Web Site Design
June 30, 2004 1:15 PM Subscribe
What should I do if I'm developing a client's web site and the designer's design doesn't work? [more inside]
The client selected a design that cannot work at 800 x 600, and I told them so in the initial review of the design. There are side-by-side images that together are wider than 800 pixels, and there is a randomly-displayed, varying-length quote that the design puts in area about 200 pixels wide by 150 pixels high.
When I mentioned the problems with the design, the designer said most corporate users have higher-resolution monitors and the client agreed. (I pointed out the admittedly shaky publicly-available stats I found that indicated about 40% of people use 800 x 600.) When I mentioned that site visitors might increase the font size, the designer scoffed and asked why they would do that.
We're getting set to launch the redesigned site and—wait for it!—the client is now complaining that the design doesn't work at 800 x 600.
Do I just tell them to suck it up (politely, of course)? Or should I make an alternate design that will work at 800 x 600 and route users with lower-res monitors there?
The client selected a design that cannot work at 800 x 600, and I told them so in the initial review of the design. There are side-by-side images that together are wider than 800 pixels, and there is a randomly-displayed, varying-length quote that the design puts in area about 200 pixels wide by 150 pixels high.
When I mentioned the problems with the design, the designer said most corporate users have higher-resolution monitors and the client agreed. (I pointed out the admittedly shaky publicly-available stats I found that indicated about 40% of people use 800 x 600.) When I mentioned that site visitors might increase the font size, the designer scoffed and asked why they would do that.
We're getting set to launch the redesigned site and—wait for it!—the client is now complaining that the design doesn't work at 800 x 600.
Do I just tell them to suck it up (politely, of course)? Or should I make an alternate design that will work at 800 x 600 and route users with lower-res monitors there?
I'd provide them with documentation of their initial request for a design larger than 800x600, point out their new demand, and ask them to pick. Additional work means additional billable hours.
Don't let yourself be pushed around on this sort of a thing. Your client is abusing you.
posted by waldo at 1:31 PM on June 30, 2004
Don't let yourself be pushed around on this sort of a thing. Your client is abusing you.
posted by waldo at 1:31 PM on June 30, 2004
If you've got it in writing that you warned them it wouldn't work at 800x600, then tough titties for them.
Of course, to avoid bad blood, you could design an alternate site for lower-resolution browsers. You probably ought to make it clear, though, that it will cost extra.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:32 PM on June 30, 2004
Of course, to avoid bad blood, you could design an alternate site for lower-resolution browsers. You probably ought to make it clear, though, that it will cost extra.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:32 PM on June 30, 2004
How well documented have you been with your approval sign-offs? Was there a documented assumption/requirement that the site would not support 8x6?
And, just as important: have you been paid up to date?
In an ideal situation, you will have all your documents in order and this is nothing more than a frustating (though billable) change-order.
In reality, you will need to be the judge on how badly you need to close this job and what the costs to you are. (And always remember that your time = money!) While creating a new design is in itself a stressful time-sink, it also paves the way for scope-creep. Regardless of what the conditions are, before you proceed any further, document the deliverables and get a signature from someone with aproval authority.
Also, I would recommend just 1 site design. Managing two resolutions is painful and the detection may not always work or even be appropriate (I work at a high resolution, but seldom maximize by browser window, so I might as well be at 8x6).
posted by Sangre Azul at 1:33 PM on June 30, 2004
And, just as important: have you been paid up to date?
In an ideal situation, you will have all your documents in order and this is nothing more than a frustating (though billable) change-order.
In reality, you will need to be the judge on how badly you need to close this job and what the costs to you are. (And always remember that your time = money!) While creating a new design is in itself a stressful time-sink, it also paves the way for scope-creep. Regardless of what the conditions are, before you proceed any further, document the deliverables and get a signature from someone with aproval authority.
Also, I would recommend just 1 site design. Managing two resolutions is painful and the detection may not always work or even be appropriate (I work at a high resolution, but seldom maximize by browser window, so I might as well be at 8x6).
posted by Sangre Azul at 1:33 PM on June 30, 2004
I'd limit myself to a polite e-mail that gently reminds the client that you brought up this objection previously and then present him with a change order for making the required fix. Something like,
posted by vraxoin at 1:33 PM on June 30, 2004
Dear [client],This is a very fair approach, and honest. If the client wants the fix for free, then you want to ask yourself how much the client means to you. I've learned the hard way that over-demanding clients aren't worth the trouble regardless of how much money they could theoretically net you. If, however, it's a valuable client, you may just want to lube up and take it and make sure you create CYA documentation for every conversation you have with him in the future.
You may recall from our discussion on [date] that I was concerned about screen resolution. The decision was made at the time to develop the site to a larger resolution. What we can do is [solution]. It will take x hours and cost [a reasonable price]."
[you]
posted by vraxoin at 1:33 PM on June 30, 2004
All of the above.
The client cleared the design.
Aside: the designer sucks.
posted by linux at 1:41 PM on June 30, 2004
The client cleared the design.
Aside: the designer sucks.
posted by linux at 1:41 PM on June 30, 2004
Are you working with on a flat rate or hourly basis? If hourly, I'd inform them that it will increase the scope of the project by X hours.
A flat rate would be trickier. I'd make sure to present them any documentation of their decision, and offer them the choice (as said above) of 1. Leave it, 2. Fix it for X dollars more.
posted by o2b at 1:49 PM on June 30, 2004
A flat rate would be trickier. I'd make sure to present them any documentation of their decision, and offer them the choice (as said above) of 1. Leave it, 2. Fix it for X dollars more.
posted by o2b at 1:49 PM on June 30, 2004
I agree with the masses, here. This is a post-implementation change request to the project requirements, not a bug fix during development.
Let them know that's the case and that you will bill at your agreed rate for changes. Do not let them have it for free, as you will encourage them to continue to casually violate agreements.
posted by majick at 1:51 PM on June 30, 2004
Let them know that's the case and that you will bill at your agreed rate for changes. Do not let them have it for free, as you will encourage them to continue to casually violate agreements.
posted by majick at 1:51 PM on June 30, 2004
"the client is now complaining that the design doesn't work at 800 x 600"
It beats having them bitch that you used the wrong shade of blue. At least in this case you have the original design mockup which everyone looked at.
Personally I think building to 800x600 is a tad old fashioned. Does anyone here use 800x600? Anyone? I would lobby you that people viewing the web at this resolution are used to scrolling.
So, to be direct, I would tell them, "We talked about this. We all decided together that 800x600 wasn't a worthy goal. Here are the reasons why we decided that."
Do they not remember reviewing the design creative?
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:51 PM on June 30, 2004
It beats having them bitch that you used the wrong shade of blue. At least in this case you have the original design mockup which everyone looked at.
Personally I think building to 800x600 is a tad old fashioned. Does anyone here use 800x600? Anyone? I would lobby you that people viewing the web at this resolution are used to scrolling.
So, to be direct, I would tell them, "We talked about this. We all decided together that 800x600 wasn't a worthy goal. Here are the reasons why we decided that."
Do they not remember reviewing the design creative?
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:51 PM on June 30, 2004
Here is maybe a quick fix. Resize the images and adjust the tables. Or crop the images differently. Sounds like the images are what is pushing out of place. Bust out the photoshop and edit the image size.
posted by trbrts at 1:56 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by trbrts at 1:56 PM on June 30, 2004
y6y6y6, my resolution might be 1680x1050 but the size of the viewable portion of my browser is 752x400.
posted by Mick at 2:22 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by Mick at 2:22 PM on June 30, 2004
Response by poster: Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.
My formal documentation's pretty sparse, but I've been consistent in mentioning the design's limitations in a follow-up meeting, phone conversations, and email.
I'll probably have to apply the additional hours to our monthly maintenance agreement, which will indirectly result in billable hours.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:32 PM on June 30, 2004
My formal documentation's pretty sparse, but I've been consistent in mentioning the design's limitations in a follow-up meeting, phone conversations, and email.
I'll probably have to apply the additional hours to our monthly maintenance agreement, which will indirectly result in billable hours.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:32 PM on June 30, 2004
Personally I think building to 800x600 is a tad old fashioned. Does anyone here use 800x600? Anyone?
I would second Sangre Azul's comment that many people--especially those with large monitors--do not maximize their web browsers. I don't. My monitor is 1280x1024 right now, but the portion of my browser window in which web content is actually displayed is, at the moment, 843x585.
If a web site has valuable content but is designed only for larger windows, then I'll maximize the browser when I visit the site and consider it a minor annoyance. If the site's content is of marginal value to me to begin with, though, the poor design is likely to make me just say "screw it" and not bother reading the site.
Oh, and just to drive web designers a little crazier, at home I use a Tablet PC--usually in portrait mode--so there I have a 768x1024 resolution. (Not 1024x768.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:38 PM on June 30, 2004
I would second Sangre Azul's comment that many people--especially those with large monitors--do not maximize their web browsers. I don't. My monitor is 1280x1024 right now, but the portion of my browser window in which web content is actually displayed is, at the moment, 843x585.
If a web site has valuable content but is designed only for larger windows, then I'll maximize the browser when I visit the site and consider it a minor annoyance. If the site's content is of marginal value to me to begin with, though, the poor design is likely to make me just say "screw it" and not bother reading the site.
Oh, and just to drive web designers a little crazier, at home I use a Tablet PC--usually in portrait mode--so there I have a 768x1024 resolution. (Not 1024x768.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:38 PM on June 30, 2004
I do most of my web browsing on a 22" Apple Cinema display. Because the display is so large, I comfortable run two browsers side-by-side. Since the display's resolution is 1600x1024, each browser gets roughly 800x1024 pixels, give or take.
I appreciate sites that work well at 800x600 and smaller. Websites that are "stuck" at 640x480, or even 800x600 really suck.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:42 PM on June 30, 2004
I appreciate sites that work well at 800x600 and smaller. Websites that are "stuck" at 640x480, or even 800x600 really suck.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:42 PM on June 30, 2004
my resolution might be 1680x1050 but the size of the viewable portion of my browser is 752x400.
How can I find out what these numbers are on my setup?
posted by gleuschk at 3:31 PM on June 30, 2004
How can I find out what these numbers are on my setup?
posted by gleuschk at 3:31 PM on June 30, 2004
Drag this link to your toolbar, then click it when you wanna know: window size
posted by kindall at 3:48 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by kindall at 3:48 PM on June 30, 2004
Awww. MeFi ate the JavaScript link. It should look like this:
javascript:alert(document.body.clientWidth+"x"+document.body.clientHeight)
posted by kindall at 3:49 PM on June 30, 2004
javascript:alert(document.body.clientWidth+"x"+document.body.clientHeight)
posted by kindall at 3:49 PM on June 30, 2004
BTW, that should work is Mozilla/IE. For other browsers you might need to try:
javascript:alert(window.innerWidth+"x"+window.innerHeight)
posted by kindall at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2004
javascript:alert(window.innerWidth+"x"+window.innerHeight)
posted by kindall at 3:50 PM on June 30, 2004
Whoa, in Safari that first link is apparently giving me document size. No way the screen is 1005x4430 on a 12" iBook.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 4:17 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 4:17 PM on June 30, 2004
Dear [client],
You may recall from our discussion on [date] that I was concerned about screen resolution. The decision was made at the time to develop the site to a larger resolution. What we can do is [solution]. It will take x hours and cost [a reasonable price]."
[you]
I'd go with vraxoin's approach, though to avoid defensiveness on their part I'd start that conversation by taking as a given that they've read the contract and understood the implications of a stupidhead decision being undone at this late date. "Dear blah, I am in receipt of your change order request. Upon receiving a faxed copy of your signed confirmation on the attached documents (specification, work order, invoice), I can have those revisions completed for you within 2 business days. I look forward to a successful launch. Sincerely, blah." That way they have the option to just shut up and pay without feeling like their developer is pointing a finger to say "your fault! dumb idea! told ya so!" Even though it was in fact their fault, it was quite dumb, and you gave ample warning. If protecting their egos gets the job finished and the check cleared, then it's a small sacrifice. If it buys you a reference for work with new clients who actually listen to the expert advice they purchase, then all the better.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2004
You may recall from our discussion on [date] that I was concerned about screen resolution. The decision was made at the time to develop the site to a larger resolution. What we can do is [solution]. It will take x hours and cost [a reasonable price]."
[you]
I'd go with vraxoin's approach, though to avoid defensiveness on their part I'd start that conversation by taking as a given that they've read the contract and understood the implications of a stupidhead decision being undone at this late date. "Dear blah, I am in receipt of your change order request. Upon receiving a faxed copy of your signed confirmation on the attached documents (specification, work order, invoice), I can have those revisions completed for you within 2 business days. I look forward to a successful launch. Sincerely, blah." That way they have the option to just shut up and pay without feeling like their developer is pointing a finger to say "your fault! dumb idea! told ya so!" Even though it was in fact their fault, it was quite dumb, and you gave ample warning. If protecting their egos gets the job finished and the check cleared, then it's a small sacrifice. If it buys you a reference for work with new clients who actually listen to the expert advice they purchase, then all the better.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2004
y6y6y6, there are a lot of customers out there at 800x600 - the 40% quoted earlier accords with my recent stats from two high traffic ecommerce sites - and no, they're not used to scrolling, because serious site designs accomodate them.
(high traffic = >1million views per day).
Consider also that I typically run at least 1280x1024, but I have a rather smaller browser window, because I don't like reading very long lines of text. I would think that any site designed for readability is not going to grow much past 800 pixels in width for essential stuff.
For years I've heard people like you, and kirkaracha's designer, mistake their own cushy setup (big monitor, loads of CPU/RAM, broadband) for the average customer, and develop slow difficult sites as a consequence. As long as the throwbacks have money and they make up more than 10% or so, it's well worth catering to them.
vraxoin's approach is ideal. nakedmonkey's refinement is cunning.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:13 PM on June 30, 2004
(high traffic = >1million views per day).
Consider also that I typically run at least 1280x1024, but I have a rather smaller browser window, because I don't like reading very long lines of text. I would think that any site designed for readability is not going to grow much past 800 pixels in width for essential stuff.
For years I've heard people like you, and kirkaracha's designer, mistake their own cushy setup (big monitor, loads of CPU/RAM, broadband) for the average customer, and develop slow difficult sites as a consequence. As long as the throwbacks have money and they make up more than 10% or so, it's well worth catering to them.
vraxoin's approach is ideal. nakedmonkey's refinement is cunning.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:13 PM on June 30, 2004
fwiw, I still design for 800x600, but allow and assume people are using a larger screen size.
posted by crunchland at 4:04 AM on July 1, 2004
posted by crunchland at 4:04 AM on July 1, 2004
You know, when I had my old Sony Vaio PCG (1024 x 480?), it drove me mad when sites were written for 800 x 600 with no scrolling possibility. I never minded scrolling a browser window to see a nice pic, but I hated having to go through the palavar of changing my resolution to create a virtual screen bigger than my physical screen and scrolling slowly down by moving the mouse to the edge, just in order to press a "next page" or "ok" link on some form stuck in a window with no scroll bar.
Forgive me ranting in your thread, kirkaracha. I just hope you are discussing design meaning whether the end viewer has to scroll or not, as oppose to design meaning whether the end viewer can even see the whole page or not. ;)
posted by suleikacasilda at 5:01 AM on July 1, 2004
Forgive me ranting in your thread, kirkaracha. I just hope you are discussing design meaning whether the end viewer has to scroll or not, as oppose to design meaning whether the end viewer can even see the whole page or not. ;)
posted by suleikacasilda at 5:01 AM on July 1, 2004
What resolution does your standard $700 HP Pavillion default to out of the box?* That's what you should design your sites for. Never overestimate the average consumer's ability to change their screen res.
* A: probably 8x6, I imagine.
posted by jpoulos at 6:24 AM on July 1, 2004
* A: probably 8x6, I imagine.
posted by jpoulos at 6:24 AM on July 1, 2004
Personally I think building to 800x600 is a tad old fashioned. Does anyone here use 800x600? Anyone?
I routinely use 800x600 for everything. I have a 14" monitor at work and an 18" (??) (its bigger than this one but not 21") at home. I don't think I'm "used to scrolling" -- I'd say that only maybe one out of every hundred or so sites I visit requires me to scroll sideways. I *hate* scrolling sideways, and a site that is designed for a larger screen resolution normally won't get a return visit from me.
Y'all, I think, forget sometimes that the Mefi audience is mostly very tech savvy, and that folks (like me) who aren't 'technical' are in the minority here. Virtually every causual internet user known to me uses 800x600. I know several people who didn't know they could change their screen resolution. That doesn't make them stupid users or stupid people - they're just using the tool in a different way than you are.
posted by anastasiav at 6:50 AM on July 1, 2004
I routinely use 800x600 for everything. I have a 14" monitor at work and an 18" (??) (its bigger than this one but not 21") at home. I don't think I'm "used to scrolling" -- I'd say that only maybe one out of every hundred or so sites I visit requires me to scroll sideways. I *hate* scrolling sideways, and a site that is designed for a larger screen resolution normally won't get a return visit from me.
Y'all, I think, forget sometimes that the Mefi audience is mostly very tech savvy, and that folks (like me) who aren't 'technical' are in the minority here. Virtually every causual internet user known to me uses 800x600. I know several people who didn't know they could change their screen resolution. That doesn't make them stupid users or stupid people - they're just using the tool in a different way than you are.
posted by anastasiav at 6:50 AM on July 1, 2004
Does anyone here use 800x600? Anyone?
Chiming in to say that all of our public access terminals in the library are set to 800x600, and folks can't change them. I keep mentioning that there are more and more sites that look like hell on these browsers, but I don't get to choose and neither do our patrons.
If you want to even give the client more choice you can have an arrangement of options. Tell them they can
1. chop the images, keep the design
2. resize the images, keep the design
3. redesign, call you when it's done
4. offer to do the redesign [for extra cash or no] so the site works.
This gives them two "keep the design" options if they want to be stubborn. Basically the designer/client may be right about their assertion that "most" users have high res settings on their monitors, but then the 40% low-res data point would still be right. I guess someone needs to polititely tell them that it's their choice what to do, but they might not want to alienate a bunch of potential customers. Then again, they might. I agree with codemonkey that saving face may be important to them, so save the "I told you so's" for this thread and find a way to help the client fix the problem, but it's not your obligation to do that for free, or to take the blame, if they're crazy blamers.
posted by jessamyn at 8:20 AM on July 1, 2004
Chiming in to say that all of our public access terminals in the library are set to 800x600, and folks can't change them. I keep mentioning that there are more and more sites that look like hell on these browsers, but I don't get to choose and neither do our patrons.
If you want to even give the client more choice you can have an arrangement of options. Tell them they can
1. chop the images, keep the design
2. resize the images, keep the design
3. redesign, call you when it's done
4. offer to do the redesign [for extra cash or no] so the site works.
This gives them two "keep the design" options if they want to be stubborn. Basically the designer/client may be right about their assertion that "most" users have high res settings on their monitors, but then the 40% low-res data point would still be right. I guess someone needs to polititely tell them that it's their choice what to do, but they might not want to alienate a bunch of potential customers. Then again, they might. I agree with codemonkey that saving face may be important to them, so save the "I told you so's" for this thread and find a way to help the client fix the problem, but it's not your obligation to do that for free, or to take the blame, if they're crazy blamers.
posted by jessamyn at 8:20 AM on July 1, 2004
What resolution does your standard $700 HP Pavillion default to out of the box?
We just bought a bunch of $700 Compaqs at work: 1024x768 is what they were all setup for.
posted by bonehead at 8:32 AM on July 1, 2004
We just bought a bunch of $700 Compaqs at work: 1024x768 is what they were all setup for.
posted by bonehead at 8:32 AM on July 1, 2004
This thread is closed to new comments.
Personally, alternate designs seems like too much work for not enough payoff. Just make one that works.
posted by signal at 1:29 PM on June 30, 2004