<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Quoting Low</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/</link>
	<description>PHP, WordPress and Business Ramblings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:31:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/comment-page-1/#comment-9753</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/#comment-9753</guid>
		<description>Well despite doing our best, sometimes clients won&#039;t budge on an issue which breaks a WAI II rule. Even if the site is accessible, if a client can edit it themselves they can also change that, so I&#039;m going to draft up various templates and when we finish a site we just use the right one eg &#039;Your site is accessible and conforms to the DDA however because you have the functionality to update your site yourself we cannot take responsibility for this after todays date blah blah.

Alternatively it states what breaks the law, that we&#039;ve informed them of this and that we are not held responsible.

It&#039;s just to cover us. Whilst no UK site has been taken to court yet I&#039;m sure it&#039;s only a matter of time and I don&#039;t want to have the finger pointed at us. So call it an &#039;after agreement&#039;. Make sure they sign it too ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well despite doing our best, sometimes clients won&#039;t budge on an issue which breaks a WAI II rule. Even if the site is accessible, if a client can edit it themselves they can also change that, so I&#039;m going to draft up various templates and when we finish a site we just use the right one eg &#039;Your site is accessible and conforms to the DDA however because you have the functionality to update your site yourself we cannot take responsibility for this after todays date blah blah.</p>
<p>Alternatively it states what breaks the law, that we&#039;ve informed them of this and that we are not held responsible.</p>
<p>It&#039;s just to cover us. Whilst no UK site has been taken to court yet I&#039;m sure it&#039;s only a matter of time and I don&#039;t want to have the finger pointed at us. So call it an &#039;after agreement&#039;. Make sure they sign it too <img src='http://www.stuffbysarah.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Salisbury</title>
		<link>http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/comment-page-1/#comment-9752</link>
		<dc:creator>David Salisbury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/#comment-9752</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s exactly it, I think.  Having all your documentation gradually evolve as you gain experience.  I like your idea about having stuff covering accessibility - that seems like a good thing to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#039;s exactly it, I think.  Having all your documentation gradually evolve as you gain experience.  I like your idea about having stuff covering accessibility &#8211; that seems like a good thing to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/comment-page-1/#comment-9750</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/#comment-9750</guid>
		<description>My quote back then probably did stress that additional work that wasn&#039;t listed would be paid for but I hate having to actually ask for more money!

Plus it wasn&#039;t as detailed as I do them now so it is grey area really. I&#039;m hoping to spend the summer writing up a lot of legal stuff for my site and to give to clients. Letters covering accessibility once the site is finished etc.

I guess it&#039;s a developing set of documents that you just add more to as you learn.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My quote back then probably did stress that additional work that wasn&#039;t listed would be paid for but I hate having to actually ask for more money!</p>
<p>Plus it wasn&#039;t as detailed as I do them now so it is grey area really. I&#039;m hoping to spend the summer writing up a lot of legal stuff for my site and to give to clients. Letters covering accessibility once the site is finished etc.</p>
<p>I guess it&#039;s a developing set of documents that you just add more to as you learn.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Salisbury</title>
		<link>http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/comment-page-1/#comment-9748</link>
		<dc:creator>David Salisbury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stuffbysarah.net/2007/06/05/quoting-low/#comment-9748</guid>
		<description>Yep, I&#039;ve been there too with sites that kept getting stuff added to by the client and I&#039;ve been in no position to say &quot;nope, can&#039;t do that unless you pay more&quot;.  I now get the client to sign things off before progressing.

They have to sign off the initial proposal listing everything (in a fair level of detail) in the site, then sign off every milestone of the project, and then at the very end before they get it delivered to them.  It is made very clear in lots of places that additional features will be charged extra.

So far this seems to be going well - I&#039;ve used it for the first time on my latest project and there&#039;ve been no complaints from anyone yet.  

One of the problems I&#039;ve encountered a lot is people underestimating how much stuff costs.  It seems this whole building complex websites thing is quite trivial and so the client expects to pay £200 for something worth about £800!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, I&#039;ve been there too with sites that kept getting stuff added to by the client and I&#039;ve been in no position to say &#034;nope, can&#039;t do that unless you pay more&#034;.  I now get the client to sign things off before progressing.</p>
<p>They have to sign off the initial proposal listing everything (in a fair level of detail) in the site, then sign off every milestone of the project, and then at the very end before they get it delivered to them.  It is made very clear in lots of places that additional features will be charged extra.</p>
<p>So far this seems to be going well &#8211; I&#039;ve used it for the first time on my latest project and there&#039;ve been no complaints from anyone yet.  </p>
<p>One of the problems I&#039;ve encountered a lot is people underestimating how much stuff costs.  It seems this whole building complex websites thing is quite trivial and so the client expects to pay £200 for something worth about £800!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

