Give The Web Some Respect
February 22, 2004 | 
22 Comments
There is a long way to go before the Web reaches it’s full potential. I’ve pointed out before that many Web sites are unusable. I’ve pointed out that even Web sites with great intentions sometimes fall short in some areas.
Gez Lemon said in a comment yesterday:
Web development must be the simplest profession in the world. Learn a few tags, and that’s it. Accountability in web development is almost non-existent. It doesn’t validate? That must be the visitors fault, or an error with the validation program you’re using. Push the issue of validation, and you’re a nerd. These excuses wouldn’t cut any ice in other professions. “Your house fell down when you were having a dinner party? Sorry, the warranty doesn’t cover you accepting visitors.”
He is talking about validation in specific, but his overall point isn’t missed and got me to thinking. The professional Web, in general, is understaffed, underpaid, overworked and disrespected.
There isn’t enough time, effort and money spent on the construction and maintenance of most Web sites. It’s high time organizations begin to give their Web presence, and the people who work on it, the respect they’re due.
How many of you have worked on a project where the Web is almost an afterthought? Where all of your content is repurposed from its print form and no effort is given to making that content Web friendly? Where only lip-service is paid to the needs of the users? Maybe your understaffed and overworked? Maybe you work with other Web professionals who don’t care about Web standards, or usability or accessibility? Maybe your not in your ideal position or maybe you’ve got unrealistic expectations placed on you? Maybe you just don’t get the backing you need from your superiors?
My current day job is actually pretty good. Our biggest problem is that we’re stretched really, really thin. I feel lucky to be on a team with two other people and that, my friends, is ridiculous when you look at the amount of quality work we’re expected to produce. It’s stressful.
When a Web project fails, or isn’t going in the right direction, the finger usually gets pointed at the Web team. This is wrong in many cases. It should be pointed at whoever is paying the bills, or who is responsible for getting the people in place and setting them up to succeed. You get what you pay for and if that is one person who needs to do the job of many, you should expect failure.
It’s far to common that Web professionals are set up to fail. They either don’t have the resources, buy-off from stakeholders or opportunity to get things done right. The blame usually needs to fall a bit higher on the totem-pole.
How many of you are expected to be everything Web to everyone else? Your average Web professional’s job description and work content description is a joke. I don’t know many talented Web designers who can design, write, manage projects, know Cold Fusion, admin IIS, work with SQL, conduct usability studies, handle print work, and be the “company computer guy.” Even if you could do all of that, you couldn’t do it all well. The thing is many job descriptions ask for all that and more!
It’s not to say there aren’t jack-of-all trades out there. There are, I’m one myself, but you simply need more if you have a site of any size or is updated with any frequency.
A good corporate Web team would have a dedicated developer, a dedicated editor, a dedicated producer/designer, a project manager and a writer/content manager at the very least. I realize it depends on the site and corporation, but it seems pretty rare to find a well constructed Web team.
If it’s not lack of general resources it’s a lack of focused resources. Many organizations focus too much on technology and not enough on communication, and visa versa. This leaves you with Web sites that are either over-designed, or over-engineered. I see it all the time. This is the norm, not the exception.
It should be about people first. Not technology. Not overwrought job descriptions. If you put the proper people in place, set reachable goals and give them the resources they need to succeed and be happy in their jobs — you’ll be building a better Web and your company or organization will begin to reap the rewards of the Web.
A company’s Web sites, whether external or internal can, and probably will be, its biggest communication assets. It’s time to treat it as such.
Until organizations figure this out and are willing to step up to the plate and really give their Web projects what they need to succeed we’re still going to see Web sites fail. We’re still going to have to deal with mediocre sites with mediocre content that provide a mediocre user experience.
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Mike P. said:
Well said Keith. I was just having ths discussion in my head today (note to self -> get a life, or join a chatgroup!).
How many large companies would buy a non-standard widget to accomplish a task?
Well, when it comes to buying web sites, a lot.
Besides that sad fact, what percentage of website owners actually know how to measure the success of their website? Hits? Visitors? Uniques? C’mon. ROI? Right, how many actually track closely enough to measure ROI? (How many web developers think about this?)
I feel lucky to have had some clients who get it. For them it’s time to reap the benefits, because there are so many who just-don’t-get-it.
I just wish there were more of those who see the potential of the web and were willing to go for it!
Posted on February 22, 2004 11:37 AM | #
2. Chris Vincent said:
Your idea of a web team sounds like the way it should be. Nobody would expect a single doctor to have all the skills and knowledge to diagnose and treat every patient. You need neurologists, cardiologists, etc. One computer guy shouldn’t be expected to handle every problem. You need a network administrator, a designer, a programmer, etc.
Then we look at how much doctors are paid… Well, no further comment. ;)
Posted on February 22, 2004 11:40 AM | #
3. Kyle Fox said:
As usual you put into words something I’ve been thinking for a long time. I used to be that “one guy who is everything to everyone” and finally I got some help. It’s still not enough to ensure total quality. I’m often in a position where I have to edit content and I’m not an editor by any strech. There is no one else to do it!
The probelm as I see it, is how do we communicate this to the people who matter?
Maybe you should see about writing an article on a Web site or in a magazine targeted at Web decision makers or upper management. Not sure which one, but I bet they’re out there.
Or, better yet, you and other Web visionaries could move your way up into those decision maker position, bring your know how and experience and force a change for the better!
Posted on February 22, 2004 11:58 AM | #
4. Jeremy Flint said:
I think the “consolidation” of web tasks into a single person is a result of the dot-com boom. You had huge companies like Razorfish charging 6 figures for web work, and people think that is a reality of what they will have to pay in todays economy, which it isn’t. They think that paying someone a salary + benefits of forty grand a year is better than a one time payout of just a little more than that.
Posted on February 22, 2004 12:02 PM | #
5. Ste Grainer said:
Amen. Even in my small department of about 10 people, web projects are generally handed over to me at the very last minute with the expectation that I can create something spectacular in just a day or two. On top of that, I’m not only the Web developer, designer, and administrator, but I’m also in charge of designing many of the print publications we put out, maintaining several large databases, and being the general go-to technology/HelpDesk guy.
Luckily, I have the university HelpDesk to turn major problems over to if necessary (and I’m making more and more use of them as our tech problems increase). I also work with a great editor whose input is valuable not only for the content we create and publish, but for design and usability issues in publications and websites.
That said, in some ways, I actually enjoy having a variety of problems to work on on a daily basis. I realize that I could probably produce more quality work if I were focused on one or two major projects at a time, but often alternating between different types of work helps to stimulate my creativity. (Of course, sometimes the more tedious work like database maintenance and tech support just leave me drained and unable to connect creatively so I guess it’s a two-way street.)
Posted on February 22, 2004 12:04 PM | #
6. Keith said:
Ste, I like you, like to work on multiple tasks and wear different hats. But it really is a two-way street. I’ve got to work on too many tasks and wear too many hats at times, and I’ve got it better than some.
We’ve got so much maintenance, for example, that many days, between that and meetings I’ve got no time for anything else. Thank goodness we’re hiring a temp in to help eliveate that burden.
Jeremy, I think fourty grand is a very low salary for someone expected to run a successful corporate site all by themselves. But I get your point. Having one person in full-time would be better than having 10 people for a month. Thing is, this isn’t usally how it works. You have one person in full-time AND hire Razorfish for 6 digits to tell that one persons superiors he has no clue what he is doing and in turn mess the site up so bad that one person has to drop everything and fix it only to find out that Razorfish has been hired AGAIN, this time a double the cost to fix what they broke and blamed on you! At which time you leave for a fifty thousand dollar a year job at one of Razorfish’s competitors.
;)
It’s an exageration, but my point is that maybe these people should pay their quality help more, give them the respect they need to continue being happy and productive and bring in more full-time people. Read Death of A Web Team for more.
Kyle, “Web Visionary”? I doubt that. But your idea of an article targeting decison-makers is a good one?
Posted on February 22, 2004 12:23 PM | #
7. Scrivs said:
I think the issue is that non-computer people always associate anything to do with computers or web as something that the one person can do. Sort of like a car repair guy should also do a good job of cleaning your car, telling you where to get your car painted, windows tinted, sound system installed, place to buy a new car, place to buy a used car, place to rent a car and what color car you should get.
The biggest issue is that you would want to say “hell I am better than people gimme credit for and I am going to voice my opinion”. However, there is always someone else willing to fill your shoes and get paid less to do it. There are so many technical people out there, that it has killed the specialized core who really care about doing quality work. All the people who go to technical school and recent graduates of college are dying to take jobs away and just to be given a chance.
So in this sense we always want more help for our jobs and at least more respect, but in the end some people are just asking for a job. Doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right to lament the fact that people just don’t give web professionals enough credit. Of course anytime ther is a “Dummies” book for your profession, the general public is automatically going to put up their stereotypes.
Posted on February 22, 2004 01:09 PM | #
8. Nollind Whachell said:
Wow. Thanks for reminding me how much I like visiting this site. I decided to tune out for a couple of weeks, do some reading (Re-Imagine by Tom Peters), and think about things. Then today, I come back to your site and see a post that gets me excited again. Why excited? Because I used to be passionate and “mad as hell” about everything you just spoke about and I want to be that way again.
As I’ve said before in other posts to this site, I used to work for a web firm building a lot of the sites for computer gaming publishers (i.e. Sierra, Vivendi, Activision, etc). I was lucky in that I did work in a team environment that included a project manager, senior web developer (myself), web developers, web designers, and web programmers. However, the company started to go downhill in early 2001, layed off some people in late 2001 (me included), and then went belly up at the close of 2002.
During 2002, I struggled my best to find work with another firm but being at the tale end of the dot com bomb, it was next to impossible. No matter which job board I went to, it seemed that the only people that firms were still hiring were web programmer specialists (i.e. SQL, PHP, ColdFusion, ASP, etc). While I have some minor programming experience, I didn’t have remotely enough to touch any of these jobs. Furthermore, I had no interest in going back to school to learn how to do it or even pursue a career in it. I had the opportunity to go towards computer programming back in the 80’s and I decided it wasn’t my cup of tea.
So with 2002 behind me, 2003 seemed even worse. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t find any web work in a team environment (as I enjoyed interacting and helping people). Finally I started questioning my ability to still do the work, even though I had been the firms “jewel” of their hirings, had been called a “god” by one person (not to my face but to a friend of theirs), and had saved the company’s “rep/face” in more than a few meetings by being knowledgeable about what was going on (while others weren’t). Eventually, I even started to ask myself, do I really want to even be in this field anymore?
Why did I ask this final question? I asked it because of many of the frustrations you stated above. My main frustration, however, focused primarily upon your last two words though. User experience. It seems like this is what is lacking the most on web sites today, yet it is the last thing on the client’s mind. No matter how hard you try to convince them otherwise, they still seem to want glitz and flash over functionality and usability. Finally, I decided to give up. I felt maybe I was ahead of my time, that most people weren’t really interested in these things and hoped that things would “crash” and “implode” more so that clients would finally start waking up and realizing that user experience IS important.
Of course, you can’t drop something that you breathed night and day cold turkey. I kept watching and waiting from the sidelines, voicing my opinion about things every so often. I kept waiting for clients to “wake up”. Guess what the bad news is? They haven’t woken up yet. Well, maybe some have, but most haven’t (at least from my experiences last year and the feel from other developers). The good news from my point of view is that at least a lot of developers are realizing the importance of user experience. That in itself is why I started reading and posting more than normal lately. To me at least, there is some hope out there. The more awareness the better.
What got me even more excited in reading your post here today though was something that I had just read in Tom Peter’s book. While the book was difficult to read due to the excessive use of chaotic imagery and the color red causing retina burn-in, one statement really woke me up from my slumber of the past few years. “Innovation No. 1 is pissed-off people.”
I looked back at my time while working for this web firm and fully realized how true that statement is. That is why so many people valued my opinion at this firm. I didn’t take anything at face value and always tried to look at things from different angles. If something looked wrong or out of place, I spoke my mind, said we should do something about it and usually wanted something done asap. When we reached our “peak” as a firm, we just did that. Whenever a problem popped up, people got vocal about it. We then walked over to the boardroom, spent maybe 15 to 30 minutes discussing how to solve the problem and even laid out plans on how to prevent it from happening again. For a short time I was in heaven because people were being vocal expressing their concerns and these concerns were being dealt with quickly. In otherwords, pissed-off equals innovation.
So where am I going with this (if you haven’t fallen asleep reading this long post already)? Why am I excited? I’m excited because you are “pissed-off” like I was and, as mentioned above, pissed-off people usually lead to innovation. Now my next question back at you though is why aren’t more developers pissed off about the exact same things you mentioned above and why aren’t they being vocal about it? Why can’t developers seem to convince clients that these things are important? Why does it seem like developers haven’t found the “right words” that turn on that light in the client’s head?
Or is this all coming down to “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”? Why do I keep hearing developers mentioning in so many words that they let their client’s walk all over them and do whatever they want? Why aren’t developers “educating” their clients? I ask the same thing of the management at the firm I worked for but they took the “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” approach. I mean what is wrong with trying to educate the client, especially if the end result will benefit them further?
In closing, maybe we need to start putting ourselves in our client’s shoes to understand why they make certain decisions over others. Has anyone here had frustrating experiences with clients choosing not to follow your advice or experience and did they give a reason why? I’d love to hear their side of the story, especially if they had a solid reason (other than we just think it looks “cooler” this way).
As you put it perfectly Keith, a web site is a great communications asset. Yet if this is true, why are so many developers, who build web sites, having a difficult time communicating these critical fundamentals to their clients? Why hasn’t a group of developers gotten together and created a site that explains this simply so a client can understand, so that any web developer out their can point to this site and say “Want justification for the importance of user experience? Here ya go! Nuff said.”
Posted on February 22, 2004 10:18 PM | #
9. Lukasz said:
I don’t find anything innovate in what you say. Like, Web project is the same one as any in IT business. One needs an analyst to specify needs, designer to draw all schemes, programmer to code it in and testing guy to, you’ve geussed, test it all. Above all, in the hierarchy, there should be a manager - a person who’s responsible for risk management, personal contants and a number of other things. And this is as normal as that apple falls of the tree.
Web application is just an application, a computer program to be used - either locally, or widely, among the web. This may be a company portal, this may be a customer database, this may be anything, really. Without a proper managemet and strictly defined set of tools and methodology even “bestly” paid project would result up with nothing.
I am a system analyst in a big company and I face with similar problems all the time. Lucky for us, we implemented a pretty good project methodology, also we have standard well defined procedures. This all one can put into a two word term: “resource management” and all modern companies must get to know that the man is their most valuable resource.
Posted on February 22, 2004 11:47 PM | #
10. Tom said:
Interesting post. It’s funny, but “back in the day” when the Internet was flying high things were better for us. You had a much more defined role and things were built as teams. I worked with Scient back then, and every project would have an IA, a Visual Designer, back end folks, front end folks and at least one architect and DBA. This teams worked well together and produced good stuff for the time (remember back then web standards weren’t even a thought).
Of course, we spent way too much money on stuff back then. Now it flipped all the way over the other way. Its two or three people supposed to do the work of four or five. IA’s have been cut out of staffing budgets. Lots of stuff is outsourced - its just a whole different feel.
Furthermore - the prevailing driving force is “just get it done.”
I’m doing an internal project right now where they just want it to “look and work” like the other related apps. Those other apps are poorly designed. Yet every impactable (word? LOL) decision has been taken out of my hands. The app already stinks.
You have to be lucky enough to work for a company that - I hate to say this - “get’s it.” And so few do. But the ones that do - or have staffs that do - create the good work out there today.
Tom
Posted on February 23, 2004 06:09 AM | #
11. Jonathan Snook said:
The article touches on the understaffed and underpaid. The industry as a whole, I find, has an overabundance of underqualified people willing to be underpaid and overworked. And because a great number are underqualified, it creates a great deal of dissatisfaction and disrespect for the industry as a whole.
It’s relatively easy to create the impression that one knows what they’re doing when it comes to web design. Use a few simple tags and voila, you’ve got HTML! But there’s a whole lot more to it that we shouldn’t expect non-technical people to know or understand and without a respectable guild or certification in place, this confusion will continue. Using the car repair industry as an example, any place you go into you see those certificates from all the mechanics (in Canada, at least). Computer repair people have the A+ certifications. You’ve got your CNA’s and your MCSE’s. This creates a level of trust that people know what they’re doing. The HTML Writers Guild had that potential but without any certification process, it was essentially useless.
Forcing people to go through an expensive and rigourous certification would help to give credence and respect to an industry that needs it.
Posted on February 23, 2004 06:10 AM | #
12. Houser said:
I think his “building” analogy is way off. First of all, buildings have code and standards for building. While there are a number of ways to use a house, the standards well cover that aspect.
A more poignant example might be television. Different televisions all display the image in roughly the same way - unless you get into NTSC/PAL format differences. The reason for this is that television manufacturers MUST manufacturer to clearly defined standards.
While we as developers toil to placate the “development community” with standards-complaint web sites, as well as live in the real world where like it or not IE remains King, browser developers have NO standards compliance obligations. They can simply comply voluntarily or say “F*** it!” and develop their own proprietary interpretations of rules.
Therefore, to appease the quoted author, I guess we all need to go back to table layouts and px sized everything?
Posted on February 23, 2004 08:04 AM | #
13. Nollind Whachell said:
Hehe, the innovation isn’t encapsulated inside the pissed-off person’s rant. I could say the same thing about Keith’s post. Nothing innovative there. It is the awareness that the pissed-off person brings to the table that is important. He is making everyone aware of something. It is the communication and action that follows afterwards that brings about the innovation.
The question to everyone else at the table is do they want to do something about this? Or do they just want to agree and say, “ya that’s a problem, caused by this” or even worse say nothing at all. This was how it was in the firm I worked for. There were a bunch of people bitching behind the managements back about things but no one would speak up and be vocal about the issues at our staff meetings (except myself). If you don’t speak up, then nothing is going to be done. If nothing is done, then don’t expect innovation to occur and for things to get better.
So far most of the posts here state where they see the problem arising from, yet not much is said about possibilities on how to fix this problem. An overall message I’m picking up is there needs to be more awareness and respect for the work done. Once again to me this is bringing that awareness to the client. Once again, how do people think that awareness can be brought to the client? If they aren’t educated and made aware of all of the factors, then nothing will change. Developers seem to be doing a great job of educating other developers about these issues (i.e. user experience, etc) but I’m still not seeing any large communications directed towards clients.
BTW I agree with you Jonathan. I’ve always said that “everyone and their dog can code HTML, but to do it well is another story”. However, having code that validates perfectly doesn’t mean you have a great site that is going to be a great experience for the user. It just means you are a great coder. Building a site that is functional and usable to the end user and allows them to get what they want quickly and easily has very little to do with coding but a lot more to do with planning, structure, and design. And by design, I don’t mean “visual prettyness”. It is much more than that. Yes, coding is important (as it means less cross-browser compatibility problems), but it is just one element of the user experience.
Posted on February 23, 2004 08:30 AM | #
14. Seth said:
I can’t believe how many job postings I see with these types of disjointed qualifications.
Must have…
1) Bachelor of Fine Arts degree
2) Excellent HTML hand-coding (no WYSIWYG)
3) 7+ years graphic design/illustration experience
4) Demonstrated SQL scripting (including Stored Procedures) and database design skills
5) Server-side scripting (ASP,JSP,PHP, etc.)
6) Network knowledge (TCP/IP,VPN)
Are they kidding? I understand that the pool of potential employees is big (post dot-com bust and all) but come on!
Posted on February 23, 2004 08:35 AM | #
15. James Craig said:
Just last week, I wrote a post partially about respect for the web design profession. The main premise? Web design as a profession doesn’t get much respect because most web designers don’t respect their profession. Keith, this obviously isn’t referring to you, but it is referring to the majority of people that have our job title.
Now, to answer your question about job responsibilities: I work for a company that has over 16,000 employees in most every continent (not sure about Antartica, but it wouldn’t surprise me). The three “designers” in my department do everything from photo research and print design to JSP and XSLT. Yet, for some reason, our boss still calls us “the HTML guys.”
Despite that, I feel we have recently gained more respect as a team because we adhere to our own standards of quality, usually a higher standard than is required. We have gained veto priveleges for some requests if we feel they negatively affect accessibility or usability, though we do compromise on some points. The downside is that we now have more work to do in the same amount of time: the marketing team wants more print work and we spend a LOT more time in meetings. You gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.
Regarding the scapegoat scenario, the Operations Department (IT) or Quality Assurance team (QA) usually takes the blame if something goes wrong. That’s not necessarily the way it should be, but that’s how it is, nonetheless.
Posted on February 23, 2004 08:41 AM | #
16. Lukasz said:
Nollind, actually I was referring to Keith’s top post :-)
As I said, it’s all about the attitude. Moreover, I think that a proper project management is not the client’s responsibility (unless he’s aware). Assuming you’re employed by a IT company (and it really does not matter whether your company is HTML focused or not), it is your task to take care (note down, design and implement) all customer’s needs. The customer may not (and probably will not be) aware of the complicity of the path a project must go flow thorugh from the analysis state to the final tests. A good IT company will not only guide the customer through all hindrances and subtleties but also will make profit of it. Who cares?
If I were a company to hire a group of developers to code a business portal for me, I’d definitely vote for an offer that maybe is more expensive but also assures that the project will be led with a compliance of methodology rules.
Posted on February 23, 2004 10:39 AM | #
17. Harry said:
Maybe we need uniforms. Whenever I’m at the airport and the flight crew goes marching by, I’m thinking, “Damn! those cats are the coolest.” Perhaps we’d get more respect if we showed up for work all wearing the same outfit.
It could be as simple as getting a dark, FBI-style rain jacket with “WEB TEAM” in white, block letters on the back. Or we could go the other way and get a jumpsuit like Commander Mark Kistler from Draw Squad.
Posted on February 23, 2004 02:41 PM | #
18. Nollind Whachell said:
Doh! Sorry about that Lukasz!
As for guiding the client, well that’s the problem. A lot of the experiences I’ve had, even after educating the client and even after they say they understand your approach, I’ve encounter them saying “no, I’d rather go with our approach”. Why? A lot of times they don’t give a reason. It’s just their personal whim or preference. I believe Zeldman wrote an interesting post on this about a client who was telling him how to design a site. Perfect example. They don’t seem to give a logical reason, it’s just their whim.
Posted on February 23, 2004 03:51 PM | #
19. Simon Lau said:
Keith, the things you said are really close to my heart. I am currently working in a Internet company and our main business is to create business-valued websites for our clients.
Most of the projects, it is out of our control that estimated time to completion is unrealistic (client’s insistence), developers in the team having more than 2 projects at a time (ours is a small company thus to meet some revenue numbers, it is unavoidable) and last not least, undervalued (due to prices competition).
As you have quoted Gez, web development is indeed (or now), a trade which can be done by any tom,dick and harry in where i work in. Even our junior schools teach this in class to small kids. It seems like unless the web development is made difficult and skilled knowledge is required (which I dun think is right), it will remains to be seemed to be the least important.
Posted on February 23, 2004 06:37 PM | #
20. Keith said:
Simon, I understand what your getting at, however, Web design and development isn’t something that every Tom, Dick and Harry can do. At least not on a professional level. Gez was being sarcastic.
I hope.
I think it’s too bad that there are still people out there who don’t recognize this. How much money needs to be spent (and wasted) before people get that if you hire someone who isn’t a professional to do a job that needs a professional to do it, you’re most likely going to get an unprofessional outcome that reflects badly on everyone involved.
I’m not really talking about small businesses in my post. I understand that some folks can’t afford to hire a professional. It’s too bad, but there is nothing to be done about it.
When large corporations and serious businesses make bad decisions with their sites and their Web people – this is where I see a big problem.
Posted on February 23, 2004 06:57 PM | #
21. Paul G said:
I got long-winded, so my response (read: “rant”) is on my site:
The Nephew Effect
Posted on February 24, 2004 01:37 PM | #
22. Roger said:
Man, I get so angry when I read these stories. Still, it’s kind of good to know that many others are just as frustrated as I am by the disrespect for the web and the people working in the industry.
Anyway, instead of writing a long response here, I’ll just link to a couple of posts on my site that are related to this discussion: HTML - not so simple and Knowing too much.
Posted on February 29, 2004 01:45 AM | #
Comments are now closed