Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First Ever Web Design Survey Results

Posted by kdawson on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:21 AM
from the where-the-big-bucks-are-yeh-right dept.
rainhill writes "In April 2007, A List Apart and An Event Apart conducted a survey of people who make websites. Close to 33,000 web professionals answered the survey's 37 questions, providing the first data ever collected on the business of web design and development (PDF) as practiced in the US and worldwide. Among the findings: over 70% of people in this field earn less than $60K per year. There is little gender bias in salary. And over 70% of Web workers post to a blog; this number shows very little dropoff with age."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:22AM (#21025443)
    Sigh... at least it's not a giant image of text.
    • by ploafmaster general (920649) on Thursday October 18 2007, @12:32PM (#21027847) Homepage
      I never thought I'd say this, but R T F A. I know the post didn't link to the article itself, but I think we're all intelligent enough to go up a level or two in the URL to see the article itself.

      Immediately below the download button you see:
      "Findings From the Web Design Survey (1.6 MB PDF)"

      I don't think 1.6 MB is too huge for us nerdy Slash-dotters with our high speed connections, especially when we've been warned. And I don't think any reader here can justify clicking the link without first knowing what file type it is.

      Additional details about the PDF choice:
      "Note: This PDF has been tagged for accessibility, however the graphics representing the complex charts do not yet have equivalents. An updated document will be available soon."

      Anyway, they have the raw data available as well in multiple formats (with sizes indicated) so you can avoid charts if you want.

      Sheesh.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          In my day, we used characters for charts:

          Option 1: @@@@@
          Option 2: @@@@@@@@@@@@
          Option 3: @@

          That's beautiful, and don't ask me to draw you a pie chart, because I will.
  • Nobody has done a survey of web designers since 1994? Bull-shit.
    • This was a reasonably representative survey of all web designers? Bull-shit.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by codeshack (753630)
        Probably it's not a bad sample. I don't trust any web designer that doesn't read A List Apart -- it's pretty much the creme de la web design sources, both in terms of style, technique, and best practices. My old boss used to mandate it.

        And yes, I am a shill. But they have taught me many clever things, and turned me into a CSS Nazi to boot. And I filled out the survey way back when it started (feels like awhile).
  • Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kripkenstein (913150) on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:28AM (#21025553) Homepage

    There is little gender bias in salary.
    It would be better to say that there is little difference in salary; 'bias' has negative connotations of unfairness. As research in this area shows, it is hard to pinpoint which salary differences are actually discriminatory and which are not, but reflect objective factors (amount of hours worked, etc. etc.).

    I don't mean to start an offtopic discussion, just wanted to point out that the choice of word there might bait people.
    • Re:Bias? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by foobsr (693224) on Thursday October 18 2007, @11:37AM (#21026711) Homepage Journal
      I don't mean to start an offtopic discussion

      You may turn that into one that is completely on topic by mentioning that their use of the term 'bias' might shine a light on the overall quality of their research on the basis of a self-selecting sample, which they are not shy to advertise to give a 'true' picture, which again shows that they do no less than nothing about statistics based research. They don't even come to a conclusive result regarding the count of items their questionnaire might have, 36 or 37 (here http://www.alistapart.com/articles/webdesignsurvey [alistapart.com] — does not matter, just a fence-post error.

      However, the meta-result to me is that they again expose themselves as half-educated and overhyped. Yes, I do not particularly like them, along with Dash, Pirillo, ... you name them.

      CC.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I wasn't offended, and everything I said is true regardless of which gender has the lower salary.
      • Re:Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Surt (22457) on Thursday October 18 2007, @11:54AM (#21027135) Homepage Journal
        Salaried workers don't get paid overtime, but they get paid for overtime in the form of bonuses and salary raises that reflect on the perceived or real performance that results from extra hours worked.

        If you have a man who works 50 hours, and a woman who works 40 hours all year, and the man is 10% more productive as a result of his 25% longer hours, which are you more likely to reward with a larger raise?
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Surt (22457)
            How does that very large company decide who to promote?

            I've only worked for small and medium size companies so far (< 1k employees). So I don't know how the big companies do it, but all the (5) companies i've worked for decided raises and promotions based on performance and networking, both of which you can do better if you work a few extra hours.

      • Given 100 people, half men, half women, I would expect that they have the same distribution of salaries.

        Assuming salaries are fixed, yes. But most salaries are negotiable -- and it has been shown that women generally wind up with worse deals from negotiations than men do. Whether that is because of cultural issues (women taught not to be assertive, others thinking they can always talk a woman down and therefore pushing harder) or not is a totally separate question from whether actual bias exists in salary

  • by pzs (857406) on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:37AM (#21025699)
    A few years ago, I worked for the head of a major University computer science department in the UK. I was in charge of building the web page for our research project. My boss told me "whatever you do, my main preference in all these things is that it hast to look good."

    For inspiration, I visited the home-page of this arch aesthete. I discovered that his page, entirely in an overlarge Times font, used big thick-bordered frames (with scroll bars) a fantastically pixellated jpg of him and big flashing "new!" buttons next to various bits of the page.

    Somehow, I managed not to laugh next time I discussed the page with him.
    • by Stamen (745223) on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:48AM (#21025887)
      Style is a subtle thing, very subtle. A lot of people, simply can't distinguish good from bad. Really awesome design looks like anyone could of created it in 5 minutes; which of course they can't, but that's the genius of it.

      For me it's music, I don't hear in a very wide range (so say my hearing tests), and I exasperate my co-worker, who is an audiophile, because I simply can't hear the difference, like he can. The "horrible" pop music, with terrible range, sounds the same as "good" music to me.
      • And a lot of people can't distinguish good and bad, but like me when it comes to design something, it WILL be bad even for them. Let's face it, most people can't design just like most people can't program (I think often it's only one of those two skills).
    • by brainproxy (654715) on Thursday October 18 2007, @11:43AM (#21026879) Homepage
      It makes sense that if he could not create a "stylish" page, he hired a professional web designer, (guessing you).

      You should give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of art critics are not, themselves, artists.

      Sounds like he knew of this deficit an gave you the job.
  • Wrong survey (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:44AM (#21025807) Journal
    A web design survey? I thought they were going to be asking web users how they felt about various web designs. That would be a survey I'd really like to see happen. Maybe us users could communicate to the designers exactly how we feel about their designs. Maybe they could ask how many web users like it when a website takes over the windowing functions your browser should be managing. If I want to open a link in a new window, I'll do it myself TYVM. Or maybe they could ask how users feel about being tied to flash based in browser media players, instead of getting an old fashioned .avi to download. This is the kind of web design survey we really need.
    • You're still assuming that the people who are PAYING for the websites to be built really care about (or have the capacity to understand) what the users would like. Even now, with all the research and data available for us designers to argue with for simplicity and usability, the folks who sign the check want what they want and as long as I need to pay rent, they'll get it.

      That said, I've talked many, many clients out of building a site entirely in Flash - and they promptly found another designer.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      A survey might not give accurate results because what people say they like is not always what they respond to. There's a pretty great presentation by Malcolm Gladwell [ted.com] about this.

      For example, everyone says they dislike blue underlined links. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience there is no better way to let a user know where to click.

      So I'd like to see the data you're looking for too... but I bet a test vs. a survey would yield very different results.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...there are 33,000 web professionals.

    I thought that, for many people, it was very much an "on the side" activity.
  • I occasionally take a look at Web Pages That Suck [webpagesthatsuck.com] to get a feel for what NOT to do.

    In summary: don't be doing this [hrodc.com]. It's not big, and it's not clever.
  • by MeditationSensation (1121241) on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:54AM (#21025963) Homepage
    That there are 33,000 web design "professionals" out there... or that they have enough downtime to fill out a silly survey. ;-)
  • About the wages (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 18 2007, @10:54AM (#21025975)
    The low wage made by most web designers is a product of supply and demand. The barriers to entry for web design are low. In other words, almost anyone can create a web page and call themselves a designer.

    The sign industry went through the same problem when it computerized. Prior to computerization, signmakers had to have the skill to produce letters using a brush. After computerization, anybody could crank out vinyl letters quickly and cheaply. What the signmakers learned was that, if you wanted to make decent money, you actually had to be a good designer. People will pay good money for signs that work. IMHO, people will also pay good money for websites that work. Ah but there's the rub. WORK. For a sign, 'work' means that you get twice as many customers walking into your business. It probably means the same for a website.

    To prosper, web designers should probably know a lot more about 'design' (design doesn't mean 'pretty' or 'eye candy') and they should know a lot more about marketing.

    PS, to the major (radio, tv and print) advertising company whose website is very pretty but takes five minutes to load - you guys are clueless.
    • by Bogtha (906264)

      IMHO, people will also pay good money for websites that work. Ah but there's the rub. WORK. For a sign, 'work' means that you get twice as many customers walking into your business. It probably means the same for a website.

      Sadly, it does not. A person who knows nothing about sign-making can easily look at a sign and see whether it "works" or not. A person who knows nothing about web design can't look at a website and judge whether it "works" or not. Chances are they are using Internet Explorer. Do

    • More important would be to control for hours worked. Annual salary is meaningless without reference to the number of hours it took to get there.
  • They didn't ask how many designed web site that were usable only with IE.
    and then why?
    • There actually seem to be very few IE-only sites left. Firefox 2 is VERY good about dealing with IE-centric sites. The compatibility problems are with earlier versions of IE, and earlier versions of Firefox.

      And with the giant turd-ball of shite known as Flash 9.

      We just went through this with a design company that others-who-shall-not-be-named hired to "design" our new corporate web site. They delivered pages that were only compatible with IE7 and Flash 9. Actually, they worked with Firefox and Flash 9, too,
  • If you read the results you'll find its actually asking anyone involved with the web really. This really annoys me coming from such a respected publication.
    The Job Title for example shows 25% are in fact developers, 19.9% are web designers and even includes writers/editors making up the other 55%. Without understanding which job titles correlate to all the other questions it seems a bit pointless. I know some of the biases compare the different titles but not many.
  • I mean, actual Designers? Sure, plenty of HTML/CSS jockeys do, but that's a whole different discipline. And I wonder what the ratio of HTML jockey to designer was amongst the 33,000 people who responded to the survey was...

    My experience -- not academia, not corporate intranet, not "blogosphere," not Church Group, but entertainment industry -- is that people pay pretty well for a new site design. But my guess is that better than half of the people who responded to the survey hardly even speak the same lan
  • There's a big problem design in general faces. It's seriously undervalued. And I think the problem stems from accessibility. Desktop publishing has inspired a revolution in design, but at the same time it's been very detrimental to the industry.

    It has made design tools pervasive. It's created this attitude that good design is something anyone can do provided they know how to use to the software. It's completely screwed with expectations on the part of clients. Some guy in sales believes it should take me a
    • I know lots of people who are independent web developers, and they pick and choose their clients not for the high pay, but for interest in their field (non profits, politics, small business, etc). As well, as an independent you can write off a lot of your expenses, so $60k translates to much more. Finally, you get a lot more freedom, which sometimes leads to not working all the time.
      • by Skadet (528657) on Thursday October 18 2007, @11:36AM (#21026693) Homepage
        Whoa there, cowboy. I see by your UID that you're probably an old-timer, so let me explain to you how things work now-a-days.

        sorry web design is not nearly as difficult as many make it out to be.
        Making a web page for your mom's cat? Sure, not a difficult thing. Creating slashcode? Drupal development? SQL architecture? That's worth more than $60k.

        "Web pages are not critical", are you for real? You might not have seen this, but sites like MySpace, Friendster, et. al. are making more money than many "real" programs on "mainframes".

        zomg, I think I just got trolled. I tip my hat to you, sir.
        • by RealSurreal (620564) * on Thursday October 18 2007, @11:51AM (#21027055)
          I don't think you understand what "web design" is. A web designer doesn't go near a sql server.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by soliptic (665417)
            True, but RTFA: the report includes web developers, who almost certainly do, as well as information architects, usability consultants, project managers... it was open to the whole spectrum of web-related jobs.
        • by Surt (22457)
          If you're designing sql architecture, that's not web design in the conventional sense, and I doubt that is who they are considering in this salary survey. Our sql architects make 150k+. Our web designers make a lot less.
        • by NickFitz (5849)

          I see by your UID that you're probably an old-timer

          243324? He's a young whippersnapper.

          He certainly talks rubbish, but that's due to severe intellectual deficiency, not age: note such warning signs as the use of "your" instead of "you're", misuse or non-use of commas, "its" instead of "it's", "desinger" instead of "designer", complete lack of understanding of any technology whatsoever...

          I diagnose a low-grade troll, but his gross stupidity isn't due to being an old-timer; he was born with it.

      • Yeah, if they were a C++ programmer or programmer in a real language on a mini or mainframe I love when people talk about real languages. Please define what a real language is. I am not a web developer in fact I all of the work I have ever done was c, c++, backend php development, and some php internals. We are rapidly approaching a point where a very large percentage of applications will be able to be written in scripting languages (BE AFRAID!!) because of the amount of system resources available to
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by butterwise (862336)
        The reason it seems low is because not many people are solely "designers" any more, and more often than not are asked to bridge over between design and development. I count myself among those ranks, and while I may not be the world's greatest PHP/MySQL developer, I know my way around the code and can solve a lot of the problems that a "developer" might normally be asked to tackle, leaving them to go after the big fish. I don't just create designs, chop up PSD and write HTML.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by timoni (1175927)
        I work in SF as a web/UI designer and I make more than $60K. There's a huge scale in terms of website quality, front-end and backend, and you usually get what you pay for. (BTW I think you're underpaid.)
      • by lena_10326 (1100441) on Thursday October 18 2007, @01:38PM (#21029099) Homepage

        sorry web design is not nearly as difficult as many make it out to be. Some of the cumbersome tools and even client requirements can make it work - but its not like writing the back end that serves these pages or runs the business.

        I've done both: server work and front end web design. The difficult part of server work is usually integration with other systems as well as designing for performance. There are two back-ends: the internal architecture that encompasses your database, support scripts, and custom server code, and then there is the CGI layer, which queries and formats the data for presentation. The easy part of back-end work is with CGI scripts, which is the link between the real back-end and the front-end (browser). Writing CGI scripts to serve those pages is stupid simple, usually performed by junior developers, so it's not like all back-end work is touchable only by the resident genius guru.

        Your insulting comment is correct in that parts of web design work is easy. Processing images, slicing pages, and uploading them is quite easy, but so is writing a CGI form that gathers a user's information and inserts a record into a database. The difficult part of web design is with managing the information architecture of the site, integrating various applications and their project files, as well as dealing with browser and CSS idiosyncrasies. Those aspects are similar to database architecture, systems integration and project files, and dealing with operating system and language idiosyncracies. It's not surprising to me that the difficult parts of both happen to be logically very similar.

        The reason web designers are paid less is due to the fact it's a creative and desirable job, so more people are going to apply. It's also a field in which your portfolio makes or breaks you. You are judged quite heavily on the visual quality of your work. Producing visually stunning output, does does not mean you're a HTML/CSS/Javascript god. The problem with this scale of judgment is that it's based on what a manager sees. You and management see a nice illustration and you drastically under-estimate how time consuming creating that illustration can be. Of course, you don't try to reproduce it yourself and find out, but you judge anyway.

        Software developers are judged with a different scale, which is generally work experience and education level. You aren't judged by the quality of your code*. You get to hide behind the cloak of mystery, safe in the knowledge management will never see or understand your work. Management only sees whether your product performs the task it's supposed to do or not. It could be an architectural nightmare slapped together with a fragile hodge-podge non-framework--a spaghetti code mess. But, do you lose income if you produce such a colossal piece of shit? No. You get a raise because you "optimized" a query to return results back in 2 seconds instead of the 10 seconds as before.

        Web pages are not critical.

        Which, you posted using a web page. Irrelevant, but funny.

        What does amaze me is how long they can take to deliver certain changes, the only thing slower are C++ programmers on our pc based servers.

        Maintenance changes to the back-end often follows along the lines of adding a new column or table to the database, so it's not like those changes you make are all that complicated to begin with.

        60K low? Yeah, if they were a C++ programmer or programmer in a real language on a mini or mainframe.

        Difficulty is relevant. If you're a mainframe developer, you are expected to know your trade. Lots of people can't do what you can do; accountants, lawyers, salesman, delivery boys, etc. Big deal. I know what you do is not that difficult. I've done work in assembler and writing network server processes that many consider "difficult", but in truth it wasn't. Knowing how to do it doesn't make me smarter than a we

      • I live in a metro area of California, have a B.A. from the UC, am in my mid-20s with no kids/wife/mortgage, have been building web sites and learning web technology for 10 years, give or take, and am one of the more sociable, agreeable nerds I know. I have 5 years of hands-on LAMP/js/css/Flash/AS experience (as in, got paid to do some work for someone)

        I make $45k.

        At least it's up from my first post-college job at Clear Channel Radio -- that was $43k.

        The problem is the guy right above me in the reply t