Well, that's not an uncommon scenario. Their idea will probably be for you to design it, with unlimited revisions until they think it's friendly enough (imagine if houses were built like this: the window looks ok there, but can you move it over there? oh, and this is covered by what I originally paid - because the blueprint wasn't precise, it just said "make it pretty")
This is why I'm a big fan of a multi-tiered project plan: 1) wireframe the app, agree on a set of functions 2) basic design 3) prototype the app, with all UI elements, but no tie-in the database - some rough business logic in place, but not complete 4) complete the business logic and data tier 5) final signoff and implementation Each one is a stage, and is considered a separate contract. They're sequential, so the client must sign off on one before moving to the next. I find this very useful in many ways, particulary in managing client expectations, and for managing costs/timelines. Of course, it doesn't eliminate the problem of scope creep - but allows you to isolate it to make it more manageable (in my experience) Undeniably, the problem with blueprints in web development is that if we came up with a true blueprint, it'd be the final product. As such, we have to work our contracts with some leeway built in (ie, 25 to do this, but an additional 10 hours tacked on for review and revision). Plus, we have to better educate or clients - front end design isn't an exact science, but rather an approximate art, even though clients want a concrete price. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:29 PM Subject: OT - User Friendly? > Has anyone had to come up with contract language that helps nail down the > elusive term 'user friendly' in a fixed priced contract? It is a point > being negotiated at this time with a client. The quote has to be fixed cost. > The quote has to be done fast. The client uses the term a lot in thier > deliverable specifications. We are saying we would like to take the term out > because it is too vague. They are asking us what the 'industry standard' > wording for 'user friendly' is. I say we need more design specifications. > Sound familiar? > > Any thoughts and/or examples of language would be greatly appreciated. > > TIA, > :)mary > ______________________________________________________________________ Dedicated Windows 2000 Server PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER Instant Activation · $99/Month · Free Setup http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusiona FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
