There’s a certain breed of clients that lives in the past: web 1.0 clients in a web 2.0 world. They can be a nightmare to work for, and they often end up commissioning horrendous sites that pollute our precious internet. It might seem easy to just pretend they don’t exist, or, worse still, to do as they ask, but—brace yourself—these clients are the stepping stones to enlightenment. It can be frustrating to work for clients who force us to justify our strongly held beliefs, but, budget permitting, it may still be worthwhile.
The salt of the earth#section2
“[T]hese few are the salt of the earth; without them, human life would become a stagnant pool…. There is only too great a tendency in the best beliefs and practices to degenerate into the mechanical…” —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
J. S. Mill may have died many years before the birth of the internet, but that’s not to say he can’t teach us a few things about dealing with clients who need to be educated. Only by being made to question our own beliefs can we prevent them from becoming dogma—and difficult clients certainly ask plenty of questions.
These clients represent the ultimate test: They require that we explain why frames are bad. Why cross-browser compatibility is a serious issue. Why the use of “click here” is considered inappropriate. Why we now consider the web to be a medium in which vertical scrolling is acceptable. They test our knowledge and they test our patience.
We all know why our methods are best practices, but can we justify them? Because there’s no getting unjustified statements past these clients, and there’s no bamboozling them with buzz phrases and marketing spiel. You have to justify each of your points in plain, simple English, whether it’s a usability concern, a standards issue, or a design choice.
Why enlightenment matters#section3
The big clients—the clients who are already paying megabucks—often tend to believe whatever you say. You’re the expert and they’re the client, and you’re implicitly right because it says so in the last “0” on that invoice. If you weren’t, they’d feel it was money poorly spent, and nobody wants to admit to a bad investment—so nine times out of ten they’ll take your word as gospel.
The little man, on the other hand, isn’t always so easily convinced. They’re not intentionally testing you: they just don’t get it.
But there’s a benefit to staying on top of your game. Because the next time you hit that one client in ten who’s paying megabucks and wants a better explanation, you sure as heck don’t want to be caught off guard. Perhaps it’s been 12 months since you last had to explain everything from grassroots. Perhaps that hesitation, that delay in justifying your fee, is going to go down badly. Maybe today’s the day that you lose out on a Fortune 500 gig because you’re wearing your comfortable slippers and no one’s made you dance in a while.
If it is, it’s going to humble you to realize that the owner of the corner shop (let’s call him Mr. Smith) might have helped you win that contract.
Finding the stepping stones#section4
Nine times out of ten these clients will have already found you. Remember? You probably turned down the job because they asked too many questions. They often tend to be shopkeepers or the owners of small businesses. Sometimes they’re just innocent technophobes embarking on their first web adventure. The last website that they were involved in was 1991, and they don’t understand why things have to be different now.
They insist fervently that there should be “absolutely no scrolling.” They want those cool animated GIFs. The concept of writing content specifically for the web seems as alien to them as this new-fangled and utterly unnecessary thing called “broadband.” They more often than not have a son who is a web designer. He uses FrontPage and hemorrhages “frames.” Isn’t he clever?
Falling from the path#section5
You: You’ll see I’ve removed all the “click here” links…
Mr. Smith: Why?
You: Ah. Well. You see, they’re not considered to be good practice these days.
Mr. Smith: Why?
You: Well, for one thing they don’t mean anything if the website is printed.
Mr. Smith: Well who does that?
You: Right… well, urm… the other thing is it’s not really technically accurate. If the user’s using a keyboard instead of a mouse… if they have a disability for example…
Mr. Smith: Well that’s just political correctness gone mad. You’re being stupid. You’ll be telling me Microsoft’s had to rename itself to “Vertically-challenged-soft” next…
You: ∗Contemplates beating the client to death with a handy philosophy textbook…∗
Mr. Smith: … why are you looking at that book?
You: I was just thinking how to best explain the virtue of this concept to you. Would you perhaps be persuaded by an amusing and colorful comic strip?
Mr. Smith: No.
You: Oh.
Hold fast, gentle reader. There’s another reason to remain on the path. What if we’re wrong? What if Mr. Smith is right?
It’s only by being forced to question our beliefs that we can be certain they’re right. The web is an ever-changing medium, we need to be prepared to accept that there’s a possibility that some of our practices are no longer best. Or that—and it happens—they may never have been best in the first place, but no one thought to question them with enough force when they were first mentioned.
Should we really not be using tables for layout? Is the use of “click here” really so wrong? You don’t need me to play Devil’s Advocate—Mr. Smith is more than happy to do so without even realizing it. Periodic reasessment can only improve your work.
Sleeping well at night#section6
After learning to deal with these antediluvian clients, you’ll breathe a sigh of relief next time you’re dealing with an “easy” client. They’ll be infinitely more convinced that you know what you’re talking about, and I wager you’ll have increased confidence in what you’re preaching. Even if they never question your decisions, you’ll have the kind of self-confidence that puts a smile on your face.
Difficult clients who require education represent the ultimate test. Before we devote all of our time and efforts to producing all-singing, all-dancing websites for Fortune 500 companies, let’s see if we can spare the time to keep the local shopkeeper happy. Go on. The path to enlightenment is never easy, but you never know: you might even enjoy the challenge.
This was a really good article. I’m a WDiT (Wed Designer in Training) and with no one to really discuss all things web (war on terror might have something to do with that), I have no choice but to rely on sites like this and the people involved to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong.
Often I do ponder if some of the things said are right (like using tables, etc). I am striving to design with standards in mind but often get frustrated because instead of using a table I’m struggling to figure out how to do something with a div.
As I gain more experience and learn to differentiate the experts from the b*llsh*t artists I’m sure I’ll come up with my own style and preference of designing and getting the job done right.
This is Great.
This is Great.
Nice way to share informartion
Nice way to share informartion
Nice way to share informartion
Nice way to share informartion
Nice way to share informartion
Nice way to share informartion
A well built solid cabinet would last longer than a cheap one right”¦ even though they may look the same on the surface? But you have to be prepared to pay for it right? Give the customer what he wants inside the budget constraints. If one is not prepared to learn about table less layout then surely you can’t afford to charge top rates.
It is true we should question our methods and try to educate however the customers should get what they want.
A well built solid cabinet would last longer than a cheap one right”¦ even though they may look the same on the surface? But you have to be prepared to pay for it right? Give the customer what he wants inside the budget constraints. If one is not prepared to learn about table less layout then surely you can’t afford to charge top rates.
It is true we should question our methods and try to educate however the customers should get what they want.
bq. I’m sure I’ll come up with my own style and preference of designing and getting the job done right.
That sounds like a healthy attitude 🙂 Good luck with it. The web develops at such a tremendous rate that we’re all WDiT’s whether we like it or not! 😉
There’s really more to clients then clients that “get it” and clients that don’t. I think it was Paula Scher in “Make it Bigger” who talked about there being four essntial client types. Think of a coordiate chart with extremes of smart<->stupid and meddling<->uninvolved. These two axes cross so that you get four types: smart and excited, smart and uninvolved, stupid and excited, and stupid and uninvolved. I’m paraphrasing the langugage–
I think she was a bit more polite about the terminology–but the general idea stands. Her main point in all of this was was that some of these client types will cost you money. In my experience, the project for a stupid, meddling client will never finish on time or underbudget. While I agree that they can provide practice for understanding good tenets of design, if you have options or can afford to wait for another job to come along, do so. You will lose money (time) on a stupid, meddling client. Stupid and uninvovled is not so bad and would still make for good practice.
Fellow philoso-mo-phizer,
Great article. I can’t wait for you to compose “Part II”, when you post the comprehensive list of stupid questions clients ask and link to some web pages that pose answers. Then again, most of those links will point back to ALA articles! Good stuff…
-Walt
Well when you take into consideration the reason we are here doing what we are doing is because of the client it puts a perspective on working with difficult people. However, sometimes you have to weigh the opportunity cost of working with such an individual and sometimes you will find that it actually is costing you money to work for them.
Brad,
Thanks for the comment, it’s spot on. Evaluating the opportunity cost is absolutely crucial in these situations. (I do think there’s a tendency for people to hurriedly _underestimate_ the benefits of difficult clients – but it would certainly be a costly mistake to _overestimate_ in a situation like this!)
Rob
It seems like, with a few exceptions, we all get the same questions. I wish somebody would make some sort of educational cartoon (Donald in Standardsmagic Land? …not sure if anyone will catch that reference…) so we could just sit the client down in front of a TV and save ourselves the time and hassle.
Because after all, their job is to make our lives easier, right? There’s nothing more tedious than a client who doesn’t know how to do design websites…