7 critical errors when accepting an order for the production site (personal experience of the client)
My client and a good friend, Alexander Ouspensky, after reading article 7 critical mistakes 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 an adequate feedback from an irritated client to the work of a not too professional web studio :)
The first and biggest mistake of the site manufacturers is that they focus their efforts on pleasing the client, and not on offering additional (I’m not talking about unique) opportunities that he will receive when creating the site in this studio. The action of the studio is often carried out in two ways: either interview the client to find out his desires and adapt to them, or impose a proven technology from existing experience in creating websites. And in fact, and in another case, the result is pitiable. You can certainly hope for simple luck, when the customer's competence is so great that he can correctly define the goals of the site and prepare the technical task. But most often the result of the work is a certain resource that not only causes dissatisfaction with both the client and the web-studio, but also usually costs a lot of money. And after a few months (an average of 12), the client orders a new site, trying not to step on the same studio, but again steps on its clone.
The second mistake is that the studio is very rarely ready to admit its incompetence in the creation of sites. Especially if she has already made a couple of sites familiar to her and can “poke” a client in such a “portfolio”. Web studio employees usually tell the client exactly how they need to make a website, try to insist on their understanding of color, composition, content structure, 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 customers of the site are adults and competent people who, as a rule, have achieved significant results in their work and have firm views on everything, including the creation of sites. At the same time, it would be strange to hear from the client which codes to prescribe the site, but advising the client how to build his business in the virtual space is considered normal for an employee of a web studio.
')
The third mistake - underestimation of the role of design. The design is the part of the site that is visible immediately and in the event that the studio makes the mistakes mentioned in p. 1 and 2, this is the only thing that distinguishes the sites of its clients. And this is something about which the client should always have an opinion. Yes, this opinion is often at the level of “I don’t like it,” but if the studio doesn’t begin to design, “so that the client will like it,” the work on the site can be considered complete. The main role of site 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 its potential consumers (certainly not an employee of a web-studio). It goes without saying that the design should be made in the corporate style and correspond to the general visual concept of the client!
The next mistake is the reluctance to think about what problems the customer will face when using the resource. Since the client has not foreseen anything, then there’s no need for us, we will try to make the studio work out all the money paid, plus draw out the same amount later, when the client “begins to see clearly”. The most common situation in such cases, the client sets the task to make an actively visited resource, and the studio guarantees it. 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.
The fifth mistake is that the client sees the site as an extension of himself (especially if he is a business owner) or as an extension of his business, and the studio views the site as a tool through which money is earned. As another resource for profit. That is why goals are incorrectly defined and priorities are set.
Another mistake studios - 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 it will require additional remuneration of those people who will update the site, maintain it, 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 (becoming a rake) begins to look for a new studio that will make the service allowing the site to be supported by its own employees.
And finally, the seventh mistake is the lack of coordination at the intermediate stages of the work. Delaying the moment when the client demonstrates the intermediate stages before the date of acceptance of the site leads to problems between the client and the studio, since reveals a lack of understanding in the view of the project at the stages requiring large changes in large volumes of work. It goes without saying that the more often and more work stages are agreed upon and agreed with the client, the more accurate the result will be.
The author of the article: Alexander Uspensky.
The first and biggest mistake of the site manufacturers is that they focus their efforts on pleasing the client, and not on offering additional (I’m not talking about unique) opportunities that he will receive when creating the site in this studio. The action of the studio is often carried out in two ways: either interview the client to find out his desires and adapt to them, or impose a proven technology from existing experience in creating websites. And in fact, and in another case, the result is pitiable. You can certainly hope for simple luck, when the customer's competence is so great that he can correctly define the goals of the site and prepare the technical task. But most often the result of the work is a certain resource that not only causes dissatisfaction with both the client and the web-studio, but also usually costs a lot of money. And after a few months (an average of 12), the client orders a new site, trying not to step on the same studio, but again steps on its clone.
The second mistake is that the studio is very rarely ready to admit its incompetence in the creation of sites. Especially if she has already made a couple of sites familiar to her and can “poke” a client in such a “portfolio”. Web studio employees usually tell the client exactly how they need to make a website, try to insist on their understanding of color, composition, content structure, 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 customers of the site are adults and competent people who, as a rule, have achieved significant results in their work and have firm views on everything, including the creation of sites. At the same time, it would be strange to hear from the client which codes to prescribe the site, but advising the client how to build his business in the virtual space is considered normal for an employee of a web studio.
')
The third mistake - underestimation of the role of design. The design is the part of the site that is visible immediately and in the event that the studio makes the mistakes mentioned in p. 1 and 2, this is the only thing that distinguishes the sites of its clients. And this is something about which the client should always have an opinion. Yes, this opinion is often at the level of “I don’t like it,” but if the studio doesn’t begin to design, “so that the client will like it,” the work on the site can be considered complete. The main role of site 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 its potential consumers (certainly not an employee of a web-studio). It goes without saying that the design should be made in the corporate style and correspond to the general visual concept of the client!
The next mistake is the reluctance to think about what problems the customer will face when using the resource. Since the client has not foreseen anything, then there’s no need for us, we will try to make the studio work out all the money paid, plus draw out the same amount later, when the client “begins to see clearly”. The most common situation in such cases, the client sets the task to make an actively visited resource, and the studio guarantees it. 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.
The fifth mistake is that the client sees the site as an extension of himself (especially if he is a business owner) or as an extension of his business, and the studio views the site as a tool through which money is earned. As another resource for profit. That is why goals are incorrectly defined and priorities are set.
Another mistake studios - 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 it will require additional remuneration of those people who will update the site, maintain it, 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 (becoming a rake) begins to look for a new studio that will make the service allowing the site to be supported by its own employees.
And finally, the seventh mistake is the lack of coordination at the intermediate stages of the work. Delaying the moment when the client demonstrates the intermediate stages before the date of acceptance of the site leads to problems between the client and the studio, since reveals a lack of understanding in the view of the project at the stages requiring large changes in large volumes of work. It goes without saying that the more often and more work stages are agreed upon and agreed with the client, the more accurate the result will be.
The author of the article: Alexander Uspensky.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/22224/
All Articles