Ten years ago, I left my career as art director in print design and joined the company that—two years later— would evolve into Cinnamon. I had been learning about and creating websites since 1995 and I welcomed the opportunity to work full-time on the Web.

As many baby-faced entrepreneurs, I knew nothing about running a business, and less about “doing” business. Hungry as I was for new opportunities, I didn’t stop to think about what running a business meant; I was on board to lead creation of the product.

Cough.

After some management Musical Chairs, I found myself in the position of having to get clients, keep those clients, and lead our team. Not to mention the usual financial responsibilities. I was schooled as a fine artist and graphic designer. The first time I sat across from a potential client, knowing I needed to get the business, was terrifying. I didn’t know this stuff, I just learned as I went.

It was hard at first, but I began to get the hang of it. We built a pretty stable team and decent focus. The main team has been, with one exception, the same since 2006. It’s kind of like family, and that makes it hard to step out and move on. So why?

I love the Web. I love what we do. I can imagine no better job for a creative person who always craves New Stuff. Making the Web means parsing information, giving it meaning, making it accessible, making it usable and (in my opinion) making it beautiful. There are new challenges every day, and with those challenges come new ways to meet them. And if those methods don’t suit you, you can come up with your own. There are rules, yet there are none. The Web, for me, is where my main interests—art and technology—meet, flirt and make babies.

When I started this adventure, I did it because I wanted to make cool stuff. Pretty stuff. Useful stuff. Through the years I ended up selling stuff and managing the People Who Make the Stuff (while periodically sneaking some art direction, design and production work in for myself). And we did do cool stuff. Cinnamon was one of the first companies to combine professional design with web accessibility. Lots of firms do that now, but in 2002, accessible almost always seemed to mean “looks better to blind people”.

But now it’s time for me to get back to why I got in the game. It’s time to focus by removing operational distractions. It’s time for me to create a more balanced work-world, which can allow me freedom to do what I love to do and enjoy my personal life as much as I can. I’ve learned a lot about clients, and as an independent contractor, I want to help them stop being their own worst enemy. I want to help developers do the same. I want to spend more time with the technologies which will allow designers to do more with the web (yes, that includes CSS3 layout). I want to focus on helping clients with what we now call the Mobile Web, which I believe will catalyze some new, platform-agnostic thinking about information, what we can do with it, where and how. And I’m always so full of ideas… it’s time to write and speak about these things more frequently.

I wish my colleagues at Cinnamon all the best. They’re all great and talented people and they’ve been incredible, and they will continue doing great work for some really exceptional clients. And they’re not rid of me completely; there are at least a few projects we’ll be doing together (do I hear profanity?). And next time we go for beers, I’ll be their peer and not their boss.

I’m pretty nervous about it, to be honest. It’s like bungee-jumping—I’ve never done that either. It’s too easy to look down and imagine what it will sound like when the cord snaps. But I’ve done a lot of good work. I’ve helped other people do good work. And I’m looking forward to doing that in the future—of my own design.

I’ve been increasingly biting in my reactions to many admittedly fun but practically useless “demos”, “experiments” and other assorted HTML5 and CSS3 nonsense like CSS3 icons. I always get flack for this, and I probably will now.

While these experiments are easily defended—“just wanted to see what was possible”—they are generally non-complex (though they can be tedious; take one look at a CSS3 icon or font). They are, put bluntly, simply a way to show off. And as long as that works, it will continue. But what are these experiments helping, aside from the reputations of those who make them(!)?

Please note that many of these experiments utilize a technique that I and many other art directors and designers have used for ages, which greatly enhances product appeal. It involves simply combining two things you wouldn’t ordinarily expect to be together: CSS and fonts. CSS and icons. HTML and games. Peanut butter and chocolate—Hershey/Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have used this to their advantage for years. And so forth. The first person to build real beer from Javascript will be speaking at conferences for years to come.

I could say more, but Chris Heilmann said it so well, there is no need:

Right now, we are happily thinking we innovate and push the envelope where in reality we are making each other go “Oooohhhh” while a large chunk of the audience that could benefit from our knowledge is stuck with really poor experiences on the web.

If you haven’t, please take a moment to read his article.

The problem is the stigma attached to the term “accessibility”. Now we know that web accessibility achieves more than simply facilitating access to web content. But a lot of government organizations and businesses don’t see the need to even try and conform to accessibility guidelines.

As part of a group of organizations (the advisory group for the Dutch Web Accessibility/Quality Guidelines) concerned with changing this way of thinking, several of us are trying to compile a list of themes/categories/factors which can be considered building blocks of really good websites, or less-obvious benefits of accessible websites. I’m aware of many, but lots of people in this industry are so incredibly smart; it would be such a pity not to ask.

So I’m asking! The idea is to create a list of things like “interoperable”, “search-engine friendly/findability”, “archivable” etc. to help convince government organizations and businesses that there are lots of non-obvious benefits in conforming to web accessibility guidelines. “Cuts down on bandwidth usage” is fine. I’ll parse the list and try to group like-minded suggestions together to come up with some high-level themes. I will post the results and link to any known follow-up usage or derivative of the resulting list.

Even if you can only think up one thing, please add it to the comments! Ask your friends (but don’t spam :) ). Don’t worry too much about accessibility, just quickly note whatever you think makes a great website.

Care to chip in? What constitutes a good website?

On content

Content is important. After all, it’s content people who come up with job titles like Content Strategist, which pretty much means One Who Thinks About Content. Which content, for whom, when, where, why, how… It’s absolutely necessary, because clients don’t do it. Not at the level that it should be done.

Paul Rand, one of the most well-respected designers this world has seen, called design “a method of putting form and content together”. If you would agree with this statement (as I do), you can infer the role of the designer as the one who must successfully combine two components: form and content (the designer will first busy herself with the form component). These two are not mutually exclusive. They are separate components which share a common goal and should be developed on a parallel track to one another. This, however, does not mean that they should be reviewed by the client together at every stage.

On clients

Two quick facts about clients:

1. Many don’t know what they want, and when they do, they don’t know how to communicate it
2. Many lack the imagination to “see through” design sketches

These are the reasons we are hired in the first place. But these two facts have paved a dangerous path across the lawn of the creative process. An alarming number of web professionals today seem to advocate making preliminary deliverables mimic the finished product– the more accurate, the better.

This is, well, stupid.

It’s not stupid if don’t track your hours. It’s not stupid if you don’t care if or how much you are paid for your work. It isn’t stupid if you don’t mind doing twice as much work for nothing. Your clients will love you for it, and you’ll be doomed to continue doing it for the rest of your career.

On designing in the browser

When Andy Clarke first started talking about “designing in the browser”, I thought it was a great idea. Then people started misinterpreting this to mean “executing the creative process in the browser”. If Andy really designed in the browser, his designs would be shit. What he was of course referring to was the execution of a design idea in the browser as opposed to a tool like Photoshop, which doesn’t communicate Web Things the way a browser does. He strives for more realism in his deliverables. He’s simply working based on the two Client Truths listed above. And if you’ve ever done designs in Photoshop, you’ll know that applying client changes to those documents is akin to cutting off your own fingers one knuckle at at time. HTML is much easier.

That said, there is certainly a place for Photoshop sketches. It’s possible to put together a quick visual impression of a website in far less time than it would take to work out in HTML. I’m referring to the basic idea of a website, an impression of the design language, intended to gauge if we are on the write track before spending many more hours mocking things up in HTML, which is, in fact, templating. I am not referring to creating finished static design visuals. These are the bane of the web designer’s existence, and should be avoided at all costs. If you really understand your client’s needs, that means you’ve done your homework, and you’ve actually designed before the browser. Otherwise: baby steps.

On communication

Imagine that your job was to drive your client somewhere. They aren’t quite sure where they want to go, but a lot of sun would be nice. And perhaps water. You could drive them to California, but once they hear about Florida, they might prefer that and demand that you drive them there (at your cost, because you’re the one who chose to go ahead and drive to California).

A better way would be to communicate with the client, asking them if they prefer dry heat or humidity, surfing or Spring Break parties, earthquakes or hurricanes. Based on this information, you could show and tell about both places, help them weigh the pros and cons, and help them in their decision. Then drive. Only then.

Making websites is a process. Creativity is a process. Pacing and leading clients is a process. You’re not going to eliminate frustration by trying to come up with real content, a polished design and working browser functionality on the first go. You will lose money, though, and perhaps your sanity.

There’s a reason for storyboards. But wait, shouldn’t Pixar just go ahead and build and render the complete movie so that the studio execs can see how it will really look?. Then, if they like it, it’s done! Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

There’s a reason that advertising teams consist of an art director and a copywriter: design and content. They’re bed buddies. But these teams pitch ideas, and then work them out. That’s why we have wireframes. That’s why we have Photoshop. That’s why we have Lorem Ipsum. And that’s why we have, most importantly, good old pencil and paper.

On balance

Here’s what I think: some web professionals want to focus more on deliverables than on people. But guess what: it’s all about people. We need to help our clients along and communicate with them. If you want good deliverables the first time around, the answer is not to use “real” content and a design which is in fact finished HTML/CSS/Javascript in a real browser. The answer is to ask focused questions, discover the pressing problems, to introduce your client to your potential solutions to those problems. Give them tidbits: here’s an impression of how the site could look visually. Here are some things you might want to consider concerning your content. Work your way up to real content in a real browser. When done right, that point can come quickly.

It’s too much to show a client all these things at once in the very beginning. There are too many factors, and it’s impossible to tell which factors will influence their opinions at that moment, which makes revision a nightmare at best. Of course content and form should each be developed with the other in mind. But consider presenting separately at first. Yes, that could mean that Lorem Ipsum is an option. That could mean that Photoshop is an option. That could mean that a sketch on a napkin, with a good, old-fashioned explanation of how things work, is an option. When you know enough, put form and content together.

On bed buddies

And forget the content versus design war. They need each other. In the words of Paul Rand, “when form predominates, meaning is blunted. but when content predominates, interest lags.”

It’s for this reason that Eend and Cinnamon have spent a lot of time putting together a workshop which we feel will help clients, their project leads and/or managers to get the best out of the web shops they hire. The two-day workshop has been designed to expose clients to the potential success factors and pitfalls on their side of the project, and to give them the tools to use this knowledge to their advantage. The entire project process from bidding to post-launch evaluation will be examined. We’ve got great speakers with very high-level, client-side web project (management) expertise, as well as a few on the development side for a well-rounded whole.

Grip—or rather Grip2009, as this first workshop is called—will be held on November 17 and 18, 2009, at the very posh (no, not that POSH) Grand Hotel Karel V in Utrecht, The Netherlands.

While there are plenty of workshops and conferences for developers on building better sites, there is little practical information for clients on how to ensure a successful web project. We’re excited about Grip2009. We hope it will give clients the tools they need to engage with their web contractors like never before.

Unfortunately, this first edition of Grip will be completely in Dutch. We haven’t ruled out an international (English) event for the near future.

For any Dutch readers, here’s the press release (feel free to distribute):

BEGIN PERSBERICHT —

Grip2009 – Tweedaagse workshop voor webprojectleiders

Op 17 en 18 november 2009 wordt in Grand Hotel Karel V te Utrecht een tweedaagse workshop voor opdrachtgevers van webprojecten gegeven: Grip2009. Het programma is samengesteld door ervaren internetprofessionals en levert, naast nuttige tips, bruikbare kennis en vaardigheden uit de praktijk om grip te krijgen op webprojecten. De nieuwe workshop, die dit jaar voor het eerst wordt gegeven, richt zich op opdrachtgevers die hun internetprojecten beter willen begeleiden.

Voor opdrachtgevers van webprojecten bij het bedrijfsleven, not-for-profit-organisaties en de overheid is er momenteel weinig concrete en in de praktijk bewezen informatie beschikbaar hoe deze projecten tot een succes zijn te maken. Dat verandert met de komst van Grip2009. De workshop is bij uitstek geschikt voor mensen die aan klantzijde betrokken zijn bij de inkoop, de ontwikkeling en het beheer van internetprojecten, of mensen die een carrièrestap overwegen in deze richting.

Er zijn maximaal 60 plaatsen beschikbaar voor dit unieke evenement. Snelle beslissers kunnen tot 16 oktober profiteren van een flinke korting. Meer informatie vindt u op: www.grip2009.nl

EINDE PERSBERICHT —

• personal taste of the client
• personal taste of the spouse of the client (oh, yes, it’s true) or other stakeholders
• body language
• use of language and tone-of-voice (whether written or spoken)
• etc. (I’m sure you can think of quite a few)

Use of language

Use of language is an interesting one. I’m an American working in Holland, so when I write proposals in Dutch, I might not be choosing the very best words to describe what I mean because there’s always a limit to my vocabulary compared to that of a native speaker. Even within my native American English, I’m sure my vocabulary is quite limited (although I’d love to attribute that fact to
the 80/20 rule). But language barriers aside, when one’s vocabulary offers more than one word to describe something, the choice of word can say a lot about the way the person approaches a given subject. Choice of words, very much like choice of clothing or choice of music, can give tiny bits of insight into personal preference, corporate politics (in the form of resentment or rebellion), level of expertise on web-related issues and sometimes even hidden meaning.

This very simple process would involve determining which meaningful words a client uses, and how often they use them. By meaningful I mean giving little or no value to adjectives, conjunctions and the like. “The” is not going to tell us much.

How to do it

With the spoken word this is hard to do. You can’t get an exact count of specific words while talking to a client. And if you could, you’d look like an asshat. Personally, I tend to make mind maps during client meetings, which by definition means that I’m only writing down keywords in relation to each other. Mind mapping also minimizes writing time, which allows me to pay more attention.

When you get written material from a client, like an RFP or a project brief, there’s a cool way to do it: Wordle. Wordle is a fantastic little tool which examines a piece of text, counts the words and creates a treemap-like visualization of these words. The most-used word is largest, while the least-used is smallest. And with options for colors, fonts and placement, Wordle word clouds look nice as well.

Play around

Try it out. Take a document in which your client explains what she wants or expects of your current project (or any correspondence, for that matter) and throw it into Wordle. See if it tells you something you hadn’t noticed by simply reading. Oh: Don’t save your client’s stuff in the Wordle gallery. Thank you.

Please note that in dealing with clients it would be foolish to rely on word analysis alone, but it could be a nice addition to one’s toolbox. Since clients often expect us to read their minds, we might as well oblige as best we can.

This imbalance, as it turns out, reveals itself not only in money, but in virtually any situation where there exists a relationship between input and output or cause and effect. And that’s just about everything. The imbalance is not necessarily 80/20. It can be 70/30 or 90/10. The point is that there is a significant imbalance.

It’s logical, when you think about it. Not *all* of what you do can possibly have the same effect on an outcome. Not *every* design will get the same amount of attention. In a 10-slide presentation, perhaps two or three slides will have the most impact. A site we just finished has several nice features, but only one or two of these will set it apart from similar sites. We paid the most attention to these features.

As a web designer, developer, or whatever it is you do, it’s a good idea to go into 80/20 mode at several points during your project. What are you doing right now? Is it part of the important 20% or the trivial 80%? Is that button really a show-stopper? The 80% is not bad, it’s just not as important. Utilizing the 80/20 Principle can help you set the right priorities. Short on time? Do 20% stuff. It will have the most effect.

Think about it… How much of Microsoft Word do you *really* use, Or any app for that matter?

Recommended reading: The 80/20 Principle by Richard Koch. This book is a must have. Richard really goes geekily in-depth. The 80/20 Individual is also quite good, but you should really like the subject if you decide to read both.

One of the article’s comments brings up an interesting point. While I don’t own a large company, we do serve some *very* large clients. And one thing I’ve learned from them is something anyone who sells anything could probably tell you: if you want to sell something, whether it be a product, a service, or an idea, you’re best chance is to first speak the language of the person to whom you’re selling. Once you’ve done that, you need to show the buyer what’s in it for them. At big companies, it’ll usually come down to the subject of money.

Peter-Paul makes an interesting point. Developers at big companies speak the language of other big-company developers. They have different work environments, often high-stress and high-profile projects, and they often work on one aspect of a project (e.g. only HTML/CSS/JavaScript). While this could be a great first step, we need to remember that getting large companies to embrace web standards will not only involve convincing the developers, but also the management of these companies. What’s in it for them? How’s this stuff gonna make them money? Got your pitch ready? Sell it.

The idiocy peaks with the apparent lack of a decent search-and-replace job, as the name Cinnamon is to be found on the very first page.

These people can’t even do a decent job of copying a website, let alone build one. You can hire them, if you can even find their contact information.

Cursor Webdesign, if you want to run your own business, write your own copy.

If this client had informed me of any complaints which were heavy duty enough to withhold payment (there aren’t), I would have listened. If this client would have informed me of cashflow problems, I would have listened. But not paying, never being available by phone, never returning my many calls or responding to the many letters, and still enjoying the benefits of a new website? Uh, let me think. No. Delete.

We take pride in being flexible and providing clients with the best possible service, and we have some mighty important references who’ll back that up. I guess I’m a bit surprised about this because it’s never happened before. But maybe it comes with the territory.

Anyone have similar horror stories? How did you resolve? Please share.