Website Design initial time & budget estimate

con1982

I work for a SME in the construction industry. We want to improve our online profile by completely renewing our website.

I've found two sites which I would like to emulate
http://www.weslin.ie/
http://www.jbbarry.ie/

We need to be able to add/remove 'projects' once the site is set-up.

How long does it take to complete a similar site (days/weeks)?
What is a reasonable budget (1-2k, 2-5k, 5k+)?

Thanks in advance

maxmarmalade

Thats very hard to estimate without a spec. I had a look through www.weslin.ie and I would say you are looking at 5k minimum to get a site like that.

HappyKate

con1982 wrote: »

I work for a SME in the construction industry. We want to improve our online profile by completely renewing our website.

I've found two sites which I would like to emulate
http://www.weslin.ie/
http://www.jbbarry.ie/

We need to be able to add/remove 'projects' once the site is set-up.

How long does it take to complete a similar site (days/weeks)?
What is a reasonable budget (1-2k, 2-5k, 5k+)?

Thanks in advance

Hi,

What are technical specifications you need except to be able to add/remove projects?

Thank you!

The Corinthian

HappyKate wrote: »

What are technical specifications you need except to be able to add/remove projects?

You mean requirements specifications...

Looking briefly at the second site link, it would likely include requirements such as:

• Ability to group (and display) projects by category.
• Ability to manage project categories.
• What project information, text or media would defined when creating/managing a project.
• CMS for managing other pages (possibly including the pages themselves), especially news and job vacancy items.
• Contact form and request brochure form (possibly including an auto-reply with the brochure attached)

And that's just after a very quick look. I'd tend to agree that the OP is likely looking at a couple of grand for a site of that level, regardless of whether it's done using an existing CMS framework or as a bespoke job.

Deliverance XXV

5k sounds fairly steep, especially when it's not a huge amount of development work.

I would say 1-2 weeks with the budget of 1-2k would be reasonable.

If you can have someone in the company (secretary or whatever) with a bit of computer knowledge they could probably update the site themselves with some simple instructions using the wordpress framework. If that was the case then I wouldn't really pay more than 1k - and half of that would be getting someone to take decent pics of the projects for the content end of things.

I can't really see any major complexities..

KonFusion

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

If that was the case then I wouldn't really pay more than 1k - and half of that would be getting someone to take decent pics of the projects for the content end of things.

If you don't mind me asking, are you a professional designer/developer?

I only ask, because that is ridiculous.

kirving

It's nice site alright, and some thought has gone into it's design which obviously has to be accounted for. But 5 grand?! I'm not a graphic designer, but I know the basics of what has to be done, and 5k is ridiculous. A couple of grand would probably cover it.

Because actually making a website is alien to most people, some people/businesses end up paying way over the odds.

solarith

1-2 weeks. < €2000.

My God I can't wait to finish college. I'd snap your hand off to do this €1000 right now and have it done in a week (I have references/portfolio), but no time. People don't realise how easy this is with wordpress, php/css knowledge and Photoshop! =/

Make sure you can check out whoever you get to design it's portfolio. There are a lot of people out there being screwed into absolutely rubbish websites using technology from yesteryear.


The Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days. One to design and one to populate.

endplate

solarith wrote: »

1-2 weeks. < €2000.

My God I can't wait to finish college. I'd snap your hand off to do this €1000 right now and have it done in a week (I have references/portfolio), but no time. People don't realise how easy this is with wordpress, php/css knowledge and Photoshop! =/

Make sure you can check out whoever you get to design it's portfolio. There are a lot of people out there being screwed into absolutely rubbish websites using technology from yesteryear.


The Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days. One to design and one to populate.

Yeah I tend to agree with you €500 to €1000 would be plenty to pay for a non ecommerce site. But costs can be lowered by doing the written detail yourself plus it helps the web developers work out exactly what you want from your site.

Con1982 get a idea what you want fo your site. Get several quotes and get references about who you choose to go with. It's easy to get ripped off with website construction cos the customer usually doesn't understand what's involved.

con1982

Thanks for all the comments and advice.

A couple of PMs received with more detailed breakdown. Much appreciated.

The Corinthian

solarith wrote: »

The Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days. One to design and one to populate.

If all there was to a project was development, then it would all be so easy.

If I remember correctly, IBM did a study on the old Waterfall model back in the eighties and found, to their surprise, that the implantation phase made up approximately 15% of total T&M employed. The other 85% of the project was taken up by the other phases, in the particular requirements and design phases (the latter of which does not mean an exercise in creative pixel pushing, BTW).

So I would agree that actual development - implementation - of something like the Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days (if you can use a CMS, if bespoke you probably need a bit more). Once you have sign off on a clear specification and have all the necessary materials to hand, and depending upon the client, this is where T&M will likely begin to bloat.

Some clients know exactly what they need (note the use of the word 'need' rather than 'want') and can convey this in a clear manner to the developer. Unfortunately the other 99% think they know what they need, and so the requirement and design stages can end up being drawn out, tortuous affairs if not handled correctly. Even if handled correctly, they will take up significantly more time than the actual development.

So, while I do think that 5k is probably a bit on the high side, given current Irish rates, estimates like €500 to €1,000 are the mutterings of someone with zero experience in an actual project cycle (they may be excellent developers, but outside of that they're clueless) and who also would be unlikely to handle the requirement and design stages correctly - further bloating the project in the long run.

I don't say this to be nasty, but as a word of warning to anyone who would actually conceive that it's going to be that straightforward, because if they do take on a project like that, they're going to regret it and ultimately earn themselves an effective hourly rate that is well below the minimum wage - in India.

Then again, the reason I know this is, like most others in the business, is that I fell foul of such cavalier underestimation once too (fortunately I was an employee, so got paid either way).

Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

KonFusion

Couldn't agree more.

There is probably a whole new thread to be started here on pricing and how much to charge, but essentially:

You should be charging clients based on what the work is worth to them, the value of the work, not the time it takes to complete it.

I'd snap your hand off to do this €1000 right now and have it done in a week (I have references/portfolio), but no time. People don't realise how easy this is with wordpress, php/css knowledge and Photoshop!

What kind of silly statement is that? People don't realise how easy it is to build a car with the correct parts and knowledge of mechanical engineering. Something is easy because you have learned how to do it. You've put the time, effort, and money into learning how.

Saying you can have it done in two days is a bold move, unless the client has given you a deadline. The client isn't buying time, they are buying work. The value of that work is what you need to charge them for.

Are you going to be able to go into detail with the client about how you got to that price? What do you do when the client starts to negotiate down from that price? You can always negotiate down from a price that was too high, but you can't recover from a price that was too low.

Undercharging for your work is just telling the client the work has little value. Charging for value is the reason that when someone walks in and asks for the cheapest site possible, you don't say "no problem, 100 quid", you give them a quote for something they actually need. Have the confidence to ask for it, and the willingness to walk away if you can't get it.

No one is going to value your work or your time if you don't.

As The Corinthian said, sometimes you have to learn the hard way. There is no secret formula for knowing how much to charge for your work. There is only the experience you gain from having to do it over and over again.

You will always undercharge a few, you might even overcharge a few, but eventually you'll gain the confidence that what you're charging is what you should be charging.

The Corinthian

I wasn't really talking about how much to charge, but about having a realistic expectation on how long it will take.

Building a site (or any kind of software development) commercially is not the same thing as building one at home for yourself. What differentiates the two is that in the latter case you are both the supplier and client, you know what you want and it's all in your head, ready to be spewed out onto a screen.

When you have to start exchanging ideas, wishes and expectations with other human beings, things get complicated - so much so that the development of whatever-it-is-you're-doing-for-them will become only a small part of where your time is spent.

If making €1,000 is that important to you, then get a job in a burger joint, or on a paper round. Making that kind of money for what may end up being 200+ hours work isn't worth it, even for the portfolio.

maxmarmalade

My suggestion of 5k was probably a little steep but this project requires design AND development of a CMS. And as pointed out, this is for a client, not yourself. Meaning more care has to be taken. I haven't touched wordpress for years, preferring to build with Yii framework instead, and doing a full bespoke site, with a comprehensive CMS, and all design work, would take 80 hours in my opinion. Using wordpress and an existing theme would be much cheaper of course and, in this case, it's probably good enough.

smash

solarith wrote: »

The Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days. One to design and one to populate.

But you see, when you finish college and get a real job you'll realise there's a lot more to it than just throwing a design together and slapping in some content. There are multiple phases of a project which need to be adhered to or a 2 day project in your mind will become a 4 week project.

solarith

smash wrote: »

But you see, when you finish college and get a real job you'll realise there's a lot more to it than just throwing a design together and slapping in some content. There are multiple phases of a project which need to be adhered to or a 2 day project in your mind will become a 4 week project.

I know. I've made CMS based sites and I stand by my statement. Go through the website - there's nothing it it bar many static pages and a news section. Biggest delay here is getting the content.

It's funny to say I mentioned I was in college and instantly the sharks start circling. People can be as philosophical as they want but this is an extremely basic request by a client. It's not worth thousands and it won't take weeks.

For the record - just because I said I could do it in two days would not mean if I was contracted to do it then I would tell a client it would take that long, but I would not tell a client it would take more than two weeks for full completion.


maxmarmalade - I can't really see any reason why a CMS would need to be built here, theming Joomla or Wordpress, using plugins would really achieve anything the client wants.

Trojan

In my experience, there are complications, hidden requirements and other risk factors that are not clear from the outset in the vast majority of website projects - including seemingly simple brochure sites. (One example for this site is the portfolio - they may need custom data types and display pages for these.)

The OP mentioned 2 sites in the first post. One of those has 180+ pages, the other has 200.

Data entry alone for that scale of site in terms of page creation, editing and proofing text & images for 200+ pages could easily meet and exceed the €1k price suggested by the above poster. Never mind the other 'simple' things like design and setup.

I'd estimate this project in the €3-6k+ range, potentially the higher end depending on the complexities and other risk factors introduced by the client.

FrogMarch

solarith wrote: »

It's funny to say I mentioned I was in college and instantly the sharks start circling.

Maybe that's because you're an inexperienced student yet you're mouthing off like you know what you're talking about. The impetuousness of youth, eh.

solarith wrote: »

People can be as philosophical as they want but this is an extremely basic request by a client. It's not worth thousands and it won't take weeks.

If you knock together some haphazard crock of s**t on your own as a one-man-web-agency with zero planning and little care for the final product, maybe.

When you get some real world business experience and have to deal with things like overheads, proper project planning and you realise there's more to building a commercial website than playing around with Photoshop and Notepad in your bedroom in your mother's house, come back and talk to us.

solarith

FrogMarch wrote: »

Maybe that's because you're an inexperienced student yet you're mouthing off like you know what you're talking about. The impetuousness of youth, eh.



If you knock together some haphazard crock of s**t on your own as a one-man-web-agency with zero planning and little care for the final product, maybe.

When you get some real world business experience and have to deal with things like overheads, proper project planning and you realise there's more to building a commercial website than playing around with Photoshop and Notepad in your bedroom in your mother's house, come back and talk to us.

A student I am but inexperienced I am not, and I'm not 'running my mouth'.

I'm sorry to break your preconcieved ideas but not all students are talentless, incapable fools. I've designed websites for clients, I've made iOS Apps for clients, I've been a graphic designer for clients, I've designed webservice backends for clients. I know fully all processes involved. When someone says they're in college don't automatically assume they're some spotty 19 year old living at home.

So yes, I'm in the real world.


/ I'm also sorry for OP the thread has turned to this /

smash

solarith wrote: »

I know. I've made CMS based sites and I stand by my statement. Go through the website - there's nothing it it bar many static pages and a news section. Biggest delay here is getting the content.

You don't even know what he really wants though. Would you just copy one of those sites and say "well there you go"? There is planning in wireframes and concept designs before even starting a build.

solarith wrote: »

It's funny to say I mentioned I was in college and instantly the sharks start circling. People can be as philosophical as they want but this is an extremely basic request by a client. It's not worth thousands and it won't take weeks.

You are inexperienced and with that attitude you'll never make enough money to actually live on.

solarith wrote: »

A student I am but inexperienced I am not, and I'm not 'running my mouth'.

How many years have you been in the industry? That's right, none... you're doing college nixers and it's a lot different when you rely on it for a living.

solarith wrote: »

I'm sorry to break your preconcieved ideas but not all students are talentless, incapable fools.

Nobody said they were.

solarith wrote: »

I've designed websites for clients, I've made iOS Apps for clients, I've been a graphic designer for clients, I've designed webservice backends for clients.

So what exactly do you do then? These are all very different jobs with different disciplines.

The Corinthian

solarith wrote: »

I know. I've made CMS based sites and I stand by my statement. Go through the website - there's nothing it it bar many static pages and a news section. Biggest delay here is getting the content.

What on Earth makes you think that the site (Weslin) is static except for the news section?

For example, the projects section is CMS driven; it even includes projects previously announced in its news section that were subsequently completed and added to their portfolio. This in turn makes even the home page dynamic, as it draws from the projects, leaving only the 'about' section as potentially static.

Meanwhile the Barry & Partners sites also has a recruitment section - do you think that the jobs being advertised are all hard coded?

I think you are underestimating the complexity of both sites, and presuming that a client would be happy with a static bit of brochureware with only a dynamic news section.

For the record - just because I said I could do it in two days would not mean if I was contracted to do it then I would tell a client it would take that long, but I would not tell a client it would take more than two weeks for full completion.

Then why did you say it would take two days then? It's not what the OP asked; they asked from a budget point of view how long it would take and how much it would cost to execute such a commercial project, not how long it would take to code up something that's already in your head.

Sounds like backtracking TBH.

And that the client's requirements being something you've not magically foreseen is something I don't think you've accepted yet. For example, you incorrectly presumed that the site is static and thus far more simple than it actually is, based upon the two examples given. Then most of your time on this project would end up being devoted to sitting with the client, getting their requirements, designing a solution (and IA they're happy with), drawing up a specification for them to sign off on before you write a single line of code.

None of this has appeared in your calculations - or maybe it has and you do that part for free? Otherwise, how anyone with the experience you claim, could forget this rather essential and time consuming part of the project is beyond me.

I can't really see any reason why a CMS would need to be built here, theming Joomla or Wordpress, using plugins would really achieve anything the client wants.

Well, you didn't see a couple of things, so no surprise there.

In fairness a CMS such as Joomla (not Wordpress) might well do the trick, but sometimes requirements are such that you can't do it with a CMS. Never underestimate the ability of a client to seek something that is just outside the reach of a CMS.

This is why you don't start by giving low-ball quotes when someone asks you 'how long is a piece of string'.

The Corinthian

Final observation:

solarith wrote: »

Biggest delay here is getting the content.

What has this got to do with how long it takes to develop a site? It might affect the delivery date, but it makes absolutely no difference to the hours worked, let alone cost.

ChRoMe

If you are a developer charging 1k for a week (40 hours of work) stop that nonsense. Thats only €25/hour.... ridiculously cheap. Double it and you might start making some sense.

off.the.walls

What would people charge on the amount of pages or the amount of time your putting into it?

ChRoMe

off.the.walls wrote: »

What would people charge on the amount of pages or the amount of time your putting into it?

Time, on a hourly basis. Fixed price jobs are near always a very bad idea, except for specific circumstances (i.e keeping it low enough so it doesnt have to go out to tender)

KonFusion

off.the.walls wrote: »

What would people charge on the amount of pages or the amount of time your putting into it?

ChRoMe wrote: »

Time, on a hourly basis.

I would say: Neither.

See my previous post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81707638&postcount=13

Time is certainly a factor which will influence the price you charge, however as I mentioned in the post above, the client isn't buying time, they are buying work. The value of that work is what you need to charge them for.

ChRoMe

KonFusion wrote: »

I would say: Neither.

See my previous post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81707638&postcount=13

Time is certainly a factor which will influence the price you charge, however as I mentioned in the post above, the client isn't buying time, they are buying work. The value of that work is what you need to charge them for.

So you go fixed price, they creep the scope and then get upset when you start debating what is covered in the original spec.

No thanks, the secret is to have your hourly rate set at a decent level usually around £75-£100 and a very detailed change request process in the contract before you write a line of code.

The Corinthian

off.the.walls wrote: »

What would people charge on the amount of pages or the amount of time your putting into it?

Time and materials - essentially an hourly (less commonly daily) rate, plus expenses (e.g. software licences, hosting or other associated costs). Project management (if separate from development) will tend to be added as a surcharge to these hours - typically around 15%.

However, it's a lot more complicated than simply T&M's.

The rate comes down to the complexity of the technology involved and the market - market is two-a-penny with Joomla, or other CMS, monkeys, so they can't charge that much. Being able to do complex coding in PHP will pay better and then other languages and technologies that have fewer proficient people on the market, will pay better again.

Where your client is based also is also a factor; UK pays better than Ireland. Italy worse. Lichtenstein much, much better.

Finally the economic climate is important; boom times mean higher rates. Recessions mean lower ones - but don't let that tempt you into a firesale.

ChRoMe wrote: »

Fixed price jobs are near always a very bad idea, expect for specific circumstances (i.e keeping it low enough so it doesnt have to go out to tender)

You can do a 'fixed' price if you have a fixed spec - it's still an estimate, but should never contractually go over 15% (legally in some countries, it can't go over 10%).

The important think is to be able to accurately estimate the work. If there is any space for ambiguity in the requirements, where a client could have you 'tweaking' or adding to a site for an additional 100 hours, then never give even an estimate. Only an idiot does that.

At the stage we're at with the OP's requirements, we can only give a rough estimate; between 2k and 6k (although I would put anything over 4k to be on the high side for me).

One sit-down requirements discovery session with the client (billable or not, as you wish) will probably narrow it down to a much more accurate figure.

After that, you can only 'fix' yourself to an estimate after you do the, billable, requirements and design of the site and get sign-off from the client.

Some clients won't go for that, but in my experience they tend to be the pound foolish, penny wise ones, who will stiff you on the last payment half the time. They go for students and bottom feeders, who'll end up making a half arsed job while working at an effective rate of €2 p.hr., before coming back to you to dig them out of it, six months later.

ChRoMe wrote: »

No thanks, the secret is to have your hourly rate set at a decent level usually around £75-£100

Someone recently told me that Irish professional rates for Web dev are around €50 p.hr. nowadays.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

You can do a 'fixed' price if you have a fixed spec

I've heard of this mythical creature, however after about 15 years, I have yet to see one

KonFusion

ChRoMe wrote: »

So you go fixed price, they creep the scope and then get upset when you start debating what is covered in the original spec.

No thanks, the secret is to have your hourly rate set at a decent level usually around £75-£100

I disagree. I don't go fixed price. I do however estimate a price, and that's the starting point for the project.

If everything stays within scope, if we stick within deadlines and the client meets our outlined deadlines, then the final price will be very close to, if not the same as, the original estimate.

If along the way the client wants to change their mind, add extra pages or templates or even add new functionality, that won't be a problem. They will be charged the hourly rate set out in the estimate we gave them.

It's also important here to keep all requests for changes in writing.

Imagine you were asked to design a logo for a small book shop, and asked to design a logo for a blue chip company.

Let's say (hypothetically...miraculously?) that both take the same amount of time. Are you telling me you're going to charge the same?

The second logo has a much higher value to the company. It stands to make the company a lot more money, and you should be charging so.

If they start debating what is covered in the original spec, then your contract needs to be tighter.

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

I've heard of this mythical creature, however after about 15 years, I have yet to see one

Hence the single quotes. It's fixed in the same way as bandwidth with Web hosts is unlimited

daithi74

Okay here I am Lamb to the slaughter. I am looking for names and contacts for web designer / programmer with a view to getting a website built.

I would appreciate if somebody could send me a template for putting together the proposal.

As a bit of background, I have attempted to build the site myself ( starting with absolutely no web experience) , and got so far with wordpress templates, widgets etc... it took an awful long time to do what I did - especially compared to anybody who knows what they are on about - however it was a very useful experience as at least I have some idea what people are talking about.

Thanks for taking your time with this and please PM with any contacts, companies etc that may be of use to me.

Thanks all

maccored

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's fixed in the same way as bandwidth with Web hosts is unlimited

Its like they cant spell 'unmetered'.

wwrjd

@daithi74 i am a freelance web designer. you can check samples of my work by following the link below, if you like my design style, give me a shout!

Web Design Wicklow

unseenfootage

maxmarmalade wrote: »

Thats very hard to estimate without a spec. I had a look through www.weslin.ie and I would say you are looking at 5k minimum to get a site like that.

That is a bit much I think and to be honest that is not even such a great looking site. The projects page is a bit of a disaster with those "floating menus"

red_ice

going on what the op is - 2.5k would be the ball park for a very well built site complete with SEO and the functionality you have asked for. That 2.5k would also mean that your site would be scalable, so if you had other ideas that you wanted to do later on, the groundwork would already be in place to do so.

for 2.5k you would expect a very nice site. If you were flexible on design of it, I could see a developer doing that for the 1500-1700 mark easily.

ivanc

solarith wrote: »

The Weslin site could be easily replicated in 2 days. One to design and one to populate.

What a ridiculous statement!

If you simply set out to replicated the design of the Westin site you MIGHT just manage to get the basic structure done in a day or two - if you were experienced enough.

It's clean design belies more than a little sophistication.

As for populating it in a day....complete and utter drivel.

red_ice

ivanc wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement!

If you simply set out to replicated the design of the Westin site you MIGHT just manage to get the basic structure done in a day or two - if you were experienced enough.

It's clean design belies more than a little sophistication.

As for populating it in a day....complete and utter drivel.

Actually, provided the content was ready, I'd have that site more or less complete in under a day, responsive and optimized for SEO. It takes me on average about 1-2 hours to have a theme built for WordPress from scratch, the rest is just adding content.

KonFusion

red_ice wrote: »

Actually, provided the content was ready, I'd have that site more or less complete in under a day, responsive and optimized for SEO. It takes me on average about 1-2 hours to have a theme built for WordPress from scratch, the rest is just adding content.

When you say one day, do you mean 24 hours? Or do you mean an 'average working day'? (say, 8-9 hours).

Also, could you give me an hourly breakdown of how long each part of the project would take?

Imagine you're giving a cost proposal, or invoicing the client, and they ask for an hourly breakdown of work done.

solarith

Love this thread. It's like suits versus developers.

KonFusion

solarith wrote: »

Love this thread. It's like suits versus developers.

I don't see it?

The Corinthian

KonFusion wrote: »

I don't see it?

He's just buying into the whole 'suits versus techies' paradigm. It's a right of passage for noobs in the business.

red_ice

KonFusion wrote: »

When you say one day, do you mean 24 hours? Or do you mean an 'average working day'? (say, 8-9 hours).

Also, could you give me an hourly breakdown of how long each part of the project would take?

Imagine you're giving a cost proposal, or invoicing the client, and they ask for an hourly breakdown of work done.

Meh, it depends. I'd really rather not open my bag of tricks on how to develop a site in such a short time. Just take my word for it, if the motivation is there ($), it can be done in no time.

I have done some speed builds on an 8-9 hour day before, but my ideal work place is at home, so thats where I'll work for in this situation. My working day is when ever I feel like getting up till when ever I can justify calling it a day. So I would start at say 10am and work to 4/5am if I want/have to. My phone is turned off, and I work in complete silence with no distractions other than food, tea and cigarette breaks. What slows projects down is indecisive clients, or those who would unintentionally hold back on content, or don't answer their phones or get back to your emails. In freelance this is what drives up the price for most of my clients because I just end up fidgeting with the site. Anyways, that's off topic.

Rough break down of me working a fast ass site.

5 minutes setting up the hosting/emails on a shared hosting package. 5 minutes uploading WordPress and 10 configuring the server, db and wp including pretty permalinks and setting up jetpack etc. 30 mins at most.

1 hour getting the site laid out and styled in css. Another 30-45 mins converting that template to a Wordpress theme and making sure the blog/single/post pages are all styled properly. Another 15 or so mins downloading and installing different plugins to do the gallery stuff they want. That is provided I agreed that I would implement that into the site via an addon. I prefer not to use plugins, regardless of how well they are rated or needed, I'd much rather make my own. The rest of the day is just adding content at about 2-5 mins a page.

While I did say that I wouldn't open my bag of tricks, I will tell you that a huge portion of the 'professionals' in the industry use applications like Dreamweaver to build their sites. This would easily triple the time it takes to build a site for me. If I had to design the site, that project would also be a much lengthier one as there is a lot of back and forth with design compared to just building the design you are given.

Now, from my 10 or so years experience on boards.ie a reply such as mine is usually met with me being blindsided by some off-topic or random tangent of this reply. So let me get this straight. I would never set out to do a site in a day, but I'm positive I can do it as it is second nature to me.

You can cobble together a functional site in a day, if you have experience. A great site takes much longer. Consider SEO, marketing, usability, etc. Horses for courses. The last 20% of the puzzle takes 80% of the time, and this is why the cheap website can represent poor value.

I can give you a website for €200, €1000 or €10,000 - and in the last year have made sites for all those budgets. The €200 and €10,000 sites will have superficial similarities, but will be very different. The €10,000 site may pay for itself by attracting a large multiple of the cost price in sales.

The Corinthian

red_ice wrote: »

Rough break down of me working a fast ass site.

But this is all returning to the previous point that we all know that it is more than possible to develop a site in a day. I've done it a few times, I even put together a very complex bespoke one in a weekend.

However, this is not what we're talking about as it can only work like this if you already have the specifications pinned down or you're developing for yourself (and thus the specs are already in your head).

If not, when dealing with a real client, then distilling that information from them, takes time. Even for a simple brochureware site, the OP did not ask for an exact copy of the sites he listed, but that he "would like to emulate" them.

They're only a starting point for what he wants, and even if what he wants is not a gigantic deviation from this, how much time with the client do you think would be needed to pin this down (discover their specific requirements and then confirm them)? An hour, two, more?

This is something that ultimately could take anything between one hour and one hundred, because it's largely dependant on the client, not you. Some clients have difficulty expressing themselves. Some are not very technically minded or, frankly, intelligent. Some look for things that can't be done within budget or even in our quantum reality. Some just don't know what they want yet and have at best a vague top level overview. Devil's in the detail, after all.

And then they'll need to sign off on any design, which will require mock-ups, or prototyping in more complex projects, followed by 'tweaks' and changes before the design and underlying functionality is fixed and agreed to. How long there?

All presuming that no formal functionality or specification documents are required, which requires that you trust your client not to turn around later and claim that they had asked for something that you are pretty certain is in reality a new feature. How do you think feature creep happens?

Of course, you can do this part of the project for free. Just as you can work a 16 hour day and charge nothing more than if you worked 8 or 9 hours. You can get stuck in without pinning down any formal design or specification, based on a fixed price, play it by ear and just continue tweaking and changing everything until the client is happy that it's 'just right'.

But if so, you should do your maths before you do so, because you'll quickly find that you're better off getting yourself a McJob than staying in Webdev.

Otherwise, telling someone looking for quotes that there's only a day or two worth of work to it is pretty poor advice.

red_ice

The Corinthian wrote: »

But this is all returning to the previous point that we all know that it is more than possible to develop a site in a day. I've done it a few times, I even put together a very complex bespoke one in a weekend.

I do admit, i did pass over most of the comments as I was just answering the OP's comments and reading from where I posted onwards.

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, this is not what we're talking about as it can only work like this if you already have the specifications pinned down or you're developing for yourself (and thus the specs are already in your head).

Well this is where maybe I work differently from other people. I make sure that those things are pinned down from the day I start my builds and I stick to those features that were agreed on and hand the site off with what was expected of me. Don't get me wrong, I would be more than happy to go back and add to it, but I am basing my points on the fact that we have everything ready do go (content) and we have agreed on what was needed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If not, when dealing with a real client, then distilling that information from them, takes time. Even for a simple brochureware site, the OP did not ask for an exact copy of the sites he listed, but that he "would like to emulate" them.

They're only a starting point for what he wants, and even if what he wants is not a gigantic deviation from this, how much time with the client do you think would be needed to pin this down (discover their specific requirements and then confirm them)? An hour, two, more?

To be honest, emulating a site is much easier than designing a site from scratch. Working with most clients they say 'I like this and this'. Where as if you are given something to replicate with a twist, its much easier to know what the client wants, which in my books is the hardest part of getting the job done. When it comes to design you know yourself, how long is a piece of string. I was basing my project on the fact that a design is ready. Design for me can take weeks. As I said in an earlier post, there are no right answers and projects can go any way when it comes to design, but the build itself is straight forward if you know the right way to do things and a few tricks to speed up the build.

Also - All my clients are 'real clients', that comment comes off as you be patronizing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is something that ultimately could take anything between one hour and one hundred, because it's largely dependant on the client, not you. Some clients have difficulty expressing themselves. Some are not very technically minded or, frankly, intelligent. Some look for things that can't be done within budget or even in our quantum reality. Some just don't know what they want yet and have at best a vague top level overview. Devil's in the detail, after all.

Agreed!

The Corinthian wrote: »

And then they'll need to sign off on any design, which will require mock-ups, or prototyping in more complex projects, followed by 'tweaks' and changes before the design and underlying functionality is fixed and agreed to. How long there?

Well this is something that can go either way. I've been using Photoshop since 3(not cs3) and as far as design goes, a few years ago I realized that some things weren't possible with Photoshop designs, so I just started to build my designs so I wouldn't be stuck on a something that a client loved and I couldn't reproduce. This cut my build time in half.

Since I've been designing with code, any agency that I've come in contact with just labeled me an ameture. I just see it as cutting out the middle man. Wireframes of a site take minutes to do when you know how, and building up a color pallet and appending classes is a very versatile way to get a front end built in no time. for example <div class="redfont blackBG shadowontext outlinethisbox">. So when designing and signing off on different aspects of a build, you are literally building the site and including them section by section and that css you've built can be used elsewhere just by appending it instead of writing a new class for it.

Yes, the design process takes a little longer, but once its signed off on you have the thing built already. The more complex projects for me these days involve graphs(raphael.js), css animations and jQuery (I focus on frontend). Whats the point in me doing UX design when users cant see the work being produced with a static image? I recently came across a video on this, and I recommend it to everyone who I talk about front end to. Check it out here.

To focus in on what I was getting at, if I was to design the site, it would be a case of wireframing it in html/css, finding the right colours and fonts that the client likes, then design/developing the site from there. Just iterations on the parts they like. If the client answers with yes/no in a promptly manor, you'll be done in no time.

The Corinthian wrote: »

All presuming that no formal functionality or specification documents are required, which requires that you trust your client not to turn around later and claim that they had asked for something that you are pretty certain is in reality a new feature. How do you think feature creep happens?

I'm well aware of how feature creep happens, which is why I build fast. From personal experience(might not be for everyone), if you build it fast and don't give people time to start changing their minds, you get a much more focused project and a very fast turn around. I'm all for feature creep, it puts food on my table - but I let it happen when the project is done. Then, when they do have something they want to add on, I ask them to sit back and think about anything else they may want. I do bend over backwards for my clients and do everything they ask as fast as possible and to the best standards I am capable of. So by me building what they ask for as fast as possible, they will (most of the time) have what they asked for still fresh in their heads.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, you can do this part of the project for free. Just as you can work a 16 hour day and charge nothing more than if you worked 8 or 9 hours. You can get stuck in without pinning down any formal design or specification, based on a fixed price, play it by ear and just continue tweaking and changing everything until the client is happy that it's 'just right'.

I charge my hourly rate, no matter if its a 2/6/8/16/24 hour day of work. I never give a fixed price, and my ball park figures are always 1000 or so give or take off what it comes in at. Most of the time its under, and that's what Ill charge. But one things for sure, a site is never really finished if you spot something when its live, its a matter of morals/principal to get it fixed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if so, you should do your maths before you do so, because you'll quickly find that you're better off getting yourself a McJob than staying in Webdev.

Otherwise, telling someone looking for quotes that there's only a day or two worth of work to it is pretty poor advice.

Well, this is it really. In your opinion its poor advice. I've met you before, I know you're a stand up chap and you know your stuff, but when I sit down to do something I cannot sleep until I have certain milestones under my belt. When I say I can have something to that standard built in a day or two I mean it and will stand by my word. Telling me I'm better suited to a 'McJob' when you don't know how my business relationships work, my monthly average income or my accomplishments, is to me, poor advice. I've lived and breathed this stuff for over a decade, unlike people who are in this for a quick buck. I said to the op it would take me a day or two - maybe it would take others a week.

Its actually a shame how the last weeks coming up to Christmas are shaping up as a few of the lads were going to try put on a marathon in Engine Yard around now building sites for charities with teams of 3-5 working on each site with a given time frame of 2 days. I would be able to put my money where my mouth is.

The Corinthian

red_ice wrote: »

Well, this is it really. In your opinion its poor advice. I've met you before, I know you're a stand up chap and you know your stuff, but when I sit down to do something I cannot sleep until I have certain milestones under my belt. When I say I can have something to that standard built in a day or two I mean it and will stand by my word. Telling me I'm better suited to a 'McJob' when you don't know how my business relationships work, my monthly average income or my accomplishments, is to me, poor advice. I've lived and breathed this stuff for over a decade, unlike people who are in this for a quick buck. I said to the op it would take me a day or two - maybe it would take others a week.

TBH, I wasn't really replying to you for the bulk of that post and was saying 'you' more in the sense of 'one'.

The point I was making, as have others, is that development is only part of the billable process and many of the earlier posters were ignoring this - even you'll have to admit that your own post had to be later qualified.