New website Design & Development Costs

Scotty #

Thanks for the excellent reply Sonnenblumen...

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

The winning bidder won my confidence at an early stage, and if I get what is expected, I will have considered the fees well earned and wholly justifiable.

Yes, online presence is so important these days for any business I suppose €10K is a small price to pay for a presence of high standard, particularly if you already have an established business. For a Startup to pay out €10K for their website would be a much tougher decision. I paid €15k for a catalogue site a few years ago for a new company I had started. I found it to be a total waste of money. The site functioned exactly as I spec'ed but the design and UI were terrible. In end the site failed (not due to the design) but it could have failed for a lot less .

I do think there are some guys out there building excellent sites at the lower end of the price scale though and I think there is a market need for them. Likewise there are some cowboys at the higher end (like all trades I guess). The hard part is figuring out which is which.

Best of luck with the site.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Consultancy Rule #1: Shut up and listen (or read in this case) before anything else.

In your previous reply you twisted what I had said into something else and now you are telling me I should shut up? Here's a rule for you... attack the post and not the poster! Maybe as a moderator on here you should abide by it!

I read the entire thread before I posted. Am I not allowed think the quotes were expensive or just not allowed say it? (I don't actually want an answer!)

The Corinthian

Scotty # wrote: »

In your previous reply you twisted what I had said into something else and now you are telling me I should shut up? Here's a rule for you... attack the post and not the poster! Maybe as a moderator on here you should abide by it!

I did attack the post and not the poster, although in the case of Sonnenblumen earlier in the thread I'll have to admit that I was probably a bit unfairly harsh on him.

As to your post, for example, you cite content in "digital format". However, if you'd read the thread, you would have realized that this content is currently in the database of their existing brochureware site, so migrating this data is not going to be as straightforward as one might hope.

Then, of course, despite my specifically suggesting you include T&M for non-development stages of the project, you only covered development, deployment and testing. You included absolutely no requirements gathering, no solution design and apparently do not believe that any kind of specification is needed. Less said about any SLA the better. If you had read the thread, you would see that I cited these non-development stages earlier.

Requirements gathering in particular is important, because Sonnenblumen specifically stated, again had you read the thread, that he was "not looking for a basic brochure site but rather a very extensive resource". As such 16 hours may well not cut it for 'configuring' modules and galleries, because it is quite likely that actual programming will be required, rather than being able to simply use out of the box plug-ins.

I could go on, but even if you include the above into an estimate and the hours required easily double or even triple. So, no, I do not believe you read the entire thread before you posted.

Scotty #

Ahh so you were suggesting the post 'shut up', not the poster... I see

I'm glad to see you would expect all the criteria I've listed AND all the criteria you've listed to be included for €10K though.

Sonnenblumen

The Corinthian wrote: »

The requirements.

While Sonnenblumen was speaking fairly generally and not in detail, if you actually read the thread you'll quickly realize that there is a bit more to what his project entails.

Consultancy Rule #1: Shut up and listen (or read in this case) before anything else.

@Sonnenblumen was any of the advice that was given to you here useful?

There were some very useful contibutions/points raised earlier including some from your good self which AFAIK, I did acknowledged and will happily do so here again. I will not list them now, but certainly the various posts drew my attention to pinning down the deliverables, this was highlighted in some discussions which I subsequently had with various designers, that the fees were for a solution and not X mandays. Other elements which were also captured included Training & dev, manuals, SLA, ongoing site management, updating etc.

I have various options x days year or € X/hour. This is find and the ongoing revenue for the dev co is smart, and isn't a problem for me in return for peace of mind.

What does irk me still is when I compare my briefing experiences to the more professionally developed graphic design buisness, web dev cos have a lot of ground to make up to be comparable to the more structured, albeit more developed practices typically encountered in graphic design consultancy. I was also a little surprised to see so many web dev cos overly rely on the more technical aspects of their businesses/project methodology/inputs, and failing to see the bigger picture and the truer broader value of web development as a business development solution for a client and simply another technical brief/project. Perhaps 'empathy' might apply here?

Anyways, I'm excited and the team doing the work are also fired up, so hopefully we will be thrilled with the outcomes. Time will tell.;)

The Corinthian

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What does irk me still is when I compare my briefing experiences to the more professionally developed graphic design buisness, web dev cos have a lot of ground to make up to be comparable to the more structured, albeit more developed practices typically encountered in graphic design consultancy. I was also a little surprised to see so many web dev cos overly rely on the more technical aspects of their businesses/project methodology/inputs, and failing to see the bigger picture and the truer broader value of web development as a business development solution for a client and simply another technical brief/project. Perhaps 'empathy' might apply here?

A lot of smaller WebDev outfits (<10 people) tend to grow from a one or two man operation originally, where the initial emphasis was either graphic design or programming. As they grow, the first resources they add are either graphic design or programming that were originally missing, and functions such as project management or business analysis are not a priority until much later. Often this lack of demand is client-driven, as clients either do not see the value of such roles or even consider them an unwelcome extra cost.

This results in the project management or business analysis functions being carried out by someone who no background in either and this will show in the lack of professionalism and competence displayed in these roles - even here we've seen responses from some people that betrayed their lack of attention to what you were seeking to achieve.

A good BA will be able to distil the often unspoken wishes of a client into a workable solution that can be understood by the creative and technical teams building it, as well as sanity check those wishes and help a client refine their business model.

Anyways, I'm excited and the team doing the work are also fired up, so hopefully we will be thrilled with the outcomes. Time will tell.;)

Good luck and hope it works out.

Sonnenblumen

I haven't been around here for ages, I'm just popping by to give an update. Due to operational reasons at my end (simply too busy) delayed the project start. Now entering its second month of development and although the end is in sight there is still a considerable amount of work to be done.

All development work is almost complete, graphics is very advanced and content migration is underway.

Its been a huge learning exercise for me, and despite some initial nervousness, I am so glad that I made the right choice and selecting a very good and young development company. Using Drupal for the CMS has been a revelation, despite having some initial fears and uncertainty concerning its ease of use and apparent clunky functionality, I have to say my experience has been very positive. The sensible structure and performance of Drupal really excels, easy to update and for content management it is a doddle etc.

Yes as project end nears, there will be the training to look forward to soon as well as all of the documentation. And although it has taken more time to get where we are, I am convinced we will end up with a superior end product and a site that will certainly exceed my expectations and hopefully become a very valuable business development tool.

Hopefully the next time, I'll be inviting feedback/comments from the experts.

Happy New Year to all.:)

Sonnenblumen

new site now live: www.owenchubblandscapers.com

SalteeDog

Nice job. Looks the business.

irishdude11

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

new site now live: www.owenchubblandscapers.com

Very well implemented site, looks and feels professional which is all important.

Trojan

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

new site now live: www.owenchubblandscapers.com

Thanks for following up, love to see that. The site looks pretty good, really clean and crisp from a design point of view.

There's two main pieces of advice I'd have for you:

(1) add a clear call to action, i.e. "Sign Up Here", "Call Us Today", etc.

(2) It could do with a bit of love from an SEO - most urgently in the page titles.

Hope that feedback is of use

devildriver

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

new site now live: www.owenchubblandscapers.com

Thanks for posting that. Usually in these discussions we never get to see the finished product. I think having the whole process documented here from the initial RFP through the selection of the design company and the rationale for the CMS choice is incredibly useful for designers and potential clients alike.

And apart from a few minor (personal) quibbles I have about code bloat (par for the course with Drupal) and font choice, I think it has worked out really well.

Sonnenblumen

Trojan wrote: »

Thanks for following up, love to see that. The site looks pretty good, really clean and crisp from a design point of view.

There's two main pieces of advice I'd have for you:

(1) add a clear call to action, i.e. "Sign Up Here", "Call Us Today", etc.

(2) It could do with a bit of love from an SEO - most urgently in the page titles.

Hope that feedback is of use

Thanks for your feedback Trojan.

I thought we had made good provision for call to action, most of the main pages feature boxes inviting people to call and/or also 'ready to talk to us about..."

Your (2) point is of concern to me and I am wondering is it that the lack of tags on each of the title pages? The site contains about 2G of photos/images and all have had several tags already applied.

It does seem web design is a bit like gardening, once you start well it's never ending?:)

Trojan

The call to action on, for example this page - it's not bad, could maybe do with standing out from the surrounding elements with a stronger colour. But there's not a similar one on the homepage.

You're missing good title tags on several pages - at the very least, the homepage (which is absolutely crucial) and the Monthly Tips page. #

There's a lot to it, but that's the fun of it

tramoreman

good looking website

might be worthwhile looking at the Privacy link at the end of the page dosent seem to do anything

Sonnenblumen

tramoreman wrote: »

good looking website

might be worthwhile looking at the Privacy link at the end of the page dosent seem to do anything

Well spotted Tramoreman. Apparently the 'Privacy' copy is not quite finished, and the current default is to link to the previous page visited.

Thanks for feedback.

flynnlives

Site needs some decent SEO. pm me if you want some advice.

I also reckon the garden design, landscaping, driveways etc. tabs look a little bland. Could do with brighter background image.
More contrast is needed to bring up the images.

Get your social links in the header and keep to the original logo design/colours. The links in the footer should be the original logos and not white.

Do you have the .ie domain. Having both the .com and .ie is always recommended.

I would point the site to the .ie for better rankings in google .ie and higher page rank.

Did you add in redirects from the old site?

Sonnenblumen

Hi flynnlives

thanks for your useful feedback.

I would be very interested in your SEO advice and i will PM you.

The other points:

Landscaping Tabs - these were deliberately keep neutral (or as you assess bland) and provide a contrast by turning green when cursors hovers over. Perhaps the image could still be a little more vivid?

Social Links - perhasp they would look better in original colour, but not initially put in white to and placed in footer as a lower priority button. I'm no big fan and might sound silly.

I'll check the .ie domain, was always more interested in .com (other reasons) and yes re-directs from old site are in place.

Thanks again and I'll be in touch.

flynnlives wrote: »

Site needs some decent SEO. pm me if you want some advice.

I also reckon the garden design, landscaping, driveways etc. tabs look a little bland. Could do with brighter background image.
More contrast is needed to bring up the images.

Get your social links in the header and keep to the original logo design/colours. The links in the footer should be the original logos and not white.

Do you have the .ie domain. Having both the .com and .ie is always recommended.

I would point the site to the .ie for better rankings in google .ie and higher page rank.

Did you add in redirects from the old site?

flynnlives

Sorry didnt mean to sound too harsh about the tabs. It was late and i was just trying to get my point across.

Yes i would either up the vividness our contrast of the grey images. That should help and in fact add to the effect when you hover over them.

Im not a huge fan of facebook so i can understand your reluctance about using social media. But they are free and they are very popular and importantly can drive traffic, increase your online footprint and thus conversions to actual customers. I think you would do really well with a youtube channel giving tutorials about plant and garden care.

Sonnenblumen

Hi Flynnlives

I've been looking into the SEO and also checked with Site's developer. From what I can gather, tags are dead and I am reassured that the SEO for the site will prove effective. As you know, a new site (for SEO) may take up to 2 weeks for google to learn about it. So it is still early days. But rather than waiting, Google was provided with some help, a sitemap file has also been sent to search engines and any missing page titles have been rectified.Also the page description fields are effectively being used as the search meta descriptions.

As for keyword tags, the general wisdom now is that these are a waste of time, aand AFAIK only one obscure search crawler engine called Inktomi uses these at all? Search engines will not trust or factor any keywords provided by website owners, they are smarter than that and the most important thing on your site is the content. ( A useful report here: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066825/Death-Of-A-Meta-Tag )

Instead we have focussed on creating a semantically correct (properly structured and marked up pages) and well structured website while providing meta descriptions where available (however should a need ever arise, these can be overridden on a page by page basis).

Thanks again for your feedback.

irishdude11

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Hi Flynnlives

I've been looking into the SEO and also checked with Site's developer. From what I can gather, tags are dead and I am reassured that the SEO for the site will prove effective. As you know, a new site (for SEO) may take up to 2 weeks for google to learn about it. So it is still early days. But rather than waiting, Google was provided with some help, a sitemap file has also been sent to search engines and any missing page titles have been rectified.Also the page description fields are effectively being used as the search meta descriptions.

As for keyword tags, the general wisdom now is that these are a waste of time, aand AFAIK only one obscure search crawler engine called Inktomi uses these at all? Search engines will not trust or factor any keywords provided by website owners, they are smarter than that and the most important thing on your site is the content. ( A useful report here: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066825/Death-Of-A-Meta-Tag )

Instead we have focussed on creating a semantically correct (properly structured and marked up pages) and well structured website while providing meta descriptions where available (however should a need ever arise, these can be overridden on a page by page basis).

Thanks again for your feedback.

That article you linked is over 10 years old. Here is a recent article saying meta tags should be used - http://www.searchenginejournal.com/maximizing-your-meta-tags-for-seo-and-ctr/56996/

I have no opinion myself on the matter as I know very little about SEO.

Trojan

There's a big difference between saying "don't bother using meta tags" and "don't bother using the meta keywords tag".

The meta keywords tag is almost entirely irrelevant because it's been abused so badly over the past 15 years. The other meta tags (notably "meta description") are still useful and recommended.

Sonnenblumen

The more I read about this stuff the more I come to realise that focussing on good content, which is regularly updated, with good copy and clear descriptions etc is a more sensible and effective way to achieve better SEO performance.

The old methods of using tags may still linger, but that approach really seems to be little more than a hit'n'miss attempt to achieving the same objectives except crucially that the search engines can see through this outdated black art of tags?

Graham

Good content for your target audience, most sensible SEO technique I've come across in a long time. Congrats on identifying something some 'SEO experts' continue to miss.

At the end of the day Google is trying to point users towards good, relevant content. Are they always good at that? No. Are they getting better at that all the time? On the whole, yes.

flynnlives

tags are not dead!

keyword tags have been discontinued by google but bing and yahoo still use them. So they are largely ignored.

The title tag is one on the most important onpage factors imo and the description being less so.

I also suggested that the content be formatted correctly.

None of the advice i gave you was wrong. On there own these elements done correctly offer little but if all are used correctly they greatly increase your
signals to the search engines. And that is the point of a currently built and formatted website, sending the correct signals to the algorithms to correctly index your site.

Sonnenblumen

flynnlives wrote: »

I also suggested that the content be formatted correctly.

Hi Flynnlives

Fair enough, so can you help me understand by pointing to some 'content' examples which illustrate your point?

SB

flynnlives

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Hi Flynnlives

Fair enough, so can you help me understand by pointing to some 'content' examples which illustrate your point?

SB

on this page http://www.owenchubblandscapers.com/design/small-gardens
you have no h1 tag and the following h2 tags

• <H2>: Search form
• <H2>: Main menu
• <H2>: You are here
• <H2>: Related Blog Posts
• <H2>: Read Owen's Blog »
• <H2>: Offers
• <H2>: Offers
• <H2>:
• <H2>:
• <H2>: Small Garden Design
• <H2>: Small Garden Design
• <H2>: Small Garden Design
• <H2>: Contact Us

which are all links, none of which relate to the body text. You also have 9 h3 tags which are also unreleated to the text.

The body text should have 1 h1 tag, in your case,"small garden design" and then correct use of h2 and h3 tags where necessary.


All of these are small but when all are used correctly you are telling the search engine more about the content of the page. ie. its formated and structured correctly.


Vast majority of web developers assume h tags are do to with size but ignore that the search engines use them like chapters in a book. ie. Their original purpose.

Sonnenblumen

Fair play Flynnlives for following through. I'll look into that.

Scotty #

Thanks for updating us Sonnenblumen. As you have probably worked out by now, websites are never finished. You will always find something that needs improving and tweaking and just when you think you have it right Google will come along and rewrite the rules all over again.

Just one note on first impressions...

On the image below left is your homepage and right is an internal page. Can you see the obvious difference? Your home page only has one image (albeit a slideshow but only one image at a time), this is peculiar for design orientated business. Pictures, as you have on the internal pages, are far more likely to lead to a click through than a vague word like 'Plants' or 'Products'.



Visitors browsing (as opposed to looking for specific information) generally only stay 5-8 seconds on any page and it's the visual elements on the page that determine their course of action rather than any text. Of course text is important too but you must catch the eye first. Your home page doesn't but the internal page does. Also, try to avoid close up shots and go for wider or full garden shots. They are far more impressive and more likely to an enquiry.

Speaking of which... a sales enquiry is your goal here but your only mention of a phone number is one little line of text at the bottom of the page. I'd get rid of the search box and menu at the top right (which no one uses anyway) and put your number there in a large font. I'd also consider a small 'Quick Enquiry' or 'Ask a Question' form at the bottom of every page rather than just the contact us page.

Good luck with it!

Sonnenblumen

Hi Scotty

thanks for raising some interesting points, I agree fully about the importance of photos/visuals, but your criticism of the Homepage is probably a little harsh for me. Notwithstanding your point of view, I would be more than confident that the title blocks and descriptors which change when the cursor hovers over, is a neat and graphic alternative to simply loading more photos. Afterall, there is no rule which states all photos must be front loaded, or that the Homepage must be the best page? In contrast we have tried to offer a Homepage layout which is distinctive, clear and easy to navigate and get to wherever you need to go on the site.

Do also bear in mind that the site contains several hundred photos with a wide use of wide angle and macro perspectives and these are presented in a variety of ways (slideshows, carousels, project galleries, blogs etc) throughout the site. I'm confident we have do much to provide plenty of eye candy and evenly distributed it throughout the site?

I would have to disagree with your point about removing the search function. The previous version of the site did not have any search function and it was simply a significant piece of functionality which impacted on site perforamnce. For the new site, I was determined to provide a search facility for both site and also Blog areas. The latter area contains over 400 posts and the vast bulk of the content is very relevant to all key elements of the subject matter. It was crucial that readers could find relevant content quickly. Often balancing post titles to be 'interesting' whilst relevant to search engines or prospective readers is also far from easy, which is why it was important not just to categorise the individual posts but also to provide access and cross-referencing in several ways. I think we have done this extremely well and I believe it is something which I have not seen done before will become very popular with site users.

There are several well established methods to present 'Call to actions', telephone, email, complete a contact form etc, and as you suggest 'quick enquiry' is another variant. I suppose the list of options will grow, but I am trying to balance interesting clean page layouts and avoid peripheral clutter. At present our policy is not to offer any open dialogue facilities (incl Blog area). I am happy to provide pertinent information, and if someone is unwilling or unable to complete a contact form/email, well 'that's life' and the enquiry is probably more spurious than be of any relevant potential?

In design terms, I am very happy, and yes we can agree to disagree, obviousily the site will be monitored and where necessary, for whatever reasons, changes or adjustments will be made, even if that includes replacing title blocks on the home page with photos.

I do agree that it is the start of a much longer process in which the site will continue to evolve in response to business changes or content management resources etc. In that regard, the work with the site will never be completed but continue to develop and improve. This hopefully will result in enhanced visitor experience and a positive impact on business performance.

Thanks again for taking the time to provide your feedback.

SB

Scotty # wrote: »

Thanks for updating us Sonnenblumen. As you have probably worked out by now, websites are never finished. You will always find something that needs improving and tweaking and just when you think you have it right Google will come along and rewrite the rules all over again.

Just one note on first impressions...

On the image below left is your homepage and right is an internal page. Can you see the obvious difference? Your home page only has one image (albeit a slideshow but only one image at a time), this is peculiar for design orientated business. Pictures, as you have on the internal pages, are far more likely to lead to a click through than a vague word like 'Plants' or 'Products'.



Visitors browsing (as opposed to looking for specific information) generally only stay 5-8 seconds on any page and it's the visual elements on the page that determine their course of action rather than any text. Of course text is important too but you must catch the eye first. Your home page doesn't but the internal page does. Also, try to avoid close up shots and go for wider or full garden shots. They are far more impressive and more likely to an enquiry.

Speaking of which... a sales enquiry is your goal here but your only mention of a phone number is one little line of text at the bottom of the page. I'd get rid of the search box and menu at the top right (which no one uses anyway) and put your number there in a large font. I'd also consider a small 'Quick Enquiry' or 'Ask a Question' form at the bottom of every page rather than just the contact us page.

Good luck with it!

BmCon

Opinions can hurt a good website.
If you like the site work on content structure and SEO (h1, h2, and other tags and content advice)

But site changes like colours, rollovers and so on, if you like them, keep them.
I had a guy tell me he did not like the colours on a website, then he said he is colour blind!!

Hmmmmm

Remember one rule "SEO is king and too many calls to action is confusing"