About the life of sites after the transfer to the customer
At the heart of this note are personal observations about how illiterate management can spoil a good thing and make the desired result almost unattainable. It will be about supporting sites by ordinary employees of the company.
This is a cross post from my site . I'm just interested in public opinion on this issue.
Being engaged in the creation of Internet projects I have lately become more and more disappointed in the Customers. And the reason for this disappointment is trivial - a lack of understanding of people, which is important not only to make a quality website, but it is equally important to maintain this website adequately and keep it in proper form. Otherwise, the very essence of the action “Ordering a good website” is lost.
')
After all, as it happens. Appeal, order site. For example, this is an established company - it has a website, but it is hopelessly outdated, does not meet modern goals and the image of the company, and besides, it is completely unmanageable. The director rightly decides that it is time to update the Internet representation of his company.
The concept is discussed for a long time, the tasks of the new site are clarified, goals are defined. Then the design part, programming, preparation of the filling, testing. And now the site is ready, approved personally by the Director, a pile of instructions and recommendations is attached, personal presentations and training of employees are held, the acts are signed, the calculation is made. What's next?
I will not consider options when the support site is carried out by a group of developers on the basis of a separate agreement. Or when the Customer’s company has a qualified employee who is fully supporting the site, optimizing the instructions of the management in order not to harm the site, and if something is not clear or is not sure about something, he does not consider it shameful to ask the creator of the site for recommendations. After acceptance, such sites live a long, happy life, fully fulfilling the assigned tasks, contributing to the development of the Customer’s business and pleasing the eye of the Visitors.
More frustrating for me, as the author, are cases when a new site after commissioning falls into the hands of a mega-manager, a pseudo-administrator and / or bydlokodera. He is certainly a professional in everything - a programmer, a designer, and a content manager. What is the difference, that initially in the design every distance between the elements was measured, every word was thought out, every pixel was located not just like that, but with meaning? It does not matter! Rearrange, change. We will not listen to the recommendations of the creator of the site - here I am the king, and I do what I want. To be sure, we’ll also remove the developer’s copyrights - who cares that there was a separate item in the Agreement about this? The contract was signed by the head - he is far (high), and this signature is ah, as a callous of our royal look.
In the end, what do we have? The company ordered the site. A stylish website to match the chosen image, attracted customers, showed that this organization was not a “sharashkin office”, but a solid company. After passing through the internal "managers", the site lost everything that they could not understand, acquired new "usefulness" (for example, rating counters pasted on the principles of "to be" and "where they could") and eventually turned into an updated old site - the same awkward and erratic. Money spent, the desired result from the appearance of the new site is unlikely to ever be achieved. And then one of your friends will tell the Director that the site is yours, my friend, rubbish. And the story is likely to repeat again - with the involvement of new developers and the subsequent revisions of the new "mega-managers".
Of course, these are isolated cases. Of course, the right one who pays the money. The developer could just close his eyes and forget. But it is just a shame when the enclosed efforts go to waste. Such situations give rise to “professional indifference”. In addition, this indirectly negatively affects the reputation of the developer himself - completely undeserved, which makes the situation doubly offensive.
Morality? There is no moral. The customer is the host. The site is its property, to whom it wants, and that trust management. Close your eyes and forget. You can't drive everyone by the hand. Or not, not like that. Close your eyes, take into account the experience and continue to work, trying, nevertheless, as far as possible to inculcate something good, advise, recommend.
What do you think? Donating and forgetting or still trying to "instill good"?
This is a cross post from my site . I'm just interested in public opinion on this issue.
Being engaged in the creation of Internet projects I have lately become more and more disappointed in the Customers. And the reason for this disappointment is trivial - a lack of understanding of people, which is important not only to make a quality website, but it is equally important to maintain this website adequately and keep it in proper form. Otherwise, the very essence of the action “Ordering a good website” is lost.
')
After all, as it happens. Appeal, order site. For example, this is an established company - it has a website, but it is hopelessly outdated, does not meet modern goals and the image of the company, and besides, it is completely unmanageable. The director rightly decides that it is time to update the Internet representation of his company.
The concept is discussed for a long time, the tasks of the new site are clarified, goals are defined. Then the design part, programming, preparation of the filling, testing. And now the site is ready, approved personally by the Director, a pile of instructions and recommendations is attached, personal presentations and training of employees are held, the acts are signed, the calculation is made. What's next?
I will not consider options when the support site is carried out by a group of developers on the basis of a separate agreement. Or when the Customer’s company has a qualified employee who is fully supporting the site, optimizing the instructions of the management in order not to harm the site, and if something is not clear or is not sure about something, he does not consider it shameful to ask the creator of the site for recommendations. After acceptance, such sites live a long, happy life, fully fulfilling the assigned tasks, contributing to the development of the Customer’s business and pleasing the eye of the Visitors.
More frustrating for me, as the author, are cases when a new site after commissioning falls into the hands of a mega-manager, a pseudo-administrator and / or bydlokodera. He is certainly a professional in everything - a programmer, a designer, and a content manager. What is the difference, that initially in the design every distance between the elements was measured, every word was thought out, every pixel was located not just like that, but with meaning? It does not matter! Rearrange, change. We will not listen to the recommendations of the creator of the site - here I am the king, and I do what I want. To be sure, we’ll also remove the developer’s copyrights - who cares that there was a separate item in the Agreement about this? The contract was signed by the head - he is far (high), and this signature is ah, as a callous of our royal look.
In the end, what do we have? The company ordered the site. A stylish website to match the chosen image, attracted customers, showed that this organization was not a “sharashkin office”, but a solid company. After passing through the internal "managers", the site lost everything that they could not understand, acquired new "usefulness" (for example, rating counters pasted on the principles of "to be" and "where they could") and eventually turned into an updated old site - the same awkward and erratic. Money spent, the desired result from the appearance of the new site is unlikely to ever be achieved. And then one of your friends will tell the Director that the site is yours, my friend, rubbish. And the story is likely to repeat again - with the involvement of new developers and the subsequent revisions of the new "mega-managers".
Of course, these are isolated cases. Of course, the right one who pays the money. The developer could just close his eyes and forget. But it is just a shame when the enclosed efforts go to waste. Such situations give rise to “professional indifference”. In addition, this indirectly negatively affects the reputation of the developer himself - completely undeserved, which makes the situation doubly offensive.
Morality? There is no moral. The customer is the host. The site is its property, to whom it wants, and that trust management. Close your eyes and forget. You can't drive everyone by the hand. Or not, not like that. Close your eyes, take into account the experience and continue to work, trying, nevertheless, as far as possible to inculcate something good, advise, recommend.
What do you think? Donating and forgetting or still trying to "instill good"?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/54585/
All Articles