Plus Ã§a change….
Of course, I’m being facetious. Even when it comes to estimating how long I’ll be sick for, I’m off.
I think underestimating how long you’ll be sick is healthy however, and allows for the optimism of radiant health to help you get better.Â But, underestimating how long a project that you’re being paid for is potentially very bad news indeed.
I’m still sick, not lying in bed, but fuzzy headed and cranky, so not really up for a major analysis. Here are a few thoughts:
Incidentals: When estimating the number of hours something will take, don’t forget the incidentals.
- CASUAL communication: The 25 emails that take 3 min each to write, but actually took 10 minutes to think about. The 25 emails that were just cursory replies, that took no time to think about, but that took up time nonetheless. Same goes for uploading mockups or any ftping.
- UNOFFICIAL Review / Problem Solving of Project: This takes a lot of mental time too. That you might be thinking about a client project while walking the dog, taking a shower, doing the NY times crossword puzzle on Sunday morning (with hopefully croissants and jam at the ready). Of course, you have allotted official reviewÂ time forÂ any project you take on. But, I find anyhow, you can’t just shut your brain off while chowing down on croissants. In fact, the unique combination of sugar and fat and the challenge of the NYT puzzle may be just what it takes to bring that shining “AHA” moment into being.Ã‚Â But on your spreadsheet, you forgot to add in that hour.
- VALUE – Last night I saw a youth symphony perform the Nutcracker. Delightful. The conductor said what a pleasure it was to conduct for young minds for whom it was their first introduction to this music. And that , having performed it over 300 times himself, he liked being on the conducting end better. I don’t know what his salary is, but I bet it’s not only contingent on the 2 hours he conducted that specific concert. The value he brings, is of course, those 300+hours. That’s true for any kind of expertise someone in the design or any services industry brings to a project. Not exactly sure how to quantify value into a number that relates to how much time it takes, but I’ll let you know when I do.
- Add up how many hours you think it will take and double it. Or, if you’re the type who tends to underestimate, then triple them.
Off to take various vitamins and whatnot to get rid of this congestion.
I am .00088% of the web design population. Ok, I might be exaggerating in that extrapolation. But not by much. A few months back I particpated in Alistapart’s Web Design Survey. Just released, it reveals what I have long suspected from all the blogs in that sphere that I read. Most of the players are men.
Why is my percentage .00088? I am
- a) female
- b) from Canada
- c) have a master’s degree
- d) of mixed race….
the list goes on. I think that pretty much means I’m in the minority. Quelle surprise! [not mentioned, but e) bilingual:) ]
Girls, where are you?
- more fluid
- cleaner, sparser look :: so easier to read
- left hand menu a waste of space – but nice to have breathing room
- close up view is nice + clear
- send to cell link*
- cluttered up with ads, moving ones most irritating graphics too busy :: harder to read
- colours are clunky
Functionally, they offer similar features, but googlemaps has the additional option of a general overview map in lower right-hand corner – whereas the Mapquest options feel like ads. One positive exception – they have a “send to cell” link, and that might be how you’re searching for a place while driving. (*you, being a conscientious driver, are, of course, pulled over to the side of the road, or stopping in for a cup of joe, while calmly figuring out where you are.)
Recommendation: Unless the “send to cell” feature is an over-arching must have feature for you, googlemaps are still a girl’s best friend.
This was written a few months ago, but no doubt, still applies. I had to laugh out loud when I read this. I have been in this business long enough to remember the halycon days of Netscape 4, and then it’s subsequent fall from grace, and now it’s like a bad echo from some embarrasing incident in college where you found out someone posted the evidence on Facebook – ie6 is here to stay. As opposed to the Netscape 4 days (shudder), I no longer worry so much about how awful something looks in ie6. Why is this? Am I arrogant beyond belief, or stunned, willfully ignoring the 30/35/40/55 % share it still holds?
- What I do know is this:
Our clients are a) educated and b) not part of huge institutions where the cost of updating computers is too heavy
- ie7 has been out for about a year now (looks like almost exactly a year as per ms site)
- the problems with ie6 that we have are decorative, not functional. ie (pun intended): it may be that something floats a little too far to the left or right, capriciously; it may be that a menu isn’t aligned perfectly; it may be that the line-height is off.
- but generally speaking, when using css standards and fairly straightforward layout, the problems with ie6 are that it doesn’t display things like a magazine (ie: print) layout would. It dares to digress from our orders. Shame!
- whereas, back in the Netscape4 days (further shuddering), whole pages of text could disappear, or text could be wrangled beyond belief, and that, friends, was a problem.
So, if you’re using ie6, have no fear. You can still see everything we design, even if it occasionally looks a little off. If you want, you can pay us more, and we can hack away until those charming hiccups disappear. Until then, we’ll look forward to ie8?
Noticed. Around 4th & Granville. Billboard with yellow pages advertisement, with their (new?) slogan “The Find Engine”, using the good old two fingers walking. Clever nostalgic hit, or pathetic attempt to claw back some of the market share? Also noticed: no use of any url.