3 ms·

>>"I have found that a “typical” website redesign effort (definition, information architecture, design, coding), if executed thoughtfully and thoroughly, can tak

• Maciek416 17y ago
  In the type of market that Happy Cog serves, promising a 3 week build involving the "typical" parts (def/IA/design/code) is a surefire recipe for disaster. I think you can be pretty sure that they're not talking about 2-3 page static web brochures. Also, keep in mind that part of their desired lifestyle is NOT "drinking schnapps to get through the day or grinding your teeth at night", which is the sort of thing that you get when rushing day and night to build a full-featured system in a couple weeks. Seriously, can you honestly point to any sites that have not a hair over 21 consecutive days to build in their entirety and match the breadth of features, design quality, testing, iterating with the customer, etc, that would be expected of a typical Happy Cog project -- and yet somehow still have a reasonably healthy lifestyle? To me it sounds like a variation on the "I can build this in a weekend" HN meme. [EDIT]: mind you, I will agree that I've seen plenty of good systems built in under 6 months, just not 2-3 weeks :)
  • josefresco 17y ago
    At least someone here on HN understands client work. While 6 months is a bit long for the lower end, thinking you can design and build a site for a client in 3 weeks is a pipe dream. I've been doing this (client web work) for 10 years and have only had a small handful of sites launch in under a month. Small business owners are busy, un-responsive at times, fickle .. you name it. It all adds up to additional time no matter how fast you are or how many all-nighters you pull. And to give some advice to young aspiring web hackers; pulling all nighters and delivering client work at 2:00 AM does not paint a very good picture of you or your firm to the client. It shows that you're unbalanced and that you're not effectively managing your workflow correctly. It will also catch up to you and your health if it becomes routine.
  • auston 17y ago
    No, I believe I am misunderstood. I am talking about a WEBSITE - NOT A WEB APPLICATION I tried to denote this by using the words "static site". Clearly, I have failed. Also, for the record: I have built a few multi-page sites (not applications) in 1-2 weeks with NO all nighters (i.e. leadlogsys.com).
    • thaumaturgy 17y ago
      One of my from-hell projects that tanked -- and caused me to be nodding my head at this article -- was a website for a company that wanted around 75 existing pages re-designed into one of five or six different templates, all built into TextPattern, which didn't really support the two-column system that they wanted to use. That wasn't a web application, that was a website. And six months would have been an accurate development timeline for it, if it was done right.
      • auston 17y ago
        Perhaps - I guess I need to provide my definition of a website: No more than 10 well structured, well thought out pages.
        • derefr 17y ago
          I don't believe anyone else is using that definition. The New York Times has what is a good example of a website.
          • auston 17y ago
            Actually, I believe that is a series of small applications integrated into a CMS... Which would take me YEARS to build
            • scott_s 17y ago
              And I call it a website: I click on links and read stuff. edit: Perhaps you should look at their portfolio to understand what they do, and what their definition of "website" is: http://www.happycog.com/design/ http://www.happycog.com/design/