I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
Hi,



I'm currently on leave until the 17th of November.



For New Zealand inquiries please contact Patrick FitzGerald (mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED])



For Tasmanian / Support inquiries please contact either:

Casey Farrell (Implementation) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Amanda Brown (Project Management) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Narelle Davis (Training) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Micky Gough (Support) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])



Kidn Regards

Karl Davidson

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
---BeginMessage---
Hello Mark,

Mark Harris wrote:
 Dave, the business decision is not that of the web designer. While web
 design may be his business, it's not the business of his client.

If it's not the decision of the web developer, then I don't expect that
web developer to be around for long.

 As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
 else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.  
 
 Not arguing, but it must also work for the client, otherwise you are
 merely building ongoing work for yourself, in doing the maintenance.
 Offer options, by all means, but the result *must* be within the
 client's capability set or it won't get used. How much value have you
 then added to the client's business by imposing your own ideas on their
 naivety?

I disagree here.  The developer provides support - the customer chooses
the developer based on that ability (assuming the customer isn't totally
naive, which is probably not a safe assumption), and values their
ability to provide that support.  The customer should *want* a developer
who focuses on the smallest possible set of technologies (that's not
*too* small to fulfil the requirements).  Otherwise the developer will
be likely to be stretched too far.

 The
 customer is not always right.  The customer hires you because they
 perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your skill and
 judgement on their behalf.  If they don't have that respect for your
 ability, they're not the right customer for you. 
 
 Fine. Say so and get out, but if you take the job, you take the
 constraints and responsibilities that come with it.

Agreed.  It's the web developer's business decision in that case.  Those
who take any work that comes their way regardless of the technologies
specified reek of desperation... (which, ultimately, leads to lack of
respect from the customer)

 I'm not saying that
 you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the
 shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the advantages of
 the tools you've chosen...  if you can't do that then you probably
 haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools.

 That's not what Joe was advising. What he said was:
 you should never let the client specify the technology,
 that's YOUR job The technology you decide to deploy should
 be a result of having defined the strategy and scope of a
 project and identified the resources for ongoing content
 and support.
 
 which is a pretty tall ask for a web designer, not to mention arrogant.
 Do you get your mechanic to tell you how to drive your car? He's far
 more experienced with vehicles than you, so he should know, right?

If my mechanic suggests that I alter the way I drive to reduce the
maintenance requirements and therefore cost of running my vehicle, and I
trust him/her, you better believe I'll listen.  I'd say it'd be a
foolish customer who didn't.

 Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest set
 possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then maintain
 those skills for the length of their relationship with their customers.

 See, it's the whole become expert with them that's the problem. They
 don't have the desire to become expert in something that is a commodity
 to them. Many companies don't have web specialists on staff. If they're
 lucky, they have a librarian, who does records management, maybe a
 little DTP and gets stuff onto the web. They don't *want* a web designer
 on board, or they'd be hiring one instead of farming the work out to you.

Customers will become expert in whatever technology they're convinced is
best for them, and is well supported.  But that's not what I was talking
about in the above paragraph.

The business I was referring to was the web developer - if the web
developer isn't experienced with his/her tools, then s/he's a cowboy/girl :)

 If that's how they see it, that's their business. Myself, I'd try to get
 them to see that it's a major strategic part of their future business
 *but* if they won't go there, I'm going to build them something they
 feel comfortable with, with an outline of what it could become, if
 appropriate. I'm not going to push a company

I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( RE: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
Hi,



I'm currently on leave until the 17th of November.



For New Zealand inquiries please contact Patrick FitzGerald (mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED])



For Tasmanian / Support inquiries please contact either:

Casey Farrell (Implementation) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Amanda Brown (Project Management) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Narelle Davis (Training) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Micky Gough (Support) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])



Kidn Regards

Karl Davidson

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
---BeginMessage---
Reiterating what Gerard said yesterday, my experience has also been that the 
code is as compliant as the template you designed for the page.

I've implemented many contribute systems for clients and without exception 
they've found it easy to use and does everything that they want. Some of these 
clients have previously had more custom CMSs that have eventually fallen over, 
mainly because the group that set up the system either folded or didn't care to 
provide ongoing support (if I had a dollar for every time a client said their 
web designer just wasn't answering their calls and emails...)

I think it's great for smaller clients because it's easy to use, very 
affordable to implement and if you make your templates right, makes pages in 
compliant code. If something goes wrong, because it's a mainstream product, 
there's plenty of developers who can modify the system.

Having said that I'm currently working with an open source solution for a 
larger web site. We decided that a Dreamweaver  Contribute combination 
probably wasn't robust enough for what we need and with a reasonable budget we 
could get much more from a customised open source solution.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Lane
Sent: Sunday, 2 November 2008 7:06 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute

I'm sorry, Mark, but that is not a winning strategy in business.

As a web developer, you *must* design for maintainability.  Anything
else is a disservice to both your business and your customer.  The
customer is not always right.  The customer hires you because they
perceive you to have expertise they don't, and they trust your skill and
judgement on their behalf.  If they don't have that respect for your
ability, they're not the right customer for you.  I'm not saying that
you should tell them their wrong, but you should explain the
shortcomings of the methods they request and explain the advantages of
the tools you've chosen...  if you can't do that then you probably
haven't thought very carefully about choosing tools.

Ultimately, a business must select its technologies (the smallest set
possible to do the job well), become expert in them, and then maintain
those skills for the length of their relationship with their customers.

I completely agree with Joe's statement - using an app like Contribute
is a step backwards in most cases, both for the customer and for the
web.  CMSs, if chosen wisely (and the open source ones are better than
anything proprietary, so it'd be foolish not to go down the open source
path), implemented by *knowledgeable* developers with an appreciation
for web and software best practice (e.g. standards compliance, source
code control, change control procedures, etc.) and the will to adhere to
it, with ongoing maintenance in mind.

Those who don't feel responsible for learning about and adhering to best
practice should look for another line of work.

The road is littered with the remains of web development companies who
tried to support whatever solution de jeur their customer specified.  If
you customer requires you to use their choice of technologies rather
than yours, my advice is to get a new customer.  That sort of customer
will make your life miserable and cost you money in the long run.

Cheers,

Dave

Mark Harris wrote:
 Joe Ortenzi wrote:
 Contribute is not about content management as much as it is about
 allowing an in-house web team to share tasks without a proper CMS
 deployed. Thus your coder can code and the content writer can write
 but it can be all wrapped within a team. This is, frankly, Web 1.0,
 and your time and their money is better served by getting a simple CMS
 deployed that meets with their scope and strategy and will be easier
 to manage for everyone, client included.

 
 With respect, this is so much bollocks.
 
 The manner of deployment is always the client's choice. If you can offer
 her something better, by all means offer, but it's arrogant to tell the
 client you have to do it this way.
 
 Many clients won't have an in-house web team - they'll have one person
 to whom maintaining the website is only 1/4 of their job

I'm currently on leave - returning to Hobart on the 17th was( Re: [WSG] Standards and Adobe Contribute )

2008-11-02 Thread Karl Davidson
 
Hi,



I'm currently on leave until the 17th of November.



For New Zealand inquiries please contact Patrick FitzGerald (mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED])



For Tasmanian / Support inquiries please contact either:

Casey Farrell (Implementation) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Amanda Brown (Project Management) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Narelle Davis (Training) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

Micky Gough (Support) (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])



Kidn Regards

Karl Davidson

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
---BeginMessage---

With respect Mark,

Please do not misrepresent me.

I did not say the client had to do it my way, to the contrary, I said  
in my post, in a portion you did not include, that the technology used  
must be derived from a business strategy and a needs scope of the site.


To wit:
 The technology you decide to deploy should be a result of having  
defined the strategy and scope of a project and identified the  
resources for ongoing content and support.


I never said all clients need to have a web team either, I just stated  
where, in my experience, Contribute would be useful and has aided  
workflow and has operated well.


And I completely agree, no-one in their right mind would drag a  
client, child, dog or whatever, kicking and screaming  towards  
improvement. But surely a client sees the benefit of being able to  
edit and create their own content, and one proposing Contribute  
already has this in mind. It is up to we professionals to show them an  
option that goes towards their own content supply, but in a more  
integrated fashion than Contribute can manage.


Joe

On 02/11/2008, at 4:43 PM, Mark Harris wrote:


Joe Ortenzi wrote:
Contribute is not about content management as much as it is about  
allowing an in-house web team to share tasks without a proper CMS  
deployed. Thus your coder can code and the content writer can write  
but it can be all wrapped within a team. This is, frankly, Web 1.0,  
and your time and their money is better served by getting a simple  
CMS deployed that meets with their scope and strategy and will be  
easier to manage for everyone, client included.


With respect, this is so much bollocks.

The manner of deployment is always the client's choice. If you can  
offer her something better, by all means offer, but it's arrogant to  
tell the client you have to do it this way.


Many clients won't have an in-house web team - they'll have one  
person to whom maintaining the website is only 1/4 of their job.  
Some outfits are still coming to grips with how they should be using  
the web and need baby steps.


While it's a designer's job to help educate them, you can't drag  
them kicking and screaming into something they're not ready for.


Regards

Mark Harris


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***




Joseph Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)434 047 804
http://www.typingthevoid.com
http://twitter.com/wheelyweb
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jortenzi
Skype:wheelyweb

http://au.movember.com/mospace/1714401



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

---End Message---