Re: web safe background

Mikael,

I tend to agree with Kehvan -- sometimes you have to do what you have to=20
do: The customer is always right even when s/he's wrong.

I had a client that knew his site looked like garbage on Netscape. He used=
=20
IE and it looked fine to him. I explained three times, a little different=20
each way, to help him understand that /he's/ not the customer for his=20
business so it's not *good enough* for it to look good on his machine.

He refused to budge. So, the next time he had an update to his site, I=20
managed to slip in some improvements. I did that with each update until it=
=20
very nearly resembles cross-browser compatibility. But, those improvements=
=20
were not as noticeable on his end since I wasn't changing the color scheme.

FWIW,
Tamara

At 08:15 AM 3/27/01 +0200, Mikael Bystr=F6m wrote:
><snip>
> >But that's THEIR problem, not mine. Sure, it's a cavalier attitude, but
> >so long as my CLIENT is happy with the results of their site, the "rules"
> >and "theories" for proper web design and coloring can be thrown out the
> >window.
>
>I guess your clients are unaware how an ugly site can affect their sales
>or they don't have such a turnover that they would notice anyway. If they
>are aware of the time and money spent on their contractor (us) and it's
>considered less than potential losses then they are doing the right
>thing. If they are unaware, however, they are practising "False Economy".
>IMHO, it's that simple.
>
>I think this general attitude of yours (if I percieved it right) is the
>difference between a developer that takes a stake in the business side of
>the client (and get paid to do so) and one that doesn't.

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA