Using stock photography is something we employ on a regular basis. Finding that “perfect” image can often be a big challenge, especially when the client’s stakeholders, its target audience and the developer don’t share the same vision (which is an issue in itself I suppose ).

This blog post by Ben Gremillion offers some practical advice on how to take a different approach to this problem we consistently face.

I have some practical advice to add in addition to that article…there is no “perfect” photo, image, illustration or otherwise.  Avoid as the article puts it, the “paralysis” of the perfect image search and follow a logical path to the selection…and, don’t forget, you can change anytime and as often as you need to if you feel the one you select isn’t achieving the desired outcome.  We’ve seen it happen often where that quest for perfection results in delays and wasted opportunities when a perfectly valid solution was available from the start.

We’ve always been somewhat “torn” between our corporate stance on client commentary and intervention.  Generally we see ourselves as experts that provide guidance to a client and of course actually produce designs and applications to suit their goals and objectives.  However, we’ve always taken the stance, much like a lawyer I guess, that we’re providing advice and that the client is ultimately the one making the decisions.  I’ve often said to a client that “I am here to give you my expert opinion, and to guide you toward the right decision, but I will let you make what I feel is a mistake or a choice in the wrong direction.”  (To a point of course…if a client chooses what we think is a disastrous path, we may choose to not work with that client, although this is a very rare occurrence)

You’d think that stance would protect us at least partially from things going bad…it rarely does when things do go down that wrong path from time to time.  The reason for this post today, was this thoroughly entertaining piece posted on the “The Oatmeal” site.  As I read this, I knew how the designers here at MARSWorks felt on many projects when their proposed designs turned from what they were proud of in the beginning, to something they wished they had never been a part of when the site or application launched.  While there really isn’t anything funny when it happens, our entire team enjoyed this creative and entertaining piece that is amazingly consistent with many of our experiences. (and to those existing clients who are reading this, you know who you are! )

I think over the years many companies like ours follow similar paths and become more and more able to diagnose “the wrong path” and can be more confident in their objections to a client’s bad choices.  However, being the diplomatic people that we are, I think that the answer is sometimes a balance between what you think is right and the client’s often more knowledgeable position on their clients and what will help them succeed.  The trick, as always, is to make sure that the true users of the website or application are the ones that all involved are primarily concerned with…hopefully that leads to better decision making on design and production in the long run.

This is a really neat discussion that I’d love most clients to see.  For some reason, the fact that we’re a “service” business working in a “knowledge” industry seems to give clients the impression that they can barter/bargain more than in other situations.

Really interesting that these situations seem highly unacceptable to people, but we hear this kind of stuff all the time…check it out:

Probably difficult to believe I can be impartial about this since we’re clearly trying to convince prospective clients that we’re a sound choice to be their web development partner…so rather than take too long myself here is an impartial third party’s viewpoint on “Selecting a Web Designer or Developer.”

This is specifically focused on people who are building E-Commerce websites, however the advice does translate pretty well to most situations.  I think at times the pricing discussion goes a bit out of bounds in terms of the upper limits (wouldn’t we love to be charging those rates!?) but the lower to mid-range pricing discussed seems to fit with my view of the web development landscape.

On thing missing in this discussion is the concept of Intellectual Property and who owns the output created by the company you’ve hired.  Always make sure that is stipulated up front in all contracts because the answer to the question is often a surprise to the individual or organization paying the bill.

I love it when the web development world comes up with a cool name for a new interface element…this one may not qualify as being all that original.  I’m starting to see these types of elements alot more often on websites and a recent post in Signal vs. Noise was my starting point for looking at this a bit further.

So…what makes a drop down “MEGA”? According to Jacob Neilsen, a Mega Drop Downs are:

• Big, two-dimensional panels divided into groups of navigation options
• Navigation choices structured through layout, typography, and (sometimes) icons
• Everything visible at once — no scrolling
• Vertical or horizontal form factors when activated from top navigation bars; when activated from left-hand navigation, they might appear as mega fly-outs (not shown). 

I heard on CNN’s American Morning today and at CrunchGear that there will be three (3) NFL games broadcast in 3D at select theaters in three US Cities next weekend.  This is really interesting news…we’ve seen so much in the movies and on TV about the future of entertainment and TV viewing, especially when it comes to sports.   I find it interesting that it really does take a long time before these ideas actually become viable products and are available.

I remember watching the first 3D movies when I was a kid with those crazy glasses you picked up at the local convenience store (this was pretty weak and barely worked for me).  Then watching Jaws in 3D was also a neat experience as are the multitude of 3D videos and exhibits and theme parks and museums.

I’m really interested to see how this works on the weekend and what people think of the NFL in 3D.  In reality, TV has become slightly more interactive and picture quality has definitely taken a leap forward with the advent of High Definition Programming, but essentially I still look at the same old box (well flat-panel now) on the wall showing the same old two dimensional output.

On websites, we’ve tried for years to incorporate designs and interactivity that is more 3D…yet are always challenged by the fact that we have to make these designs and systems work on the good old 2D flat screen.  I wonder how far away we are from websites and web applications that have a bit more depth?  Will we shed the confines of the flat 2D screen anytime soon?

It looks like there are already some examples of real-world implementations of this as you can see here:

In creating web applications we almost always turn to creating static prototypes so that we can present to a client or a prospective audience a picture of what the web application will look like when it is complete. When designing applications for a variety of clients and audiences this is a critical step.

So why create prototypes? The answer is obvious from the developer’s viewpoint – we want to give our client the best possible shot at seeing the finished product without have to invest all of the time required to build the finished product. Rework and rethinking at this stage is far less costly then later on in the process. For the client or prospective audience, they get to see the web application long before it actually works which can provide them a look at what is to come, and hopefully ensure that all of the required information and thoughts are taken into account as early as possible.

(more…)