A number of my clients in the last few years have requested the ability to update websites themselves so I have begun to offer the ability to all. Generally I will explain that it is a good option if the following is true:

• The client feels comfortable technically
• The client will be needing updates frequently enough that the increased cost of integrating content management into their website will be amortized over time and become a savings over having me perform their updates.

Usually I recommend WordPress (the easiest to master) or Joomla (for more robust applications). I’ve  also used Drupal (not a fan) and Moveable Type. A good CMS should be easily to master for someone who is comfortable and familiar with Microsoft Word but not everyone is and therein lies the problem.

Some take to it fairly well:
If the site is being created for a sole proprietor or a small business and one of the principals will be performing the updates they generally work through the learning curve fairly well and only call upon me for updates and changes that are beyond the ability of the CMS to do. They decided the CMS would save them money and they will ensure that it does.

Some give it up:
Occasionally after adding a CMS to a site I’ve had people contract with me to do the updates anyway as they are too busy or decide they can’t be bothered. They know the ability is there.

And some don’t take to it well at all:
The greatest panic is experienced by people who don’t feel comfortable with, and are often frustrated by, technology.  This can range from the extreme case who isn’t really sure where their documents are saved to and honestly thinks you are supposed to get to a website by typing it into the Google bar to those who have made a truce with Microsoft Word and perhaps very basic Excel but that’s the extent of it.  Administrative Assistants in larger companies or organizations who have been tasked with updating the website are often in this category. In many cases I have found that while they are afraid of learning how to use the CMS, at the same time, are afraid of letting their boss know how difficult they are finding this new responsibility.

If you are considering adding a CMS to your new or existing website its critical to evaluate the comfort level you or your employees currently have with technology. Often its a matter of additional training. In some cases it may be a better idea to contract outside for your updates.

I have been warning clients away from utilizing Flash for years – definitely not for important content. Most understand that if search engines can’t see it site visitors won’t find you. Now that it’s likely that a lot of visitors won’t be able to see your content either Flash will be utilized only for those things that only Flash can do.

It should get easier now to make a convincing argument against Flash now that the drawbacks are less abstract.

At rr.interactive I do one to two pro bono projects a year for non profits or charities and I may give a break here and there if there is nothing else going on but for the most part I have an hourly rate I have to charge in order to keep my business afloat. To charge less might have me working 24 hours a day. Considering the fact that clients are taking longer to pay and that some aren’t paying at all my work week has already extended to 7 days and my work days – well you don’t want to know about those – suffice it to say I start my day at a ridiculously early hour.

This back and forth about the cost of a website has gotten frequent enough that I have added a price range list to the contact form on my website. My feeling is that if a potential client sees that they have a choice anywhere between $500 and $20,000+ they might not be afraid to really choose the one they think is the closest. If I publish what they will usually get for that there is no question about whether they could have gotten more for less.

Here are a couple of additional thoughts:

Consider how much a client that you obtain through your website is worth? Several clients?

Compare the cost of print advertising that runs once and is usually discarded to a website that represents you 24 hours a day 7 days a week and has the capacity to represent you more fully than a print ad can. For instance a full-page ad on a local magazine costs $1500. A small business can often get a decent website for that.

Last – You really do get what you pay for. When you pay a little more for someone experienced you are paying someone who can explain and is familiar with the pros and cons of different options ranging from hosting providers to content management and shopping cart systems. We can anticipate your plan for growth and ensure you don’t have to start from the beginning when you do. We are not as likely to disappear down the road when you want changes or updates. You’ll receive regular support.

Now web folk don’t just fire up Photoshop when its time to make new buttons. Well maybe some do but success is in the details. A good button needs to adhere to conventions, in other words be easily recognizable as a button. Nothing frustrates a potential customer more than difficulty during checkout.

So before I redesigned the odious buttons, a task that took me several tries before I was happy, I decided to do some research.

I took screen shots of a number of different online catalog pages I particularly liked  – studied the buttons and layout and color choices. I also found a wonderful article here: 107 Add to Cart Buttons of the Top Online Retailers  that not only shows a wide range of examples from a number of existing and well known sites, but include statistics on terminology used – for instance Add to cart vs. Add to basket. Add to basket is more frequently seen in the UK and who would think that Buy Now suggests the shopper is finished shopping? These points are important to know.

There is almost no area of web design and development where attention to detail isn’t critically important. This is why it’s important to test on different browsers and operating systems (and get feedback from those who have a slightly different set up if you can). Fonts display differently, Colors display differently. CSS behaves differently. Ok, I’ll reword the last one for accuracy. CSS is what it is. Browsers (can) wear it differently. If you’ve ever seen 5 different people wearing the same dress you’ll know what I mean. That said compliance with standards (geek speak for more browsers getting on board so all will render the same) is getting better.

This is why exhaustive testing by end users is important.

It’s why you’ll know a site designed by pixel perfect designers.

It’s in the details

Standards compliant markup means the designer has spent time developing a site using markup that will be read consistently across browsers and has stayed away from using proprietary tags or styles. This is simultaneously a line in the sand and a measure that ensures each person visiting your site will see the same content and receive the same message.

To understand why I say it is a line in the sand you need to understand a little bit of the history and rationale behind the web. Admittedly this is the probably the shortest and most dumbed down history of the Internet on the web but it should suffice.

The Internet began as the answer to the problem of sharing information over vast distances with people who would be viewing it on different computer operating systems. From the very beginning it was about sending the same message to everyone regardless of the differences between their computers. This was not an easy task but HTML was meant to standardize the display.

Initially the intent was to share scientific and scholarly information but it didn’t take long for the advertising and marketing industry to catch on to the vast potential of the Internet.

In fact it took about a nanosecond.

Marketing is essentially visual as almost all relationships start with attraction. The limits of basic html were quickly exceeded and the battle of the browsers began. Proprietary markup was introduced with each new version in the hopes that designers would design primarily for certain browsers thus gently forcing the public to adopt the “browser with the most toys”.

There are still remnants of those days. Occasionally you will stumble upon a site that says “Best viewed in Internet Explorer” but in general designers have realized that new features are best left to the standards developing bodies such as the W3C. Browser developers are expected to adhere to these standards more and more as it is clear to us that clients, designers and the public benefits.

The point is to get the same message to everyone regardless of their browser choice or their computer choice or their operating system. That always was the point.

Accessibility is essentially the same thing but it gives standards a helping hand. Even if you have done a fabulous job making your site standards compliant and every browser is rendering it the same way the individual you are trying to reach may have a hard time reading the type due to vision problems. An accessible site will allow type to be easily magnified. Try control+ or command+ depending on your browser to see this in action. Control or command- will reduce it again. An accessible site will label images and will ease the process of using a form for those who are viewing your site in a screen reader.

Building sites in this way is no longer considered an extra. It shows you are trying to reach out to all, not just some of your sites potential visitors.

And that should help your bottom line as well.