Re: New website feedback appreciated

Peter V Rawlings wrote:
"Swampy Bogtrotter" <samandjanetknox@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CwUig.22396$C83.16267@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter V Rawlings wrote:
"Swampy Bogtrotter" <samandjanetknox@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZoHig.25744$rC1.19045@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter V Rawlings wrote:
"Swampy Bogtrotter" <samandjanetknox@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9UFig.25720$rC1.16608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 10 Jun 2006 06:44:45 -0700, google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

Hi,

We have recently completed a website for the Council Of
Disabled People, we would appreciate any feedback from the
disabled community with regards to functionality and
accessabilty, also feel free to join in if you find anything
interesting on the site.

How much did you get paid for making this site?
pete

Does it matter?
Would it make any difference if he did it for free?
What about if he only charged for the elements that actually cost
him money?
And would there be a problem if he charged a fee for his time?

Some of us are prepared to produce websites for charities
completely for free....That's what I did with the Norfolk Lupus
site..... However, some folks literally can't afford to do
that.....
Does that mean their work or efforts should be denied to the
charity in question?....

I don't expect a sensible answer to this message......



Sorry to disappoint! :-)

If the OP has indeed secured a commercial rate for their web
development services, then those fees would budget for a certain
cost element assigned to testing.

Not neccesarilly,
The OP may have simply charged by the number of hours worked....
he may have only charged for things that cost him money....
Without seeing the cotract between the OP and the charity (if one
exists) you have no way of knowing how the costs (if any) are
broken down.....



Of course not - but on the wider basis I went on to describe, that
may have been <their> non-commercial choice. Just because a
'charity' may not charge for their core product at
point-of-application does not mean that they don't need to pay for
certain running or development costs. Charities are special
businesses - not feelgood fiscal black holes ...... or at least they
shouldn't be!

No. I was quite clear.

I do not approve of unqualified touting for freebies by a company
(they used the term 'We') for intellectual property from folk who
have little or no earned income, without consideration of the value
(to the company) of that input. In a more 'up front' analysis that
might be considered as abuse of disabled people? Why should it be
that the most challenged contributors get the least financial
reward?......

Oh, sorry - that's how the wheel keeps turning!.....maybe?

:-/

Pete.

PS For 'wheel' read 'grindstone'?

While I agree with your points, they're still not entirely relevant
to my post which you replied to.....
It still doesn't give Turtil th eright to demand that the OP tells
him how much he got paid for the work.....That's a private matter
between the OP and
the charity.....


If <that> was the sole purpose of your post, then the target of your
Ire was the only 'beneficiary' of your response, surely?

If you wanted to rebuke that poster, then mail <them> and not the
whole ng, perhaps?

I don't think so.....If a poster draws the topic of a discussion away from
the main thrust in the newsgroup, then any subsequent replies on that newly
evolved topic are by definition, on topic.....Conversations evolve and
change.....They are a fluid organic thing.....And this point has been proved
by yourself, as you have successfully changed the thrust of this discussion
from one of website accessability, to one of netiquette.....

Besides, surely by your own definition, I'm the sole beneficiary of your
post....So why did you post it in a newsgroup....Why didn't you email it to
me?.....

The points I responded to were the major ones in the thread - in my
perception!

Exactly Pete, In your perception.....Everyone perceives things differently,
so what you see as off-topic and what I see as off-topic are likely to be
two entirely different things.....

The pointless perpetuation of 'he said, ...' etc is not
what ukpd is (or should be....,)

So say's you.....But who died and made you the moderator of this newsgroup?
This newsgroup is about discussion.....Plain and simple.....If you don't
like it, then you don't have to join in.....


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New website feedback appreciated
    ... We have recently completed a website for the Council Of Disabled ... What about if he only charged for the elements that actually cost ... Without seeing the cotract between the OP and the charity (if one ... 'charity' may not charge for their core product at ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: New website feedback appreciated
    ... We have recently completed a website for the Council Of Disabled ... What about if he only charged for the elements that actually cost ... Without seeing the cotract between the OP and the charity (if one ... 'charity' may not charge for their core product at ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: New website feedback appreciated
    ... We have recently completed a website for the Council Of Disabled ... What about if he only charged for the elements that actually cost him ... Without seeing the cotract between the OP and the charity ... Just because a 'charity' may not charge ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: New website feedback appreciated
    ... We have recently completed a website for the Council Of Disabled ... What about if he only charged for the elements that actually cost him ... And would there be a problem if he charged a fee for his time? ... Without seeing the cotract between the OP and the charity ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: URGENT - Calls for China fur ban as animal cruelty exposed . See the video proof as animals
    ... why would people pay for them? ... for your website, money they'll never see again most likely. ... These cost savings are only possible ... In those days the UK was self sufficient in coal, and the gas ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
Loading