I always tell them that the content is the first thing I will need from them, and that the design phases (architecture, navigation, graphics) all depend on the content. I also explain that the content is the most important part of their site: it’s the thing their visitors are looking for.

To assist them I refer them to an article I wrote that briefly explains how to write using appropriate headings, keywords, bulleted lists, simple sentences, first-person active voice, etcetera. I also suggest that they list all the general categories of site visitors they anticipate, then list the general information each type of visitor will be looking for, and then, using the lists, write out the information needed. Lastly, I try to convince them that it doesn’t need to be perfect and it’s not going to be chiseled in stone.

Nonetheless, this is the part of web development I find the most difficult. It’s beginning to occur to me that many adults are simply unable to write a few coherent pages of text. I’m beginning to think I should just interview them and write the content myself, but I want to be a web builder, not a writer.

I’m curious and looking for helpful ideas. Is this a common problem, and how do other developers handle it?

Share This

Situations

There are various situations in which I think it makes sense to do this. I have no problem with artists signing their artwork. It seems to be customary and it’s easily conceivable that the name of the original artist could be lost if a piece were not signed. As for an artist who is commissioned to do a specific piece, maybe the artist is famous enough that showing off his or her signature is valuable.

I also think it makes sense for a web builder to get credit for any site that is built pro bono; it would be part of the compensation.

However, when a person is employed (paid) to do some work, I wonder about the practice of leaving their name on the work in public view. I think there are many professions where this would be unseemly; architecture, landscaping, interior design, advertising.

Who does it serve?

In the practice of design, all elements (graphics and content) are supposed to support the goals of the site ownership or the site users. Any element that does not support these goals should be removed, right? If the site credit serves the goals of the site owners, by providing compensation to the builder, then I see no problem.

I imagine that only a very small percentage of site users, if any, would be served by seeing the name of the site builder. Any user who even wondered who had built a website would probably be able to find out by contacting the site owners and asking.

Alternatives

An alternative to displaying the site credit would be to leave information in the meta tags. Interested and savvy users might think to look there for it. Of course, that would not create a link to the web builder’s website.

What do you think? Let me know what your thoughts are.

Share This