cost of web development

heggie · 08-01-2009 6:13pm

so does not developing a website to begin with!

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:15pm

heggie wrote: »

i'm not suggesting that, but imo places that offer their services on the various outsource websites are largely rubbish. BTW I have read the thread.

Can you show us an example of when you've seen it work?

Every single thread like this in the history of boards, not one person has ever shown a high quality website that was produced for peanuts, even after all their talk.

If you read the thread, you will see I link to a cheap web development company in the Ukraine who create very nice websites.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:16pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I posted a link to a company in an emerging economy who have a portfolio showing they are good web designers.

Yeah... but they're not.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I have little or no experience in what I'm talking about? I've been designing websites since 1995

Jeez, I'd really love to see some of them.

heggie · 08-01-2009 6:16pm

i saw a link, and... have a different opinion. If you read the thread, you would see the validation link Liam posted.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:19pm

smemon wrote: »

Outsourcing saves money - bottom line.

Can't argue with that. If you're the kind of person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing then I would definitely recommend outsourcing.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:21pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Yeah... but they're not.

I think we have different definitions of what is a good website.

I think it should be pretty and easy to use. If it works in all browsers, I don't care if it fails some validation tests - 99.999999% of web users would agree with me.

Maybe you make websites for other developers, but most people make websites for the end user.

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Jeez, I'd really love to see some of them.

I sold a bunch a few years ago for a lot of money. I'm currently working on a new site. I will PM you the link when it's done.

Liam Byrne · 08-01-2009 6:30pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm currently working on a new site. I will PM you the link when it's done.

You're working on it, or the outsourcers are ?

Because if it's one of your own that you developed, rather than outsourced, then while it might be nice to see it - it won't be relevant to this aspect of the discussion.

And it does beg the question why you bothered developing it yourself; there are loads of outsourcers who could have done it for you, and cheaper, e.g. http://e-design.com.ua/Default.aspx

Obviously, not having dealt with them and not knowing them, I can't say what they're like or recommend them, but someone did tell me that they're "excellent".

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:33pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think we have different definitions of what is a good website.

I think it should be pretty and easy to use. If it works in all browsers, I don't care if it fails some (???) validation tests - 99.999999% of web users would agree with me.

Maybe you make websites for other developers, but most people make websites for the end user.

Is that you're way of saying that you don't have a clue about standards and/or best practices or what benefits they offer you (not to mention your end users). You've been coding sites for 13 years. Sweet merciful McGilicuddy.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I sold a bunch a few years ago for a lot of money.

Yeah, and I'm in the process of smooching Jessica Alba as I type this reply. Elvis is in the corner of the room playing some romantic (albeit groovy) music to try and set the mood. Of course I can't prove any of this so you'll just have to take my word for it. But we're used to that on this thread, aren't we?

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:35pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're working on it, or the outsourcers are ?

Because if it's one of your own that you developed, rather than outsourced, then while it might be nice to see it - it won't be relevant to this aspect of the discussion.

I'm developing it.

As stated, I am an Irish web developer.

I'm not insecure about talking about outsourcing. I'm facing reality - it's here, it's not going away, it's cheap, it works.

Simple example, ING Bank (Dutch) outsourced their website to Poland: http://www.e-point.pl/u235/navi/29526

I'm guessing, for a serious website like a bank, they wouldn't have risked outsourcing to an emerging economy if there were many risks?

And how many Polish people speak Dutch?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And it does beg the question why you bothered developing it yourself; there are loads of outsourcers who could have done it for you, and cheaper, e.g. http://e-design.com.ua/Default.aspx

Liam, I'm finding some of your points a bit odd.

I like making websites. There are no rules which say everything must be outsourced.

I really think you've misunderstood my posts.

I am not saying outsource everything - I am saying consider it if budget is a factor.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Obviously, not having dealt with them and not knowing them, I can't say what they're like or recommend them, but someone did tell me that they're "excellent".

Again, you are taking the comment out of context. We were talking about their web design skills.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:39pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Is that you're way of saying that you don't have a clue about standards and/or best practices or what benefits they offer you (not to mention your end users). You've been coding sites for 13 years. Sweet merciful McGilicuddy.

This is silly now.

Of course standards are important, but they mean little to nearly everyone and should not be used to prove lovely websites are crap.

I understand you are very particular about web design, but please try to open your mind to the fact that your opinion is not necessarily the rule of web design.

The Mighty Ken wrote:

Yeah, and I'm in the process of smooching Jessica Alba as I type this reply. Elvis is in the corner of the room playing some romantic (albeit groovy) music to try and set the mood. Of course I can't prove any of this so you'll just have to take my word for it. But we're used to that on this thread, aren't we?

They were adult sites, with a few million unique visitors per week. Believe what you want, I really don't care.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:39pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Simple example, ING Bank (Dutch) outsourced their website to Poland: http://www.e-point.pl/u235/navi/29526

Hahaha. Someone lock this thread please. It's getting absurd.

ntlbell · 08-01-2009 6:42pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Is that you're way of saying that you don't have a clue about standards and/or best practices or what benefits they offer you (not to mention your end users). You've been coding sites for 13 years. Sweet merciful McGilicuddy.

I think if you look around Irish web design website portfolio's you will be very very very lucky if you come across designs that comply 100%

Even companies that use the web standards as there "unique" selling point I've ran checks on their own site and it didn't comply 100%

if the site works well across all platforms and browsers what's the problem?

In an ideal world all sites would be built to standards and ALL browsers would respect those standards but it's just not an ideal world..

I would hazard a guess that about 95% of the web isn't standard compliant.

it doesn't make it right but slamming someone who doesn't make sure every site he builds is 100% when his sites work in all browsers and are very usable is just nonsense.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:43pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

This is silly now.

Of course standards are important, but they mean little to nearly everyone and should not be used to prove lovely websites are crap.

They can certainly prove that badly designed sites are crap. But we should agree that design is subjective and stop rabbiting on about that. I have different expectations from professional Web designers than you do and we should leave it at that.

AARRRGH wrote: »

I understand you are very particular about web design, but please try to open your mind to the fact that your opinion is not necessarily the rule of web design.

Funnily enough, I was under the impression that standards were just that. Neither your opinion nor mine matters.

AARRRGH wrote: »

The were adult sites, with a few million unique visitors per week. Believe what you want, I really don't care.

Ah right, now I see what you mean by 'end user'.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:45pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Hahaha. Someone lock this thread please. It's getting absurd.

That is an outsourced website. Created in an emerging economy. (An expensive one, but it is still a successful example of outsourcing.)

I know you won't be able to accept this, so I know I am wasting my time trying to reason with you.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:45pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I think if you look around Irish web design website portfolio's you will be very very very lucky if you come across designs that comply 100%

I completely agree. As a result of hacks and what-not, many of my sites aren't 100% compliant either. Using the W3C validator is a totally brute force way of evaluating a website. However, whether a site validates fully or not, there's no excuse for crap code.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:46pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I think if you look around Irish web design website portfolio's you will be very very very lucky if you come across designs that comply 100%

Ken's own websites don't comply 100%.

He is totally deluded.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:47pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I know I am wasting my time trying to reason with you.

You are. There's so little substance to your argument that it's just not worthwhile anymore. Slan abhaile.

ntlbell · 08-01-2009 6:49pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

I completely agree. As a result of hacks and what-not, many of my sites aren't 100% compliant either. Using the W3C validator is a totally brute force way of evaluating a website. However, whether a site validates fully or not, there's no excuse for crap code.

but as you said not being compliant != crap code.

tricky D · 08-01-2009 6:52pm

Jeez, I hope you're not outsourcing your posts on boards and paying by volume....

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:52pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

You are. There's so little substance to your argument that it's just not worthwhile anymore. Slan abhaile.

Ken, I said outsourcing should be considered. You disagreed.

You then asked for an example of a company (in an emerging economy) who are good web designers.

I provided a link. You dismissed the link and asked for more evidence.

I have now provided an example of a bank's website being outsourced.

You dismissed that too.

For whatever reason, you refuse to accept outsourcing as a viable option. I suspect it is a combination of fear of outsourcing (it is a huge threat to your business) and an inabilty to accept you might be wrong.

You're just a waste of time really.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:53pm

ntlbell wrote: »

but as you said not being compliant != crap code.

Yeah, and I stand by that. But the site that AARRRGH posted earlier is an example of really crap code. Tonnes of simple validation errors, unclosed container divs, deprecated code, inaccessible code, div'itis and lack of semantics. It's a horror show.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 6:56pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ken, I said outsourcing should be considered. You disagreed.

You then asked for an example of a company (in an emerging economy) who are good web designers.

I provided a link. You dismissed the link and asked for more evidence.

I have now provided an example of a bank's website being outsourced.

You dismissed that too.

For whatever reason, you refuse to accept outsourcing as a viable option. I suspect it is a combination of fear of outsourcing (it is a huge threat to your business) and an inabilty to accept you might be wrong.

I never said it wasn't a viable option, I said that professional quality design is very hard to find when outsourcing to a cheap overseas company. You've proved this already by posting two appallingly designed and coded sites.

This level of quality may well be a viable option for many companies, particularly small businesses so I agree with you on that point. All I'm saying is that, in my eyes, the quality will almost always be relatively poor. That's all.

And enough of the personal attacks on me or my work unless you're prepared to reveal your own indentity. Debate the point all you want but don't be a coward.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 6:58pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Yeah, and I stand by that. But the site that AARRRGH posted earlier is an example of really crap code. Tonnes of simple validation errors, unclosed container divs, deprecated code, inaccessible code, div'itis and lack of semantics. It's a horror show.

Ken, will you step into reality for a second.

Nearly every single user of the Internet won't notice those errors. They make lovely websites at a much lower cost than expensive Ireland.

I know you think your opinion is the only opinion, but that's just weird.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 7:01pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

You're just a waste of time really.

Maybe so but I'm reasonably experienced and I know quality Web design when I see it. I'm not a designer myself so I have no agenda here by the way. As I already said, I'm open to outsourcing design work myself if someone can point me in the direction of a good overseas designer. I don't know how many times I have to say this to you but the message doesn't seem to be getting through at all.

You seem to be asserting that I can get professional grade Web creative done overseas on the cheap. I just want you to show me where! Now if you think that link you posted earlier consitutes quality design then I can safely say, you haven't a clue.

AARRRGH · 08-01-2009 7:02pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

I never said it wasn't a viable option, I said that professional quality design is very hard to find when outsourcing to a cheap overseas company. You've proved this already by posting two appallingly designed and coded sites.

Did you not bother looking at their portfolio...?

Some lovely stuff in there.

Considering you dismissed them immediately (how can you have looked at their portfolio that quickly?) I don't think you were ever willing to give them a chance.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

All I'm saying is that, in my eyes, the quality will almost always be relatively poor. That's all.

But Ken, their websites are nicer than your websites...

Get your own house in order before you start criticising the world.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And enough of the personal attacks on me or my work unless you're prepared to reveal your own indentity. Debate the point all you want but don't be a coward.

Ken, if you go on the attack, you have to expect people to check if you're as good as you say you are.

Btw, I'm Steve Ryan. Hello! I have nothing to hide.

/Gotta run now

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 7:04pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ken, will you step into reality for a second.

Nearly every single user of the Internet won't notice those errors. They make lovely websites at a much lower cost than expensive Ireland.

I know you think your opinion is the only opinion, but that's just weird.

I'll leave you to it once and for all mate. You haven't a clue.

Leitrim_Design · 08-01-2009 9:02pm

I am a graphic designer and I had to post after reading this thread. I have experienced outsourcing, I lost my job because of it! When the company I worked for lost one of their largest clients to an agency in Belarus they expected them to come running back with their tails between their legs. Well guess what that never happened and I was made redundant! A lot of people here seem to be in denial about how good some of our competition are. Forget about how cheap they are they are just as good as us. When you start believing your own hype you're finished. Thats the problem in Ireland we think we are better than everyone when in fact we are just a rip off. Look at Dell today!! I am leaving for oz in a few months so I am over it but people need to wake up and smell the coffee the game is over.

The Mighty Ken · 08-01-2009 9:05pm

Leitrim_Design wrote: »

I am a graphic designer and I had to post after reading this thread. I have experienced outsourcing, I lost my job because of it! When the company I worked for lost one of their largest clients to an agency in Belarus they expected them to come running back with their tails between their legs. Well guess what that never happened and I was made redundant! A lot of people here seem to be in denial about how good some of our competition are. Forget about how cheap they are they are just as good as us. When you start believing your own hype you're finished. Thats the problem in Ireland we think we are better than everyone when in fact we are just a rip off. Look at Dell today!! I am leaving for oz in a few months so I am over it but people need to wake up and smell the coffee the game is over.

Good first post. :pac:

conorgriff · 08-01-2009 11:49pm

Well everyone's been busy while I've been at work!

So skipping the argument about outsourcing etc. the general consensus seems to be that a CMS is overkill for what my friend needs to achieve. Time should be spent focusing on the image and message of the site rather than on the inner workings of the site. Since the content will be largely/completely static I share this opinion. Which leaves me with the following question.

If budget is a major concern, and I'm going to code the site for him with another friend of his providing graphics/images where necessary, I'd like to grab a design which looks understated, professional and clean. Possibly a template which may need some tinkering but which won't have me spending hours banging my head against an IE/CSS brick wall. I know throughout the thread ppl have posted links to sources of such stuff. I'll go trawling through it now, any further suggestions are welcome.

Thanks everyone.

Liam Byrne · 09-01-2009 12:02am

Best of luck with it, Conor.

And I'd agree - if there's only 3 or 4 pages and they're not going to be regularly updated, then a CMS is definitely overkill. In implementation time alone, the time spent doing a full CMS would easily cover a decent amount of updates using HTML & FTP.

cost of web development

Comments