From: Alan Terry 
Newsgroups: alt.websites uk.legal uk.finance uk.business.accountancy
Subject: Re: Average Price of UK website designed?
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:05:16 +0100

In article , Tim 
writes
>> >> > you
>> >> >should not isolate the chargeable work; because it would not exist
>> >without
>> >> >the other, nil-charged work!
>
>> >"Alan Terry" wrote
>> >> ... except from the client's POV!
>> >
>> Tim writes
>> >But we are not talking about the client's POV - we are talking about the
>web
>> >designer's POV.  Hence client's POV, in this respect, is irrelevant.
>
>"Alan Terry" wrote
>> Except the original posting IIRC was entirely from the Client's POV, ie
>> cost, not income.
>
>EXACTLY!  -  From the client's POV, they are only interested in (total)
>*COST*.  They won't mind if you get some slow cobber taking ages, but
>getting paid minimum wage per hour, or you get a super-human web designer to
>do the work in double-quick time but getting paid much more per hour - as
>long as the final job done is the same!
>
>When talking of payments per-hour (as we were just), you are necessarily
>coming from the POV of the person spending those hours on the job.  Without
>the person doing the work, the hours mean nothing.
>
>So my statement stands - considering "per hour" rates can only be relevant
>coming from the POV of the worker, *not* the client.

EXACTLY!

The OP was trying to understand costs.

So my statement stands   ;o) - considering the prices of websites can be
so low people should realise what good value they can get.

We're not arguing here, Tim, we are making separate points.

-- 
Alan   ............