For clarity, and the benefit of those outside the creative industries who are likely to find themselves clients of the creative process.....
There is a very clear, structured design and implementation process which is pretty much common across all the dynamic media and indeed would be very recognisable to professional marketers, graphic designers and advertising consultants. That process embodies concepts such as market analysis, demographic analysis, risk assessment, cost projections etc. (and many more disciplines besides) and is largely transparent.
That process also extends well beyond the mechanics creating whatever media artefacts are required. Indeed this is one of the main culture shocks new entrants to the creative industries face. As a professional video producer for instance I spend relatively little of my working week behind the camera or at the edit bench. The bulk of the process is in ensuring that the final product I produce is 'safe' for the client. That is to say it carries no risk of damaging the client's goodwill or credibility nor does it carry any risk of exposure to litigation or censure. And, quite simply, that it works!
It was and remains fairly clear and obvious to me that Stu has reached a very definite point in the design and implementation process. Although the site is live and active it IS essentially at a 'test' stage, like a freshly resprayed car the paint is still 'soft', and the trim hasn't been attached yet. Time is what is required to ensure any little blemishes rise to the surface and settle before being cut back.
All that would be fairly obvious to anyone with proper training in any of the creative disciplines. And for that reason it's notable that none of the several other professional web designers or S.E.O. practitioners who inhabit the forum sought to level any criticism. None was called for.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to look at the swan in the river go gliding by and assume that swans simply glide without paddling furiously or exercising huge amounts of skill in terms of navigation, control and judgement. After all, we never see that process; it simply happens. It's also quite common for the foolhardy to jump on a log and have a go at gliding down the lazy river themselves. Sometimes this works; often well enough for them to develop delusions of competence such that they invite others on board. The danger comes when the going gets tough and cross currents are encountered. And sadly too often it's the unknowing passenger that embarked in good faith who smashes their head on the rocks....
IP rights are a good example of this. To include a scene with some kids singing "Happy Birthday" in your corporate video would cost about Five THOUSAND pounds in royalties to Time-Warner. Using a photo on your web page without the proper licensing in place could see you with a bill for £30,000. As the ongoing Getty/Corbis situation demonstrates, these companies do not even have to go to court to assert their rights. For invariably the only advice a lawyer is able to give is pay up or throw more money away on legal fees.
Adopting a mechanistic 'code monkey' approach to site design and S.E.O. might produce short term results. But could ultimately see your site more or less disappear off the search engines. Similarly 'clever' coding doesn't compensate for poor graphic design or convoluted copy that satisfies a machine's needs without accounting for humans. And ultimately a shattered reputation, like a shattered skull, is not easily healed.
What Stu has designed here is a good, solid, stable site that meets his client's needs well. Examining the code will indeed reveal gaps. But then if you open the drawers of a newly-built kitchen you would not be surprised to find them empty... How ridiculous would it be if a rival kitchen manufacturer came along and criticised the fit and finish on the basis of there being no teaspoons? :lol:
Now; where DID I put those teabags? :001_rolleyes:
