Where do mediocre sites really come from
I do not disagree with the previous speaker , I just took part in the creation of mediocre sites for a long time. Not in runet of course, but here we have the same garbage.
First you should decide, and then do not confuse mediocre sites with frankly idiotic sites. The first ones seem to be nothing in and of themselves, but they do not cause much excitement, usability is somewhere on the average level, and other inconveniences come out too. In general, the client likes it, and no one will be proud of this site. Another thing is the idiotic sites - this is the majority of handicrafts half-educators, who have the only plus that they cost 2 thousand rubles a piece. I do not consider the latter.
So, the process of creating a mediocre site ...
')
From my experience of foreign site building, a studio can make a mediocre site both for a million dollars and for 30 thousand. What is interesting, working at home in the amount of three people, without spending on any managers and offices, for much smaller amounts, much better sites are obtained. So do not be here on Krivorukov freelancers. Not all Krivorukov.
1. Take an average studio. Some person, whose job to look for orders, finds a client. Briefly tells the team what to do. Everyone is happy and enthusiastic.
2. Meetings are held and approximately how much time and resources are needed for someone. These ratings always fail. It is worse when managers try to solve these issues themselves, while understanding little in programming and design. Then the estimates are just completely unrealistic. And I came across this more than once.
3. Managers, like a deaf phone, act as intermediaries between developers and the client. At the same time, there are always some grudges and self-evident things that are not. Especially dangerous job "to do as here."
4. Programmers, approximately presenting the task in mind (from the way they were incorrectly explained to them) begin to code. At the same time, in all studios make their bikes, on which you can "easily" code some site. Almost always the bike is not even designed at the beginning, but is copied with parts from made sites. The result is a kind of slow-moving monster with a bunch of incomprehensible restrictions, which is not clear anymore, it prevents or helps. Accordingly, something interesting and unusual in this not done.
5. Designers never consult directly with coders and give out such designs that, in order to program, you need to break your ass in three places. They never send all the required assets and name the layer in the PSD in no other way than Layer 1, Layer 2 ... How many do not they explain the platform limitations and what assets are always needed, they are only offended.
6. Here comes the manager and says that in the old site you need to urgently fix something. As a result, the entire schedule collapses, deadlines are broken, work is done at night. People go evil and he generally do not care already on the site. It turns out what happens.
7. The designer in the park draws the gavnetso and throws off the flash player, the flasher realizes that he will not do anything good from this and sadly sculpts even more sucks.
8. The client comes and says that you need to add here and here such things that destroys everything perfectly and the site begins to overgrow with patches and dirty hacks in the code.
As a result, even if all the performers are super professionals and CAN do cool sites, it turns out at best something mediocre. But no, not quite, somewhere there is a weak link. All super creative creative professionals, and you get a mediocre website? Wherever I managed to go, I can indicate a weak link in each project. However, this person may well be a weak link due to the fact that he is terribly overloaded. I repent, and it happened to me.
And in my practice, there were designers who beautifully paint only one certain type of designs, and with others they get flustered to the fullest, while being offended by the criticism. There were coders who considered themselves super professionals, and the code broke from every sneeze. There were managers who had to be tortured to finally figure out what to do.
Large companies have their own schemes and methods. They, perhaps, relieve from some problems, but bring a heap of new. Mostly bureaucratic. And the cost of bureaucrats is much more - less time is money for developers.
This suggests a simple observation - if someone in the team does not care, be he super professional, but does his job mediocre, the whole product will be mediocre. No flasher can make a candy out of a google design, no designer from govnospek draws anything outstanding, no server programmer writes a good, fast and convenient website if they constantly ask him to change something.
Here, gentlemen, where do the mediocre sites, the majority of which come from? Perhaps you personally like them, but any professional at first glance will mark the page of jambs, deficiencies and things that are stupid to do too lazy.
I am not proud of almost any of my sites and blame the weak link of the team for this, which, so that it turns out, every fucking time.
Thank.
1. Regarding additional features and TK
You make a website for Toyota. Who are you and who is Toyota. Let it be stated in your contract fifty times what and how much, but if they very much ask to add a small chip, the managers will certainly agree. They come to the programmer and find out that in order to add this you need to crack half the code and pry malicious hacks into fifty places. Sometimes crazy and radical changes are discarded yes.
2. All over the wine manager
There is a chain of manager - designer - designer - programmer. The earlier shoals begin, the more difficult it is for the others. Because in the end, fix all the programmers. All shoals of all fix programmers. From what they are angry and unshaven.
3. About pofigizm
I do not care if I see that it already turns out shit.
First you should decide, and then do not confuse mediocre sites with frankly idiotic sites. The first ones seem to be nothing in and of themselves, but they do not cause much excitement, usability is somewhere on the average level, and other inconveniences come out too. In general, the client likes it, and no one will be proud of this site. Another thing is the idiotic sites - this is the majority of handicrafts half-educators, who have the only plus that they cost 2 thousand rubles a piece. I do not consider the latter.
So, the process of creating a mediocre site ...
')
From my experience of foreign site building, a studio can make a mediocre site both for a million dollars and for 30 thousand. What is interesting, working at home in the amount of three people, without spending on any managers and offices, for much smaller amounts, much better sites are obtained. So do not be here on Krivorukov freelancers. Not all Krivorukov.
1. Take an average studio. Some person, whose job to look for orders, finds a client. Briefly tells the team what to do. Everyone is happy and enthusiastic.
2. Meetings are held and approximately how much time and resources are needed for someone. These ratings always fail. It is worse when managers try to solve these issues themselves, while understanding little in programming and design. Then the estimates are just completely unrealistic. And I came across this more than once.
3. Managers, like a deaf phone, act as intermediaries between developers and the client. At the same time, there are always some grudges and self-evident things that are not. Especially dangerous job "to do as here."
4. Programmers, approximately presenting the task in mind (from the way they were incorrectly explained to them) begin to code. At the same time, in all studios make their bikes, on which you can "easily" code some site. Almost always the bike is not even designed at the beginning, but is copied with parts from made sites. The result is a kind of slow-moving monster with a bunch of incomprehensible restrictions, which is not clear anymore, it prevents or helps. Accordingly, something interesting and unusual in this not done.
5. Designers never consult directly with coders and give out such designs that, in order to program, you need to break your ass in three places. They never send all the required assets and name the layer in the PSD in no other way than Layer 1, Layer 2 ... How many do not they explain the platform limitations and what assets are always needed, they are only offended.
6. Here comes the manager and says that in the old site you need to urgently fix something. As a result, the entire schedule collapses, deadlines are broken, work is done at night. People go evil and he generally do not care already on the site. It turns out what happens.
7. The designer in the park draws the gavnetso and throws off the flash player, the flasher realizes that he will not do anything good from this and sadly sculpts even more sucks.
8. The client comes and says that you need to add here and here such things that destroys everything perfectly and the site begins to overgrow with patches and dirty hacks in the code.
And in my practice, there were designers who beautifully paint only one certain type of designs, and with others they get flustered to the fullest, while being offended by the criticism. There were coders who considered themselves super professionals, and the code broke from every sneeze. There were managers who had to be tortured to finally figure out what to do.
Large companies have their own schemes and methods. They, perhaps, relieve from some problems, but bring a heap of new. Mostly bureaucratic. And the cost of bureaucrats is much more - less time is money for developers.
This suggests a simple observation - if someone in the team does not care, be he super professional, but does his job mediocre, the whole product will be mediocre. No flasher can make a candy out of a google design, no designer from govnospek draws anything outstanding, no server programmer writes a good, fast and convenient website if they constantly ask him to change something.
Here, gentlemen, where do the mediocre sites, the majority of which come from? Perhaps you personally like them, but any professional at first glance will mark the page of jambs, deficiencies and things that are stupid to do too lazy.
I am not proud of almost any of my sites and blame the weak link of the team for this, which, so that it turns out, every fucking time.
Thank.
Comments from the comments
1. Regarding additional features and TK
You make a website for Toyota. Who are you and who is Toyota. Let it be stated in your contract fifty times what and how much, but if they very much ask to add a small chip, the managers will certainly agree. They come to the programmer and find out that in order to add this you need to crack half the code and pry malicious hacks into fifty places. Sometimes crazy and radical changes are discarded yes.
2. All over the wine manager
There is a chain of manager - designer - designer - programmer. The earlier shoals begin, the more difficult it is for the others. Because in the end, fix all the programmers. All shoals of all fix programmers. From what they are angry and unshaven.
3. About pofigizm
I do not care if I see that it already turns out shit.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/72561/
All Articles