A Problem with Offered Assitance

[StubbyD]

Hi all - am after advice on how to 'nicely' turn down someone who has offered help in building our required websites.

For those that recall I am but the project manager for the process and have basic skills in web coding but by my own self set standards they aren't very high.

Anyway - the pastor has put on to me this gentleman who for a living shoots and creates videos (wedding mainly) and he also does other Christian productions and the quality of these are beyond doubt. However, he came up to me yesterday offering services as he's been doing this for a number of years now.

I asked what skills he could bring to the project and his answers were:

1. 17yrs as a Schools ICT Technician
2. Expertise in Frontpage.

Now - I'm no frontpage expert but I do believe it won't do what we need it to do without much additional coding. I also believe it code bloats something horrible. Again by my own standards though, these two sites could be vastly improved just by me alone.

As to the schools ICT tech - well I used to run a team of them for my sins until 2yrs ago and the quality of them vary hugely. However, he gave me two websites to review which he created with FP and I offer them here.

www.castleviewproductions.co.uk
www.cmsentertainments.co.uk

Now, I don't want nor need you to critique the sites but what I do need is a nice way to say "thanks, but no thanks". I also need to know serious reasons why I shouldn't go with FP.

Please help?

Or should I just point him at www.churchbeauty.com ?

[ibda12u]

I was gonna just chime in and say, that the newer versions of Frontpage 2003, doesn't come with the same Code Bloat as the older versions did. I've been a Frontpage users for years even during the "gray" period, when adding a symbol took 12 lines of Code :) (kidding), but anyways, it's morphed and changed, and I think 2003 is a great version. I honestly do most of my programming by hand and I mainly use it in HTML view so I can keep my coding clean, visually anyways.

Okay so with all that said and done, I looked at the above referenced sites, and I totally agree with you. Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you can in a nice way let him know how complex and advanced that sites you're wanting to create are. I'd ask him if he's familiar with Specific skills that you're needing such as Advanced CSS, Javascript, and Color Scheming. I think there's always a nice way of telling people that they need to develop their skill a bit more.

A praise and worship leader I play with is always telling us that when we worship God, it's not just about making a joyful noise, but we need to be dedicated enough to "hone our craft" so that we can be as creative and skillful as possible in worship. So when we play music, we're not just doing enough to sound okay, but we should work so that we can skillfully master our instrument and play it for God.

All of use can become more skillful and in the direction of web development we know that creativity is king. not just creativity, but skillful creativity. I think this person has gotten familiar with FP, and can put together a site, but I really think they need to continue to develop as a designer/developer.

Perhaps you can nicely say that the vision, or direction you're wanting to design, could be further along that his current designs appear to be.

I think people will either be offended, or they will work to become better. If they become offended because you encourage them to work on their skill, then it most likely would have been tough working with them anyways.

[JackWolfgang]

Neither one of the sites validate (for XHTML/HTML validity), and to me that's a huge faux-pas with regards to church web sites. We're to try to reach all people for Jesus Christ without regards to biological differences or technological capabilities, and writing valid (X)HTML and CSS is a huge first step (not the only step, however) towards that.

Politely decline, would be my recommendation. If that's his photography work on the sites, perhaps you could redirect him into shooting photographs for the church website.

[David Gillaspey]

Or should I just point him at www.churchbeauty.com ?First point him to Great Church Websites (which hosts this forum) and to this forum. There's a whole lot more to website design than just having a pretty home page.

Frontpage is not the issue. It's what you can do with Frontpage.

I agree with the others. The provided example sites are not sufficient evidence of skill in website design.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[mrbelfry]

2. Expertise in Frontpage.


Hey I'm an expert in word but that doesn't mean I could write a novel - well I could but it wouldn't be any good.

Here is my short blunt answer: If your pastor wants you to work with him then you at least have to appear willing and give this guy a shot. If he isn't able to do what you need him to do then you need to explain to him why? He then at least has the opportunity to educate himself and come up to a certain standard.

Here is the long winded answer I'm writing to avoid the last few minutes of work: I feel for you here because I've had many a person thrown at me who have claimed to be web experts however when you question them further they normally just mean they've got a myspace account or something. Because the pastor has sent them my way I've had to feign interest. Once they've worked with me for a couple of hours they've lost interest - which may say more about me than about them ;-) - but to stop myself feeling guilty I like to think it is because they really had no idea what it was I do.

If there are few people working on a project then there needs to be a standardisation of code. Do you have something like that already in place? I know from looking at some php projects that these standards can include how to format a document/page/script including even how many spaces an indent should be, which case variables/attributes should be in (uppercase, lowercase, camel case (fyi xhtml spec says html attributes should be lowercase)). These minimum standards can be quite perscriptive and serve to remove quirks from someones style. I'd say having a common set of standards, guidelines, rules or whatever you want to call them is essential when you have a few people working together on a project.

From a purely html perspective I'd lay down something like the following standards as an example
1. Valid doctype declared at the top of each document
2. Each page must have a descriptive title tag
3. img tags must have the alt attribute and the width and height attributes set
4. All style information must be kept in an external stylesheet
5. All html tags and attributes should be lowercase
etc etc

Set down the minimum you can live with and then a bit extra. This should move him away from frontpage - perhaps you could suggest a freeware html editor that he could use that doesn't have any wysiwyg features

As project manager you are entitled to lay down a minimum set of requirements that someone has to meet in order to work in your team. In a voluntary setting it is not necessarily your responsibility to teach this guy how to write html. There are many books and websites (although I'd avoid the ones written in 1999) that can help this guy if he is willing to learn. If he's willing then great and you might eventually gain a valuable member of your team. If he's not willing to meet your standards (no matter how low) then at least you did your best.

Frontpage is a tool. You get rid of it when the tool stops being useful or when it is the wrong tool for the job. Looking at the code it has produced on the links you provided it doesn't produce code to the standard I personally would need it to - mainly because it doesn't seperate style from content and it uses tables for layout purposes. Plus there is a lot of bloat in there - there is a lot of code added that doesn't need to be there. There is more than one way to produce a website the same way there is more than one way to build a house. Frontpage builds houses that I don't want to live in.

Hope this helps although I fear I've gone on with myself a little bit

mrbelfry

ps -> in the time it took me to write the post a few people answered greatly and succintly so after criticising frontpage for bloat please forgive my 'bloatation'

[flutem3]

Hi, Stu,

As an expert in the field myself, :D this is what I have seen so far. The person may take fine photos etc. for weddings. If the websites you presented us to look at were made by him, I would say that he has a major "design flaw" in his approach. Those websites look like they were done by kids in high school. I am not saying that I can do better. That is just how they look to me at first glance.

The software doesn't matter a whit in my opinion. It matters in so far as clean code is concerned, but a website viewer doesn't care a bit about the code. Designers care about the code and whether it is "clean" or not.

The user just wants a website that makes sense, tells him/her the information wanted, and is easy to navigate. Many users are not very adept with computers anyway. I am not saying to aim at the lowest common denominator, but when you or any of us aim too high, we leave lots of people behind. Now, I understand that is not my responsibility. It is other people's responsibility to "keep up". But how many people do we want to leave behind?

I sometimes think that what we try to do is impress people as web designers. If you are a web designer, maybe that is okay. But it isn't if you lose your target audience. Now, to be honest about it, I am not certain I responded to the issue. :confused: Regarding the man...did he offer to help unaided or did someone encourage him to volunteer.

If he insists, and you are the person in charge, ask for him to make a test index page for the church and see what he comes up with. It will give you something to discuss. And you will have some idea of his thinking.

Carol

[StubbyD]

I have now come across this, which makes for interesting reading. http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.html

I know I don't understand all of the options there, but there are some areas I can utilise (because they are already in the planning) that will allow me to gracefully say no to frontpage at least.

[StubbyD]

If that's his photography work on the sites, perhaps you could redirect him into shooting photographs for the church website.

I believe it is and I just may well follow up on this angle. Partly because we don't have anyone in the Church who has a professional digital SLR and it is likely he has.

[StubbyD]

II'd ask him if he's familiar with Specific skills that you're needing such as Advanced CSS, Javascript, and Color Scheming. I think there's always a nice way of telling people that they need to develop their skill a bit more.

Cool - along with the comparison chart I found this is the beginnings of a plan :) We also have the same approach as your worship leader - the saying we end up minimising the whole sentiment down to is "trying to be professionally amateur".

[StubbyD]

If your pastor wants you to work with him then you at least have to appear willing and give this guy a shot.

Fortunately that isn't the case. I am the project manager and the pastor has already said he is looking to me to drive and guide him. Secondly my pastor has already said this 'gent' asked if he could build us a website and all the pastor said was go and talk to Stuart - he's in charge.

So it really is my call - I just don't want to offend if I can help it at all.


Hope this helps although I fear I've gone on with myself a little bit


Indeed it has and thank you.

[StubbyD]

If he insists, and you are the person in charge, ask for him to make a test index page for the church and see what he comes up with. It will give you something to discuss. And you will have some idea of his thinking.



I like this :) and it is probably something I should have thought of anyway. I know in my research so far that I have looked at examples of 'professionals' output and either looked further or discarded them / their company as possibilities.




Thanks all for the replies - I am not afraid of being blunt if I have to and indeed it is something I have often been accused of - however as I mellow into my middle years I feel life is not always about being 100% direct.

[flutem3]

Hey Stu,

There is a big difference between being blunt and being direct! Being blunt seems to contain a bit of anger/judgment in it when heard. Being direct is just that with nothing else hooked on to the statement.

I just had a good example of that earlier this even when Rebecca, our associate pastor, called. We have just recently begun a contemporary service which is reflected on our web site. She sometimes calls with ideas...some I am able to use; some I cannot use. But she makes her ideas known to me in a direct way...not in a blunt way...not in an accusatory way...just direct. I find it almost startling when a person is just plain direct. It seems that few people that I am around can do that.

I can take lessons from Rebecca on that myself.

Carol

[StubbyD]

Hey Stu,

There is a big difference between being blunt and being direct! Being blunt seems to contain a bit of anger/judgment in it when heard. Being direct is just that with nothing else hooked on to the statement.

I hear what you say (and agree), but the usage of those two words for me have zero difference.

Blunt=direct and direct=blunt

Maybe it's the British aspect of my upbringing but in terms of saying someone is blunt or direct in their speech, I see them as the same thing.

[flutem3]

Hey, Stu,

I didn't know that. Live and Learn!!! Day by day...I will have to remember that if I ever get to the UK. Is that true with everyone or is blunt=direct; direct=blunt a personal definition for you. :D

I sometimes have my own definition for things. Only problem is that the result is that I may confuse the issue...and I have done that well from time to time. I just try not to let it happen too often...I hope. :-)

Carol

[StubbyD]

I will have to remember that if I ever get to the UK. Is that true with everyone or is blunt=direct; direct=blunt a personal definition for you. :D


Well the dictionary will tell you they mean different things. However direct has so many connotations to it that one could probably work my definition into it somewhere :)

I'd have to say it is my usage of the word though.

[mrbelfry]

he he - just to confuse the argument. I would use blunt and direct as two different words. blunt is directness with added nasty