"Developing WordPress themes, templates and WordPress plugins"

In this age of Web 2.0 social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin etc. it is becoming increasingly important for companies to participate in this maelstrom.

There are so many sites out there and finding the time to explore them, understand what and how they can work for you is problematic as most of you are already too busy running your own business – that’s a good thing!  But if you are not using these fantastic tools you are definitely missing out on business.

How do we know this – When we started using Social Media we saw a dramatic increase in both website visitors – and I am talking about over 700% on a daily basis – and as a direct result an increase in our business.

Think of this example.

We were using Twitter the other night and somebody posted a question/request for help with web development.  We instantly responded – in real time – and in the space of a few minuets had exchanged numerous ‘twits’.  We had established the basis of a business relationship.  A few hours later we were able to e-mail a full proposal for the person and a bit later a website wire-frame for consideration.

On another occasion we saw a Twitter request, responded and were actually talking to the person via Skype within 1 minute.  – Result – business for us.

Whenever we talk to businesses at the minute they still seem to be dependent upon Google rankings – the “I’ve got to be top of Google” syndrome.  Nothing wrong with being top of Google but relying on traffic from search engines is reactive marketing using Twitter etc. is pro-active.

Reactive marketing means that you are reacting to something, where as pro-active means you are actually doing something first.

If you were looking for something which would you prefer – trawl through hundreds of web pages just looking for the one thing you want or to talk to a person in real-time.

OK Europe doesn’t seem to have caught onto this way of doing business yet, but it will, and soon.

We do not know the value of business conducted via Twitter, but if our figures are anything to go by it must be immense.

If you are just an occasional “tweeter”, or Facebook  (et. al.)  person you need to devote a bit more time to this. Your business can really benefit. If you don’t have time, or don’t think you have the time to devote a few hours a day (yes a few hours a day – that’s what we do and that’s why we get results) to marketing your business via social networking then contact Amanda at Parotkefalonia or Joshua at our design partners Razolution (in New York, Atlanta and Beverly Hills) and we can explain and discuss with you how we may be able to help. If you are on Skype just call Amanda on parotdesign or dial (01) 310 598 7881.

To give you a clue we have 2 professional “tweeters” – that’s what they do. No spam just genuine tweeting about real subjects by real people who have a vast knowledge of business, marketing, management and who can get real results for you from social networking.

Popularity: 1% [?]

By a 2-1 vote on June 17th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008. The draft NPRM now goes to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Under Executive Order 12866, OMB is required to circulate the draft notice to agencies for comment.

With only three current Commissioners, the draft NPRM drew the approval of Acting Chair Stuart J. Ishimaru and Acting Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin. Commissioner Constance Barker voted against its issuance contending the proposed regulations go beyond the changes envisioned by Congress in passing the ADAAA.

In opening remarks, Griffin, a former Executive Director of the Disability Law Center in Boston, said: Since 1990, we have watched the courts chip away at what it means to be a person with a disability. Instead of focusing on whether an employer’s actions were illegally motivated by the fact that their employee had a disability, the courts have spent the last 19 years forcing people with disabilities like epilepsy and diabetes, or psychiatric disabilities to prove that they are, in fact, disabled or disabled enough to be covered by the ADA.

This long fight for civil rights for people with disabilities has now reached another milestone. Congress recognized that the intent of the ADA was being misread, that its goals were being compromised, and that action had to be taken. The purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is clear and straightforward and these regulations reflect that.

Although the draft NPRM is not yet public, a presentation to the Commission by Assistant Legal Counsel Christopher J. Kuczynski at last Wednesday’s meeting gave the first insight into how the Commission will interpret and implement the ADA amendments. Often the Commission supplements its regulations through Enforcement Guidance memoranda that include specific examples of how the Commission intends its regulations to be applied. According to Kuczynski, the proposed ADA proposed regulations depart from that approach and specifically include examples to be “more helpful to individuals protected by the law, employers required to comply with it, and courts called upon to resolve disputes.”

One of the most significant changes brought about by the ADAAA was to definition of what it means to be “substantially limited” in a major life activity. The ADAAA specifically rejected both Supreme Court and EEOC definitions requiring that an individual demonstrate that he or she was “significantly” or “severely” restricted in the performance of a major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population as creating too high of a threshold for coverage under the ADA. Congress explicitly instructed the EEOC to revise its regulation defining substantial limitation.

From Kuczynski’s remarks, it does not appear the draft regulations contain a precise definition of “substantially limited,” instead focusing on “rules of  construction” designed to assist in determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. Those rules of construction, according to Kuzczinski, include:

Rule No. 1: “[T]he definition of ‘substantially limited’ should be construed broadly to the maximum extent allowable under the ADA; and the determination of whether someone has a disability should generally not demand extensive analysis.”

The rule is merely a restatement of the language of the ADAAA and provides only general guidance. Yet, the rule is significant in that it specifically overrules the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S.471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) that the ADA definition of an individual with a disability needed to be narrowly construed.

Rule No. 2: “[A]n individual whose impairment substantially limits a major life activity need not also demonstrate a limitation in the ability to perform “activities of central importance to daily life.’”

The second rule is, again, largely a restatement of the language of the ADAAA overruling Toyota. However, the draft regulation does include some examples as to how the rule would be applied:

For example, someone with a twenty-pound lifting restriction of more than short duration does not have to show that he is substantially limited in performing activities of central importance to daily life requiring lifting. Someone who is substantially limited in seeing as the result of monocular vision (e.g., because of a limited visual field and/or lack of depth perception) need not demonstrate how the monocular vision substantially limits activities of central importance to daily life that require seeing.

Rule No. 3: “[A]n impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities to be substantially limiting.”

While the third rule also is a restatement of what the ADAAA says, the draft regulations again contain clarifying examples:

Someone with diabetes whose endocrine function (i.e.ability to produce insulin) is substantially limited need not also show that he is substantially limited in eating or any other major life activity. An individual whose normal cell growth is substantially limited due to cancer need not also show that she is substantially limited in working or any other major life activity.

Rule No. 4: The “comparison of an individual’s limitation to that of most people in the general population often may be made using a common-sense analysis without resorting to scientific or medical evidence.”

The fourth construction rule may be the one to generate the most controversy because it appears to create categories of per se disabilities that would seem to contradict the ADA’s original intent, and one not abandoned in the ADAAA, that the determination of whether an individual has a disability is matter for an “individualized inquiry.”

The reality, however, is that such categories have always existed. For example, no “individualized inquiry” was necessary under the original ADA for an individual who has been totally and permanently blind or deaf since birth. Common sense dictates that such individuals are individuals with disabilities. The rule, instead, reflects congressional intent to both lower the threshold of what it means to be substantially limited and expand the definition of major life activities.

Examples of the application of the fourth rule include:

For example, someone with epilepsy will meet the definition of disability because he is substantially limited in major life activities such as functions of the brain or, during a seizure, functions such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, or thinking. Someone with diabetes will meet the definition of disability because he is substantially limited in functions of the endocrine system.

The fourth rule of construction shows up again in a proposed amendment to 29 CFR 1630.2(j)(5) that identifies “certain impairments that will obviously be substantially limiting—impairments that because of certain characteristics associated with them, will consistently meet the definition of ‘disability.’”

According to Kuczinski:

In addition to examples such as blindness, deafness, intellectual disabilities (formerly called mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs, and mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair, the proposed rule includes: autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV and AIDS, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy, and major depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia.

It is important to note three points about subsection (j)(5). The ADA Amendments Act’s legislative history lends support to the view that impairments like those in subsection (j)(5) consistently will meet the definition of “disability.” The Amendments Act Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, at page 6, states that Congress modeled the ADA definition of disability on the definition contained in the Rehabilitation Act, and said it wished to return courts to the way they had construed that definition. Describing this goal, the Committee report states that courts had interpreted the Rehabilitation Act definition “broadly to include persons with a wide range of physical and mental impairments such as epilepsy, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and intellectual and developmental disabilities,” even where a mitigating measure lessened their impact.

Second, the approach taken to the listed impairments does not undermine the importance of the “individualized assessment” that is the hallmark of ADA analysis not only for judges and lawyers, but for managers, supervisors, and human resource professionals committed to voluntary compliance with the law. However, the impairments listed in subparagraph (j)(5) are ones that should be found to be substantially limiting each time the individualized analysis is applied to them. For example, just as application of the individualized assessment to someone who is blind or deaf will consistently establish that the individual is substantially limited in seeing or hearing, application of the individualized assessment to someone with cancer will consistently reveal that the individual is substantially limited in normal cell growth. Application of the individualized assessment to someone who has diabetes will consistently reveal a substantial limitation in endocrine function. An individualized assessment of someone with multiple sclerosis or muscular dystrophy will consistently reveal substantial limitations in major life activities including neurological functions, walking, performing manual tasks, seeing, speaking, or thinking.

Third, the fact that the impairments listed in subsection (j)(5) will consistently meet the definition of “disability,” does not automatically mean that individuals with those impairments will prevail in litigation or will be entitled to any accommodations they might request. An individualized assessment will still be necessary to determine issues such as whether an accommodation is needed, whether an individual with a disability is qualified, whether an accommodation would pose an undue hardship, whether a covered individual would pose a direct threat, and, in an intentional discrimination case, whether an employer took a prohibited action on the basis of a disability.

Rule No. 5: “[T]he fifth rule of construction . . . makes it clear that impairments that last for fewer than six months may still be substantially limiting.”

The rule, according to Kuczinski, is intended to address possible confusion created by the ADAAA provision that redefines the so-called “third prong” of the definition of an individual with a disability, or the “regarded as” prong. The ADAAA provides that when an employment action is based on an impairment, the impairment need not be regarded as substantially limiting for an individual to be “regarded as” having a disability. The provision exempts impairments of six months or less.

Although Kuczinski characterized the rule as not being a departure from existing policy under the ADA, that’s a matter of interpretation. Indeed, prior Commission case law has generally held that impairments of six months or less are not substantially limiting.

The draft regulations also address the ADAAA changes regarding how the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures should not be considered in determining if an impairment is substantially limiting and a new definition of the major life activity of working.

For a complete text of Kuczinski’s remarks on the draft ADAAA regulations go to the Commission’s website

Popularity: 4% [?]

How do you judge a website’s worth?

Writing the previous post, “How much should I pay for a website?” got me thinking beyond just buying a new site.  What happens when you have one? How do you judge its worth?

There are established figures out there that you can use.  The first is when you think about the number of visitors you get and how many of those buy your products or services (take whatever action you want them to)?  This is called the Conversion Rate.

In simple terms, most websites are designed to make people take action, whether to purchase or to contact.

So let us say your site is designed to get people to contact you/make an enquiry.

Typical conversion rates are between 1.5% and 8% obviously the higher the better.

Now look at the number of visitors to your site, how many people do you get a day?

Working on 5 visitors a day, a good website may expect an enquiry every 2.5 days, whereas an average site might expect one every 10 – 13 days.

Doesn’t sound a lot, does it?  But if you have 50 visitors a day then obviously 10 times as much, and 500 visitors a day work it out.

Are you getting these figures?  Do you even calculate them?  Or do you just think, great, I got an enquiry from my website today.   Everybody should look at their website and calculate the returns; it may surprise you.

If you are getting less than 1% then you really should do something about it.  You have a valuable asset in your website but it is under-performing.  If it was a member of staff, what would you do?  Think of re-training, even staff replacement/redundancy, or many other possible options.  Well you can do this with your website; it is just called something different.

Retraining is the equivalent of SEO (search engine optimization) whereas redundancy might mean a new design.

Why should this matter?  You have made an investment in your site to be part of your business; don’t let it under-perform.

Popularity: 1% [?]

How much should I pay for a website?

Nothing – quite simple – a web site should not cost you anything.

WOW!

Do you mean I should not pay for a web site?

Yes I really mean that – your web site should cost you nothing.

How and why?

There is a cost element to every website but in real terms your website should not cost you cost you anything.  Think of it this way you want a new website to promote your business, its main object being to sell your goods and/or services on line.  This leads to more turnover and more profit.

In other words your web site is generating an income, just like everyone who works for you.

To often people don’t consider how much they should pay for a new website – but usually, just it costs too much – whether the cost is $100 or $10,000 (also try Eu and £).  The reality is that the $10,000 site may be the better earner for the business than the $100 site.

So how much should you pay for a website?

Try this calculation.  Estimate the number of visitors you expect your web site to get (the sites subject will also affect this number – some subjects are more popular than others).  For this example I am going to suggest we take 5 visitors a day (yes – a low number) that is 1825 visitors a year.

So we have 5 visitors day, now take your profit margin on your goods and services.  Here I am going to use 50% and the average price of your goods and services. I am going to use $20 i.e. a profit of $10.

How many people will buy from your site? Who really knows, you don’t have it yet.  So we can take a stab in the dark guess?

No.  There are some established figures available.  A very good site will convert about 7-8% of its visitors, a new site should start out at about 1% and increase as the site becomes known.  The reality is that a sensible web site should convert 2-3% of its visitors.  7-8% and anything over that is exceptional.

So somewhere between 18 and 146 people will buy an item from your site. (that is 1% and 8% of 1825 visitors).

Your new web site will generate between $180 and $1460 new profit for te company.

When you put $ in the bank you expect to earn interest (in normal times!) and you may try to ‘shop’ around to get 3 to 5% higher is great but not that frequent.  So if you invested $1000 in the bank over 12 months you would get less than $55 interest.

But you think your new web site will generate between $180 and $1460 – how much would you have to invest in the bank to obtain that in interest?  -  a lot more than $1000 anything between $3,500 and $30,000

So what should you spend on your new website?

You should spend what you think is sensible and affordable but all we are suggesting is that sometimes people don’t consider what an effective web site can do for their business they just consider the cost as either cheap, sounds OK or how much!

When your developer and/or designer tells you the cost of your new site don’t faint and have a coronary think of the probable returns and make a business decision.

If you want a new site that is designed to generate the maximum returns for you then why not contact us or our design partners and we can discuss with you how to maximize your potential.

Popularity: unranked [?]

@Laura Carlson – opps twitter language here.

Just received Lauras’ Web Design Update Volume 7, Issue 47, May 22, 2009.  As you may know were are based on a Greek Island so don’t get to the USA or UK that often so we tend to miss out on conferences etc – Hey why don’t you all come 2 Kefalonia for one – great facilities, climate beaches etc etc…. and where we are free broadband (yes I said free)

Opps got carried away, anyhow there is an on-line web event on Thursday (28th) about creating accessible web sites.  Take a look at this web page Webinar by Tom Jewett it states:

• Who Should Attend? Anyone who creates a web pages or web sites.
• Skill Level: Beginner
• ATI Contact: Jean Wells, jwells@calstate.edu

The agenda looks interesting and as in life we will all learn something.

I shall be there why don’t you get there.

Go on take the first steps to accessibility.

Popularity: -1% [?]

...