Cheap Web Pages are exactly that! CHEAP!
?????
People who offer web pages for $10-20 are worth just that $10-20. These
are slap together pages. They certainly could not put the time into a
site to make memorable, or worthwhile. I was just on a page that offered
"Custom Backgrounds $5 each hundreds to choose from." Yeah that sounds
custom to me, sounds more like the bargin bin.
Cheap web page designers(I use the term loosley) are like used car
salesmen. I look at these web pages, and I see mediocrity, lack of simple
design concepts, and a lack of professionalism.
One last thing that I would like to know is who would read 2000-4000 words
on a web page. Put in an excerpt from it and ftp the rest.
I'm sorry about the rant session, but I am tired of trying to explain to
my clientele why I charge ($50-100 hr minimum 3) hours while others are
charging $20. I then show them a cheap site, and then I show them 1 of
mine. I hate having to justify.
I guess simply put, you get what you pay for.
Ken Olsen
Enhanced Reality
real...@kdcol.com
Your name here!
In article
<?????-08069613...@s04.cs00.io.kdcol.net>,?????@???.com(?????)wrote:
>People who offer web pages for $10-20 are worth just that $10-20. These
>are slap together pages. They certainly could not put the time into a
>site to make memorable, or worthwhile. I was just on a page that offered
>"Custom Backgrounds $5 each hundreds to choose from." Yeah that sounds
>custom to me, sounds more like the bargin bin.
>Cheap web page designers(I use the term loosley) are like used car
>salesmen. I look at these web pages, and I see mediocrity, lack of simple
>design concepts, and a lack of professionalism.
It seems to me that most of the higher-priced web designers who have recently
been attacking cheap rates have been simply trying to lift html design above
the simple activity that it is. I write html for "fun," i guess, and have
designed a few pages for profit as well. I'm not trained in graphic design,
but my customers have been satisfied with what they got. I offer what would
probably be considered cheap rates, and I don't think that the pages I've
designed would fall below any mediocrity that your pages wouldn't fall into.
I don't mean to attack you with that, but just to point out that unlike
graphic design may have been in the past, web design is a lot more open, since
professional and exciting designs can be done without expensive materials and
lots of training. while training may certainly be worth it, I think anyone
could find many home pages designed without sponsors and by html weekend
authors that are appealing in their content and design. design concepts mean
nothing if I can create an exciting site knowing nothing about them.
>One last thing that I would like to know is who would read 2000-4000 words
>on a web page. Put in an excerpt from it and ftp the rest.
>I'm sorry about the rant session, but I am tired of trying to explain to
>my clientele why I charge ($50-100 hr minimum 3) hours while others are
>charging $20. I then show them a cheap site, and then I show them 1 of
>mine. I hate having to justify.
Once again, not to attack you, but, do you really think the amount of work you
put into your pages (the only ones I've looked at, and briefly, are those
linked on your resume) is worth $150 to $300? maybe the work is deceptive,
but based on the source (which, incidentally, is very browser unfriendly...i
could not navigate most sites without loading in the images) and what I see,
I wouldn't pay that much... I wouldn't pay that much for my sites, for
certain. I wouldn't pay that much for most sites of that size. There are
sites out there worth lots of money for their design, but a simple page put
up for a small business should take 2-3 hours and should be worth about
$10-$20/hour for a basic page viewable by most common and modern browsers.
Design is difficult, but on the level we're discussing here, it's not worth
that much...I'm sure you'll continue to charge your rates, and anyone else
should charge what they feel is right for their work, but claiming those
offering cheaper rates are offering inferior sites is a generalisation that
falls below a necessary level of accuracy. If the customer is satisfied, then
all is well, but, if a customer takes a cheap rate over an expensive one,
don't be too surprised if the customer gets a site worth just as much to their
business and satisfaction as they could have had from the more expensive
designer.
raeppink
Dr. Keith A. Marlow
Your name here! wrote:
>
> [..]
> It seems to me that most of the higher-priced web designers who have
> recently been attacking cheap rates have been simply trying to lift
> html design above the simple activity that it is. I write html for
> "fun," i guess, and have designed a few pages for profit as well.
> I'm not trained in graphic design, but my customers have been
> satisfied with what they got. I offer what would probably be
> considered cheap rates, and I don't think that the pages I've
> designed would fall below any mediocrity that your pages wouldn't
> fall into. I don't mean to attack you with that, but just to point
> out that unlike graphic design may have been in the past, web
> design is a lot more open, since professional and exciting designs
> can be done without expensive materials and lots of training.
> while training may certainly be worth it, I think anyone could
> find many home pages designed without sponsors and by html weekend
> authors that are appealing in their content and design.
> design concepts mean nothing if I can create an exciting site
> knowing nothing about them.
But designing a good web site isn't just knowing about creating good
presentation - making the web site appear good to as many people as
possible is the real target. I've encountered web design houses who are
of the attitude that as long as it looks good under Netscape 2 in
windows then they have done their job. Then I come along, see the site
and show their old client what the site looks like under Netscape 1 and
(shock) with the graphics off - hair starts flying I tell you! Also
displaying the site down a standard 28,8k link in the middle of the day
also empresses how off putting all those big graphics really are.. This
is especially true in the UK where we don't have free local calls..
One thing I always suggest to people to do when they have a web site
written for them, is try to find someone in your area who has web access
and have a look at your site. Note down things like how long it takes to
appear? What happens with the graphics off? Do all the links work?
Basically make sure you got what you paid for - you wouldn't buy a car
and never immediately drive it to see if it works?.. do same with your
web site.
> >[..]
>
> Once again, not to attack you, but, do you really think the amount
> of work you put into your pages (the only ones I've looked at,
> and briefly, are those linked on your resume) is worth $150 to
> $300? maybe the work is deceptive, but based on the source
> (which, incidentally, is very browser unfriendly...i could not
> navigate most sites without loading in the images) and what I see,
> I wouldn't pay that much... I wouldn't pay that much for my sites,
> for certain. I wouldn't pay that much for most sites of that
> size. There are sites out there worth lots of money for their
> design, but a simple page put up for a small business should take
> 2-3 hours and should be worth about $10-$20/hour for a basic page
> viewable by most common and modern browsers.
The basic html should no way come in at $300, now if that includes
work like the creation of forms, cgi, java, etc then it might actually
start to look cheap! As you say later on, you essentially get what you
pay for - which can cut both ways. Also, especially with the web, the
client is very much in the dark as to what they can expect from their
site for the money they have spent. We basically take the approach of
showing a client round existing sites and giving them a costing on
having a similar site - they way we both know at the start of the work
what is wanted.
> Design is difficult, but on the level we're discussing here, it's
> not worth that much...I'm sure you'll continue to charge your
> rates, and anyone else should charge what they feel is right for
> their work, but claiming those offering cheaper rates are
> offering inferior sites is a generalisation that falls below a
> necessary level of accuracy. If the customer is satisfied, then
> all is well, but, if a customer takes a cheap rate over an
> expensive one, don't be too surprised if the customer gets a
> site worth just as much to their business and satisfaction as
> they could have had from the more expensive
> designer.
Yes, that is possible, but when one moves away from pure html to a
move 'advanced' site then the expertise has to be paid for somewhere
along the way.
If anybody is interested in our services, please do look at
http://www.paston.co.uk/supreme/intnt.html
Keith
--
Dr. Keith Marlow Supreme Software Systems Ltd.
sy...@supreme.demon.co.uk 21 Courtenay Close, Norwich
http://www.paston.co.uk/supreme Norfolk, NR5 9LB
BBS (01603) 744231
Voice/Fax (01603) 745077
Frank Meffert
And those of us that charge 'cheap' rates are tired of listening to people
like you that are trying to justify the rates they charge. I have no
problem with those of you that in my opinion 'overcharge' their clients
for something that is a piece of cake (and I am well versed in Java and
JavaScript, so I'm not just talking about HTML). If you people can get
those kinds of fees paid to you, more power to you. I just feel guilty
about soaking people because they don't know any better. I guess that's
why I also hand out my software to people even though my fellow developers
raise their eyebrows when I tell them "I was gonna write that program
anyway, so why charge for it?".
If cramming 50 graphics into a page and writing a bunch of apps to display
jumping beans or floating bubbles justifies 500 bucks, then so be it. I
went through my Java, Frames, and Graphics happy phase, but I'm back to
content, not fanciness. I don't claim my pages are pretty, but they are
used and I get a lot of feedback from them.
You keep charging your fees, I'll charge mine. Be happy, but keep your
criticisms of 'cheap pages' to yourself, please. I have also seen $1500
pages that I wouldn't put my name on.
On Saturday, June 08, 1996, ????? wrote...
>
>
> People who offer web pages for $10-20 are worth just that $10-20. These
> are slap together pages. They certainly could not put the time into a
> site to make memorable, or worthwhile. I was just on a page that
offered
> "Custom Backgrounds $5 each hundreds to choose from." Yeah that sounds
> custom to me, sounds more like the bargin bin.
>
> Cheap web page designers(I use the term loosley) are like used car
> salesmen. I look at these web pages, and I see mediocrity, lack of
simple
> design concepts, and a lack of professionalism.
>
> One last thing that I would like to know is who would read 2000-4000
words
> on a web page. Put in an excerpt from it and ftp the rest.
>
> I'm sorry about the rant session, but I am tired of trying to explain to
> my clientele why I charge ($50-100 hr minimum 3) hours while others are
> charging $20. I then show them a cheap site, and then I show them 1 of
> mine. I hate having to justify.
>
David Doolin
In article <Dsqno...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ra...@virginia.edu (Your name here!) writes:
|> In article
|> <?????-08069613...@s04.cs00.io.kdcol.net>,?????@???.com(?????)wrote:
[]
|>
|>
|> Once again, not to attack you, but, do you really think the amount of work you
|> put into your pages (the only ones I've looked at, and briefly, are those
|> linked on your resume) is worth $150 to $300?
[]
|>
|> Design is difficult, but on the level we're discussing here, it's not worth
|> that much...I'm sure you'll continue to charge your rates,
[]
No, this is wrong. Web page design is worth what the market will bear.
If he is getting is getting satisfied customers at $50 an hour, his
business will grow.
|>
|> raeppink
--
Dave Doolin Institute for Geotechnology
doo...@cs.utk.edu Department of Civil Eng. UTK
Ken Olsen
In article <01bb568f.fbde9100$96d2...@arioch.jcave.com>, Frank Meffert
<ari...@jcave.com> wrote:
> And those of us that charge 'cheap' rates are tired of listening to people
> like you that are trying to justify the rates they charge. I have no
> problem with those of you that in my opinion 'overcharge' their clients
> for something that is a piece of cake (and I am well versed in Java and
> JavaScript, so I'm not just talking about HTML). If you people can get
> those kinds of fees paid to you, more power to you. I just feel guilty
> about soaking people because they don't know any better. I guess that's
> why I also hand out my software to people even though my fellow developers
> raise their eyebrows when I tell them "I was gonna write that program
> anyway, so why charge for it?".
I applaud and respect you for that!
> If cramming 50 graphics into a page and writing a bunch of apps to display
> jumping beans or floating bubbles justifies 500 bucks, then so be it. I
> went through my Java, Frames, and Graphics happy phase, but I'm back to
> content, not fanciness. I don't claim my pages are pretty, but they are
> used and I get a lot of feedback from them.
>
> You keep charging your fees, I'll charge mine. Be happy, but keep your
> criticisms of 'cheap pages' to yourself, please. I have also seen $1500
> pages that I wouldn't put my name on.
>
If your content and design are solid then I have no problems. The pages
that I have looked at that have been advertised here that are
"inexpensive" are the ones that I have problems with. People that spend
10 min in WinPaint and call it a graphic, or a repository of clipart and
icons and call it custom design, again are the ones that I am targeting.
This is like equating using PowerPoint/Persuasion to create a slide show
and calling interactive multimedia design.
I believe as you do as far as Java etc.. that there is a place for this,
but not to be used just because it is a fancy bauble. I utilize shockwave
and others, but not just for the sake of using "fanciness". I utilize the
tools that I have at to create quality, not quantity. If the page would
get the meaning and desired response from using shockwave and others then
I use them.
Tell me this, would you rather read the Wall Street Journal for todays
headlins, or would you rather something with a little more visual appeal.
The Wall Street has wonderful content, but it is visually a snooze. There
has to be a marriage of content and design to keep the user/reader
interested. I want the vistors of the sites that I create to remeber that
they have been there. I want to leave an impression on them that they
have been somewhere that they want to return to.
"..cramming 50 graphics into a page and writing a bunch of apps to display
jumping beans or floating bubbles.." I agree does not accomplish a sense
design, moreover it relates the overuse of wasted effort and a useful
tool.
Ken Olsen
real...@kdcol.com
J Kirby Inwood
Frank Meffert <ari...@jcave.com> wrote:
>>> I>>went through my Java, Frames, and Graphics happy phase, but I'm back to>content, not fanciness. I don't claim my pages are pretty, but they are
>>used and I get a lot of feedback from them.
>>
Congratulations. You are doing the right thing for your customers. It
will pay off in the end. "No man ever regretted buying quality."
______________________________________________________________________________
J Kirby Inwood Creative Services-- It takes more than HTML to make good sites.
For Web sites that sell. <http://www.inforamp.net/~kinwood>