7 critical errors when accepting an order for the manufacture of a site (personal experience of the client)

    My client and good friend Alexander Uspensky, having read article 7 of critical errors when ordering a site , wrote a kind of answer (or even a parody) to it. Some points are controversial, but in general, the article, in my opinion, is useful to developers as adequate feedback from an annoyed client to the work of a not-so-professional web studio :)

    The first and biggest mistake made by site manufacturersconsists in the fact that they focus their efforts on catering to the client, and not on offering additional (I'm already silent about the unique) opportunities that he will receive by creating the site in this studio. The action of the studio is most often carried out in two ways: either to interview the client to find out his desires and adapt to them, or to impose a proven technology from the experience of creating sites. In both cases, the result is deplorable. Of course, one can hope for simple luck, when the competence of the customer is so great that he can correctly determine the goals of the site and prepare the technical task. But most often, the result of the work is a certain resource, which not only causes dissatisfaction both with the client and the web studio, but also usually costs a lot of money.

    Second mistakeconsists in the fact that the studio is very rarely ready to admit its incompetence in matters of creating sites. Especially if she has already made a couple of sites familiar, and she can “poke” a client with her nose into such a “portfolio”. Employees of a web studio usually tell the client exactly how they need to make a site, try to insist on their understanding of the color scheme, composition, structure of the content, and so on. Those. the studio is trying to do what it can, and not what the client wants. At the same time, the majority of website customers are adults and literate people who, as a rule, have achieved significant results in their field and have firm views on everything, including the creation of sites. In this case, it would be strange to hear from the client in which codes to register the site,

    The third mistake is to underestimate the role of design. Design is that part of the site that is visible immediately even if the studio makes the mistakes indicated in clauses 1 and 2, this is the only thing that distinguishes the sites of its customers. And this is what the client should always have an opinion about. Yes, often this opinion is at the level of “like, dislike,” but if the studio does not start to design, “so that the client likes it,” the work on the site can be considered completed. The main role of website design is to motivate users to use information. The key word here is “motivate”. And no one except the client can know how to motivate his potential consumers (certainly not a web studio employee). It goes without saying that the design must be in a corporate style and consistent with the overall visual concept of the client!

    The next mistake is the reluctance to think about what problems the customer will encounter when using the resource. Since the client has not provided for anything, then there is no need for us, we will try to make the studio work out all the money paid, and then stretch it out as much later when the client "sees clearly." The most common situation in such cases, the client sets the task to make an actively visited resource, and the studio guarantees this. As a result, the client remains dissatisfied with the work done, and the studio receives income and work in the portfolio, into which you can poke the nose of the next client.

    Fifth mistakeconsists in the fact that the client perceives the site as an extension of himself (especially if he is a business owner) or as a continuation of his business, and the studio considers the site as a tool with which money is made. As another resource for profit. That is why goals are set incorrectly and priorities are set.

    Another studio mistake- the perception of the site as a reusable financial investment. Often, the client does not assume that the site can be made in such a way that additional pay will be required for those people who will update, maintain, and so on. Therefore, he negatively perceives the information that the investment in the site with the act of acceptance of work is not finished, and (standing on the rake) begins to look for a new studio that will make a service that allows the site to support its own employees.

    And finally, the seventh mistake- lack of approvals at intermediate stages of work. Delaying the moment of demonstrating to the client the intermediate steps to the date of acceptance of the site leads to problems between the client and the studio, because reveals a lack of understanding in the view of the project at the stages requiring significant changes in large volumes of work. It goes without saying that the more and more stages of work are agreed and agreed with the client, the more accurate the result will be.

    The author of the article: Alexander Uspensky.

    Also popular now: