No, this is not about plagiarism.
Imagine my surprise when Jeffrey Zeldman blogged about a list of 60 WordPress themes. A few minutes before that, I found Douglas Bowman bookmarking another list, also from Smashing Magazine. It’s like my feed reader was trying to tell me something: yes, a list article can bring an interesting discussion if you’ll just let it.
Back to Zeldman’s post, which started a discussion on whether you should use existing themes for your own design:
…Even if you are a designer, you may ask yourself if you really need to perform that next site redesign from scratch.
Every once in a while I get clients that specifically want existing themes to be customized instead of starting from scratch, so clearly there is a demand for the practice. If clients have enough initiative to choose it as a solution, then why not? Does it take more effort to find and customize than start from scratch? Depends on how comfortable you are with someone else’s code, how much you trust the other designer’s expertise, and how much you need to customize.
The bulk of the debate will probably lie mostly in this situation, but to me it boils down to don’t reinvent the wheel, but don’t get complacent either. While it is a shortcut for building a website, it is not a shortcut for conceptualizing the website.
So the other situation is this: Sometimes I envy all the beautiful themes and templates out there because I don’t really get an opportunity to use them for myself. Does choosing to use someone else’s work for a web designer’s own website make sense? It seems counterintuitive but a real problem: sometimes we barely have time to dedicate to our own projects. Sometimes we just want to use something ready-made and have fun with it.
Although there are frameworks for practically level of development these days, from CSS to JS to PHP to whole themes, they are created specifically as tools for designers; they aren’t really products for designers as consumers. What I’m talking about are the real themes that are smart enough, beautifully-designed enough to meet your discerning needs. It could be as stark as Cutline or as detailed as WordFolio: compare this and this. (Now that would be good idea for a list article: websites that are highly customized versions of existing themes. Not to mention a good source of inspiration. A niche gallery, even!)
We could probably exclude portfolio sites since web designers would prefer to show off their skills on them—but even that argument can be ruled out if the customization is custom enough. Take blogs, tumblelogs, and other secondary sites that still belong to a web designer but don’t necessarily need a design from scratch. The issues with the client scenario website still apply, but there’s the added pressure of being your own worst critic.
Would you be confident enough to use one, or would you lose sleep at night without customizing at least some bit of it to keep your design cred intact? It doesn’t have to be a bad thing; it could be a different type of challenge.
Whether experienced first-hand or heard of in cautionary tales, everybody is familiar with the horror of not being compensated for one’s work and not being able to do anything about it. Enter a possible solution: a remote kill switch, which gives web designers a back door into a client website via PHP, AJAX or CSS to disable it in case something goes wrong, i.e., one doesn’t get paid.
Avoiding the technical details and instead focusing on the general idea of a remote kill switch, let me say this:
It’s a sad, sad reality that people have to resort to these methods, but it’s just a symptom of a bigger problem. I also see it as designers and developers defending themselves with tools they are familiar with, rather than legalese that could only throw them for a loop and might not even work. Which isn’t to say they should abandon the usual way of going into a project altogether; the kill switch can just be an additional safety net.
Is it unethical? There is no reason to use a kill switch underhandedly, or consider it as a sign of distrust or respect. It’s not about having the upper hand or treating clients unfairly, it’s about protecting one’s business. But to earn your keep you need to stay professional, not paranoid. Integrating a kill switch into a contract, where the client is fully aware of the consequences should it be breached, sounds fair and should achieve those two things. One must remember, however, that once both parties complete their respective deliverables, the kill switch must also be killed.
I wonder what percentage and type of web professionals incorporate this into their business process. This is a controversial issue for sure, but I think people can avoid the unnecessary drama if their intentions are sincere. What do you think? Apart from a contract and this kill switch, are there any other ways to protect web professionals from clients running off with their work?
Noah Stokes rants about the lack of professionalism in the web design industry. There are several reasons listed, ones involving IE6, Smashing Magazine posts, mentoring, and passion. But this first point got me thinking:
First, stop thinking your client is stupid. Your client is not stupid. I don’t care if they want an all Flash site sized at 800×600 with a dancing unicorn for the navigation. You may laugh at them behind their back, just remember, they laugh at you when OMG, your precious Tweeter is down. We are in the services industry. Get used to it. Your client is your lifeline. Show them the respect they deserve, even if they don’t deserve it.
Admit it: we’ve all mocked our clients and snickered at their choices at some point. A lot of us continue to do so.
There’s a lot to be said about the trials our kind face—dozens of comic strips tell the tale, Dilbert being the most prominent. But when did it become “cool” to act all holier-than-thou over project specifications? What sparked this trend to act like this misunderstood artist, this “chosen one” enduring torturous quests in the epic battle versus this monster of a client? Is it specific to this industry or happening elsewhere too?
Ben Terrett of Noisy Decent Graphics has written a list of things that describe what “his Internet” is like. From an encounter with a technologically-challenged executive comes an inspiring exercise to get everyone on the same page first.
…I thought it might be a nice idea to get everyone to describe ‘their internet’ at the first meeting of any new client. Like they do at school when the new kids arrive mid term. Get everyone up to the same level. That way, everyone would know the ‘level’ of everyone else and there would be no clangers later on.
The list is not only informative, it’s also prescriptive (in a sort of passive-agressive way!). It addresses the little things clients don’t really take into consideration when they describe what they want for their websites. But the thing is, you’re the expert, so grab the opportunity to teach what thoughtful and usable design is. Some of my personal favorites from the list:
- Not using Flash for anything other than videos
- Giving simplicty and clarity top priority
- Not reinventing the wheel
You may not agree with everything on Ben’s list, but the idea is not just to yell at your client for “not getting it”, but to explain why you’re doing “it” that way. It strengthens the relationship you have with your client, and ensures clear communication pathways in between.
So many people admire Andy Rutledge and his insightful articles at Design View; but that seems to have changed overnight with his latest offering, USA.gov Redux.
It’s a thoughtful look into the redesign of the USA.gov website, but what has got people irked—primarily in 140 characters or less—is the deliberate sprinkling of provocative political views against Barack Obama and his brand of “Change”, from start to finish. It’s present even in the final mockup.
I’m not sure if the article was written in all seriousness, or hilarity, or satire, which makes me hesitant in even asking, was Andy right to mix design and politics in such a sour tone? We certainly have seen it work well in a hopeful context.
But we can’t try to pretend that design is pure and free from any sort of intent—whether at the hands of a designer manipulating the vision of his client into what he deems fit, or a designer who sees eye to eye with his client one-hundred percent. It seems the latter is impossible, but the former should not be laced with malicious agenda.
Will Harris shares some insight on working with designers. We often read about tips for designers by designers, but not tips for clients by clients. Still, both parties should read it (and print out the PDF, too!).
Designers (and professionals in related fields) will get great gems of advice that will make them go “oh, thank goodness he said that!” because it’s so common for clients to just sit there and say “I don’t like that” without giving any real reason behind their preference. A design project (again, this can apply to other fields) is the responsibility of both the designer and the client. They have to work together.
But let me digress a little bit. One thing that struck me while reading the article was Will’s first suggestion:
Choose your designer carefully. Look at their previous work. The best designers don’t have a “signature look.” Their sites look as different as their clients do. Awards don’t necessarily mean the design worked for the client. If you’re not sure about a design, go to sites they designed and ask their clients.
Do you agree that designers with more diverse-looking projects are better than those who maintain a signature look? On the one hand, it immediately leads a client into thinking that the designer has a wider skill set and can more easily meet their requirements especially if they’re fickle.
On the other hand, clients opt for designers with a consistent style exactly because they want to emulate that look on their own projects.
I think that in general, professionals start out not knowing exactly what they want to do, and try everything out first. As they grow older they start to specialize. As time passes, you’re supposed to be more sure of yourself and should be able to hold a distinguishable reputation among your peers. This can be said not only about the styles you create, but the skills you specialize in, the clientele you work with, and so on. I wouldn’t say this is the only way to go, but it seems to be the trend.
Tom Martin from Advertising Age has an excellent piece of advice for all the professionals out there:
Stop being hired by clients and start hiring them. Stop waiting to receive an RFP or mailing hundreds of clients four to six times a year to stay “top of mind.” Instead, pick the folks you really want to work with, regardless of how big they are or what agency they currently work with.
The author is a little more concrete in the next paragraph, but if you want a second opinion, try this on for size: The Secret to Landing Clients Nearly 100% of the Time.
This is just another facet of what seems to be terribly wrong with business, which shapes our cynicism and despair over what we are getting paid to do. I hope that for you, it started out as a job you would have loved to do for free.
I think adopting this mentality of hiring clients instead of getting hired has a something to do with fulfilling your goal of being your own boss. That phrase is said a lot when it comes to freelancing, but applies to the rest of the industry as well. Even larger companies start somewhere. Somewhere small, in which they often compromise their true worth just so they can earn something. Something that really isn’t enough.
Whether you work alone or in a group, whether you’re a big name in the business or just starting out, stick to your guns. If that client does not understand why they have to spend the right amount of money for their venture with you, make sure that before you drop them you’ve done all you can to explain the numbers.
But if this request for proposal hoopla is hurting your operating costs and, more importantly, preventing you from doing your actual job, ask yourself: are they worth it? Have they earned what it takes to be part of your portfolio? You’d want to be proud of every single project you’ve done, wouldn’t you?
A “website designed by…” link is like a Louis Vuitton monogram. It’s your brand. Let your clients wear it on their websites as proudly they would with a designer handbag.
Is this always true? What makes this practice highly recommended or downright tacky?
It depends. It always does.
Your brand should never hurt your creations, it should enhance them
I bumped into this post: You Will Never See “Designed by Atrick Design”. I totally respect everything he wrote there. And I am not going to say I am completely against it. In fact, I have avoided placing links, logos, and attribution for things I’ve done in the past. But some things struck me.
In Pat Dryburgh’s post, he points this out:
I will never let a “designed by” link do my marketing. I wouldn’t want to take that away from my clients.
A link does not have to be your only way of marketing. You can always do it at the same time you’re promoting yourself in the real world.
But what does that link take away from your clients? Why does does this awful perception exist? If you’re a good designer, (1) you will find a way to place your link so that it fits nicely into the design; and (2) visitors will consider it either convenient or eye candy.
more
