Topic: the other side of the coin – procurement (Page 1 of 1)

Firstly really wasn't sure were to post this... but need some advice and it should be covert.

I have been asked to get involved a a technical advisor to a friend who is currently procuring a web site from an offshore development house. i chuckled as well.

Basically i need some help in drafting a response to the developer and making a recommendation as to whether they should go with this developer and also some comforting that my technical recomendations are correct and that i am not being too anal!!

The developer produced a nice looking design in Photoshop, great. I then offered the initial technical recomendations - a site with separated content, presentation and logic, content ordered, with a CSS based layout (i.e. no tables for layout only for the presentation of data) and ideally xHTML 1x

oh and the site should conform to accessibility standards such (e.g. Bobby AA) and i would expect the site to be html and css validated at WC3 - the site is a job site so should definitly be 100% accessible.

This is the reaction i received from the developer.

quote:

---

We don?t subscribe to the school of thought that believes in using ONLY CSS and no tables, we work with both and implement the best solution applicable to a specific page, I will not commit to working with a complete CSS based layout with no Tables. This does not affect the site functionality, interface design nor compatibility.

As I mentioned we do not have a standard policy of validating with w3c but we will make an exception for your website and get the site validated by w3c.

Accessibility as per Bobby AA is beyond the scope of the current work schedule, we will look into this and come back with further details.

---

I confirmed that tables should be used for data presentation only.

My gut feeling is that they should find another developer but the client is seeing the $$$ in savings.

Comments are very much appreciated.

Cheers

FR

/me shakes head

"We don?t subscribe to the school of thought..."

But hello?
Ain't your client the one calling the shots here?
What's in the actual RFP or the requirements that the developer used to base his bid on?

If your client requires a site that degrades well, has the ability to score well in search engines, has the ability to be viewable in different platforms/media, conforms to accessability standards and validates on todays standards...

If so:
The developer of course has the right to say that "this is not the way we build things.." well fine, but why should he stay in the running for the job?

If the client and you are in agreement on the benefits of a modern site, drop this developer, there are plenty more that are willing to conform to modern standards at a reasonable price.


If the initial request did not mention any of these things related to the tech aspects the developer "should" reply that "These additional requirements are not within the scope we placed our bid on, but we are happy to rework our bid in accordance with these parameters".

Since this is obviously not the answer you got, I'd basically say, drop the developer. If standards are important to you, you will not be happy with the result if the developer has the mindset his asnwer implies.

/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{"Theories without facts are just religions...?}-

I would also recommend dropping this developer.

You can get by with a developer who does not subscribe the the ideal of seperation of content from style, but it will cause lots of headaches for your programmers.

When I hear a developer say something like this it normally means that they do not know web development. They know graphic design. This is fine but they should do graphic design or update their skillset it is not web development or knowing how to design for the web.

A good developer will know the limitations of such an ethic and will be able to plan how to work around these with a site that can be visually appealing and functional.

Dan @ Code Town

"We don?t subscribe to the school of thought..."

Sounds like irreconsilable differences, unless of course, you're being too anal I think what you've asked for is not out of bounds and you should have no trouble finding someone to produce what you're after, possibly not from "an offshore development house" that ends in esia or aysia those kinds of places tend to focus more on seo from my experience and are behind the time in "school of thought".

.

This developer sounds like nothing but trouble to me. I agree with the recommendations so far to drop him.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

FatRod said:

Accessibility as per Bobby AA is beyond the scope of the current work schedule

---

More than anything, that would cause me to drop them immediately.

Accessibility is beyond the scope of....????

It might be a translation thing, but it doesn't sound like they know what W3C validation is...

Dan @ Code Town

Now copy all these messages.... send them to 'your' client and let him send the developer a simple one liner that says; " Thank you for your interest but we have decided to continue with our search."

quote:

---

As I mentioned we do not have a standard policy of validating with w3c

---

When I read this yesterday I thought to myself... 'Run.... run very very fast.' In this day and age it's kinda like saying gas mileage doesn't matter.

Exactly what i was looking for chaps. The client wants to get the site up and running quickly and cheaply, the last point is the key factor here and a reason why i am posting.

Cheers guys - i'll keep you posted, i may well put up a closed tender, i'll not doubt get some good recomendations!!!

Again thanks.

Ben

They decided to go with this developer, then again they are looking at 7K GBP savings. The developer hinged his argument on the fact that nearly all commercial sites are still table based layouts... unfortunatly many still are.

anyway i got a beer out of it, just no satisfaction

Thanks for your help.

Ahhhh.... "Beer not just for breakfast anymore" =)


I've worked for less AND worse.

well it's a shame that they let the savings determine what they get. You get what you pay for. From the response that they gave regarding w3c validation and accessibility would agrivate me at best.

Like DmS said, shouldn't the client be calling the shots? I know that a 7k GBP savings is quite a bit but still. If I am paying someone to do something then I want it done the way I want it done. Unless of course they have one hell of a reason why it couldn't be done.

I know that a lot of comercial sites still use tables but what does that have to do with anything? If companies continue with that thought we would get no where with anything. Just going around in circles and continuing to do things the same old way as everyone else.

Oh well...

Later,

C:\

I made them agree to vaidate to w3c and bobby AA for accessibility. Also got them to agree in writing to make the site 100% cross browser functional -

if only they wouldnt use table layouts

Ben

While bobby may be a start at testing for accessibility, it is my understanding that it falls far short of being able to give you assurance that the page is truly accessibile.

You might want to read through this thread to get some other ideas on how to test your site for accessibility.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.