What to charge for web development

[RingOfFlame]

You can check out my side line here DorsetWebDesigns Generally £50 per page with a minimum of £500 for a site.

 

Your site does not validate. Not a good start.

[CSNM-Carl]

Do you have the skills to develop software? Are you going to design your programming language from scratch or are you just going to use an off the shelf solution like Visual Studio?

 

Nope, I'm not a developer.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with off the shelf products, but lots of people claim to be "web designers" when they simply upload Joomla and a theme.

[CSNM-Carl]

Im not using joomla, doing pretty much all by code and a bit of dreamweaver to save time doing the javascripting stuff like roll over buttons. I am also designing a new logo for the school. They asked me what my hourly rate was and i said that much (just of the top of my head) and they agreed, asked how long it would take so i said at top wack the 150 hours, knowing full well it wouldn't take that long, but i am not going to rip them off, my mate works there, they had a quote from another company which was lots of money more then that ph! She rang me and i said i would do it for 22.50 and they agreed, as was the cheapest option for all of them and they liked the look of websites i had done before, also I could add extra options in there for them like the self submitting Contact form, the other companies they had quotes from would not do it how they wanted it to do.

 

Toby

 

Sorry, it seems my post came across the wrong way. I'm not in anyway suggesting you are going to rip them off.

 

Good luck with it and don't forgot to show us the finished site.

[ICT_GUY]

Your site does not validate. Not a good start.

 

Neither does CNN.com and their budgets are a lot bigger than mine.

 

And please dont get me started on Edugeek 19 errors for my site compared to a whopping 87 errors for edugeek with 28 Warnings !

Edited February 24, 2010 by ICT_GUY

[Jamo]

I think something that a lot of places forget is that once the site is made how do you keep it running. I have not come across anything which is as simple to teach as Joomla and yet people still seem to be reinventing the wheel.

 

I find it hard to believe they couldn't find anyone who would do it cheaper than £3000, we have only been looking for a little bit and have already had quotes for 1/6th that!!!

[glennda]

Neither does CNN.com and their budgets are a lot bigger than mine.

 

And please dont get me started on Edugeek 19 errors for my site compared to a whopping 87 errors for edugeek with 28 Warnings !

 

the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing and it was saying the last > was wrong!

 

@Carl

 

if they decide they need a new host i will give u a PM! no offence taken, im not complaining about being paid that much!

 

its going to top of the travelling fund nicely!! 7 months in the sun!!

[ICT_GUY]

the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing and it was saying the last > was wrong!

 

@Carl

 

if they decide they need a new host i will give u a PM! no offence taken, im not complaining about being paid that much!

 

its going to top of the travelling fund nicely!! 7 months in the sun!!

 

Yes I checked the code on my site that it was flagging up as wrong. Mainly stuff like clickable headings ect. Centred headings also are not liked.

[torledo]

The same thing happens in other areas thought take solicitors they often use standard letters just changing the details around but still charge the same as if they prepared everything from scratch.

 

absolutely spot on. The rewording thing i've seen done as the solicitor was sitting in front of me....but at that fortunately i wasn't paying

 

But don't even get me started on solicitors, the most recent solicitor i went to felt like he got ME to do most of the running around while he charged an arm and a leg for typing up a couple of letters.

 

I think what's also crazy now is how little solicitors get in some areas of legal work on a legal aid basis vs their private work counterparts doing the same work to similar standards.

 

but hey 'working smarter rather than harder'.... It's the only way to get on i guess. For as long as there are people there to cough up!!!

[srochford]

the error detectors are rubbish, i was testing mine the other day, and when it was testing it was saying errors on > all over the place, when you looked at them there where correct so showing and it was saying the last > was wrong!

 

 

Not sure what you're using to test but if the validator at The W3C Markup Validation Service says your web page is wrong then it is wrong!

 

HTML has a (fairly!) simple set of rules and W3C kind of knows what those rules are. What can cause problems is that an error on one line may not be picked up (eg a missing end tag) which makes it look as if it's the next line that's wrong.

 

The point is that HTML should be parsed by browsers in the same way; if the validator site can't make sense of your page then neither will the browser.

 

Of course, whether it matters that you're not following the rules is another issue. For a school website I'd hope that valid HTML was used - it makes it more likely that screen readers will work as will the variety of browsers that people could use. For a company intranet you might choose to accept that there are errors because you're going to insist your users work with IE7 and you know that the errors don't matter on that browser.

[somabc]

Not sure what you're using to test but if the validator at The W3C Markup Validation Service says your web page is wrong then it is wrong!

 

HTML has a (fairly!) simple set of rules and W3C kind of knows what those rules are. What can cause problems is that an error on one line may not be picked up (eg a missing end tag) which makes it look as if it's the next line that's wrong.

 

The point is that HTML should be parsed by browsers in the same way; if the validator site can't make sense of your page then neither will the browser.

 

Of course, whether it matters that you're not following the rules is another issue. For a school website I'd hope that valid HTML was used - it makes it more likely that screen readers will work as will the variety of browsers that people could use. For a company intranet you might choose to accept that there are errors because you're going to insist your users work with IE7 and you know that the errors don't matter on that browser.

 

Ahem! [invalid] Markup Validation of http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator

 

148 Errors, 35 warning(s)

[webman]

Just because everyone else doesn't make sure their websites validate properly - that makes it OK?

[ICT_GUY]

Just because everyone else doesn't make sure their websites validate properly - that makes it OK?

 

The point that was being made with a sledge hammer was that when RingOfFlame went a trolling by saying that "Your site does not validate. Not a good start." and so inferring my web design skillz were somehow inferior with just 19 errors is that is pretty hard to get a site to validate, so hard in fact that the validation site fails spectacularly with 148 errors.

Edited February 24, 2010 by ICT_GUY

[srochford]

Ahem! [invalid] Markup Validation of http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator

 

148 Errors, 35 warning(s)

 

I don't write that website - I just moan at the people who do :-)

 

Actually, this is (apparently) all down to Oracle and the web systems they supply - if anyone was thinking of buying a web site based on Oracle Portal I'd guess it makes sense to look at their website first - [invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/portal/index.html - W3C Markup Validator with 91 errors and 25 warnings.

 

Validation for the last website I wrote says ""This document was successfully checked as XHTML 1.0 Strict!""

 

[Valid] Markup Validation of http://techinfo.cnwl.ac.uk/ - W3C Markup Validator

[glennda]

I'm sure he could make it validate, and then he could sell it for twice that amount, I expect.

 

W3C is over-rated in my opinion.

 

A very high % of web sites that don't validate work completely without any issue at all in the vast majority of browsers. It's a complete waste of time and effort to get 100% validation; nice as it is, it is in actual fact predominantly pointless.

 

I've just tested a web site I am 'developing', and it fails on 12 points. However, I have tested the site on EVERY major browser there is, on Windows, Mac and Ubuntu platforms. The site displays flawlessly. The site is also being created in Joomla, and thus far has had no manual input into the code. So, in essence, Joomla has in actual fact failed.

 

WTF would I waste time cleaning it up? Because I have a conscience?

 

Get real.

 

alot of browsers these days correct the code anyway if it finds a problem and can work out what its ment to say, so as long as its not a major error then it should be okay!!

[srochford]

a lot of browsers these days correct the code anyway if it finds a problem and can work out what its meant to say, so as long as it's not a major error then it should be okay!!

 

The idea ought to be that a good browser will try to cope with anything thrown at it but a good web designer will try and only use good code - you've then got a better chance of the browser rendering what you intended.

 

The rules for constructing HTML are very clear and there are many tools available which will flag errors as you write the code and help to correct them (eg even the free version of MS Web Developer Express - http://www.microsoft.com/express/Web/) and it seems a shame that people say "rules don't matter"

 

I'd guess ignoring rules like this is just another example of David Cameron's "Broken Britain" :-)

[powdarrmonkey]

I wasn't actually aware that there were "rules" regarding HTML - there may be 'standards', and the W3C consortium publishes guidelines, but there aren't any rules, per se.

 

If you mean laws enforced in a court, of course not; if you mean rules, they are part of the standard. When you claim to adhere to the standard, you are asserting that you followed the rules in it, otherwise standards are useless.

 

I don't quite see the correlation between HTML standards and Cameron's alleged 'broken Britain' however. Are you suggesting that because a web site I may develop doesn't meet W3C standards, that I am also therefore responsible for the decline of our social communities?

 

No, he's talking about a general attitude of "I got close, that's good enough", whereas you are pursuing argumentum ad ridiculum.

Edited February 25, 2010 by powdarrmonkey

[dayzd]

The idea ought to be that a good browser will try to cope with anything thrown at it but a good web designer will try and only use good code - you've then got a better chance of the browser rendering what you intended.

And (just to throw in my 2 pence - I'm late to this party, as usual) if you stick to the standards and validate as much as possible, you've got a better chance your site will continue to work properly in the future, as browsers update and more devices become web-enabled (like phones and other mobile devices). This saves you going back and reviewing your designs, and also keeps your client(s) happy, as their page won't suddenly 'break' overnight.

 

Other arguments for standards and validation are accessibility and SEO. (In fact, they go hand in hand: High Accessibility Is Effective Search Engine Optimization.)

 

Screen readers for visually impared users all 'read' pages in slightly different ways and by providing a standards-compliant page, you increase the probability that it'll read it the way you intended.

 

SEO benefits from standards and semantic layout, as search engines read your page like a screen reader and will weight your document more accurately if it is easy to understand and laid out logically (main content is obvious, headings and subheadings properly arranged etc).

 

 

That's just my 2 pence though. If you're working for a client who doesn't specify they want their pages to validate, and you feel you don't have the time/budget to make it do so, it's up to you whether you want to go to those lengths or not. IMHO, if you keep standards in mind as you code, there's often very little to do to make a page validate.

Edited February 25, 2010 by dayzd
Additional SEO point made

[localzuk]

If you mean laws enforced in a court, of course not; if you mean rules, they are part of the standard. When you claim to adhere to the standard, you are asserting that you followed the rules in it, otherwise standards are useless.

 

Although, technically, if you don't comply with the standards, the organisation and the developer could end up in bother with the disability discrimination laws in the UK.

[ICT_GUY]

I should point out that some of the standards broken I have no intention of fixing.

 

Links wrapped round some headings for one. It does not meet the standard but it works in all browsers and achieves something that I want. (this accounts for a fair proportion of the errors in fact).

 

And the clincher?

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

 

Even the most high profile American website fairs worse than me. Is it about time to get of that high horse and climb back under the bridge.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ICT_GUY

[powdarrmonkey]

Even the most high profile American website fairs worse than me. Is it about time to get of that high horse and climb back under the bridge.

 

"Your honour, you should let me off because him over there, he mugged someone with a gun and I only used a knife."

 

Yes, a ridiculous analogy, but that's what you're saying. And since I've made my point, I'm done here.

[Little-Miss]

How come when one person turns up a friendly thread about what to charge for a website turn nasty!!

[localzuk]

How come when one person turns up a friendly thread about what to charge for a website turn nasty!!

 

Seems to be linked to a certain user who likes to rustle up trouble.

 

However, on the original post, I would say you have 2 ways of doing it - a flat rate 'package' price, or an hourly rate.

 

This would have to be gauged carefully though, as different customers want different things (obviously).

 

For a school website, done by a professional company, I've been quoted ~£2.5k and above. So, depending on what you want to do, you could charge £1000 for a decent site, based on an existing CMS with a custom template and with you providing initial population of pages. Or, you could charge £20 an hour, providing a minimum hours etc...

 

Whatever you do, don't charge too little - you should be paid properly for your work.

[powdarrmonkey]

I also suggest you make sure both parties are absolutely clear on what's going to be done, and have it set down in writing. I've spoken to many, many people who were taken for a ride by companies or individuals who expected a lot and bullied them into delivering it (the guilt factor, "you said you would but you haven't" is a classic).

[localzuk]

I also suggest you make sure both parties are absolutely clear on what's going to be done, and have it set down in writing. I've spoken to many, many people who were taken for a ride by companies or individuals who expected a lot and bullied them into delivering it (the guilt factor, "you said you would but you haven't" is a classic).

 

I can't say 'yes!' more to this! When you're starting out, everything MUST be defined as to what is expected from both parties.

 

Otherwise you end up with the client expecting you to make changes ad-infinitum at no charge, or you get delayed due to the client not providing you with information you need and expecting you to sit and wait without any pay.

[powdarrmonkey]

Otherwise you end up with the client expecting you to make changes ad-infinitum at no charge

 

Oh, this is also one that's got me before: when you're done, change any passwords you've set to random values, and formally issue them to the client along with confirmation of any that they gave you, and make sure they know you have destroyed all records of them. This serves two purposes: you can't be accused of changing things after the event (for example, when there's a Joomla security notice in a year's time and the site is vandalised as a result), and when you're asked to make changes you do can't anyway.