Budget sites

    Back in the spring of this year, I wrote about the so-called "budget sites", or "sites in 15 minutes." But I did not publish this article on Habr for one simple reason - I was not here. Considering the jumped interest in this topic, provoked by the topics “ Your life in 15 minutes ” and “ Sites - 15 minutes and you're done ”, I want to express my opinion on this issue. The text of the article under the cut.

    I am amazed by the "studios" that make the so-called "budget sites" (and if you call a spade a spade - I get along). What is the basis of a "budget site"? As a rule, this is some kind of public CMS (written, for example, for outdated PHP 4, full of holes and not optimized) and a clumsy template design. This pleasure, of course, is 2-3 times cheaper than a normal site - that's why it is called "budget". At the same time, the studio itself is also wretched - a normal studio will not do crap. What happens next? A customer, far from web-technologies, is looking for someone to order a website for himself and somehow finds this “studio". The price suits him (still) and he orders it from them. Everyone is happy - the customer has saved; “Studio” - by the fact that they received their pennies; visitors - by the fact that you can neighing over the resulting ugliness.

    Let us dwell on the details. Let's start with the engine. I had one friend, the "director of the studio." So, his “studio” made websites exclusively on CMS “ SmallNuke ”. It was something. Firstly, these sites were terribly slow. Secondly, it’s enough to google to hack such a site. Thirdly, the URL - for example, the link to the "Contacts" section instead of the normal and understandable http://example.com/contacts looked like this: http://example.com/index.php?go=Content&mod=view&id= 10 . This list can be continued for a long time, I mentioned only the most noticeable and understandable even to non-professionals.

    As for design and usability, only one word can be said about this - horror. You can describe for a long time what design should be; You can talk about the principles of building interfaces even longer. This is outside the scope of this article. I will say only one thing - those “budget sites” did not comply with any of these principles.

    Why is this so? There are two main reasons, and they are interconnected. The first is because for such a price no one wants to do normal work. The second - a person who is capable of doing something normal will never do such a mess. To create such sites is the destiny of flawed and mediocre people who are no longer capable of anything. But everyone wants to eat - and such people, instead of going to work as loaders (they have the right place there) climb into someone else's sphere, dumping and flooding the Internet with “their products”.

    I used to think that not having an Internet presence was a shame for a serious company. Now I think that it’s better not to have a website at all than to have a “budget website”. For example, I will never order anything from a company with a budget website. A site is the face of a company. This is an indicator of her level. Which site - such and services. Yes, I know, most customers do not think so. They think that the main thing is that the site works, and the rest is not important. I agree, people who do not understand the web may not understand that the site is crappy. And if they understand, they will not consider this an important factor. But the site is made for web-a, for those people who understand this! Here lies a big mistake of customers.

    However, it’s not the customers who are to blame, but the grief studios that make “budget sites”. My will would be - I would force to get a license before opening the studio. You can’t do it normally - go load the wagons.

    Also popular now: