Cingular Wireless Redesign

Posted on April 20, 2003

in News

by Stephen Taylor (shifter)

Rated 2.67 (Ratings: 12) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in News
More articles by shifter

Stephen Taylor

Member info | Full bio

User since: January 23, 2003

Last login: October 31, 2005

Articles written: 4

Cingular Wireless recently unveiled a new standards look. The site now utlilizes XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS. The new design is heavy on some JavaScript navigation, however, it does boast a great new look. The site works well in (small testing) IE6 and Netscape 7 on Windows. Opera had a little trouble but came through. Some users have already had trouble with browser issues. If you are still living in the dark and use, say Netscape 4, you might find yourself reading:

If you are reading this message probably you are not using a standard browser. Pages in this site may not be displayed correctly on non-standard browsers. If you want to download a standard browser, please refer to Web Standard Project site (WaSP) for more information.

The small, but informative caption works quite well as usual. Note again the usual reference to the WaSP (a thanks to those guys for their work).

Plus

Cingular's developers have used lists for transparent submenus, cut out tables (except where appropriate), and used CSS strictly for all style elements. The redesign, as any standards redesign, was definately a huge benefit to Cingular. According to archived pages at the end of last year, the front page has been slimmed down about 49kb; from 70,000 bytes to about 19,500 bytes without the 10kb style sheet. This obviously means less work for their servers. Their site, because of the use of standards markup, is now accessible to more visitors. And their new site is most likely easier to maintain.

Minus

The site doesn't, unfortunately, pass W3C validation, although that may change. Apparently, the site is slow to load, possibly from some large JavaScript files. The site isn't truly accessible; missing alt attribute, so on... Another interesting item is that the site probably isn't so good on that mobile phone you might already have from Cingular, hopefully more work will be done in that area.

Overall, another successful, yet "unfinished" standards redesign. Congrats to the developers at Cingular who chose the path less-traveled. Nonetheless, a good work in the corporate world. And as always, we hope to see more.

Stephen Taylor has studied at the International Academy of Design and Technology in Chicago. He also studied for a year at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. He is an intermediate developer who stays on top of emerging technology.

He is interested in web development and learning new things everyday. You'll find him working hard at Visual Echo Designs. Recent work includes American Home Mortgage and The Kuhn Agency. Find out a little more about this complex and exciting young man at his website.

34 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

Thanks for what?

Submitted by sasha22 on April 23, 2003 - 15:23.

Note again the usual reference to the WaSP (a thanks to those guys for their work).

And why exactly should we be thankful for anyone who encourages nasty messages for anyone that doesn't use a browser with their stamp of approval? Thankful for keeping the web today in 2003 just as hostile as it was in 1996 when everyone stamped "Netscape now!" and "Optimized for Internet Explorer" buttons everywhere? I guess WASP forgot one of the major foundations of HTML: graceful degredation. Just because HTML 2.0 isn't the most recent "standard" doesn't mean it is any less of a standard.

Biggest cliché of 2003: big business x just moved to abc standard!

Return to sender.

Submitted by shifter on April 23, 2003 - 21:17.

"their stamp of approval"

It is not their stamp to place, it is however, a standard that we all should have been living by originally. Unfortunately, these standards never existed until now. Thankfully, we can all now embrace standards as they make life easier, for developers and users alike.

Yes I agree, it is an overused cliche, however, it offers business-people, such as myself, an argument why our clients should switch. How good a reason if their cellular company or some other business they connect with did the same.

"HTML 2.0"

Are you out of you're mind. Out-dated and depricated, sorry.

When is XHTML not XHTML?

Submitted by tupholme on April 23, 2003 - 23:19.

If it doesn't validate, is it XHTML!?

In this case it seems to be more than a few missing alt attributes - it isn't even well-formed XML. I applaud the Cingular developers for moving towards XHTML, but a standard is a binary thing, you're either standard or you're not. In this case, they're not standard so what we have is not XHTML but {minimal quirky HTML that looks like XHTML}+CSS.

Is this really any better than any other form of tag soup? Yes from a point of view of load times, no from the point of view of compatibility.

Non-browser compliant?

Submitted by MaxGT40 on April 24, 2003 - 12:10.

If a potential viewer "is" using Netscape 4+, it appears that usability is being thrown right out the window. Potential viewers can always look elsewhere. Who benefits from this so-called standard?

XHTML and Cingular developers

Submitted by madeonmoon on April 24, 2003 - 20:23.

my 2 cents:

Their so called "XHTML" has 48 errors which makes me very sceptical about the developers that built it. as tupholme said, what they call XHTML is not XHTML
CSS cannot even be validated due to some parsing errors within XHTML itself. does it mean they never attempted to validate it? hmm..
tons of JavaScript to do validation, etc. relying on JavaScript being enabled and slowing down the download time. why do it??
it's a site offering wireless service, right? perhaps there should be a mechanism to determine how it is being accessed and display content accordingly (for desktop browsers, pda's, data-enabled phones, etc). I am afraid to even try to load it on my palm - it will probably just freeze it with all those background images and tons of javascript. at least, there should be a link on top of the main page to mobile version of the site so that mobile users have a way of viewing the content formatted for small screens.
instead of blocking non-standard compliant browsers, why not have a text-only mini-version of the site with less functionality while letting the user know that it is because he/she uses an old, standards non-compliant browser?
the front page download time is terrible on a 56k dial-up connection. i tried a few times and am getting about 15 to 20 seconds download times

i can probably complain more about this redesign. to me, the only good thing about it is that they are using tables for what they are designed to do (display tabular data) while using css for layout.

Bigger fonts break it

Submitted by efge on April 26, 2003 - 05:15.

Unfortunately there are several display glitches (text bleeding out of boxes, thingd becoming non-aligned) when you use fonts slightly bigger than the usual ones. This looks a bit unprofessional.

Steps

Submitted by shifter on April 27, 2003 - 21:06.

Nevertheless, can we agree that it is a step in the right direction?

Incompetence

Submitted by invoked on April 28, 2003 - 14:31.

I think the markup is horrendous. The developers who designed it are totally incompetent. They are using a strict doctype for the sake of show. If it don't validate, then what's the use. I can't even laugh, because its so pathetic. I would demand my money back and hire someone who takes pride in their work.

re: incompetence

Submitted by madeonmoon on April 28, 2003 - 18:06.

as i mentioned before, the only thing that is good about the new design is that they use css for layout and xhtml for markup. it's definitely good for the web's future. but it seems to me that their developers did it only because they thought it was a cool, new thing to do. if someone develops a site using xhtml strict, how can they not use the validator.w3.org along the way? sigh

A step forwards and another step back

Submitted by brothercake on April 30, 2003 - 00:55.

It is a step in the right direction, and a simultaneous step in the wrong direction. The end result is negatable - poor usability and poor accessibility made of tag-soup XHTML is little better than <font> tags and <table> for layout.

The link to wasp (like 90% of such links) is worse than gratuitous. The point of compliance is interoperability and device independence - within XHTML you don't need to know what browser people are using; you certainly don't need to tell them that theirs isn't up to scratch. Links to wasp don't benefit users; they are back-slapping self references which only benefit web developers. I'm sorry, but you have to take the time to explain these issues to clients yourself - don't think that a hand-waving sentence on the webpage itself is going to do that job.

You try visiting that page with a screenreader? Do you want to listen to "If you are reading this message probably you are not using a standard browser ..." on every single page?

Outdated and deprecated

Submitted by mswitzer on May 2, 2003 - 05:17.

If a potential viewer "is" using Netscape 4+, it appears that usability is being thrown right out the window. Potential viewers can always look elsewhere. Who benefits from this so-called standard?

Browser is choice. Why would ANYONE choose Netscape 4.x as their browser, when browsers with much improved standards support are FREEly available.

MaxGT40 - the point of building a standard compliant (or close to it) site is multipurpose - but don't lose sight of this aspect - it encourages dinosaurs to move into the modern age. Heck even Netscape themselves had a function on their site which encourages 4.x users to upgrade, even taking you to an upgrade page without your "permisssion".

You remind me of my old boss - who when I was developing form for online hosting, checked it in Netscape 3.0... it failed miserably because I built it standard compliant. Oh no, the horror!! Looking at our site statistics, no one using Netscape 3.x has accessed our site in 2 years. In fact, last month, there were UNDER 300 HITS from a Netscape 4.x browser.... probably from other developers checking our work in it - the irony

Your question is like saying, only build trucks - since not all roads are paved.

Netscape 4 is a legacy browser

Submitted by brothercake on May 2, 2003 - 08:13.

And it should be treated as such - using the @import rule to ensure that Netscape 4 does not read any of the CSS. The plain, unstyled semantic layout is just as accessible to ns4 as it is to ns3 or mosaic or lynx or anything else.

Interestingly, the site I maintain daily has roughly 5 times as many netscape 3 using visitors as netscape 4.

Alienating potential visitors

Submitted by MaxGT40 on May 2, 2003 - 08:25.

You seem to think the entire planet is using a broadband connection and is well versed in downloading applications. My apologies for pointing out the obvious.

Why can I use this site with an older version of Netscape? (4.79) Is Evolt.org guilty of only building trucks?

Know your audience

Submitted by mswitzer on May 2, 2003 - 08:44.

You seem to think the entire planet is using a broadband connection and is well versed in downloading applications.

- rather that most people who own a cellphone probably don't use Netscape 4.x, it's all about knowing your audience.

What happens when your cellphone no longer is capable of using the service you've signed up for? Do you call your cell company and say "shame on you, I bought this phone in 1982 and now it doesn't work on your G3 network - and I can't attach a camera"? - be realistic - people know how to buy new cellphones, new computers if their old one doesn't support their newest game - and downloading apps is so stupid-user-easy, it's not an excuse anymore

As far as evolt.org displaying the same in Netscape 4.79 - woo hoo - that's probably because they are using a table based design and html 4.01 transitional. They don't claim to be using a CSS - tableless design, do they? But Cingular does, and what happens when you use a browser that doesn't support the technology being used? The same thing that happens if you use a cellphone that doesn't support the technology being used. The same thing that happens when you try to run a game that requires 64MB RAM on a Commodore 64. The same thing that happens when you try to get NFL Sunday Ticket on Cable.

Part of the reason standards were developed was due to Netscape and IE parsing web pages via very different formats. Hence obviously Netscape 4.x is not going to follow the standards, but hey - if it really bothers you - you can upgrade to Netscape 7.0 anytime. :) More and more businesses are going toward tableless designs and stand compliancy - hopefully they'll do a better job than the hacks who did cingular - regardless, it's a smart business move, it saves money, and ensures consistency across all platforms that support standards.

My Sinclair does not work anymore?

Submitted by MaxGT40 on May 2, 2003 - 09:17.

???...perhaps a survey is in order :)

Lets say I make a call to a company on my land line telephone and get a message "sorry your phone is not supported" ...please go to 'Best Buy' and upgrade your equipment. I'll hang up and call someone who "wants" my business and is willing to accomodate my outdated method of comunication. Perhaps this company could suggest an alternative method of communication in the future without sending me down a dead end street

If you are driving your car, and you come to a dead end street what do you do? I'll always remember not to head in that direction...

The Web should be accomodating to the potential audience. Slashing bloated IT departments stuck in cubicles sounds like a more realistic cost cutting measure than unfriendly cheaper standards.

accessible vs. ???

Submitted by mswitzer on May 2, 2003 - 09:28.

But the difference there is:

you CAN use cingular's site with Netscape 4.x - it's just not as "pretty" as it is in a standard compliant browser
they are not asking you to "buy" anything to see it pretty - merely upgrade your browser for free, which generally should take less time than going to Best Buy
you have a land line? Isn't this the wireless world - no I'm really just kidding....

I understand your analogy to a degree - but I don't think it appplies to the web, and more specifically in this case. I have a problem understanding people who would sacrifice all the benefits of technology for an ever-shrinking-minority of the web's audience.

This is entirely different than complaints re: Flash navigation and the such, this is about designing sites that any standard install on a computer bought within the last 4 years would support completely.

And to be frank - from the people I know who use Netscape 4.x - they choose to use it - it's not like their system didn't come with IE5 already on it, they downloaded it from a browser archive - and if that's your choice, then live with it.

Very few IT departments are still stuck on NS4.x - and very few users who bought machines with NS4.x as the standard browser have yet to upgrade.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Submitted by cacklebunny on May 6, 2003 - 18:27.

I'm perturbed by the overwhelming number of people slamming the Cingular developers in their attempt to code their page in XHTML and CSS. There are many of you going so far as to call for the developers' resignations because their code doesn't pass the W3C XHTML validation test.

Let me tell you something: the so-called "standards" do not do nearly as much as one might think to appease even the latest browsers. There are a lot of people who have sold their soul to W3C as though it's some sort of holier-than-thou religion with its own set of zealots. Some of these people can't see beyond these strict rules long enough to realize that in real-life design applications, a lot of these standards aren't up to snuff when it comes to cross-browser compatibility.

I work for a large company undergoing a total redesign using XHTML and CSS. Along the way we've encountered many inconsistencies in the way some pretty simple CSS positioning is rendered between some versions of IE and Netscape that purport to accept these standards. Don't get me started on the vast amount of hacks out there necessary to maintain cross-browser consistency (Tantek, anyone?)

I applaud Cingular's developers for at least "giving it a go." They've had to cheat and scrape with W3C's tools that allegedly make everything seem right as rain. And what do they get for their trouble? A lot of bashing from people who've likely never had to develop a rich, dynamic website for a company the size of Cingular. Knowing the corporate mentality, I'm impressed that they even managed to convince senior management that their design approach was a good idea.

So some of you out there can make your cat's website pass all the XHTML validation tests. Bravo. But withold judgement on these developers until you've done something on the scale they have. The W3C standards are not the "magic bullet" people who have sold them to be. Web design has ALWAYS been about compromise and cheating to get the design look you want, and I don't expect that to end anytime soon, XHTML or not.

Perspective is everything ...

Submitted by brothercake on May 7, 2003 - 00:53.

I also work for a large company undergoing an XHTML and CSS overhaul; we've encountered a few problems with cross-browser consistency, but not that many. Consistency is (I'm sorry to say) much more difficult if you code for IE, because it leads you down garden paths. If you code to a compliant browser like moz, Opera 7 or Safari, you'll find that there isn't so much difference between browsers after all - only IE deviates in any significant ways, and conditional comments can be used for that.

But what you call something doesn't make it what it is; in the final analysis, if our pages don't make XHTML then we won't put an XHTML doctype on them - doctype is not an ambition or a statement of intent, it's a description. Either the page is valid XHTML or it isn't - that isn't nearly as important as that the page describes itself honestly.

Cingular does not describe its pages honestly; that's my core issue with them. My other issue is the "please upgrade your browser" nonsense, but I'll stop with that one already.

good design, poor implementation

Submitted by fabriziog on May 7, 2003 - 05:16.

The reason for the "unfinished" standard redesign and the validation errors? Not difficult to understand: people how write the code were not the same who designed the website and created the html templates.

Design, template and guidelines were created by a consultant company, Sapient, while the implementation has been done by other developers who didn't really realize what a standard code could be... you can see most of the pages are written using dreamweaver, starting from well-done templates.

Don't blame the initiative to use xhtml strict, it should have been valid and good xhtml, according to the original author... it's a pity seeing a such incomplete result, but I hope people how implemented it will start to learn and fix the code...

An XHTML doctype takes the IRK out of QUIRKS Mode

Submitted by cacklebunny on May 7, 2003 - 17:26.

I don't think having an XHTML doctype when the code isn't validated XHTML has much to do with "describing pages honestly." If you are attempting to maintain consistency among the browsers and using a great deal of CSS, then having an XHTML doctype helps ensure the browser doesn't drop into "quirks" mode.

That's true, but it's wrong

Submitted by brothercake on May 8, 2003 - 00:41.

In my opinion, using the doctype purely to force IE into compliant mode is a misuse of the doctype. I wouldn't label my eggs "free range" when really they're battery, just because the font I chose for my logo looks better with those words.

If it gets the job done, use the tools you've got

Submitted by cacklebunny on May 8, 2003 - 05:29.

Like I said, the W3C rules assume all browsers are going to support said rules. They don't. If you want browser consistency, you have to use the tools you've got, as we have done since the early 90's.

I'll just have to disagree on what constitutes "misuse" of a doctype. I don't think there is such a thing unless someone is so stuck on religiously following the standards despite what the resulting rendered page may actually look like in one of the major browsers.

I mean, c'mon...it's a line of code...it's not the Cup of Jesus.

my doctype comment is not an opinion

Submitted by brothercake on May 8, 2003 - 07:27.

Using doctype to enforce rendering behavior is a misuse, because that isn't what doctype is for. Doctype switching was invented by browser vendors - the standards don't mention it, and the DTD doesn't imply it. You can misuse doctype if you don't care that it's wrong; that is your opinion, and your choice.

You can pick and choose which standards you respect and which bits you don't - that's what Microsoft is doing with IE - and that's precisely the inconsistency you bemoan. Tie yourself into that vicious circle for another five years if you want; commit yourself to a future of platform- and vendor-specific solutions if you like. But I won't be doing that; I'll be sticking to the standards and trying to make them work.

super slow load time...

Submitted by irishlad on May 8, 2003 - 08:38.

It may be due to their server, but their load time is highly unnacceptable. I would lose my job if pages I designed took that long to load.
Additionally, I'm using Mozilla 1.3 and I'm getting the old "If you are reading this message probably you are not using a standard browser . . ." message. Obviously, they have a lot of kinks to work out. Admirable gaol, but miserable execution.

yeah, um...

Submitted by bobek on August 8, 2003 - 11:16.

cingular.com does not display correctly in ns 6.2 and 7.1. the section above the footer is mangled, the customer service page is a joke. that might be fine for some ppl with say, personal sites, but for companies paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per project, its *typically* a show-stopper.

this rush to be on the edge of new coding methods...its all well and good, but management teams for both clients and employers usually dont give a damn how you code a site. they want it done fast and cheap, and the delivered product has to look like the designs everywhere, and that includes browsers that came out a couple of years ago.

ive been doing this professionally for years. over said years, i have, like most of you, beat my head to the floor every time a standard technique did not work. now that most of what i create can easily be replicated across browser and platform, i gotta say...it feels good because my head hurts. im not about to jump the technology gun -- again -- for the mere sake of nice code. no one cares. if youre not in production, they dont care. if youre thinking 'well the sites i build are too bloated, too bandwidth heavy,' then youre doing it wrong. now that i can actually a) make sites that dont need six different sniffers for six different problems and b) make the ridiculous deadlines im given, im sorry, but if the way i code pleases me and me alone, im staying right where i am until table-less structures can be created without having to do workarounds for the workarounds; until i get a site that looks and acts the same everywhere.

we can all agree that css positioning is the where we're all heading, and we can also agree that in theory its the way to go. but we're not there yet. i do this for a living. its my job, and if its yours too you know that production departments are at the bottom of the totem pole and frequently looked down upon. at a decent agency, everyone from design to IA to management is going to scrutize every pixel you push. do yourself a favor and stick with what works until standards actually become something more than theory.

and if not for anything else, would you put a site like cingular on your resume?

re: yeah, um...

Submitted by mswitzer on August 8, 2003 - 11:32.

bobek,

you sound bitter...

perhaps you've been doing this too long...

i do this professionally as well, and the big problem i see with cingular, is not that uit uses tab;e;ess layouts (that's awesome) but they didn't take the time to do it right. don't blame the technology, blame the people misusing it.

that layout could work in 6.2 and 7.0 with nary a hack, and look beautiful

from what i read of what you wrote, you sound alot like the guy who used to be my supervisor... outdated and jaded

table based layouts have a use, but in alot of ways they are needless code bloat, simply because they are tables....

Not a theory

Submitted by invoked on August 8, 2003 - 20:17.

"do yourself a favor and stick with what works until standards actually become something more than theory."

It's not just a theory, and it does work. The problem is that some of the people who choose to implement a standard page just don't have the discipline to pull it off. Some of them errors are because of plain ol' laziness. If whoever maintains the daily coding behind the scenes actually coded it like the doctype requires, then it would work, and it will cease to be theory. Many sites make it work and the web is a much better place because of it.

Exacting in enforcement

Submitted by invoked on August 8, 2003 - 20:31.

Since the problem with the cingular site is the fact that they declared a strict doctype and haven't conformed to that declaration, I thought it would be worth a look to see what the definition of strict is:

-Precise; exact: a strict definition.

-Rigorous in the imposition of discipline

-Exacting in enforcement, observance, or requirement: strict standards

An analogy would be the difference between javascript and c++. Leave out a semi-colon in C++ and you get foot blown of.

definition of hypocrisy

Submitted by ianjameshenderson on August 8, 2003 - 20:55.

well i looked up the definition of hypocrisy too:

'standards' people preaching 'accessibility' and then denying access to people with older browser and telling them to waste their time downloading new browsers
raping a white woman in a white town and then hiring high-priced sell-out white lawyers whilst crying 'racism' about a white jury

NS3

Submitted by sbhikes on August 12, 2003 - 14:40.

For fun I went to the site in Netscape 3. Most of the page is a series of headers with lists of links below. Simple to navigate with that kind of structure. That, I think, is the true benefit of aspiring to web standards. It makes sense when the css doesn't work.

Unfortunately, when I scrolled further down some of the parts of the page weren't so carefully done. No alt attributes on what I can only guess were important images.

Ironically, the site is better in NS 3 than it is in NS4. Maybe it's because of all the inline styles.

Inline styles will interfere with the ability to take advantage of the ideal that css design allows for quicker, easier redesign.

All in all, what with the doctype/validation/sloppy coding issues and all, it''s too bad that the redesign wasn't done as well as it could have been.

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Submitted by operaman on August 12, 2003 - 16:24.

It's absolutely fabulous that both sites run Microsoft server, the best + most standards compliant OS, but I like this site: Catherine Zeta-Jones better.

poor grandma on moz

Submitted by phantom on August 13, 2003 - 08:38.

The sites repeatedly crashed mozilla, the rollover effects kept moving paragraphs around. moz gave me a headache so much I uninstalled it. When a browser isn't robust enough to deal with doctypes and dtds that don't match, I'm sorry but it's not ready for prime time. I know moz is still only 1.4 but come on how many years does it take to make a browser that's standards compliant and robust enough to deal with wrong doctypes. You can't expect the ordinary user, much less grandma and grandpa on their < 56kbps modem to download gigabytes of garbage. honestly, you can't blame the user all the time.

Sex & Safari in the City

Submitted by macDude on August 13, 2003 - 09:16.

The only browser that can compete by far is Safari 1.0™ and its totaly free. Its based on the "K"™-engine. It doesn't work on Microsoft™'s site, but then who cares? No other browser works there it's a propiertary thing. Its less than 5 Mebs.

Its very pretty with super cool "Acqua"™ gel-like buttons and polished brushed metal. Hows stabilty you ask? Well I've kept it running as a safe process 24/7 /almost/ 365! Extremely fast even without DSL™. Its espcially fast on the hotspots at the new Wi-Fis™ @ MickeyDees™ (would you like wireless surfing with that Big Mac ™?)

Did I mention its also a babe magnet? I tell you nothing says smart /and/ sexy as Safari 1.0™ even the name evokes scientific adventure in exotic far way places. You've seen the rest now get the best Safari 1.0™. (All product names are the respective properties of their owners. All rights reserved.)

time - money

Submitted by bobek on October 1, 2003 - 08:35.

so i dont check this site too often because i find it to be like many other straight-up web building sites -- comprized mostly of ppl who do this on their own, either as freelancers or something a little more personal. this, i do not have a problem with. i found sites like this to be extremely valuable back in the day. what i have a problem with however, is a certain lack of attention to industry standards vs. best practices. this issue would be exhibit A.

best practices would be what you are all talking about. no one can deny that complying to web standards would be a one of the pillars best practices in web development. however, i have to, once again, shout out that most clients dont give a damn about web standards. in fact, nine times out of ten they could give a damn about the code at all.

Reasons

essentially clients care about two things: speed to market and cost. the thing about that is, those are two corners of the classic quality triagle (speed to market, cost and quality). the rule says you take one corner away and the other two suffer. when you take two of the corners away though, forget about it.

yesterday when i started writing this, we were minutes away from delivering a large, dynamically driven sub-site to, of all compaines, a competitor of cingular. this would be the second site we've made for a wireless carrier, and, like nearly every other project ive worked on, this company wanted it done in an absurd amount of time. how long, you ask? how long was i given to build, test and debug 22 templates? three days. you know what kind of crap you produce with a timeline like that? three days.

in three days time i knew i wasnt even creating code that could be exanded upon when changes may be required. in three days time i was able to test my html in one version of ie and one version of netscape on one platform. after my alotted three days i gave the site over to development. they also had so little time that the two original developers on the project (eventually that number doubled as we were forced to take two ppl off of a project in new jersey to fly them back here to chicago to work) that they were here working from 1pm to 9am everyday. and sure, we *could* kick out a site that *visually* looks okay in that amount of time. we could if the client didnt come back to us with a plethora of changes day after day, all the way up till the day before the site was to launch. do you really think it matters to management (on either side of the fence) that the design and content cutoff was passed weeks prior? in this economy? please. if you dont think that in these days its all about money youre sorely mistaken.

so after building sites for companies that make more money in a month then most small countries make in a year, it doesnt take long for one to realize that the deciding factor in the way you produce your work, be you in design, production or development, is entirely dependant on the amount of time your given. jaded? hey, when you look back on months and months of work only to realize that in the end youd rather tell people no, i wasnt the poor son of a bitch who was part of *that* ugly project when in fact you built the damn thing...jaded? no, its much more personal then that. this is my job, my life. i didnt fall into this like most people. i actually planned on ending up at a company which allows me to work on sites for microsoft, slate, sears, thermos, morningstar, etc. but now that im here...let me tell you, its very, very hard to reconcile with mediocrity when you know you can produce greatness if you were only given the chance. but i dont get to make those decisions. if you want to, either be a project manager or work for yourself. of course, if you work for yourself, get set to have a whole other world of problems which, not coinidentally, also revolve around money.

when i first started interviewing at agencies back in 97 i read an interview of lynda weinman, creator of the web-safe color pallette, author of many widely read web books . one of the first questions she was asked was, why did you quit your job? 'clients are jerks,' she said. ill never forget that.

now im on to the new jersey project. on to a site that must be ns4 compatible. ridiculous? of course. if you want to do this professionally at an agency somewhere, dont make the mistake of expecting anything different. if youre not jaded i can guarantee you either havent been doing this very long, or you work for a small boutique that produces small sites for small companies which dont answer to shareholders.

Start of page header

Submit

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Recent comments

Cingular Wireless Redesign

Want more?

Stephen Taylor

Plus

Minus