13 weeks to build a website...??

[Hayles]

I've been speaking to a colleague today who was excited to tell me she's setting up an online shop to compliment her retail shop. She sells party stuff, gifts, cards, etc.

She's had some new business cards printed but said the website isn't up and running yet so not to link the site to mine just yet. I asked when it would be ready and she said the guy is building her a site "and as its called an ecommerce site" (!) it'll take 13 weeks for him to get the framework ready!? Then she says it'll take several months for her to list all the goods they have so it could be anything up to a year!!

I was so shocked I didn't know what to say. When I did politely say that 13 weeks is a very, very long time for an ecommerce site to be up and running she was quite defensive and it was clear I shouldn't say anymore. I really think someone is taking her for a ride, or blinding her with technical science, but she's happy with it.

13 weeks??

H

[HelenBuckley]

I agree. It should not take 13 weeks to build a website, unless she's been constantly changing her brief.

It sounds like the person she's using is taking advantage of her lack of knowledge. Do you know if she paid for the site in advance? If so, I think she ought to be a lot more worried.

I daren't ask how much this is going to cost.

[fastfences]

Hiya Hayles,
Classic case of someone seemingly taking the 'P'. Perhaps they have so much work on that they are only doing bits 'here and there.'

I'm sure many on here could turn it around well within 4 weeks, and offer an extremely good price.

cheers, Nigel

[Chris H]

If only all customers were like that!

As Helen says, probably using this a way to build their own knowledge of ecommerce sites. Not the way to do things.

[DotNetWebs]

I agree it does sound rather a long time but before jumping to too many conclusions I would ask her a couple of questions:

1. Did the designers say actually it would take them 13 weeks of work or is it possible that it would actually take them say, 1 week but they cannot start it for 3 months.? Good designers will probably (should?) have work booked in already and may not be able start straight away.

2. Is it a bespoke site or are they using open source code with templates etc.? Clearly a 100% bespoke, fully loaded, site will take a bit longer than a vanilla OS commerce site etc.

I currently only design 100% bespoke websites and am in the fortunate position of having work booked up many weeks in advance.

To be honest if someone came to me and asked for an ‘e-commerce’ site today I would not be able to deliver it for a couple of months unless I dropped something else. Fortunately all my clients are recommendations and usually prepared to wait. If someone is referred to me and I cannot meet their timescale then I would recommend they go elsewhere.

Regards

Dotty

[Steve Cool]

Hello

I don't think 13 weeks is excessive. Not if the company i am using is anything to go by.
Mine has been on the go for about that now, and hopfully within the next couple of weeks it will be live.

1)First of all i had the rep come and see me, (sales rep)
2)Then i went to see them. (sales rep/tour of offices)
3)I placed the order. (sales rep)
4)Had a design brief (sales rep)
5)Viewd Jpeg of designers interpretation of my ideas. (designer)
6)Met the disigner, tweeked layout etc, played with a few ideas (designer)
7)Sign off design layout
8)Off to the copy dept and SEO dept to refine my bad grammer and marketing spiel

this is where we are up to, after 3 mths....

I am from the school of thought that says if a trades man can start tomorrow and finish by weekend, i need to ask why????
The web company are going to display your company to the whole wide world, it takes time to get it right. If they are busy and this is how long it takes, so be it. They are busy for a reason.

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Steve

[adam1987]

How much is this costing ??

[Hayles]

Hi

Don't know the cost, but their current site (designed by same guy) is one page - and they were pleased with it. When I saw it I thought they'd done a freebie holding page themselves....

They won't keep changing the brief and the 13 weeks is the designers quote for the work on the actual site itself. I think the guy is learning ecommerce while building the site.

Nothing I can say though as they made it plain they thought this was the norm and were happy. I guess if they're happy....!?

H

[awebapart.com]

When hearing stories like this, and other recent stories like:

www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=28686 (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=28686)

it does make me despair. I'm shocked at how cavalier some people are with both their money and their trust. 13 weeks of actual work equates to:

£2,275 (if charging £5 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
£4,550 (if charging £10 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
£6,825 (if charging £15 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
£9,100 (if charging £20 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
£11,375 (if charging £25 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
£13,650 (if charging £30 per hour for a 13x35 hour week)
and so on...

Add to that VAT, (for every £1000 there's £175 extra in VAT), and its even more expensive. Then add to that professional web hosting costs (£100-£200 per annum, although these pale into insignificance compared with such ridiculous initial development costs)

Companies wanting advanced online shops for many products can be up and running with a professional, tried and tested, advanced online shop from EKMPowerstore.co.uk, easywebstore.co.uk, or awebapart.com within days for around £250 - £300 per annum.

There's also the risk factor involved with going the custom route, which hasn't been tried and tested before. If the supplier hasn't done this before then they have know idea of what they've let themselves in for, they simply don't know what they don't know, and there's the risk that the project will fail completely, or simply just wont work, or not be fit for purpose, and all of these potential outcomes may be at the client's expense.

If the supplier has only done static html websites in the past and is now attempting to create an advanced online shop from scratch (which involves many other skills like relational databases, server side programming, building dynamic database driven sites, content management, interactive baskets, integration with payment provider system) then the supplier will simply not succeed in creating an advanced online shop in that time, even a skilled supplier wouldn't be able to code a good system from scratch in that time (not one that competes with existing systems, however a clever skilled supplier wouldn't reinvent the wheel, they would spend the time customising an existing online shop system like osCommerce).

I do hope that the supplier is not writing a system from scratch. I hope for your friend's sake that the supplier is customising the right existing online shop system for that money. But even if this is the case, if the supplier hasn't customised an e-commerce system before, and has no server side programming or database skills then there is still a very good chance of either failure or a very bad system. An experience supplier could have done it in far less time. The topic of custom-built or customising existing e-commerce systems is also discussed in:
www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29170 (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29170)

I hope what we have here with the 13 week quote supplier is a supplier who means well and has good intentions, even if they are costing the client far more than necessary (perhaps due to ignorance of what's available on the market) and may ultimately end up with failure.

There is of course the other situation, where the supplier doesn't mean well and is just trying to bleed the client dry. This can happen if the supplier finds out how much money the client has available, and they miraculously base their quote on this or more, and try to make up work (with an overkill or inappropriate solution) up to this level, or simply pretend to work up to this level, rather than providing an honest quote for exactly how long it will take them to provide the system the client actually needs. Some suppliers do this, after all someone has got to pay for the supplier's plush offices, the staff pool table, the staff that dont actually work on the website (sales people, managers), and their extravagant lifestyle - but this is usually more commonplace with the design agencies who focus on larger wealthier clients.

[multilingual]

When hearing stories like this, and other recent stories it does make me despair.

Companies wanting advanced online shops for many products can be up and running with a professional, tried and tested, advanced online shop from EKMPowerstore.co.uk, easywebstore.co.uk, or awebapart.com within days for around £250 - £300 per annum.

Depends whether you want a website or whether you want a business.

You may be able to build a website in a couple of days, but you can't get a business up and running in a couple of days.

A 13 week 'build' time is too much, but a 13 week 'development' time is fine.

Let's not confuse the two.

JB

[Astaroth]

And 13 weeks does not necessarily mean that it is 65 man days of development either. For all we know they said they could squeeze her in and in reality they are only dedicating 13 man days of development spread over 13 weeks.

Saying that, our new section of website (that really does very little and isnt what we asked for) is now 18 months in development and whilst due for delivery in a few months is more likely to be delivered at the end of the year. You really dont want to know its cost but with no hardware purchases it is a 7 figure number and the first number isnt a low one.

[awebapart.com]

You may be able to build a website in a couple of days, but you can't get a business up and running in a couple of days.
You are right. To clarify, when I say up and running with a professional, tried and tested, advanced online shop within days, I do mean with an empty shop that may just have one or two products loaded, but with the system in place for the client to start uploading products/categories etc, and entering text for terms and faq pages etc, and linked to a payment provider like PayPal which can also be freely setup in a short timescale. If you already have your logo and colour scheme then it is possible to have your site branded within this timescale too.

Yes, at the end of these fews days all you have is an empty yet fully working online shop. But according to the original poster an empty shop is also what the supplier is aiming to deliver after 13 weeks.

If you have a few hundred products to add to your site then this will take time, you may not even have product photographs or descriptions at this stage so that is something to consider too. Even with all the material ready, it will take the store owner longer with some systems to upload the products because some systems are easier than others, especially if complicated product options are required.

It should be possible to get an empty but fully working online shop in days with EKMPowerShop and easywebstore. With our awebapart.com service we are currently talking around 10 days with our current schedule, but that's because we haven't fully launched our service yet, there is some automation still to add, and as such were not completely up to the setup speed of our competitors just yet.

[awebapart.com]

And 13 weeks does not necessarily mean that it is 65 man days of development either. For all we know they said they could squeeze her in and in reality they are only dedicating 13 man days of development spread over 13 weeks.
Understood. It could be a delivery date and the supplier just works a few days over that period. Equally it could be a delivery date and the supplier has a team of people working over that period and putting in 30 man weeks of effort.

I was assuming that it was 13 man weeks of effort, 1 guy working full time on it, since as the original poster stated: "the 13 weeks is the designers quote for the work on the actual site itself. I think the guy is learning ecommerce while building the site."

My company doesn't get involved with many bespoke projects nowadays, but when we do, we provide a fixed price total quote, e.g. £1500+VAT, we state when it will be delivered, e.g. 4 weeks time, and we state what the quote is based on, e.g. £1500+VAT total breaks down to 3 man-days development work at £300+VAT per day and 3 man-days graphic design work at £200+VAT per day. That way the client knows how much it costs, when they will get it, and how much work you are putting in to it. This may sound very simple and obvious but not everyone quotes like this, some will say it will cost you X and you will get it on day Y, but the client is never told how much time the supplier is actually going to spend on creating the deliverable. And that's still the good situation for the client, of using fixed price quote for delivering a defined system by a particular date. There's always the suppliers who just quote on a time and materials basis, placing all the risk with the client and bleeding them dry.

[awebapart.com]

Saying that, our new section of website (that really does very little and isnt what we asked for) is now 18 months in development and whilst due for delivery in a few months is more likely to be delivered at the end of the year. You really dont want to know its cost but with no hardware purchases it is a 7 figure number and the first number isnt a low one.
Yet another story that makes me despair. I'm very sorry to hear that.

[Astaroth]

Tell me about it.... it is all "funny money" as it is our internal IT department that is building it (though they have a fair number of contractors). What irritates me is that they charge us £480 per man day of build but then add a % cost on that for all other elements such as testing, project management etc. Most the percentages have a lower bound but no upper bound (though there is a guide). So change a system generated letter which due to our systems is actually very difficult to do and you get a build time of 10 man days and as testings minimum bound is 10% we get billed £480 simply for someone to hit the send button - user acceptance testing/ look and feel testing (inc spelling etc) isnt included in our IT spend.

The other annoyance is they add 5% for office management.... but hang on, we have 1 relationship manager, if we spend £1m on IT we pay 5% of that and get 1 relationship manager. If we spend £50m, on it we pay 50x the amount but still get 1 relationship manager - no matter how much we have ever spent they have never had to increase office space, brought in new programme office staff etc. GRRR

(apologies for turning this into a rant about IT providers :) )

[awebapart.com]

Ah, corporate IT spending, and IT supplier/department gone wild syndrome. I'm well aware of what goes on at this level, I used to work as a developer/designer at retail and investment banks and other large corporates in the city, in a 'previous life'.

For corporates, its a lot easier to spend money when it's not your money that you are spending. It's also a lot easier to know what cheap and understandable things like pens costs, but shy away from knowing how expensive and difficult to understand things like a corporate workflow system, or a marketing branding exercise, should cost. Which is why a big corporate will waste millions on IT and other areas, whilst trying to cut costs by placing a lock on the stationary cupboard. Sometimes just an injection of common sense is required, but it can be very difficult to do this to a corporate dinosaur.

A lot of people who start their own companies have originally worked for larger companies/corporates in the past. If this is the case, the worst mistake you make is to apply this same corporate spending, throwing money away, mentality to your own company.

I'm a lot happier now, providing value services for small business, and helping the business owners to avoid wasting their own hard-earned money.

[creospace]

Depends how much the budet is i mean if it's a 20 k job then that's reasonable but i some how think it's not ;)

[Richard Conyard]

It's interesting to hear the various viewpoints here and I guess we cater for a different market, but three months / 13 weeks I find normally is the length of time a medium sized project will normally take.

It's not 3 months dedicated (or charged for), but by the time people go through the feedback loop (on designs, wireframes, specification, HTML mock-ups etc.), and by the time the content usually arrives 3 months is not normally a bad rule of thumb. It's not what I would expect for an off the shelf solution (actinic, oscommerce, etc.), or a templated design though.

I realise the level at which most people get into e-commerce on here is at the dipping the toe in the water stage, and for that unless they are backlogged for 10+ weeks then 13 weeks does seem excessive. I guess it is all down to the scope of the project.

[DuaneJackson]

I'm with Richard on this. For us, 13 weeks is about right for a mid-level project. Again, that's totally bespoke, not an off-the-shelf customisation.

[SillyJokes]

I'm not surprised to hear 13 weeks for a bespoke job and I doubt it will have all the bells and whistles in that time.

Also to populate the databases and website itself properly will be a monster job.

Essentially, if it is a right good job and produces a class website, the investment will be returned. Simple. People spend far more time and money fitting out a high street shop and no one questions that.

I'm sick of seeing half arsed websites being presented and always the whining question, "Why won't it convert?" Simple - you get out what you put in.

[awebapart.com]

Yes it's OK for companies to say 13 weeks is the the typical size of our medium sized projects, but in isolation that doesn't mean much.

What a 'mid-sized' project doesn't define is what type of system could be delivered in that time. From scratch it should be possible to create a reasonable simple dynamic database driven site with content management in that time, it is also feasible to have a system with some e-commerce link so it could tick the e-commerce tick box.

It is not feasible however in 13 weeks to create from scratch a system that is an advanced online shop with the features of a professionally customised version of osCommerce, with advanced product options, stock control, multiple payment options, fulfilment, offers, price reductions, discount codes, etc. osCommerce and its contributions have man years of time invested in them, there is no way you can create something similar in 13 weeks.

If a client is crying out with the typical B2C advanced online shop requirements, the requirements that osCommerce is well suited to, then you could either embark on the 'reinventing the wheel' route and attempt and fail to create a similar system to osCommerce from scratch in that time, or you could go the professionally customised tried and tested osCommerce route and actually succeed in getting the job done sooner and cheaper. So it is possible for the client to get out more by paying less.

[da8iwr]

Depends whether you want a website or whether you want a business.

You may be able to build a website in a couple of days, but you can't get a business up and running in a couple of days.

A 13 week 'build' time is too much, but a 13 week 'development' time is fine.

Let's not confuse the two.

JB

Thats not true mate
www.spotontv.co.uk (http://www.spotontv.co.uk) i made this in 5 days for the client using Joomla and Virtuemart and charged them about £500 for it.

I made this in aprox 6hrs, using the clients design
http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden

The system is linked securely to HSBC payment gateway and took last month £38,000 in turnover with about 10% profit margin.

We used price runner and shopping.com as the marketing and advertising system, and it works perfect.

It only went live on December the 15th 2006 and the client filled all the shop up him self a few days before, and he is not computer literate at all.

Please tell her i will do it for £250 plus £20 per month, and i will have it live by the end of the week for her, or ill do it for free. If she doesn't like what i do for her, ill still do it for free and not charge her. here are a few i have done in the same way using the same system

http://www.entouragemodels.com/ (http://www.entouragemodels.com/)
That's a modeling site where I used Virtue mart as a catalogue for the models, only went live on Thursday evening.

http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden (http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden)
That design was supplied to me, so I didn't have the design options of it, but you can see it’s not bad, it only went live on my test account this morning so it’s very empty. This is what they had, which is using actinic and doesn’t work correctly http://www.shophomeandgarden.co.uk/acatalog/Furniture.html (http://www.shophomeandgarden.co.uk/acatalog/Furniture.html) (I never made this)

http://www.spot-ontv.co.uk/ (http://www.spot-ontv.co.uk/)
This guy makes a fortune out of this site, but spends just as much on price runner and other stuff.

http://www.gavinwebster.co.uk/ (http://www.gavinwebster.co.uk/)
The comedian who writes the jokes for VIZ, allows you to buy his CD with his VM shop.

No catches no snags.

Please don't take this as spamming, as of course I'm trying to find work, I'm self employed i need to pay my rent and keep my greedy bank manager happy, but I'm also trying to show what can be achieved and at what costs, to give you an idea of what you should be charged.

Any body saying it will take 13 weeks is being either extremely lazy or very very poor, in that way you need to think whats the security and quality going to be like?

If you were going to buy a car, you wont sit down and design and build the car from scratch (unless it was a hobby), you would walk into a dealer and buy one. Same goes for websites, unless there is a specific reason to make a bespoke system, why go to all that effort when there are so many amazing systems available for free with incredible amounts of support and backup?

Show your friend some of these systems i have above and tell her that this is what you can have and be ready in a few days, imagine all the sales and money you could earn in the time of this going live to however long it takes her to have the other made.

Ian

[UKSBD]

No disrespect.
I only spent a minute at 2 of your sites and they demonstrate the difference
between a proper website design company and someone who does a little bit of web design.

[Coding Monkey]

No disrespect.
I only spent a minute at 2 of your sites and they demonstrate the difference
between a proper website design company and someone who does a little bit of web design.

Agreed. As SillyJokes said, you get out what you put in.

[webit]

Also, to be fair - I wrote webit.net on my own - J2EE coding in my spare time and no frameworks or existing sites to base it on - it took over 18 months and I don't come cheep!

[Rob Holmes]

13 weeks isn't so bad - although I would expect she has seen a mockup of artwork for the index page and sub pages by now and the extra time is the coding of the cart etc?

Rob

[da8iwr]

The sites i have added on here are budget sites, not full bespoke sites.

I have been producing sites for 10yrs and do this full time and employ 7 people to help do it.

The questions within this post were talking about time scales and money and only ecommerce systems.

Here are a few sites i have produced with time and care and a little more budget to play with.

http://www.beyondleisureltd.com/
both sites have VR Tours, and a full bespoke cms system built by our selves to allow the client to change info.

http://www.quicktimevirtualreality.com/
This is out own portfolio photography site, which has taken years to build up, but at the moment are rebuilding it using a CMS system to allow much more control and have members only sections.

http://www.dancevenue.nl/
A company in the Netherlands commissioned this to be designed and produced in Joomla, which we did.

http://www.justorganizeyourstuff.com/
An ENORMOUS site commissioned by a design company in Florida, for a client just out side of Washington.

www.subzeroiceart.com (http://www.subzeroiceart.com)
Ice sculpting company in the north east which i helped set up financially as a silent partner.
(I'm changing servers at the moment so it is not live, but will be in a few hours)

There is a huge difference between budget sitres built to do a job as efficviently and as qickly as possible, and websites that have been commissioned with quality rather than money as a concern.

But even so, the Sub zero site took about 3 weeks and has a full shopping system for logged in members and a further 2 weeks for a high quality award winning brochure. And the beyond sites took about 1 month including the bespoke ASP content management system. Some sites i have made are ongoing with a monthly cost, so many more hours will be spent.

All i was trying to do is show you can make a secure website with full CMS control for very little money and anymore money you have after that is a bonus and will of course improve the site.

Ian

[darren atkinson]

da8iwr: Hope you don't take offence to this, but this is the 3rd post of yours I have seen in the last couple of days listing lots of url's you have worked on.

I can only speak for myself but it seems like blatent self advertising to me.

There are many, many web designers and developers on this forum and it would be a complete pain in the ass if we all listed as many url's as you do everytime a questions is asked.

The forum 'gods' let us put links in our signatures. The way I see it is if somebody is interested in my services then they can follow that link, rather than me ramming my services in peoples faces all the time.

Regards,

Darren

[openmind]

Thats not true mate
www.spotontv.co.uk (http://www.spotontv.co.uk) i made this in 5 days for the client using Joomla and Virtuemart and charged them about £500 for it.

I made this in aprox 6hrs, using the clients design
http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden

The system is linked securely to HSBC payment gateway and took last month £38,000 in turnover with about 10% profit margin.

We used price runner and shopping.com as the marketing and advertising system, and it works perfect.

It only went live on December the 15th 2006 and the client filled all the shop up him self a few days before, and he is not computer literate at all.



Sorry but I'm lost. How can a site with very few products, little or no descriptions e.g. http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=2&category_id=2&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=27
no returns/about/contact information and a basic design be turning over £38K???

[jopassmore]

As other people have said, it depends if he means it will take 13 weeks, or whether he can't start it for 12 weeks and then it will take a week.

I am doing an online shop for someone at the moment, simple design, with it's own shopping cart that I have written already for a similar site. Links to paypal for payment. I have given the customer a 2 week time scale and I am doing it in evenings and a couple of mornings. So, full time it would probably take less than a week.

Having said that, I have so much work on at the moment that I tell any new customers I can't start their jobs until March. They could tell someone therefore that their site is going to take 13 weeks to be complete, but that is not strictly true is it?

Jo

[da8iwr]

Sorry but I'm lost. How can a site with very few products, little or no descriptions e.g. http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=2&category_id=2&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=27 (http://www.newworlddesigns.co.uk/homeandgarden/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=2&category_id=2&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=27)
No returns/about/contact information and a basic design be turning over £38K???

Sorry about that, it was supposed to be directed at the spotontv link, as I moved the text around after and forgot to move that bit as well.

da8iwr: Hope you don't take offence to this, but this is the 3rd post of yours I have seen in the last couple of days listing lots of url's you have worked on.

I honestly don't intend this as spamming, I am just trying to show that some sites can have medium quality ability, not a low cost junk site, but at a very low cost, allowing people who are new to the industry to see what can be done and at what budget.

Sorry if I offended anybody, as that wasn't my intention.

But going back to the question, about 13 weeks, yes your right Jo, 13 weeks would be OK if there was a lead time, like most design companies/individuals have. I wonder if that is the case.

A new client of mine owns a shop and he employed a guy specifically to make and look after their new website. The new employee spent 26 weeks building the site from scratch, but it still wasn't finished then, so he sacked the guy and asked for one of our budget ones, which he still uses today.

Bespoke systems have their time and place, and building a system from scratch makes perfect sense to somebody that needs a tailored site for a specific job, but if your simply going to be selling products on line, then I don't see how a 13 week wait and a bespoke system would be a financial or a business benefit?

Ian

[openmind]

Sorry about that, it was supposed to be directed at the spotontv link, as I moved the text around after and forgot to move that bit as well.


Ah OK, that makes a bit more sense now :)

[puresilva]

It's difficult to say if this is a commensurate amount of time without knowing the details of the project. As a customer, I'd be angry if they produced a modded OScommerce template after 13 weeks; that's if I knew it was one. :)

An experienced developer will have modules already coded that can be 'bespoked'; this saves development and testing time. Occasionally new modules have to be created from scratch to meet the exact requirements of the project.

13 weeks is way too short to build a feature-rich e-commerce website from scratch. It's also about 12 weeks too long for picking a template off a shelf and tweaking the design.

[charlesqin22]

13 weeks? It is normal with UK efficiency!

I am a Chinese businessman in Beijing,China.I worked with my UK partners many times.I find that many UK business people are working at a very slow pace. I had everything ready for them,but they did not give a reply for months.They have missed lots of chances from me.

Last Aug.I set up my own business website in only one week in China and it is running very well with some 200 clicks daily.

Come to me if the lady wants her website up and running sooner with a China Sister website.

Welcome to my website 3w dot partyapartyb dot com

Charles Qin

[da8iwr]

I have been contacted by somebody who i used to go to Uni with many years ago, who owns a software development company now called DPI vision in Newcastle. He released sometime ago a shopping system called Trading Eye, which was in cold fusion. But now he has totally rebuilt it from the ground up in php and MySQL.

This is a full commercial system (not open source), which is fully W3 AAA compliant, which he believes is the only one on the market to be this good (and Ive looked and cant find anything else), it has a link system for Sage, so it will auto update your own accounts, and has Froogle export system, allowing people to upload on the fly their own products straight into Froogle. It also has an eBay module, which allows people to link in with eBay and your own shop.

http://www.tradingeye.com/products/tradingeye_shop_pro/comparison_chart/
The system I'm talking about is the Shop Pro, which includes the full CMS as standard.

He charges £299 to developers which includes the 50% developer discount, and it is a full commercial feature rich product with support, all built by hand, and no open source.

Its 100% skinnable using CSS and XHTML, which all web designers know (well the ones that are any good at least), it even comes with about 6 samples to play with which you can download from their support section of their site.

I cant think of anything that you will need extra than what this has, i will be using it on a client next week as a tester and will be using this over virtuemart and Osc if i find no problems, which i don't expect any at all.

But as it is there baby, and not a cobbled together open source product, you can ask for modifications to suit clients requests, and they will be able to do it, at a cost of course. But this means you have the knowledge you can offer anything with no worry about a not being able to do it.

Just an idea for all you guys out there, and i would like to see a local relatively new company doing well at the same time.

Ian

[Pelenna]

Hi,
As a relatively inexperienced user I found EKMpowershop perfect for my needs - I now have a fully stocked, fully functional website capable of taking credit cards, and all my products can be uploaded to froogle. This all took me about 3 months altogether, and although it may not be as flexible as a fully bespoke one - I totally appreciate other businesses needs for web designers, and after doing this, I totally respect good web designers! - I do find it perfect as I like to be very hands on and in control.
13 weeks just to do the website with no uploading of products seems a long time for something that sounded in the original post to be needing something similar to what I have. I stand corrected though if the 13 weeks is delivery time rather than development time, as others have suggested.

[da8iwr]

Hi Pelanna
But you must admit, that most of your 13 weeks was probably uploading products and configuring the site, rather than building it.

Most sites whether commercial or open-source (unless your going to build it from the ground up for what ever reason they can find to do that) take a very short period of time to integrate a design and make live, a week at the absolute most. But stocking it up can take a team of people an ice age.

Imagine how many man hours have been spent on something like 7dayshop.com or FalconComputers.co.uk

Thousands of products each with images, delivery info, costs and alternative products which will take for ever to upload and set up, as I'm sure you found with your site.

Ps Pellana
My Mum is a seamstress and owns a haberdashery shop, i spent 20 yrs living around cotton, and sewing machines, hope everything is going well for you, its one industry that technology hasn't really affected much, as we all need clothes :)

[ChrisMono]

I can do webdesign and programming but i dont do it for a living.. and this is my quote:

install script and configure settings: 5 hours.
design: 1-2 weeks if custom
list products: around 300-500 a week.

13 weeks is a joke

[Drew]

If in 13weeks there was immense sustainabilityin what was created, then there would be no complaints from me. I think there are seemingly so many people saying just do blah blah blah and you will have this result. I know it takes hard work and discipline to accomplish any meaningful endeavor:D
But off top 13 weeks just sounds long it is really just like 90plus days

Drew

[SpeedyExpressCouriers]

13 weeks for an e-commerce website is too too tooooo long, pm me and I would get you in touch with our web developer. Check out our website and let us know what you think? It took just over one week to develope.

[Richard Conyard]

13 weeks for an e-commerce website is too too tooooo long, pm me and I would get you in touch with our web developer. Check out our website and let us know what you think? It took just over one week to develope.

It seems this is the thread that will never die... However and with apologies to Naz since his is the last posting lets see what one week gets (I am going to leave off subjective parts like styling etc. since everyone has different tastes).


The first page fails validation on 60 points ( http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.softwarems.co.uk%2F
There are no header tags (simple SEO help)
The source is constructed so that on a product description page the first piece of product content is on line 313 (windows vista home basic)
Accessing top navigation relies on JavaScript - although I do see for Google (which doesn't use JavaScript for navigation), you have a product map
You have broken images in various places on the site (search)
Content is often the same or at least very similar to other sites when it comes to products, there are some products that have escape characters "\" coming through in the description.


I'm not going to go into any more because it is unfair and there is only so much time I'd want to spend on it.

What it comes down to is how much is your website worth to your business? It is possible to get something out in a week, there are plenty of sites all around the net which prove this, conversely there are also sites that have been built and evolved over years.

If you're looking to be doing six figures a month through a site then it's unlikely that the necessary time and spend getting the site going will be a week and a few hundred pounds; you might as well spend your money on magic beans. However if you expectations are to do a few hundred pounds a month there is little point in spending thousands and weeks on development.

If you have or are looking to get a website done then you shouldn't consider it a weird and wonderful panacea, it is part of your business and should be treated as such with sound business sense.

[da8iwr]

Richard Conyard, your right about the stuff on your review of the site above.

The reason why it is so poor and failed on so much (I'm sure you know this, just outlining for others) is because the system that softwarems use is just the standard oscommerce, or one of its sisters, IE zencart.

take a look at
http://www.softwarems.co.uk/
and then the demo form oscommerce
http://demo.oscommerce.com/
there are also a few others i know of that use it
http://www.falconcomputers.co.uk/
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=777

You can see they all look very similar to the standard install. The only real difference between osc and softwarems is that the header has been changed, and the category headers have been changed, oh and the width has been restricted to a set pixel rather than 100%.

Its to be honestly about 30-60 Min's worth of work, including installation.

Osc is supposed to be a set up that is a used as a base, not the whole product. You can completely tailor Osc to any design and code layout you wish.

So can Virtuemart, which is much better for the code aspect.

[Reef]

We build ecommerce sites and there is no way it should take 13 weeks. Has this company got any previous experiance at ecommerce?? and why can she not get all of her products on in one go?? If she had an editable solution she could have access to her site any time she wanted, to add, edit or remove text and images. I think she needs to ask the developer to justify what is being done and how much time is allocated to each process.

[creospace]

Well 4 weeks have passed since this thread started (can't believe it's still going) the site must be nearly finished now :)

G

[Richard Conyard]

We build ecommerce sites and there is no way it should take 13 weeks.

Any you'd like to put forward for review... I thought I was being unfair to Naz, but if people are adamant that sites shouldn't take 13 weeks to do and a fantastic job could be done in much less time...

[Kelly @ Shop4thelot]

Depends on the site and how many products are going to be on there etc. It took months to build shop4 and subcon.

[awebapart.com]

The first page fails validation on 60 points ( http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.softwarems.co.uk%2F (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.softwarems.co.uk%2F)

I cannot believe the amount of scaremongering that goes on with regards to this issue. Let's put things into perspective, the online w3 validator is not a potential customer visiting an e-commerce site, real people with real browsers, coming in from real marketing (local/national marketing or search engines) are the potential customers and it is more important that the site works in their browsers rather than validates to some online robot. If real people only visited sites that were w3 valid, then amazon, lastminute, ebay, and pcworld wouldn't sell anything:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.lastminute.ie (failed 191 points)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.amazon.co.uk (failed 1004 points)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.ebay.co.uk (failed 218 points)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.pcworld.co.uk (failed 208 points)

and we wouldn't be having this discussion on this site:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk (failed 38 points)

Website standards validation is important, but it is one of many factors that are equally or more important when running a business, money usually being one of the top priorities. If there was a definite proven financial benefit of having a standards validated site, then I'm sure the big sites would have done this by now as a top priority.

No sites, even the ones with years and millions invested in them, are perfect. You can only hope to get the best system you can, according to the priorities you value, for the money you can afford, and continually aim to improve the site as you go depending on what your priorities are.

[Kelly @ Shop4thelot]

Just been looking at some of those and I am very suprised on how many errors there are for such big name companies.

[creospace]

.... "well we can do a shoddy coding version for 30% less , does that sound better"?

I won't cut standards to cut costs.

The big boys don't need compliancy they have a the name, is that right? No but they wont change so there's little point bringing them into this argument really.

[creospace]

Here is an idiots guide to css, tabless layouts and why compliancy etc, stick with it it's long but very easy to follow:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

[Richard Conyard]

I cannot believe the amount of scaremongering that goes on with regards to this issue. Let's put things into perspective, the online w3 validator is not a potential customer visiting an e-commerce site, real people with real browsers, coming in from real marketing (local/national marketing or search engines) are the potential customers and it is more important that the site works in their browsers rather than validates to some online robot.

I agree it is not the be all and end all of putting a site together, but...

if i wer ta post a mesage lik this then wot kinda mesage wuld i be puttin out my company


As more and more technology starts to interact with web pages to glean useful information and enhance user experience compliant code will become more important. Also as browsers evolve there is from all parties (including MS), a general shift towards the W3 recommendations, and non-standard code is more likely to break.

It is also a question of a craftsman and his tools. If you're not prepared to do a job properly then why do it? And can someone that really doesn't care if they use the tools properly really call themselves a professional? You are right though most sites have errors somewhere in them especially when they grow and a few here and there aren't the end of the world if they slip out - but when discovered should be fixed.

No sites, even the ones with years and millions invested in them, are perfect.

Actually I have one here: www.awebapart.com - passes HTML 4.01 validation without any faults.

This does beat ours: www.redantdesign.com - where there is one error in one of the 50 odd pages.

[awebapart.com]

Here is an idiots guide to css, tabless layouts and why compliancy etc, stick with it it's long but very easy to follow:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
and here is a link to an article which shows what can happen if you develop your sites at the bleeding edge of standards compliancy, rather than taking the cautious approach of relying on slightly older tried and tested technology:

www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/ (http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/)

There are arguments for and against each approach. Generally the move is towards the newer standards approach, even those using the older HTML technologies would agree with that (including the osCommerce developers who are working on osCommerce v3 XHTML), the only thing that is usually different with people's viewpoints are the priority, time, and speed at which the move is made and how close to the bleeding edge you should be.

"No sites, even the ones with years and millions invested in them, are perfect."

Actually I have one here: www.awebapart.com (http://www.awebapart.com/) - passes HTML 4.01 validation without any faults.

This does beat ours: www.redantdesign.com (http://www.redantdesign.com/) - where there is one error in one of the 50 odd pages.
Thank you Richard. When I was talking about perfect I meant perfect in all the factors that should be considered, not just standards, and our coming soon page is far from perfect! (The real site is coming in the next few days). We are working towards getting our sitebuilder and our customised version of osCommerce to output HTML 4.01 valid code before our sitebuilder launch but we're not there yet, we had other higher priority things to do first.

[apeebles]

Often we create websites which take 3 - 6 months. However we are not actually designing and building in all that time. Ie. We may submit visuals and they will go back and forth until they are finalised. This can cause a huge delay especially when you consider that the actual build may only be a couple of weeks.

[Richard Conyard]

and here is a link to an article which shows what can happen if you develop your sites at the bleeding edge of standards
compliancy, rather than taking the cautious approach of relying on slightly older tried and tested technology:
www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/ (http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/)

Two bits, being HTML compliant is hardly a bleeding edge standard - HTML 4.01 was released 18th December 1997 - nearly 10 years ago.

The second concerning the reg article it is important to know what standards they are talking about. As in all technology there are a number of standards that are in place, the (x)HTML validation didn't have that great an effect in the switch between IE6 and IE7 when compared against CSS-P / tableless design, the reason for the problem stemming from trouble with IE6 CSS render which have been fixed (although not all - damned box model), in IE7. I personally would disagree with them that it would have made fixes harder in any case.

[Richard Conyard]

Often we create websites which take 3 - 6 months. However we are not actually designing and building in all that time. Ie. We may submit visuals and they will go back and forth until they are finalised.

And you can see the improvement in quality, look and feel of work as a result - QED.

[creospace]

www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/ (http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/)

Easy, you do a ie7 fix css file normally it's only a couple of bugs/exceptions per job but the fact is I take the time to do it.

IE7 might cause the problem but all the moaning in the world isn't going to make those problems go away and the client certianly isn't interested.

Why not go the extra mile, give the latest standard compliant site knowing that you've put hte effort in to make it work in all browsers?

Like the article that i left says tables were never designed for layouts and the border=0 came along and changed all that :)

G

[Fit To Defend]

I've been speaking to a colleague today who was excited to tell me she's setting up an online shop to compliment her retail shop. She sells party stuff, gifts, cards, etc.

She's had some new business cards printed but said the website isn't up and running yet so not to link the site to mine just yet. I asked when it would be ready and she said the guy is building her a site "and as its called an ecommerce site" (!) it'll take 13 weeks for him to get the framework ready!? Then she says it'll take several months for her to list all the goods they have so it could be anything up to a year!!

I was so shocked I didn't know what to say. When I did politely say that 13 weeks is a very, very long time for an ecommerce site to be up and running she was quite defensive and it was clear I shouldn't say anymore. I really think someone is taking her for a ride, or blinding her with technical science, but she's happy with it.

13 weeks??

H
That is a vv long time to set up an e commerce site..do you know who the Devs are?

[awebapart.com]

Two bits, being HTML compliant is hardly a bleeding edge standard - HTML 4.01 was released 18th December 1997 - nearly 10 years ago.
The second concerning the reg article it is important to know what standards they are talking about.
I was not referring to HTML 4.01 standards as bleeding edge, I was referring to the newer standards that the article mentioned had the issues with IE7, that is the latest XHTML CSS table-less design standards-based approach.

.... "well we can do a shoddy coding version for 30% less , does that sound better"?
I won't cut standards to cut costs.
Having a validated standards compliant website does not mean that there is no shoddy coding in the system whatsoever. The standards compliant validator only looks at the external aspect of your website, the browser code the website sends out to the visitor's browser to be rendered, not even all of that since it does not comment on the quality of the browser Javascript code (which could have its own Javascript errors in it). A standards compliant validated site can also still be a shoddy site.

For most advanced systems what the validator passes judgement on is merely the tip of the iceberg of the full system, a cosmetic layer, especially in complex database-driven systems like advanced e-commerce systems or content management systems. A validator does not check nor give any seal of approval to any of the server side code, nor its design.

People should not be under the illusion that a validated standards compliant website means that the system as a whole is of a high quality. It could be a good indicator that a supplier takes care in everything they do, but on the other hand it could also mean that either 1. they use it as the main test of the quality of their system since customers can be impressed and fooled into thinking that it means more than it does (especially with the amount of scaremongering and misinformation that goes on), 2. they are too standards compliant focused, wanting to be at the bleeding edge, and spend too much time on this aspect of their system (which is the tip of the iceberg of the overall system) to the detriment of other areas of the system.

Whilst we are on the subject of tips of icebergs, the validator also does not validate all of the pages of your site, just the ones you give it one page at a time, so a site that has the validator icon on its home page or whose home page validates, should not be used by the client as an indicator that all the pages of the website the supplier has created are valid. Some pages of your site you may not be able to provide a link for the validator (e.g. session based e-commerce basket pages, or pages beyond login screens) in which case you have to view source and copy and paste this into the validator site's form. In other cases with dynamic database driven systems, the content might affect the validity of some pages, especially if WYSIWYG text editing or other formatting tags are supported in the content editor screen, so testing essentially the same page with different content should be done too. So it can be quite difficult for a client to fully test a site for standards validation.

"http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/"

Easy, you do a ie7 fix css file normally it's only a couple of bugs/exceptions per job but the fact is I take the time to do it.

IE7 might cause the problem but all the moaning in the world isn't going to make those problems go away and the client certianly isn't interested.

Why not go the extra mile, give the latest standard compliant site knowing that you've put hte effort in to make it work in all browsers?

So last year you spent the extra time and effort to create a bleeding edge XHTML/CSS/table-less design website that is the latest standards compliant and valid, which is supposed to give you confidence that it will work in all browsers and is future-proof, then along comes a new browser IE7, and your bleeding edge standards compliant cross-browser future-proofed website doesn't work correctly in this new browser, resulting in you having to put in a fix. This is one of the risks of being too close to the bleeding edge, as the companies in the article found out.

You can see they all look very similar to the standard install. The only real difference between osc and softwarems is that the header has been changed, and the category headers have been changed, oh and the width has been restricted to a set pixel rather than 100%.

Its to be honestly about 30-60 Min's worth of work, including installation.

Osc is supposed to be a set up that is a used as a base, not the whole product. You can completely tailor Osc to any design and code layout you wish.
30-60 minutes work perhaps if they are installing their custom version of osCommerce, which they improved earlier, but I would say that they've put in quite a bit of effort earlier to improve the default osCommerce to create their custom version. At a quick glance I can see they have installed an autothumbnailing contribution, which is important and is not a simple installation. That site is more than 30-60 minutes away from a default osCommerce installation. Now perhaps the suppliers could have spent the time making the site validate rather than spending time putting in autothumbnailing, but an osCommerce site without autothumbnailing is shoddy even if it is standards compliant and validated.

As you say, osCommerce is supposed to be used as a base, and then tailored, and tailoring can include making the system standards compliant if you wish, for instance we are getting there (aiming for HTML 4.01 transitional compliance before launch) with our custom version of osCommerce which we embed as part of the shop section in our sitebuilder sites, e.g. a recent forthcoming site:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.kidschildrensclothes.co.uk/shop/index.php/cPath/24
but we're not there completely yet. We are not doing this because we think that having a validated standards compliant site is the most important aspect of creating a site, it is just one factor to weigh up and consider (and to some extent if we don't do it then we and our client's sites will be criticised by the standards envangelists/scaremongers).

[creospace]

For most advanced systems what the validator passes judgement on is merely the tip of the iceberg of the full system, a cosmetic layer, especially in complex database-driven systems like advanced e-commerce systems or content management systems. A validator does not check nor give any seal of approval to any of the server side code, nor its design.

No it doesn't but then it's not there to do that, server side code wither works or it doesn't, it's not relevant at all to this debate over standards server side provides functionality and in most cases generates the html code dynamically that makes the sites.

Whilst we are on the subject of tips of icebergs, the validator also does not validate all of the pages of your site, just the ones you give it one page at a time, so a site that has the validator icon on its home page or whose home page validates, should not be used by the client as an indicator that all the pages of the website the supplier has created are valid. Some pages of your site you may not be able to provide a link for the validator

Again true but a client can check all the pages if they wish and I like most developers use Firefox validator plug-in to check all pages as I go along and correct any errors :) Clients can do the same if they wish, or they can just hire the developer based on past testimonial and good old fashioned trust that he/she does what he/she says they do!

People should not be under the illusion that a validated standards compliant website means that the system as a whole is of a high quality. It could be a good indicator that a supplier takes care in everything they do, but on the other hand it could also mean that either 1. they use it as the main test of the quality of their system since customers can be impressed and fooled into thinking that it means more than it does (especially with the amount of scaremongering and misinformation that goes on), 2. they are too standards compliant focused, wanting to be at the bleeding edge, and spend too much time on this aspect of their system (which is the tip of the iceberg of the overall system) to the detriment of other areas of the system.

Remember this is not 'Bleeding edge' this is a standard to be compliant, anything else is below the standard. It's nothing clever or special it's just the standard, the mark etc

So last year you spent the extra time and effort to create a bleeding edge XHTML/CSS/table-less design website that is the latest standards compliant and valid, which is supposed to give you confidence that it will work in all browsers and is future-proof, then along comes a new browser IE7, and your bleeding edge standards compliant cross-browser future-proofed website doesn't work correctly in this new browser, resulting in you having to put in a fix. This is one of the risks of being too close to the bleeding edge, as the companies in the article found out.

IE7 was out last year, the site in question was developed with it in mind, it's called making the effort to give 100% quality to my customers (no egotistical plug meant)

[puresilva]

A lot of developers get obsessed with standards compliancy to the detriment of common sense. Web development is a holistic approach. It's about usability, accessibility, seo, content-management, good solid hosting etc. There's a lot of emphasis currently on standards compliancy often to the complete exclusion of other important factors I've just mentioned.

Even before all that, the client needs a solid business plan. Do they know their market? Have they got market space? (how niche is their service/products?), are they willing to spend either time or money on a good solid SEO campaign after the site launches? Do they have an intrinsic interest in the service they provide/product they sell?

A successful website consists of a number of these factors working together.

Sure, you can supply these perfect CSS XHTML 'containers' to your clients - but so what? They are useless without so many other factors (i.e. web development is a holistic practice).

As a few have mentioned here, adhering to the latest standards means you accept your site will be continually 'broken' by newer versions of browsers. To me, it is too great a cost in time to be obsessed by this. It's better to focus on the bottom line of the customers - giving them the means to have a site that is usable, accessible, on-page optimised, reliably hosted etc - and what I would call 'robustly valid' - renders as it should in all the popular browsers, can be navigated easily without a mouse, good alt text on images, and the content is semantically laid out (unique HTML titles, H1 tags etc). In other words, getting the basics right.

I've seen sites that are 'bleeding edge' - CSS XHTML, validated - then I see they use Web 2.0 features that break when you disable javascript - they don't degrade at all - they break. Can someone tell me - what's the point in obsessing about tableless design, validation etc when your site breaks when you disable javascript? This is just one example.

Also accessibility is very much wrapped up in the content itself. If your target market is a Japanese market, yet your site is in English, your site is largely inaccessible to your target market. It's an extreme example, but often website owners are terrible at communicating their message across to their audience. Accessibility isn't just a 'physical' aspect of browser rendering and good degradable functionality - it's about the content too.

[creospace]

A lot of developers get obsessed with standards compliancy to the detriment of common sense. Web development is a holistic approach. It's about usability, accessibility, seo, content-management, good solid hosting etc. There's a lot of emphasis currently on standards compliancy often to the complete exclusion of other important factors I've just mentioned.

Couldn't agree more, but if compliancy is missing then it's not holistic :)

I don't much like the insinuation that because at the moment i'm (or anyone else for that matter) beating the drum of compliancy i'm 'obsessed' or 'not holistic' in my approach to design & development. Be careful with gross generalisations.

As a few have mentioned here, adhering to the latest standards means you accept your site will be continually 'broken' by newer versions of browsers. To me, it is too great a cost in time to be obsessed by this. It's better to focus on the bottom line of the customers - giving them the means to have a site that is usable, accessible, on-page optimised, reliably hosted etc - and what I would call 'robustly valid' - renders as it should in all the popular browsers, can be navigated easily without a mouse, good alt text on images, and the content is semantically laid out (unique HTML titles, H1 tags etc). In other words, getting the basics right.

i don't buy the continually broken by new browsers thing IE7 is the exception that proves the rule it is now much more compliant than it ever was as a result of sooo many web developers *****ing about its non compliance and layout wierdness putting IE aside look at opera, firefox, safari do layouts break between versions


I've seen sites that are 'bleeding edge' - CSS XHTML, validated - then I see they use Web 2.0 features that break when you disable javascript - they don't degrade at all - they break. Can someone tell me - what's the point in obsessing about tableless design, validation etc when your site breaks when you disable javascript? This is just one example.

Don't switch it off then :) If you're using a web 2.0 site you should be using Javascript, web 2.0 being a future looking practice needs javascript. They are like peas and carrots that's the point.

[puresilva]

Couldn't agree more, but if compliancy is missing then it's not holistic

I agree, this is what holistic means - taking everything into account. This means also not forgetting the other aspects of web development or diminishing their importance.

I don't much like the insinuation that because at the moment i'm (or anyone else for that matter) beating the drum of compliancy i'm 'obsessed' or 'not holistic' in my approach to design & development. Be careful with gross generalisations.

This is just an observation I've had. I can name 5 developers off the top of my head (and I'm not naming names) who actually prefix 'CSS XHTML...' to their website products. This is where I'm coming from.

i don't buy the continually broken by new browsers thing IE7 is the exception that proves the rule it is now much more compliant than it ever was as a result of sooo many web developers *****ing about its non compliance and layout wierdness putting IE aside look at opera, firefox, safari do layouts break between versions

I take your own point to be extreme when you say 'either it's compliant or it isn't'. I see compliancy as one component of accessibility, and accessibility itself is a continuum. And you don't get an accessible website just from a page with green text that greets you when you validate your mark-up.

Don't switch it off then :) If you're using a web 2.0 site you should be using Javascript, web 2.0 being a future looking practice needs javascript. They are like peas and carrots that's the point.

You can have a Web 2.0 application that degrades so it still performs the same functions - this is all part of accessibility. Most people don't know they're on a web 2.0 site, let alone how to switch on (or off) javascript in their browser. My point is that it shouldn't matter - the site should still be functional with or without javascript.

[awebapart.com]

Easy, you do a ie7 fix css file normally it's only a couple of bugs/exceptions per job but the fact is I take the time to do it.
...
Remember this is not 'Bleeding edge' this is a standard to be compliant, anything else is below the standard. It's nothing clever or special it's just the standard, the mark etc
...
IE7 was out last year, the site in question was developed with it in mind, it's called making the effort to give 100% quality to my customers (no egotistical plug meant)
As I mentioned before, my comment about bleeding edge standards refers to the latest standards for XHTML/CSS/table-less-for-layout design. I do not consider being HTML 4.01 standards compliant as being bleeding edge, that is merely being HTML 4.01 standards compliant.

If you are designing sites the bleeding edge way, XHTML/CSS/table-less design, and if you end up setting up special cases for each browser/version still within a standards frameworks, I would argue that whilst it may validate and be standards compliant, it is still not truly 'standard' (one standard source that works on all browsers) and therefore this approach is not open to - and the approach should not be sold as having - the benefits of future proofing that standards are supposed to bring.

[Richard Conyard]

As I mentioned before, my comment about bleeding edge standards refers to the latest standards for XHTML/CSS/table-less-for-layout design. I do not consider being HTML 4.01 standards compliant as being bleeding edge, that is merely being HTML 4.01 standards compliant.


XHTML 1.0 became a recommendation 26 January 2000 - revised 1 August 2002
CSS 1 became a recommendation 17 December 1996
Table-less design has been possible for ages, however the principle site that most people take their first step from http://www.csszengarden.com/ has been available for at least 4 years


Basically I can't see any of these technologies being bleeding edge. Not everyone uses them, and not everyone is aware of them, but they are the standards by which good quality sites should be at least founded on.



If you are designing sites the bleeding edge way, XHTML/CSS/table-less design, and if you end up setting up special cases for each browser/version still within a standards frameworks, I would argue that whilst it may validate and be standards compliant, it is still not truly 'standard' (one standard source that works on all browsers) and therefore this approach is not open to - and the approach should not be sold as having - the benefits of future proofing that standards are supposed to bring.

A couple of things, a) it's not always necessary to produce special cases - those that are required are becoming fewer and fewer since b) the programmers of browsers are increasingly adhering to the same standards and have made a commitment to increased adoption in future releases.

And you don't get an accessible website just from a page with green text that greets you when you validate your mark-up.

Agreed, however the point was about HTML compliance not accessibility (the original site was also pretty awful on accessibility). In regards to accessible web design, this is another standard for which at least in WCAG 1 one of the checkpoints was that valid (x)HTML was produced.

[awebapart.com]

"bleeding edge"

XHTML 1.0 became a recommendation 26 January 2000 - revised 1 August 2002
CSS 1 became a recommendation 17 December 1996
Table-less design has been possible for ages, however the principle site that most people take their first step from http://www.csszengarden.com/ has been available for at least 4 yearsBasically I can't see any of these technologies being bleeding edge. Not everyone uses them, and not everyone is aware of them, but they are the standards by which good quality sites should be at least founded on."


Thanks for the history lesson. The Bleeding edge technique I refer to is the combination of all 3, which has, as you say, got more popular over the last few years.

Bleeding edge isn't a matter of how old the latest thing is, it's a matter of whether you can still get hurt, or 'bleed', by using that thing due to it not being fully supported, fully mature, or still having issues that need addressing, and as the regdeveloper article demonstrated, http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/10/31/ie7_causes_site_problems/, there were companies and websites that did get hurt and did bleed using this bleeding edge approach in October 2006 when IE7 was released.

[ken_uk]

Any update on how it went in the end? Did the site get completed, is there a link to it (or did I miss one in the thread?) so we can see the finnished result of the 13 weeks.

Did anyone find out if the 13 weeks was full time dev work, or part time, or included lead time. Also, was it customised existing package or totaly bespoke?

[RedEvo]

Safe to assume we won't be given that information.

d

[awebapart.com]

Yes it would be interesting to get a project postmortem on OP's (Hayles/RedKiwi) friend's project - don't forget, the original post for this now resurrected topic was back in January.

A postmortem doesn't necessarily mean that the project died a death, you can have postmortems on successful projects too. A project postmortem is where you look back with hindsight and say this is what we did right, this is what we did wrong, this is what we would do different if we could do it again. This kind of information does help other businesses looking to do the same thing.

My interactive media company (http://www.abstractworlds.com) used to be in the games business and a very interesting read for us was the postmortems on game projects by other games developers (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/article_display.php?category=5).

[Comspec]

Jeez Hayles - what did you start? ;) :)

The way I would be looking at it would be.....

This lady (Hayles friend) wants an ecommerce solution for her 'Party Stuff, Cards, etc' - now I don't see that as a major design headache for anyone. Is she actually launching something really big - I think not, she just wants something she can sell her wares via.

She has two simple choices - either to take a sitebuilder solution on and get it up and going in a couple of weeks, or to get a bespoke ecommerce solution put together. Even the bespoke one should not be that complicated - once the shopping cart, etc have been decided on and added.

If this guy has told her 13 weeks - then it may well be that he has a lot of work on (always a good sign) and he is being realistic in his timescale. If not, and he is charging her a major amount of money - then I would be asking some more questions as to what I was getting for my money & expect a well-documented brief (which I could then use to batter him over the head if I didn't like it).

I think that the best thing to do here is to ask the lady what exactly she is getting, plus how much she is paying for it roughly. An idea of what her own expectations are and her budget - then look to what her options are.

Web sites are great and can be wide-reaching - but like my own PC solutions - should suit the use now (and future) and most definitely the budget of the user.

Mark

[kris]

13 week to built a site a full E-Commerce website seems okay to me.
my designs took 4 months to fully complete my site and they uploaded all products and sorted the custom built pc section out, and secured the online payment gateway checkout, with protx.

I know my site is not full with flash & java baners etc, i wanted to to come up with a very basic site which is easy to use. also to keep the cost down.

Also i got 2 days training on how to update or change the site in any way.

does she get any training in the package? from my own experience it takes time for my to update the site and get it right, and it's a bit boring aswell. it's best for her to have a back ground on how the site is been design and what e-commerce software is capable of doing.

Thanks

Chris Richardon
Rtek North
rteknorth.co.uk

[Page]

I suspect she has gone and we will never know. Shame really.

She should however probably have gone with someone like intelligent retail who have a system that merges web site sales with POS in a shop - and it was always built to do this.

That said - from what she sells - and we don't have much of a description -my guess is that other than a basic website to direct people towards her shop - show opening hours etc - it was proabably a waste of money.

To readily available and low value. Might just work if he/she was really on the ball and going to devote the hours.

Just another new ship sailing out on the great blue www that will one day sink without trace or slowly rust away.

[Hayles]

Good grief!!

It was only a question.... many months ago... :)

Anyway, I've just checked the site and no, it's not finished :( I don't know the ins and outs of what was agreed so can't really comment.

Interesting topic though obviously!

Will update you when I speak to friend in near future.

H

[RayB]

I cant believe this thread is about time "13 weeks blah blah"

The ONLY thing that is relevant is the ROI as benchmarked against the original business plan.

(please say there was one!)

I'm with sillyjokes on this - she always speaks sense on ecommerce.

What I spent on my site is irrelevant, how long it took is irrelevant, what is it worth? (offers under three quarters of a million will be laughed at)

Now, if the question is one of being ripped off - that is different - (but the business plan should have avoided this)