What you know

Some clients approach me saying that they want a website. Some say that they want a website that looks nice. Some say they want a website that performs functions x, y and z. Some say they want a website set in 12pt Verdana with a background that’s exactly this shade of green, on a 960 pixel grid. And written in PHP with a custom CMS, please.

There’s nothing wrong with any of these, although the last client always tends to give me pause, for reasons I’ll discuss at the end of the article. I like to think of hiring a web professional the way I would hire a contractor to work on my house. Because, really, that’s what you’re doing: you’re hiring a contractor to work on your digital house. Not all contractors are the same. They produce work of differing quality, in different styles and at different prices.

The problem for most home owners/clients is that the sheer number of choices is overwhelming; they don’t even know where to start. If you want a contractor for your house, there’s a very clear geographic constraint on the choice — the contractor must be in the same place as you, so they can come to your house to do the work. But with the web, that’s not true; we’re all just one e-mail away from each other. (6 degrees of separation? Hah!)

Who might you hire?

Chances are pretty good that you’re not the first business in your industry to have a website. They’re also pretty good that you’re not the first business of your size to have a website. So look at some of these other businesses on the web, and find out who did their sites. Most web pros will have some link to themselves somewhere on the sites they design, usually in the footer or on an “About” page.

Start building a list of potential contractors in this way. You can also do a Google local search to find web designers in your area. They have the advantage of being able to meet you face to face, which is something that I really like, although it’s not necessary.

You’ll very quickly end up with 10-20 potential site builders this way. Collect ‘em all.

Who do you like?

This is the most fun part of selecting a web designer: making a short list. Everybody’s a critic, and this is your chance. Start by browsing their web sites.

If their site is old, clunky or ugly, then maybe you should take them off the list. If they tend to make sites radically different from the kind of site you’re looking for, take them off. If their personal style doesn’t match up with your vision of your site, then perhaps they’re not right for you. Although be careful; some people have amazing ranges and can surprise you.

Many web pros have a blog. Read some of it. Do they seem like the kind of person you would want working for you?

After going through this, you should be down to some kind of a short list.

Your ideas

Note that, so far, I haven’t said much about refining the ideas for your site. That’s because you don’t need to do that alone. The analogy about hiring a contractor isn’t really appropriate anymore. Really, when you hire someone (or some company) to build your site, you’re hiring an architect and a contractor all at the same time. The architect will help you refine your vision when you’re deciding on the addition to your house; let the web professional do the same.

You shouldn’t refine your ideas alone. The best designs come from lots of interaction between the designer and the client.

Talk to them

Now we get down to the nitty gritty. E-mail or call every member of your short list, and make an appointment. Speak with them. Ask them about their process. How do they get you from where you are to having a completed site? How much feedback is there between them and you along the way? What does their process emphasize? How flexible is the process?

Although there are wrong answers to these questions, there aren’t any right answers. What’s important here is that the way they work fit with what you want. Personality is a big part of this. You have to be able to talk to your web pro, and you have to be able to trust that their process will produce the end result that you’re looking for.

Get a quote

This one speaks for itself. Get a quote. Find out what their pricing method is. Do they bill hourly? Is it a flat fee? What are the restrictions about changing details of the project mid-stream? What kind of timeline can they work with? Is the quote firm?

Again, there aren’t really right answers, although there can be wrong ones. Comparing quotes is very difficult, as they are frequently apples and oranges. Unfortunately I don’t really have any good advice here, except this: in the low range of web design, you almost always get what you pay for, but above that it’s a free-for-all, and price frequently bears little correlation to the quality of the finished product.

Be wary of hidden costs

Be careful about hidden costs. For example, all web sites need to be hosted somewhere. Does your web designer offer their own web hosting? Many do. If so, what do they charge? What does the charge include? You can easily price this against any web hosting company’s rates to see if what you’re paying is reasonable.

If they don’t offer hosting, will they set you up with a reputable web host? Will they charge you for that?

How does your site get updated? Will you be able to do it, without breaking anything? If not, how much will it cost you to make changes? Be wary of being nickel-and-dimed to death with site updates, especially when nickels cost $80 an hour.

Search engine optimization (SEO) is another favored charge. Some web pros won’t submit your new site to the search engines. Or they will charge you for it. Some will issue repeated charges for re-submission every few months. This is a very bad idea: once the search engines are aware of you, they will re-index your site regularly. Re-submission is usually grounds for removal of your site from their search results. There can be a wide variety of charges associated with SEO; make sure that they are legitimate and useful for you.

Choose someone!

By now you’re very well equipped to choose the best web designer for you. You know a lot about the people on your short list: you understand something about who they are, how they think and how they will approach your project. Weigh that against your budget, and make your choice.

Trust your designer

Once you have chosen a designer, don’t be afraid to trust them. If you don’t think you can trust them, don’t hire them.

If you know as much as your designer does about web technology, then hiring them is a bad idea; let them sort out the design and the tech. They know if PHP is the best technology for your site or not. Discuss it with them, but listen to what they have to say. After all, you hired them to be your web expert. As long as you have enough input in to the process, they should be trusted to make the best decisions for you. If they can’t, then you hired a bad web professional — fire them and get your money back.

With trust and confidence on both sides, you will end up with a site that you love.

Even though I’ve started a new job, which I love by the way, my freelance work continues. Last week I launched the newly redesigned Oregon Ki Society site, and it’s now in my portfolio. This one is particularly near and dear to my heart, as I began training Aikido with the OKS 11 years ago, and still train today.

To be honest, when I first saw their site in 1996 I wanted to get my hands on it to fix it up. Little did I know they would still be using the same site in 2007, when I was finally in a position to do something about it. The new site is crisp, clean and fresh with lots of strong photography. I’m also quite proud of that since I shot most of the photos.

The content is interesting, too; there are Ki Society dojos all over the world, and so there might be one near you. If there is, it’s worth checking out. The aikido training the Ki Society offers is unparalleled.

Although this page went live a little while ago, I’ve just gotten around to writing it up. A scientist at the University of Santa Barbara contacted me about making a professional page for her. I’ve added it to my portfolio. I’m particularly happy about the image at the bottom of the page behaves: use a big screen and make your browser window wide. Very wide.

I hope that the page will help Claudia advertise her work both to other scientists as well as to potential students and field assistants.

Their artistic sense really shines in public art projects, however — like architectural contests, creative painting of radar camera boxes, and generally constructing their public spaces well. What surprises me is when they go super modern and cutting edge. Take this toilet, for example.

The Swiss freakin’ rule.

Andrei Herasimchuk has just written an open letter to John Warnock at Adobe, suggesting that he, and really Adobe, contribute a small group of roughly 10 core fonts to the public domain. That’s not so cool. What’s cool is the rationale behind the request. If these fonts — fonts like Frutiger, Helvetica Neue and Warnock Pro — go public and are released in Windows and MacOS distributions, then web designers might be able to use more than FIVE fonts for designing web pages.

Given the technological limitations that web designers face, what with problems in cross-browser support for standards as well as requirements for testing sites on multiple platforms (mac, win, cell phones, screen readers), it would be nice if we got a break for once, and were able to expand our design options beyond Helvetica, Times, Trebuchet, Georgia and Verdana. As nice as those are, the inability to rely on any kind of typographical range is a real handicap. If you’ve ever wondered why many “Web 2.0″ sites look alike, look no further than the choice of 3 good sans-serif fonts that are truly avaliable cross-platform. Choice of fonts will allow our sites to have unique character and identity. Seriously — if Adobe released just 10 fonts in this manner, it would triple the number of available choices.

Mr. H, you have my support.

My current job is really the first time I’ve had to use Windows regularly since Windows for Workgroups 3.11. That’s way back in 1995 when Windows 95 was still vaporware, much like Vista is now. Isn’t it already 3 years overdue? Anyway, that’s not relevant to this discussion.

I’ve had many discussions with people over the years about the old Mac vs. Windows debate. I’m no rabid Mac advocate: it’s not the best solution for all people at all times. Hardcore Windows users frequently complain that on the Mac there is no Registry, that you can’t really configure hardware devices etc. I would argue that on the Mac you don’t have to. It’s convention over configuration.

When I first started using a Mac, I had many of the same misgivings. Where were the menus with the bazillion options to choose from? Why couldn’t I regulate every little detail of the interface? As I used my Mac more, I realized that I didn’t have to. The configuration options I wanted were absent, but the need for them was absent as well. And I say the MacOS is better off for it, because it lowers the barrier to entry.

I frequently think about interface design in terms of my mom. I know, a lot of people do this, but it works. My mom has fought with Windows for years: it doesn’t do things the way she wants. What she doesn’t realize is that she probably can make it work the way she wants it to, if only she knew how. And therein lies the problem. It’s too complicated to get Windows configured just so, and so most users end up just living with it. Why should a $300 piece of software just be “lived with?”

The MacOS takes a different approach. It comes with a working configuration that is easier to use than what you get with Windows, and with fewer options. This means that the application and system interface isn’t cluttered with 1001 widgets all of which let you configure system, and so all you see are the features you want access to. This seems to be the goal of the UI revisions in “Office 12,” but they still don’t seem to have figured it out. Too many options mean that most of them just don’t get used.

If the system has good conventions, or default options, then you don’t have to spend your time fighting with it, and it generally does 95% of the tasks that 95% of users need done without any hassle. This is true of the Mac OS, and it’s true of RoR. The main difference is that the RoR folks have made their goal explicit.

Accomplishing 95% of what I want to do easily: that’s design elegance.

</epiphany>