Do you need TK site? (part 1)

, , ...
( )



Do you need TK site? Today it is one of the most controversial issues of web development.

Of course, the issue is resolved by itself, when it comes to such a site, a cursory inspection of which may take an hour and a half, and the number of modules serving it cannot be counted on the fingers. The developers of such resources are well aware of the price of the “schemas” and “drawings”, and they know that the really “correct” TK becomes only in the final of the project.
')
But if the site, in technical terms, is quite ordinary, and the volume is not too ... How to be here?

Some web developers believe that TK is definitely needed by all sites, and they spend a lot of time and effort on its development, and as a result, a significant share of the project budget.

There is another part of the developers, who also believe that it is needed, but their approach to the development of TK is very formalistic. Their TK, at best, resembles a detailed estimate, and at worst - these are several pages with sparse text that they can attach to almost any of their sites. Such TK is sometimes provided free of charge.

And, finally, a clear minority of web developers are confident that TK is a waste of manpower and resources, and that it is perfectly possible to do without it. They say that a sufficiently well-written contract and detailed estimate, and the rest - good management and high-quality work.

Still, in my memory there was a case when the customer suddenly demanded TK from the performer, after the sketches had already been submitted and reviewed. Here, really, inscrutable ways ...

Systematists and Elementalists

Let's put the question a little differently: “Should I design a website?”

I think that all site builders will answer this question: “Yes.”

Whatever one may say, which approach you don’t use, it’s all the same, the site must first be: estimate, and evaluate, and justify. Sites generally come up with first, and only then do. It’s hard to imagine how you can build a website without imagining it.

Experienced web developers reduce the whole point of the site’s existence to solving the tasks assigned to it. Designed such a site is usually on the principle of "remove all unnecessary." That is, at the beginning of a joint effort with the customer comes up with some oversaturated super-site (good, the experience of some and the imagination of others allow), and then, looking at a preliminary estimate of such a site, they come to a more prosaic, but really necessary option without excess.

Thus, the question of the need to design a site is uniquely resolved. Another thing is that they project everything differently.

In some, design is a full-fledged stage, which goes at the very beginning of work on the site. A responsible person is appointed — the chief designer (usually, this is the project manager), labor costs and deadlines are estimated for the entire stage. Responsible, besides sitting (or going from corner to corner), inventing “what and how” also ensures participation in the process of direct developers of the future site: designers, web technologists, programmers, etc.

A good designer, immediately, tries to involve the customer in the design process, and not to prepare him a surprise for the signature.

For others, designing is a rather spontaneous and truly creative process. All participants in the development are also involved in designing here, but not all at one time, not all at once, or even in turns. That is, for example, at the beginning, the manager agreed with the customer before something, then the designer sat down, then the customer did not accept, and suggested otherwise, then the manager, then the designer, and then the web technologist and then the designer, and even the accountant still left on the final documents.

Of course, in any spontaneous event there is a spontaneous leader. But still, the pack is not organized by the presence of the leader in it, but by the instinct of its members. I wonder how much time a web development team needs to create a “design” instinct and self-organization?

It is easy to assume that, regarding the need for TK, the first will be “for” (well, at least they will not be too objectionable), and the second, most likely - “against”.

An interested reader here may feel that the author is trying to push his point of view, deliberately exaggerating the picture. And not at all. I happened to work with those and others, so, of course, I exaggerate, but not too much. And I will push my point of view later.

With the “systematic” approach (the one that was in the first example), the TK is a matter of a few hours, during which the main designer will gather in one document all that was thought out and in agreement. Even if the TK is not compiled, in the minds of the participants will remain an idea of ​​what to do. And besides, the design process, one way or another, is fixed somewhere, diagrams are drawn, sketches are made, etc. All this will lie on the tables (or in the “info” folder), and it is unlikely that it will go to cart

With the “spontaneous” approach (the second example), in principle, it is not entirely clear who should sit down writing TK. And, most importantly, when it is necessary to sit down to write: in the beginning - not relevant, in the middle - not before, at the end - no one needs.

Naturally, since both of these approaches are currently used (the second, of course, much less often), both of them have their pros and cons.

Consider everything in order.

TK on TZ

I will not talk about the pros of a systematic approach. I think that all web developers are obvious. If, nevertheless, my opinion is interesting, you can read it here . Consider the cons.

Systematic design is expensive. This is the main minus, which, perhaps, casts doubt on all the advantages of this approach.

For beginner site builders, who hardly crawl out on the self-sufficiency of production, designing “as it should be” is an unaffordable luxury. As a rule, such companies have a weak one, or, at all, the project management is completely absent (it is expensive to hire one, and there is no one to grow your own). It turns out that to organize the design, in simple terms, not to whom.

The management of a novice web studio, as a rule, is focused on attracting customers (and plus a hundred more cases), it does not have time for the development of production technologies. "We do it somehow, okay."

In addition, with those budgets for which start-up companies manage to conclude contracts, we have to save literally everything and, first of all, time. What arguments do not lead that “measure seven times”, the instinct of self-preservation forces, nevertheless, to sit down and “saw-plane” immediately after receiving an advance. It is good that the result, in most cases, suits the customer. Still, now customers are already guided what, from whom you can buy, and for what money.

If we talk about companies that have already reached a certain level and have found their place in the market, then there is another problem: today there are no generally accepted methods of website design.

It would seem that a great happiness that you do not need to get a license for your activity, as well as to monitor the site’s compliance with no one TU or GOST, turns into a sad reality - everyone has their own opinion on how to make a good site. Moreover, from project to project, this opinion is changing.

Each time, undertaking design as a stage, it is necessary to sort through, refine, and even invent anew all the methods and technologies not only of site-building, but also of the design itself. And this is a headache not only for the project manager, but for the company as a whole. On approaches and attacks, the project may be delayed indefinitely. It all depends on "how much this new site is not like the ones we did before."

In this scenario, no budgets are likely to be enough. And the design turns into a chronically unprofitable stage, the patience of the owners of the company. Most often, the case ends with the fact that at the next iteration, the design is terminated by a volitional decision “from above”, and the entrance goes to the plan “b”, that is, “all that we didn’t have time - let’s figure it out.”

In general, the situation with the minuses is such that I would be happy to err in it. But, of course, there are optimistic thoughts.

Looking at five different TK, in order to understand how to do the sixth, an idea appears, after the sixth, to immediately write the seventh TZ. TK on TZ . And in it, with a cool head, try to collect all the good things that have been found over the past months or years.

That's just a question. Do it for yourself, at night, according to all the rules of conspiracy? Or do it for everyone, though, no one asked. They will scold them, but maybe someone will advise from their experience.

To be continued