Rob -
What I would interpret that to mean is that, by clicking on the link
in the footer, the visitor will be presented the content either
without any graphics or without any graphics or CSS. If it were
merely a matter of the CSS being removed, that shouldn't be a
billable item. However, if all graphics are removed from the page,
then you would have a different version of the page and that would be
billable, though it would likely involve less time to modify the
original template to have a text-only version.
In either case, I would seek detailed clarification of that line item
from their estimate.
At 01:53 PM 11/20/2008, you wrote:
Dear list,
I'm involved in a CMS-based website project where the supplier has
provided me with a breakdown of costs - before I sign it off.
One of the items highlighted in the breakdown is a footer-accessed
link for a text-only version. The supplier claims it's the same
technology used/developed by the BBC - called Betsie.
Do you think it's a service I should be paying for? Although not
expensive, I'm wondering why the 'functionality' needs to be
highlighted at all? Surely, it's the same as saying we'll charge you
separately for css or html markup?
Thoughts...
Thanks,
-- Rob
// Rob Enslin
// twitter.com/robenslin
// +44 (0)759 052 8890
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
Tom ('Mas) Pickering - Web Developer & Patti Gray - Web Designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PourHouse Productions - http://pourhouse.com/
When He Reigns - It Pours <)><
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
