is lost.
After all, as it happens. Contact, order a site. For example, this is an established company - it has a website, but it is hopelessly outdated, does not meet the modern goals and image of the company, and besides, it is completely impossible to manage. The director rightly decides that it is time to update the online representation of his company.
The concept is discussed for a long time, the tasks of the new site are specified, the goals are determined. Then the design part, programming, content preparation, testing. And now the site is ready, personally approved by the Director, a bunch of instructions and recommendations has been attached, personal presentations and training of employees have been held, acts signed, the calculation made. What's next?
I will not consider options when site support is carried out by a development team based on a separate agreement. Or when there is a qualified employee in the company of the Customer who is engaged in the full support of the site, optimizing the instructions of the guide so as not to harm the site, and if something is not clear or is not sure of something, it does not consider it shameful to seek the advice of the site creator. Such sites after delivery, live a long happy life, fully fulfilling the tasks set, contributing to the development of the Customer’s business and delighting the Visitors eye.
More frustrating for me, as an author, are cases when a new site after delivery-acceptance falls into the hands of a mega-manager, unfortunate administrator and / or bydloder. He is certainly a professional in everything - a programmer, a designer, and a content manager. What is the difference that initially in the design each distance between the elements was measured, each word was thought out, each pixel was located not just like that, but with meaning? It doesn’t matter! Rearrange, change. We won’t listen to the recommendations of the site’s creator - here I’m the king. I do what I want. To be sure, we’ll delete the developer’s copyrights - who cares that there was a separate clause in the Agreement about this? The contract was signed by the boss - it is far (high), and this signature is like a callous to our royal gaze.
In the end, what do we have? The company ordered a website. A stylish website, so that it matches the chosen image, attracted customers, showed that this organization is not a “Sharashkin office”, but a solid company. After going through internal “managers”, the site lost everything that they couldn’t understand, got new “utilities” (for example, rating counters, glued according to the principles “to be” and “where they could”) and eventually turned into an updated old site - equally awkward and messy. Money spent, the desired result from the emergence of a new site is unlikely to ever be achieved. And then one of the acquaintances will inform the Director that the site is yours, my friend, rubbish. And the story is likely to repeat again - with the involvement of new developers and subsequent edits of new "mega-managers."
Of course, these are isolated cases. Of course, the one who pays the money is right. A developer could just close his eyes and forget. But it’s just a shame when the invested efforts are wasted. Similar situations give rise to "professional indifference." In addition, this indirectly negatively affects the reputation of the developer himself - completely undeservedly, which makes the situation doubly offensive.
Morality? There is no morality. The customer is the owner. The site is his property, whoever wants it, trusts management. Close your eyes and forget. You won’t drive everyone by the handle. Or not, not so. Close your eyes, take into account experience and continue to work, trying to instill something good, advise, recommend as far as possible.
What do you think? Surrender and forget, or still try to “instill good”?