well because i don't work for others then it is easy for me to give advice, perhaps less easy to impliment it.

but if you are reliant on the work for your living then i would offer the advice that making the changes would be foolhardy - but also giving your reasons - and then doing the work that is asked of you.

if you can afford to not do the work and truly believe the redesign would be a bad thing, then advise strongly not to do it and not take on the work, but be charming enough to say you'd be glad to be back on board if the site owner changes his mind in the future.

...needs move movement, more images...

They want to get flash and image-maps on there, reduce the text by two thirds and generally "jazz it up".

The pages will be filled with code bloat, deprecated tags and, above all, densely laden with images serving exactly the same purpose as text currently is.

Maybe I'm just not getting it, but why does adding images and Flash lead to deprecated tags? I feel like a walking advertisement for SWFObject - but flash properly implemented doesn't cause those problems. Take a look at how SWFObject works - you have non-Flash content for all Flash objects and the code is compliant since the object is put on the page via Javascript.

And I'm also not seeing the problem with using images instead of text, and generally shortening the length of the text. Those seem like great ideas to me (at least in theory) - you get to the point more quickly and the site will be more engaging to the user. After all, a picture is worth a 1000 words, right? Of course all of that assumes the design is tasteful...

At the same time I sorta get what you're feeling. You're probably feeling the burn of an unfavorable critique (I had one this week too). Try to push past the emotion and see if there's any truth to it...

Read up on 'malicious compliance'. In short, even if you are told and paid to ruin the site the owner can still hold you liable for any loss of income etc. caused by the destruction.

Why not just create a mini site for the promo work and leave the main site as it is?

jay5r

do you see the difference between:

<ul class="menu">
 <li><a href="index.php">home</a></li>
 <li><a href="page1.php">page1</a></li>
 <li><a href="page2.php">page2</a></li>
</ul>

and...

<table border="1" bordercolor="black" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center"
 <tr>
 <td>
 <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center">
 <tr align="center" valign="middle">
 <td align="left" valign="middle">
 <font face="verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif" size="+1" color="#0000FF">Menu</font>
 </td>
 </tr>
 <tr align="center" valign="middle">
 <td align="left" valign="middle">
 <img src="graphics/homepage-menu.gif" height="27" width="85" border="0" align="middle">
 </td>
 </tr>
 <tr align="center" valign="middle">
 <td align="left" valign="middle">
 <img src="graphics/page1-menu.gif" height="27" width="85" border="0" align="middle">
 </td>
 </tr>
 <tr align="center" valign="middle">
 <td align="left" valign="middle">
 <img src="graphics/page2-menu.gif" height="27" width="85" border="0" align="middle">
 </td>
 </tr>
</table>
 </td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td>
 ...

that's the sort of thing I'm talking about...as I said in my OP

densely laden with images serving exactly the same purpose as text currently is.

so it's certainly not a case of pictures doing what a thousand words can, but of 2k of html bloat doing exactly what 200 bytes of text was already doing.

Flash/image-based sites CAN be done well. They USUALLY aren't.

and as regards the unfavourable critique, my friend says he loves the site but may need to change things to get the ad people on board. I understand that.

The ad people most certainly DON'T like the site - but I'd probably be more offended if they had liked it. :)

With reference to the bloated code posted, there is no reason that you cannot create the same visual effect using CSS. The ad firm do not need you to provide something using their code, just something which looks as they want it to look.

Keep a backup of the old design. You might need it in the future once the Ads are finished!

Using images of text instead of text as text is a bad bad thing. It's worth fighting that one tooth and nail. Under no circumstances agree to making graphics with text on just so you can support their fancy font!

but that's the problem VV...they just want a lot of fancy fluffy images with fluffy mouseovers. All noise and no signal. All HTML, no css. Hey, they know their customer base better than me...maybe their customers like that type of site.

Which is fine.

I just won't be part of making it. :)

Of course I can see the difference in the two, and these days we usually take the leaner approach, but there are times when the design calls for more than just text. Image and Flash based navs aren't evil and they can be done "properly".

The fact that you care so much about code and standards makes me think you're mostly a programmer. And the fact that someone is telling you to use an image based nav with <font> tags makes me think they're more of a graphic designer. IMHO you shouldn't be dictating design, and they shouldn't be dictating which tags to use.

There's concept/design and execution and what you're complaining about is execution. As Vince stated, what they're talking about can be done without using deprecated tags and the like, so the whole execution problem isn't really a problem - it can go away by just implementing the design with better code. My guess is they won't even notice if you don't use the <font> tag provided the page looks the way they want it to - so just say "sure" and then do it "properly".

The question then is one of design. I hate the term "jazz it up", but "freshening" the look and feel of a web site isn't a bad thing (if you're dealing with a competant designer), and yes, sometimes that means you need to use a little more bandwidth, but with so many people having broadband the difference between a 15K page and a 60K page isn't a big deal these days.

The real question is which will perform better? Which will sell more widgets? You won't know whether "fluff" sells until you try it...

And of course, they're asking 5 grand for them to do this vandalism. At which point, the friend turned round and said, "well, I'll just get you to do it".

That says it all. They're giving him a sales pitch, trying to drum up a $5K design job for themselves.

Unless you specificially signed over - specifically and in writing - all copyright and IP rights to the basic design and code, save it and keep it for yourself for future use. It's kind of hard to claim copyright over a design layout, there are just so many variations possible and probably uncountable people come up with similar or same layouts. I believe it's the *content* that's unique to the siteholder, not sure how far the ownership goes, just that unless it's specifically given away in writing, ownership stays with the originator of the creative work.

But that's an ownership/legal issue. IMHO unless you absolutely need the money, it's not worth working on something you'll dislike every moment you're working on it. I'd thank him for the courtesy and walk.

[edited by: Marcia at 2:09 pm (utc) on Sep. 15, 2006]

I won't comment on the design/programmer thing, as you have enough comments already, but this seems like a case for hard stats. Are you or have been following your traffic trends? I'd recommend recording traffic for several months (at least) before any big change anyway, so you have something to compare the changes to. This seems obvious to me, and if they have 5k to spend on marketing, they might as well do it right.

So you recored how many visitors came through google and various search engines, what keywords got them to the site (which run the risk of being deleted in the text shortening), how long they stayed, and where they went, what they bought. Document and brief your 'boss'/friend on this and state that you recommend against certain changes in the code/design but do it anyway since it's a paying gig. Then follow your traffic stats for another 3-6 months and see if there is a change. If it's a positive change, there you go, then the net effect of the marketing campain (whatever that entails) was positive. If it's negative change, your employer is out 5k and has lower traffic and sales and didn't listen to his webmaster.

Either way everyone will learn SOMETHING, only if there are stats, and only if there is change to compare the stats to. Either way it's not the end of the world. Studying cause and effect is what marketing and SEO is all about. It's ONGOING. Live and learn, change accordingly.

My 2c. Good luck.

....."it's not dynamic enough, needs move movement, more images" and have said they'll only do the ad drive if the site is "strengthened". They want to get flash and image-maps on there, reduce the text by two thirds and generally "jazz it up"......

So here's the moral dilemma. Some of the ideas that have come out of this ad agency go against everything I've learnt as a webmaster in five years.....

One thing I've learnt over the years is that there is always some vulture out there that will find some point on your site, important or not, and build a case around it to show your client how you're an idiot. When it comes down to it, this business is just like any other - a great deal of "success" is not based in reality but on how well you can schmooze (in this case, B.S.) the client into believing you.

Your choices are to defend your position with facts and proven success, or let it go. This is a hard thing to do, the first few times you do it. After a while it's like a political argument, people will believe what they believe and nothing can change it. How well you can swallow this fact is going to determine whether you'll have a heart attack before you're 50. :-)

So take a truly objective look at this: are your standards solid and true or is there a **possibility** you may have something to learn here? If you're sure of this stick to your guns and walk away. If you're right, a year from now they will be back, "I'm so sorry, you were RIGHT!"

IMO anyone that suggests a site needs "more movement" hasn't a clue. Movement is bad, movement is annoying, it gets in the way of content, this position is beat to death in these and other forums.

EX: I had a client for years that I'd worked with, over time as the browsers came up to speed we developed it into a standards compliant site, eliminated all tables, honed this thing into a lean, mean, sales producing machine. One day **poof** it was all gone. The 16-year old son of one of the owners had been crowned HTML genius since he had taken a couple classes in high school. The result was the most amateurish point-and-drool page you can imagine. Sometimes you just gotta let it go.

Thanks everyone for posting your thoughts. I take jay5r's point on board totally: of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. I have seen other work by these guys though and it instils zero confidence, but that doesn't mean it has to be done that way. But: if THEY do the work, then they will be, to all intents and purposes, vandalising the site.

Sadly, I'm in a southern European country where the standards of web design are still pretty poor. Even pro web designers (on the whole, not exclusively of course) are still creating sites like it's 1999, à la Prince.

I have a good relationship with this friend and we've already spoken about this. If he wants to add more images, I can do that. But I won't wreck it. For that, he'll have to go elsewhere - but with no recriminations from me. He is, after all, running a business. I can advise (and have done) but it's his call.

I think marcia is right in that they were, and still are, trying to get a nice plum job for themselves. They will grab the 5k and move on and meanwhile, my good friend has had his site mauled. :(

(they already tried to suck him into a totally unrealistic mailing campaign offering wildly optimistic CTR's of 5-10%: I had my say on that little episode too.)

...the advertising company took one look at the site and said...

I can't tell you how many advertising and marketing firms (or even departments in bigger companies) just don't get it. Yes, I agree with Marcia that they want the job, but $5,000 isn't all that much money. I'll bet they really believe what they're saying. They probably talk a lot about "image", right? They are probably very successful in other media with their approach.

Funny thing is that even in other media, image ads don't usually do all that much for the client, even though designers win awards. But often the metrics just aren't in place to notice this.

Got to agree with jay5r, SWFObject is the way to go. It's technically sound, search engine compatible, and it even makes the site accessible for folks with disabilities. Here's the basic idea:

<div id="flashcontent">
Put an html version of the flash content in here
</div>

<script>
Detect for Flash support and if present, use the DOM
to overwrite #flashcontent with the flash object
</script>

And CSS can make pretty great hover effects too. Use hover behaviors to switch out background images -- you can even use animated gif backgrounds for snazzy effects. Plus the bulk of the js and css (this includes those awful object elements) can go into external files.

In short, it can be done if you're up for it, without sacrificing accessibility, usability, html size, or other SEO factors. And yet I still prefer the simplicity of a page that lets my eye movement go undistracted. But I also have clients... who have marketing departments... and so it goes. I sympathisize.

Final thought - no matter what, be sure to archive a copy of the present site, and the present stats.

Has your friend asked them to show him the search engine rankings of some of the sites they've designed the way they're suggesting for his?

I can't tell you how many advertising and marketing firms (or even departments in bigger companies) just don't get it. Yes, I agree with Marcia that they want the job, but $5,000 isn't all that much money. I'll bet they really believe what they're saying. They probably talk a lot about "image", right? They are probably very successful in other media with their approach.

1) they really do believe the garbage they are trying to sell and 2) they are trying to sell unnecessary services.

I honestly believe that ad firms should be contractually made subservient to the web developer not the other way around. I have worked with ad firms who also produced websites and while they were great at creating sparkle and show, they seriously fall down when it comes to functionality and performance. The problem is they normally have three too many design classes and can not see past the eye candy. Literally a good web developer who truly understands web development theory and W3C specifications should have absolute veto power over designers who try to implant print media ideals onto a dynamic multi-faceted media.

Graphics equal bloat. Bloat equals slow loading pages. Slow loading pages equals lost customers. Graphics must only be used to support and complement the purpose of the site. Glitz and glamour that does not inform the customer or brand the site is probably wasted bandwidth. If the glitz impedes the user's ability to accomplish their task it means lost customers.

Has your friend asked them to show him the search engine rankings of some of the sites they've designed the way they're suggesting for his?

Also ask them about accessibility they probably won't have a clue or will want to tack on some trumped up fee to make the redesigned site interoperable (work correctly on any modern browser) and accessible.

The odds are from what you describe the current site is very accessible for the disabled and works well with any browser. This broadens the potential pool of customers your friend can pull from. What the ad company wants to do is add complexity to the website. Every bell extra bell and whistle that adds complexity and/or hurdles (e.g. graphical navigation buttons) reduces the potential pool of customers your friend's site can draw from. In the end because of a less user friendly less efficient website your friend could lose as much potential business as he gains from a one time mail campaign. This means that that $5,000 is money thrown down the drain.

If the ad firm isn't willing to do one part of the job without sticking their fingers into the design of the site your friend should seriously question their motives. They may be putting their own interests ahead of your friend's.

To be honest if the ad firm refuses to run a campaign unless your friend takes out an additional contract for having the site redeveloped then I'd ditch the ad firm.

Your friend is intending to pay the ad firm for their advertisment services. That means your friend is the boss and his word is the end of the story. If the firm is already refusing to do what they are told, before the contract is even started, then I can't see this being a good working relationship.

At what point do you say "no, I won't ruin what is already a great, functioning site"?

The time was the instant that the site revamp was proposed.

The advertising company believes in style over substance. Tell the client to replace them. In the long run, you will make that five grand in other ways, and you'll earn it by doing good things for people instead of burning them.

Don't get me started on Flash.

Gotta run. An advertising company just told me to dye my hair green and put a ring in my nose.

"Every time you click on link, new car smell comes out of your computer."

Save a copy of the original site and then do what your friend wants for a fee.
I think you're taking yourself and code and standards too seriously. Moral dilemma? These are web pages.

It's not like you are building a house that is going to fall down and hurt everybody. You're not painting over the Mona lisa - you're painting over a copy of it.

These are just "documents" that reside on a computer and have links on them.

I think you're taking yourself and code and standards too seriously. These are web pages.

....

These are just "documents" that reside on a computer and have links on them.

I think you fail to understand the importance of best coding practices. It is the general lack of concern about W3C specifications/guidelines, usability and accessibility that is holding the web back. Almost all browser compatibility issues with websites are caused by sloppy/invalid code. If people took these issues more seriously browser compatibility, usability and accessibility issues with websites would virtually disappear.