what to do with a employee who wants to change everything in the website?

[ACTIONpack]

Been designing this website for almost a year. Was about to finish it. Just need to get the content and everything would be done, just some minor changes. Now they higher a editor or something. But someone who just don't know how website designing. First she thinks a major change can be done in an hour. Told her that it does not work that. I can design something in illustrator in an hour and code it out an a few hours. Just does nt work that way. She has finally word one everything now and my input had become secondary.

what should I do? I have 8 years of website making and more people who loom at my work love it. Just feel like this is not worth doing it anymore.

A simple website has become a major pain in the ass.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Yes and no. They hire to design, not change their property around....it is one thing putting a restroom that is accessable to everyone, it is another putting the restroom in the middle of the floor with glass walls because it looks better and everyone can appreciate the artistry of your restroom....which one would get you terminated?

Totally agree. I should refresh the page before i reply!

With regards to the logo, this is my biggest bugbear. Especially when you're handed a s**** clip art thing and you're expected to design a beautiful site around it. It's at this point when you've got to be honest and let them know and try to sell them a new logo. But if they have a decent logo then and they want to use it, then no matter how much you may hate it, that's their brand and that's what you are going to end up having to use.

Although in regards to the 'rest room' example above. If you hired a professional architect to remodel your building, they wouldn't do this, as neither would a professional designer.

[ACTIONpack]

Well, aesthetics is always a tough argument but you still don't 'own' the art or pick the overall style. More importantly though, you still aren't the architect. Its a subtle but important distinction. They didn't hire you to create a workflow, they hired you to implement a work flow in a pleasing, functional manner.

The look and style was already finish.

[svnO.o]

Yes and no. They hire to design, not change their property around....it is one thing putting a restroom that is accessable to everyone, it is another putting the restroom in the middle of the floor with glass walls because it looks better and everyone can appreciate the artistry of your restroom....which one would get you terminated? Just because you can design it right, doesn't mean that it is in the best interest of the company.

Agreed. Also my last job doing contract web development with a web design company their philosophy was this: the client is always right. They are the ones paying for your service so while you can make suggestions, their decision is ultimately what you gotta stick with whether you like it or not. The customer always comes first. The web design company I was working with had over 200 clients following this philosophy.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Well, aesthetics is always a tough argument but you still don't 'own' the art or pick the overall style. More importantly though, you still aren't the architect. Its a subtle but important distinction. They didn't hire you to create a workflow, they hired you to implement a work flow in a pleasing, functional manner.

As a professional designer you very much pick the style. If you're a professional web designer, as i am, you work with the client from wire-frames to production site working from the basics of colour pallets through to work flow and UX paradigms,

A common problem in the industry is clients assuming they know best because they have two eyes and apparently that's enough for them to know everything. A good designer should be allowed to continue with the job following the clients brief but not have the job dictated to them, just like a good architect should follow the brief but not be told to remove a structural wall because the client thinks it'll be better without.

[MikeChipshop Member]

It also depends what area you were hired for. If the brief was to knock something out as they pleased, and i've done my fair share of this rubbish, then that's fair enough but if you're hired to start fresh then they have hired you for your expertise and if they choose to ignore that then that's their 'expensive' problem.

Forgot to say though, lovely design. Top notch.

[MikeChipshop Member]

First she thinks a major change can be done in an hour.

Ha that .does make my blood boil and it happens all to often.

That and the famous line "I've no idea how this is done but it'll be easy for you and shouldn't take you more than an hour" they then proceed to list a weeks worth of changes and then are shocked when you quote them for the weeks work haha

[sc302 Veteran]

Although in regards to the 'rest room' example above. If you hired a professional architect to remodel your building, they wouldn't do this, as neither would a professional designer.

Don't be so sure

[Praetor]

^^^wtf that's horrible; who wants to see if someone is taking a dump or not?

nice site, i liked but there's some design issues with it (Firefox 20.0.1 here).

About the client issue: do you have a working contract? Or some documentation (like emails) detailing all the tasks that need to be done, schedules and costs? Design (and it's web variant) in a professional way is no way different from other professions; you and the client agree to a stipulation and terms and work on from that. The client wants to make changes? Sure, if that's part of the agreement. The client wants to change the whole concept / make radically commits half way through the project (or worse, in the end) with no viable excuse? It's the same as building a house and in the middle / end of the project the client changes so much the original project that it will require to destroy what's build so far to start a new one. Technically that's possible but it's viable? The client can support the costs? Is it aware that it will cost allot more?

So... like i asked: do you have a document clarifying the project? If yes then use it as your defense, but be open to some (and if possible) changes; if no then it started bad to begin with and the solution can be pricey for you (more work hours in the same project without any new gains), your client (a never ending project) or both (going to burn the work relation).

I've had a few share clients like this one and the Oatmeal explained very well how it could go to hell very quickly if there's no tight control to the project; unfortunately in this day everybody thinks that they know how to design and code, even with no formal background, making their ignorant opinions a fact and having low respect for those that actually know their stuff. The best way to deal with clients like this is to detail the project by written: how much it will cost for every phase of the project, how much time every phase will take, the amount of changes that every phase can support and so on. So if the client starts deviating from the project and asks ridiculous changes (that deviates from the project) you can show him the project he agreed on, explaining to him that big changes costs big bucks: that would put you and the client on good terms, not in a position that one has more control than the other.

Also use tight but realistic schedules; the more something takes, the more are the chances that the client will ask for a revision because they saw something cool / heard a new feature / whatever.

just to finish: i've had a client (when i started to work, so i was pretty naive) that clearly didn't knew nothing about web design, coding and project management; that client asked me to design and code a website to sell their products. It should had ring a bell to me when one the the business owners said that he wanted a website like Vodaphone had (at the time Vodaphone had a minimalistic designed portal) because it looked like a very simple website to make (never mind that Vodaphone had a freaking portal...) with the least of costs whenever possible. An ignorant opinion based on crap.

Anyways i started to design something (according to what they asked) and after three weeks and more than 10 revisions to the original designs i had made, i had to fire the client because the amount of new stuff they were asking everyday was insane, regardless if it was viable or not. Again, i was pretty naive at the time (should "educated" that client). Oh and i never got paid for those :rofl:

Some months passed and i was talking with a friend CEO of a IT shop when one of that client business owners walked out of that shop; i asked my friend whats up with that and he told me that he just made that clients website for more than 10k: it was a simple php CMS and a template he bought a couple days ago; i asked how about the stuff that client wanted in the website and he said to me "that would cost them 5k per change outside the project" :woot: . Moral of the story: if the client is ignorant, educate him; if he still doesn't learn, charge him: that would make him learn pretty fast. :laugh:

[Growled Member]

Unfortunately it sounds like she is the boss now. Find out what she wants and do it.

[Praetor]

Unfortunately it sounds like she is the boss now. Find out what she wants and do it.

that sounds like a Brazzers pron movie.

[Sandor]

Yes and no. They hire to design, not change their property around....it is one thing putting a restroom that is accessable to everyone, it is another putting the restroom in the middle of the floor with glass walls because it looks better and everyone can appreciate the artistry of your restroom....which one would get you terminated? Just because you can design it right, doesn't mean that it is in the best interest of the company.

You obviously don't know what web design is. Making it "look nice" is a (relatively small) fraction of the whole.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Don't be so sure

Even though i know that was an art installation and no one could actually see in as you done anything, i still couldn't have used it :p

[sc302 Veteran]

You obviously don't know what web design is. Making it "look nice" is a (relatively small) fraction of the whole.

You obviously have no clue what architectural design is. It isn't make something look nice. First it starts with the framework, much like web design. The top layer, or the layer you see, is just the finished product not what is underneath. There is a lot that goes in both web and architectural. If someone wants to put a bathroom somewhere don't decide for them where that bathroom is or what it looks like...that isn't your job, you can make suggestions that is it.

[Dick Montage]

You obviously don't know what web design is. Making it "look nice" is a (relatively small) fraction of the whole.

You obviously don't know what doing what you're paid to do is. Moreover, anything beyond the aesthetic is development in my mind, not design.

[MikeChipshop Member]

You obviously have no clue what architectural design is. It isn't make something look nice. First it starts with the framework, much like web design. The top layer, or the layer you see, is just the finished product not what is underneath. There is a lot that goes in both web and architectural. If someone wants to put a bathroom somewhere don't decide for them where that bathroom is or what it looks like...that isn't your job, you can make suggestions that is it.

The thing is, the two aren't directly parallel. I think of Web Design more like Interior design. You pay good money to someone that knows what they're doing and you let them get on with it.

Thankfully most of my clients these days understand that. The budget web design market still suffers from backward thinking though. Which means many budget web designers are really just pixel pushing to scrape a living.

You obviously don't know what doing what you're paid to do is. Moreover, anything beyond the aesthetic is development in my mind, not design.

Design and development very much overlap at that point. It's a big confusing lump there in the middle where all the lines are blurred. A good agency will have the design and development team working together to fulfill briefs rather than the two being distinct areas.

You can make a fundamental pretty design that can be useless in practice.

[Dick Montage]

If he is being asked to prettify the site, that is clearly design. If he is being asked to add features, that is development. Yes there is overlap for the reasons you state (I have built great sites that a designer has destroyed the functionality of, for example).

[MikeChipshop Member]

I have built great sites that a designer has destroyed the functionality of

'aint that the truth!

[Praetor]

ultimately the client wants features (aesthetics that need a designer approach and/or new rich features that require a developer approach); he doesn't know how to implement them and doesn't care about that either or the technology involved, it's up to the webdesigner and webdeveloper to answer the client and explain that, it's their field after all.

[Coagulated]

What web experience does this Editor have?

I work in a Marketing team and what the Designer says goes in my opinion. He'll consider suggestions, but if it doesn't work he'll tell you exactly why it doesn't work, and that's that.

He's the Visual / UI Guru, that's what he is paid for, that's what he does.

I think you should take heed from the comments regarding highlighting the effect on the budget.

Are you employed on a permanent basis or contract?

In my opinion, as long as you are getting paid, who cares? If they want to waste time and money on you overhauling the web site AGAIN, even after you've explained the financial implications then let them.

If it's that much of an issue, start searching for another contract / job and certainly start taking steps to ensure this doesn't happen with future employers (draft up general terms, which you then personalise to each client etc)

[Dick Montage]

In my opinion, as long as you are getting paid, who cares? If they want to waste time and money on you overhauling the web site AGAIN, even after you've explained the financial implications then let them.

Spot on. Moreover, use the time to learn some new tech while doing it!

[Rohdekill]

This is a very common problem amongst programmers/designers. The website is NOT designed/programmed for YOU. Your number one goal is customer satisfaction. If this customer or your employer brings in an editor with more say than you, then that editor became your customer.

I have often, more times than I can recall, changed things that make perfect sense or seemed more user-friendly in order to please the customer. Of course, I didn't agree, nor did I like the changes. But the customer was delivered what the customer wanted and they are satisfied.

Of course, every change other than minor fonts or colors, I always sit with the customer and present pros/cons/industry standards. What they decide after is final.

[Sandor]

You obviously have no clue what architectural design is. It isn't make something look nice. First it starts with the framework, much like web design. The top layer, or the layer you see, is just the finished product not what is underneath. There is a lot that goes in both web and architectural. If someone wants to put a bathroom somewhere don't decide for them where that bathroom is or what it looks like...that isn't your job, you can make suggestions that is it.

We aren't talking about architecture. We're talking about web design. In any event if I had decided to hire an architect it would be because they know how to design buildings. While I would give my initial wants and wishes I'd be deferring to their professional skills. What I would NOT do is hire someone, presumably agree upon a specification, let them do it and then come in late in the day and start "putting my mark on it". Unfortunately when it comes to web design people with no skills or background in it think they can do just that simply because they have a set of eyes and think they know what "works".

It's a professional discourtesy.

Now, the OP has been designing this site for many months as he's made quite a few threads about it. I've not always agreed with him or personally liked some of the results but he's clearly put time and effort into the design and construction of the site and if I was close to completion and then found out the company involved had decided to put someone else in place to "advise" aka "mess it up" I'd be pretty livid.

If the OP is a contractor/freelancer under a contract, he should be putting his foot down and giving clear reasons why he is doing so. If he hasn't received final payment he's well within his rights to walk away (taking the code with him) if they aren't willing to listen. The out is that he's not being given the opportunity to do his job. It smells a bit too convenient to be close to the end and suddenly all the stalling tactics appear out of the woodwork. I've seen it too many times.

If the OP is an actual employee he should be speaking with management and explaining that he is being treated like a nobody. He was presumably hired to do the design - he should be allowed to do his job free of interference. Suggestions and proper feedback are to be welcomed. Being told what to do is not acceptable.

Your number one goal is customer satisfaction.

Almost always false. The client themselves at the outset likely put the number one goal as something completely different. Likely the number one goal was to produce a design that would increase traffic and sales, and improve their brand image. If they decide to morph that into "it's for our satisfaction" at a later date that's their problem. The OP would appear to be getting the age old stall tactic.

[sc302 Veteran]

We aren't talking about architecture. We're talking about web design. In any event if I had decided to hire an architect it would be because they know how to design buildings. While I would give my initial wants and wishes I'd be deferring to their professional skills. What I would NOT do is hire someone, presumably agree upon a specification, let them do it and then come in late in the day and start "putting my mark on it". Unfortunately when it comes to web design people with no skills or background in it think they can do just that simply because they have a set of eyes and think they know what "works".

nm...you can't see the similarities in a simplistic nature.

design is design, you start with framework regardless if it is with code or with sticks. Next you will tell me it doesn't start with code, it starts with an application....if you go that route you are completely and utterly lost.

[Copernic Reporter]

Do a backup of the site and let her do it - if it fails she will get fired and not you.

[moloko]

If she is the boss and this your job then do it. If you are doing it as a secondary thing then I would not. Just have them hire someone else.

People up top think of crazy **** in their heads. Stuff that does not make any sense for websites. As a professional you just have to show them that it is not the best way or "best business practices" to do that and not make them feel stupid.