Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Books Media Book Reviews IT Technology

Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works 129

Posted by timothy from the connecting-dots dept.
Steve MacLaughlin wrote this review of Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works , a book which transcends its title to address much more than workflow, and more generally than just on the Web. Steve promises that your copy will soon be tattered and marked -- and that's a good thing.
Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works
author Kelly Goto & Emily Cotler
pages 253
publisher New Riders Publishing
rating 9
reviewer Steve MacLaughlin
ISBN 0735710627
summary Practical wisdom for Web creators on consulting, design, development and more rolled into a single readable volume.

There are books that attempt to impart the divine wisdom of consulting. There are books that detail best practices in graphic and usability design. There are books that detail the intricacies of software development. There are books that detail project management and surviving the technology lifecycle. But there are very few books that explain how all of these pieces work together successfully. Kelly Goto and Emily Cotler have pulled it off with masterful perfection in their new book Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works.

People, projects, technology, and clients do not work in a vacuum from one another. Process is the magnet that holds them all together. Goto and Cotler offer professionals a comprehensive "Core Process" to guide them through their Web projects. While other books may explain some of the tricks of the trade no book has really placed all of these best practices under the umbrella of a process or methodology. Perhaps that's because a lot of these processes have been closely guarded secrets in the highly competitive interactive services industry. It's almost as if Goto and Cotler are on a humanitarian mission to save clients and projects from future punishment under the hands of companies using poor or in some cases no processes at all.

Web ReDesign's Core Process is a five-step approach to producing successful Web projects. The five steps are Defining the Project, Developing Site Structure, Visual Design & Testing, Production & QA, and Launch & Beyond. And each phase is broken down further into steps and checkpoints in splendid detail. As someone who started out doing this kind of work I found myself making mental checkmarks throughout the book. "Did that. Did something like that. Man, it took me years to learn that I should do that. Where was this book six years ago when I needed it?"

Perhaps a book like this wasn't really possible until now. The profession had to go through its ugly duckling stages where individuals and companies tried to figure out what worked and what didn't. Grafting parts from consulting, marketing, project management, and software development into some freakish process monster that often resulted in turning clients into an angry torch-carrying mob. Thankfully Web ReDesign has finally arrived and it is certainly no Bride of Frankenstein. The processes are spelled out in clear language and the authors repeat certain key points in case you missed something along the way.

It's easy to get sidetracked reading Web ReDesign with all the sidebars, charts, sample forms, and interviews. But this is a good thing! The tips and sidebars along the way spell out in greater detail how to put the process into action, and what to do when trouble arises. The forms and charts are some of the most thorough ever published, and thankfully you can download most of them on the companion website located at www.web-redesign.com. Throughout the book Goto and Cotler call on experts like Lynda Weinman, David Siegel, Jeffrey Zeldman, and Jakob Nielsen to offer their perspective on a given topic. The overall design and layout work done by the folks at New Riders is phenomenal and the visual presentation of the book is really first rate.

The one big question I have about the books is its title: Web ReDesign. That's because this is a book that can be used for first time Internet initiatives just as well as for redesign projects. Perhaps the authors had some dual purpose in mind for the title: If you're doing this for the first time, you need to rethink the conventional wisdom that Web projects are a black art with no best practices. Or if you didn't use a process the first time, then you've probably learned how valuable it is to have a proven methodology to avoid repeating mistakes.

Goto and Cotler have produced a book that no Web professional, whether they're a consultant, project manager, designer, programmer, or specialist, should be without. Web ReDesign is one of those books that should be kept close at hand during projects of all shapes and sizes. It won't take long before your copy is either severely dog-eared or has post-it flags sticking up throughout it. Get your hands on a copy before the competition does.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain. Have your own book review to contribute? Check out the book review guidelines, then write away!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works More

Web ReDesign: Workflow that Works

Comments Filter:
  • Doesn't match the reality of idiotic management and ludicrous deadlines that seem to be the trademark of the technology industry.

    A far more insightful source is Ed Yourdon's books the Mythical Man Month, and Death March.

    The sooner everyone, developers, management and consumers realise that to develop good software takes time, and money, the sooner we can all start to enjoy bug-free well written reliable software.

    Until then, we are stuck with the 'good enough' model.

    • The Mythical Man Month was written by Fred Brooks, not Ed Yourdon.
      • <rant>
        Damned psychotic moderators. This is not redundant. My comment was redundant. Actually all the comments saying "this was written by Brooks" were redundant, but this one was posted first. This should therefore be rated Informative, and *my* comment should be Redundant, even though I posted at +2.

        If you're a moderator, read at 0 or at least +1, and think about what you're moderating, dammit!

        And for that matter, the parent shouldn't be overrated, as he was entirely correct, except for the author of The Mythical Man Month.
        </rant>
    • The Mythical Man Month was written by Fred Brooks.
    • Time, yes, but the money part doesn't always apply in the world of open source. The Linux kernel is a prime example of good software that took a hellacious amount of time but no money.

      Max

  • Just a bunch of buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sting3r ( 519844 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @11:29AM (#2497187) Homepage
    Although my employer doesn't specialize in web development, per se, my boss read this book a few weels ago and he couldn't help but fall over laughing at it. We were talking about it the other day and he told me it was all simply common sense and general tips that anybody in the business would already know. The book is just a collection of buzzwords, often misused, that describe the same thing you've already been doing. How else can you explain the section headings: "Defining the Project, Developing Site Structure, Visual Design & Testing, Production & QA, and Launch & Beyond"? Give me a break. Anybody who can't figure these basic concepts out on their own doesn't belong in the computer industry. I'm sorry, but I just can't recommend this book.

    -sting3r

    • This may all be very true, but, unfortunately, common sense is less common than it should be, even among very intelligent people. While books, such as the Mythical Man Month, are excellent, insightful, and inspiring, they are only part of the reciple for making good management. These books paired with someone who is predisposed to being a good manager makes for project heaven. Such books paired with Dilbert characters results in comedy only.

      • Common sense can't be bought nor learned. Common sense can only be copied for a specific situtation. As soon as something changes a bit, that guy is back his "nonsense" world and has to read another "common sense" book.

        And that's how things work for most companies! The look at your CV to learn what courses you where in (copied common sense) and what you do know. They don't ask you how devoted and determined you are and how much common sense you are endowed with.

        This is a generalization that represents the mayority of the cases. And of course, there are some people with "titles" and common sense as well as companies that will ask you "how would you deal this situation" in the interviews or test you for "common senseness".

        --
    • . We were talking about it the other day and he told me it was all simply common sense and general tips that anybody in the business would already know.

      You might be surprised at how un-common common sense actually is...
      • You might be surprised at how un-common common sense actually is...

        ...To the extent that I wonder why anyone bothers to call it common. Some people call it "horse sense". I guess horses generally don't die doing stupid shit.
        • You mean like running so long that thier hearts explode instead of telling the guy riding them to screw off, or drinking too much water after a long run and distending thier stomach to the point where they die?
    • In my experience (10 years as a programmer, DP manager, et al., 10 years as an educator) ideas which are well-developed and clearly explained always seem like commonsense. I've worked with people like your boss. In general they are big on what they could've done, but don't have alot to show for it. Hopefully that doesn't describe your boss...

      I think the book looks quite useful. Check out the Table of Contents [newriders.com] and this Sample Chapter [http]

    • Waitasecond. Did YOU read this book? Have you made an informed decision based on YOUR experience. Or are you just letting your boss do your thinking? If not, maybe it's YOU that doesn't belong in the computer industry.

      -Russ

  • Play it again Sam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jsin ( 141879 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @11:31AM (#2497197) Homepage Journal
    I think it's funny that we think our problems as web developers are new. It is easy to parallel the problems we have writing software with any other industry that involves engineering and marketing, how arrogant of us to beleive that we are any different.

    I suggest picking up any systems design and analysis book from the '70s for starters if you're looking for guidance as a developer, and if you need a bigger-picture view, read up on the industrial revolution.

    • Re:Play it again Sam (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @12:04PM (#2497383)
      one of the biggest problems in commercial software development is the idea that your group is the first ones to come across this particular problem, and that you have to weave your solution out of whole cloth.

      the programming field has left its "arts" phase a long time ago - as in - everything is new, so everything is a work of art. This is when most software people were graduating with Computer Arts degrees.

      It is currently at the end of its "scientific" phase, computer science degrees are the norm. This basically means that we are able to repeat what we're doing, and are beginning to make processes out of it, and to make some solid foundations.

      The next phase will be an engineering phase, where we refine the scientific techniques to be finely, highly efficient production processes.

      at least, i think...

      • Re:Play it again Sam (Score:2, Informative)

        by jsin ( 141879 )
        I agree.

        I spent the last year trying to find solutions to the development problems we are having by reading many "modern" books about managing projects, the trade-offs between cost and quality, and the conflicts between the developer, manager and customer perspectives and while I did find several usefull books on particular aspects (code complete, the humane interface, etc), I struggled to find something that put universal meaning to the whole picture.

        At this point I began to look outside of the industry and see if I could find parallels in other facets of business. Indeed, I didn't have to look far as my first shot (the automotive industry) was an almost perfect analogy.

        If you look at the early days of the automobile, there were many companies who were strapping motors to horse-carts and selling this as a solution (simular to some of the first online shopping cart solutions). These vehicles were not very efficient or safe, and seldom out-performed what they were designed to replace (horses and steam-engines), but for the eccentric few who desired to be on the "cutting edge", they did the trick, and they did prove the concept.

        The next step was to improve the device itself, improve reliabilty, performance, efficiency etc. This required more expertiese and refined the list of "manufacturers" to companies who had enough engineering expertise to understand the underlying principals involved (mechanics, power, etc) and make improvements at that level. This improved the device but conversely increased the expense beyond simply the cost of the parts. The next step was to engineer the "product".

        The most significant event at this stage was Ford and the assembly line, which was able to make up for the up-front investment in engineering by reducing the cost of manufacturing.

        After this stage we bounce between the engineering of the device and the engineering of the product, continually refining actual features and coming up with new ways to convince people they need to buy them.

        This is where I beleive software is today. I think that consumers are generally smart enought to know the difference between a quality application and a cheap one, but are willing to settle based on cost (the reason you don't see duesenburgs anymore (I'm not sure about the spelling)).
        • Enormous, huge problem with your argument: software is not a single-purpose product, like a car. The software field as a whole represents a potentially infinite family of products, most of which have nothing to do with each other. You might apply your logic to a particular type of program - accounting programs, for example - and then it might be relevant. But businesses are continually developing requirements for new, custom products. The day this becomes static is the day that all progress stops.
      • I disagree - what you don't take into consideration is that time and technology change requirements, processes, and expectations. While there may be some fundamental similarities between what we're trying to do now, and what we have done, the rules have most likely changed.

        • Re:Nope... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 )
          they may change details.

          look - take bridges as an example.

          we use new materials, new techniques, new requirements, but the basics are still the same.

          what you are talking about is exactly the problem that i'm trying to expose. You THINK that every time you sit down to a computer that what you're doing has no relation to anything that anyone has ever done before, so you make up a new technique to get it done, instead of standing on the shoulders of the really smart (tm) people before you.

          you're project, isnt different, it isnt new.

        • You're right, I guess time and technology didn't have any effect on the automotive industry.

          ...now I need to go so I can check the spokes on my Model T and fill'er up with petrolium distillates, post-haste!

      • Re:Play it again Sam (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fusiongyro ( 55524 )
        A couple things about your argument...

        The next phase will be an engineering phase, where we refine the scientific techniques to be finely, highly efficient production processes.

        This was basically Bertrand Meyer's argument in Object Oriented Software Construction. Because object-oriented software lets us make everything into components, soon everything will already be implemented in these components, and then we'll have nothing but catalogues of components. Making software that works will be a matter of selecting the proper objects from the huge set of existing objects, not writing new objects (except glue code, I suppose).

        One counter-argument to this is the fact that this paradigm never really took off. Even now, with COM, COM+, CORBA, XPCOM, Kparts, etc. the complexity of large scale reusability is such a large barrier, people would rather reimplement the stuff. The good CORBA book is larger than The C++ Programming Language. This is not a win for small developers, learning developers, or hobbyist developers.

        Secondly, think about the personality types that are attracted to a given profession. Granted, computer science proper is mostly mathematical. But coders, developers, BS degree-bearing computer scientists, and information technology majors are not engineering types. If you've heard of the Meyers-Briggs test, you might notice that programmers and their ilk are all *highly* intuitive people. Engineers are not intuitive, they are much heavier on the logic side of things. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

        Third, I just don't see the early days of computer science as being very artsy. Most computer science programs today sprang from mathematics programs yesterday, barring a few strange exceptions like CMU. Fortran and assembly are not exactly expressive languages. Lisp is, and there is still a coterie of functional Lisp/Schemers out there.

        Algorithms tend to be conjured up in the dark via black magic or intuition. How did C. A. R. Hoare invent Quicksort? There's no formula for making algorithms. But by the same token--if it were artistic, there would be more than the rather small number of sorting algorithms we have.

        Plus, if you track programming languages, we seem to be tending towards more expressive languages and less towards stricter languages. FORTRAN has a lot of bizarre limitations, but as we all know, Perl will try very hard to execute line noise. Modern languages are starting to support function currying again, bringing us back to the Y-combinator and other idols of functional programming. We're in the midst of a bit of a strange renaissance with dozens of usable operating systems and hundreds of languages. Ever heard of CHILL? Every installation of GCC on Linux compiles four languages: C, C++, Objective C and Chill.

        If this is getting a bit fuzzy, compare it to the trends in music of late. In the beginning, there was classical music, which was composed by many but only geniuses are truly remembered for it. This was the case for an extremely long time, compared to the trends of just the past 50 years. Then, with the advent of rock and roll, everything we used to know is thrown out of the window. But I could make a very good argument that since the 50's, there have been alternating periods of individualism versus genre-ism, stagnation versus creation, and combination versus invention. Take the 50's: there was basically one sound, and everybody was doing it. The 60's roll around, and suddenly rock is moving in a million directions again. The name of the group or the genre becomes more important than the person behind it. Then, in the 70's, we return to the persistance of a few simple genres with the name of the individuals being more important. Singer/songwriters and so forth.

        The essential problem with taking this perspective on either computing or music, is that it doesn't take into account the exponential increase in the amount of producers and consumers of the product (be it music or information technology). If I try and sell you my alternating-decade theory of musical progress, what was the dominant music form in the 90's? For that matter, what programming environment is most prevalent today? You're tempted to say object-oriented, but what fraction of GNU/BSD applications are actually written in something besides C? At my school, exactly one course teaches you object-oriented principles in the computer science department, and it is the survey of programming languages class. However, the new IT program certainly takes it into account more. But which programming languages are actually the most prevalent these days? About the only thing you can do is rank them in order of usage:

        Structured (C) > Object-Oriented (Python) > Functional (Lisp) > Logical (PROLOG)

        Computing no longer is centralized enough to have a single ideology. There is no process going on which is holding computer science to anyone's prediction anymore.
      • While what you're saying may be true on the coding side, I think that too much of that has spilled over into page layout and user interface design. All webpages are beginning to look exatly the same, there is no variety. I'm not someone to design a user interface that has no labels and all the text is super small, but there is something to be said for thinking outside of the box when designing a webpage's look and feel. There are many "pure programmers" that can't pull it off. You have to be able to think like "normal user", not a programmer.

    • Just read any software project management book (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There is no need for a book dealing with HTML projects on their own - HTML is just code - albeit very dumb and limited code.

      Steve McConnell wrote some great books about software project management that are surely more worthwhile than this dumbed-down approach that somehow tries to distinguish HTML as its own beast.

      Project planning, design, test, debug....how is this different than a software project????

      • HTML is not code. It's markup. And, looking at the quality of HTML on the varius sites, including Slashdot, being able to produce good HTML still seems like a black art, only mastered by a few. :(

  • experts like . . . David Siegel

    Please save us from "experts" like this. Good book anyway, though.

    1Alpha7

    • Nothing wrong with David Siegel, he created some of the first books on web development and web design and is an expert in the field. If anyone is an expert it's him. Who do you want instead?

  • Book's web site fails to validate as standard HTML (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter hoffman ( 2017 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @11:38AM (#2497238) Homepage

    The companion web site of the book (at www.web-redesign.com) fails to validate as standard HTML when tested by validator.w3.org. What else needs to be said?

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @12:09PM (#2497418)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • You're right! Screw the standards! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MRossland ( 216576 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @12:33PM (#2497587) Homepage
        You're utterly right. Standards have done nothing for us, and won't ever.

        I know that I love testing my pages in all the different flavors of IE on Win, Mac and Linux. And, its even better making sure the NN 4.x and Netscape 6 work too. I mean, some people like being creative with their time, but me, I like screwing with different CSS, JS and HTML flavors of the different browsers.

        I also agree that XSLT is a total waste of time. Its not like its supported by any browsers. Well, it is supported by numerious server technologies, and is used to render content in HTML lots of places on the Web. And, I guess if you really look at it, it probably never was intended for the browser anyway. But, you're right! Just because I don't fully understand it, its a total waste of time!

        And, you are so dead on with the W3C. I mean, any organization that could produce XML 1.0 is a bogus waste of time. What is XML ever going to do for us? It doesn't even have a FONT tag!

        (Come on man, I hope you were kidding. Standards allow us to do our job ... not prevent us. Learn about the stuff. Don't just stick to HTML 3.2 ... the Web has moved on.)

        --Mark.
        • TCP/IP is a standard and although not 100% of it's breeds are 100% standard compliant you can't say TCP/IP is not working for you.

          Also, HTML is a standard and that's why you can read any HTML. If it was a Microsoft invention you'd now be using IE even if you didn't want it to.

          Now, the standards EVOVE...

          If they evolve BEFORE implementation you may find you don't yet want to support that features yet. After some time it may be usable when 80% of the software has been updated.

          If they evolve AFTER implementation, then it means the are "putting on paper" features that (in this case) the standard browers have (IE, Mozilla). And you'll argue "damn, i have to code differently for diferent browser. Why don't they do things the same way?!". That leads you to the last paragraph.

          In practice, you try to accomodate 80% of the browers or hurt the user experience and reach everyone. And of course you won't care about testing your site with the W3C tools (Users run browsers not testing tools).

          --
      • actually, his site (www.opensourcers.com) does validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional according to W3C

      • Your posting might have had some credibility if you hadn't over-ridden the DOCTYPE of the document in the links you provided and if you hadn't been quite so selective in the pages you chose to reference.

        The Oracle HOWTO page was a quickie that required only a couple of minor edits to bring into compliance.

        The sites www.Erskine.edu [erskine.edu] and www.KentMcCarter.com [kentmccarter.com] are no longer under our control but the work we delivered validated. www.GaeaCorp.com [gaeacorp.com] does validate [w3.org].

        Perhaps you enjoy wasting your life away trying to put square pegs into round holes (or is it just a way to bill the customer for more hours?) but I will continue to support standards.

      • danheskett said:

        Next, lets go to your home page. No doc-type definition, so it doesnt validate. Bad. Plus you are using out-of-date tags. Check it here[w3.org].

        I ran the site through the validator and got the response:

        "Congratulations, this document validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional!"


        [w3.org]



    • The companion web site of the book (at www.web-redesign.com) fails to validate as standard HTML when tested by validator.w3.org. What else needs to be said?

      That it's a clear, well-organized, visually pleasing, fairly low-chartjunk site. W3C validation is a good thing, but it is not the defining standard of what makes a good site. Most sites that I've seen with the "W3C Validated" sticker are messy, ugly, unnavigable sites that have "geek with no design skill" written all over them.

      So yes, standards compliance is a good thing. But I think the point of the book was making a web site that actually succeeds with real people, not validators. There own site seems to be a decent example. That's what else needs to be said.

  • ... in the review, that is. On most *nix based browsers (mozilla, probably netscape too) these appear as question marks. This is usually a sign of a document generated in m$ word or some such.

  • Others disagree (Score:4, Funny)

    by Xoro ( 201854 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @11:48AM (#2497284)

    ...by Kelly Goto & Emily Cotler

    I heard Dijkstra wrote a really damning criticism of this. Using it could even be considered harmful or something...

  • All that I ask from webdesigners is to make the colors of links that you haven't visited yet and have already visited DIFFERENT. For forgetful folks like me, it's helpful when you are going through a bit list of links and seeing which ones you have already looked at.

    • And for Pete's sake, you shouldn't use dark-colored links on a dark background! Duh.
    • On my last full-time job, I argued with my boss over that issue all the time. So I added a different colour for the VLINK "for testing purposes" and just never took it out!
    • For it to really help you need to think through what you're linking to and what you're serving off.

      If you link to /foo - but it's really some index page served off /foo/ then a bunch of browsers won't give you vlink-happiness.

      We should go further still and serve the same bit of content of one URI. This includes - amongst other stuff - picking one fully qualified domain and redirecting the various alternatives (www..., ...com/org/co.uk/whatever) to that one. Unless of course you're doing different stuff for different hosts - sensibly. It helps for caching, for people returning to the site, and it's just plain cleaner.

  • OT: Amazon boycott? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JamesOfTheDesert ( 188356 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2001 @11:54AM (#2497322) Journal
    You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

    Sure, but the article's top paragraph has the book title linking to Amazon.com. Is the boycott over, or is that link there so people can check out the reviews on Amazon, then buy the book from someone else (as I do)?

    • I don't know about the boycot, but the book is cheaper at www.bookpool.com. Bookpool doesn't have the widest selection, but if they got it, I've always found them to charge less. (Fast, too. With the money I save, I often sign up for 2 day delivery and still come out ahead.)

      I'm not affiliated with them - just a very satisfied customer.

  • Web Professional? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by imrdkl ( 302224 )
    Isn't that an oxymoron? I mean, aren't lots of these folks now back in school, perhaps learning about what happens on the other 1023 priveleged ports?

    I dont mean to slight anyone, but hasn't enough hype been published, fortunes lost, BMW's repo'd, and trees killed for this kind of thing to loose it's glitter yet? Sheesh, if not, drop by my house and I'll let you pick from my dusty, unused, and outdated-after-one-week library.

    • I'm one (Score:2)

      by Pope ( 17780 )
      Uh, dude, I build web sites for a living. Granted, it's not much of a living at the moment :) but I've made some good contacts recently.

      I'm not a CS major, not an uber-geek, and never wanted to be either. I like using computers for design and got into the field because I found I was good at it.

      It just helps that I don't buy into hype that easily, which is why I work for cash money, not stock! :)

    • Tons of people do web design. It's not just e-commerce.

      Quite apart from the number of people doing web design as a part of their jobs (for example, all the librarians out there who have to support library websites), there are lots of people who maintain web sites to help enable communications.

      Look at any government website. Do you think people work on those monsters, or are they magically created from nothingness?

      What's died (almost, we'll always have eBay) is e-commerce. But that's a minority of the web, really.

  • Books for who? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 )
    I am biased, but the books I've looked at often are gibberish or common sense. As others have stated, anyone who is a serious professional focused on producing quality already has a good grasp of project development.
    People tend to confuse bad developers and managers with a lack of process. If a person is focused on getting the job done and fluid operation, process isn't critical. Sure process helps improve metrics of performance and efficiency, but a process is only as powerful as the people using them. I've seen the implementation and lack of process kill projects. I've also seen situations where process was organic and worked fluid. At the core of it all is "who" you work with and now "how". Of all the MBA's I've met, those who stick to text books fail miserably. The best managers I've had didn't get a MBA degree, nor do they hold to a set of rules like pilars of heaven. As Lao Tzu said, "the only certainty is uncertainty." More people should read classical literature(all languages) and realize none of these problems are new.
    I haven't read the book, but from the description, I wouldn't bother. Get a job and learn first hand. That's the real way to figure out what works for you and those you work with. No book can teach you how a real person works.

  • No reason to distinguish web sites from code (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just treat your HTML like it was code for a software project, and you'll be okay. There are plenty of good texts that describe the project planning, development, and release process - there really isn't a need for a book that treats HTML as its own animal.

    Think about it, if you design software that has a UI, communications protocols, and a backend of some kind, you already have done everything a designer for a major web site.

    And just to preemptively deal with all of the replies that will tell me I don't "get it" - I have spent five years developing major sites for the busiest web site in the world.

    • Yeah. Now you'd hire a programmer to redesign printed media as well. After all, how and where things go and interact does not matter. What matters is that the code is writen by a software professional.

      I trully believe the web need good programers, good interface designers, a lot of usability testing. It's different to a software proyect. It's beyond a software proyect scope.

      That doesn't mean you don't need good programmers and a clear view of what and how things can be done. But certainly a web site is NOT a software project.

      I'll agree in that you need a team that know about the web and not about "generic stuff". You need to know the WEB. WEB Programers, interface designers for WEB projects and a project leader that knows what he is doing and why.

      --
  • So far, I've seen very little attention paid to the database connectivity, dynamic content interaction, or nuts-and-bolts of ERP integration-- without which a website is useless...

    It seems this book is aimed at advertising and graphic designers who are still attempting to dabble in website design. In that sense, this book will probably be successful: there are thousands of shops out there skimming this surface, and who would welcome a book about basics like this.

  • Don't under estimate the value of having the simple processes laid out. We tend to take for granted that a well designed software dev. cycle will turn out well designed software. But often management has no clue. On one hand books like this provide external validation of your insistance that a process be followed. On the other hand you also get a nice happy set up vocabulary/phrases and logic to use when convincing a client to stick to the track. I have always loved " Practical Software Requirements" but I have yet to work with anyone who will see requirements documentation through before they start plopping logos into fr-page along with 7 zillion add-on extensions which only work with v4.67123 of browser X.

    If nothing else this book appears, in the picture at least, to have that rare blend of surface area and heft which makes it perfect for wacking the pointy haired dweeb across the noggin...when all else fails.....
  • Looking at this review and the plethora of reviews available on Amazon.com, this book appears to nothing more than a re-write of Oreilly's Information Architecture Book [oreilly.com] with a lot more fluff and buzzwords. Just look at the 5 main steps that are listed, each one is covered in the 3 year old Oreilly book.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close