How much does a rounded corner cost per day?

How about a rounded corner for your website for around SEK 150,000? Or a dancing button for 200.000,-? What does a website actually cost?

Magne Ilsaas, CEO and partner of Dekode, reflects on the development of websites over the past 20 years and how we can now deliver long-term, flexible solutions that enable the customer to master a modern digital working day and at the same time safeguard the need for the individual brand's uniqueness.

Magne Ilsaas, CEO of Dekode, photo

A unique paradox

I'm fascinated by how, on the one hand, we have a great need to appear unique, while at the same time we end up becoming more or less identical. And I'm even more fascinated by what this does to our willingness to pay extremely high prices for decoration. And how little we are willing to invest in the measures that can actually, demonstrably, help create value.

Websites are expensive.

Sometimes disproportionately expensive. For the first 20 years of the internet, websites were static and had minimal layout. They only needed to relate to more or less the same screen size: the one you had on your desk at home or at work.

There were no web designers, but mostly graphic designers, who transferred their experience from print. The web gave them the opportunity to break free on a new and exciting surface. In the beginning, this must have been very frustrating, because there were only so many ways to make it look good. Because that's what it was all about: how could the website look as much like a magazine as possible?

The dream of CSS

The dream of CSS, or Cascading Style Sheets, started as early as 1994, but it was not until well into the 2000s that browsers gave their support, and content and layout parted company. Finally, designers could make demands on developers - everything had to be "pixel perfect". Nor was CSS any worse than many designers learning it themselves. From 2010, there was almost an expectation that CSS was something a modern designer should master. The first Front End developers were mostly graphic designers, with limited understanding of code. 

Back then, when most websites were digital renderings of a static brochure, this made sense. The ratio between the time a designer spent in Photoshop and the time it took to implement the same design was still relatively even.

The screen jiggles

The possibilities with CSS became greater, although this development was somewhat uneven. There was generally little understanding among clients and agency managers that different browsers took on a life of their own. It would have been interesting to know how many unbillable hours have disappeared into the drag of Internet Explorer 6, or IE in general.

Then suddenly the websites became too small. At first, it was just the way it had to be. Eventually, Google Analytics was able to tell us that a large part of the traffic to a website came via a smartphone. Then something had to be done. After Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, it wasn't long before the relationship between the time it took to design something and the time it took to implement it no longer matched. 

"Mobile first"

First, separate versions of the websites were created that suited smaller screens. But gradually "mobile first" became a trendy term. Websites became responsive, i.e. adapted to different screen sizes. For the design and advertising agencies, this was a wonderful opportunity to sell something new, to the uninitiated clients . What in the short term was a great upselling opportunity, in the longer term would prove to mark the beginning of the end for the web as an additional service and something that everyone could deliver. As the complexity and demands of web solutions increased, it became difficult for designers without a real understanding of code to make ends meet. A few still try, but most realized that front-end developers were real developers, with a solid understanding of code. 

What's next?

In a short space of time, websites have moved away from being static reproductions of magazines and brochures. Today, it's about designing business-critical digital tools that are constantly changing. 

The design profession has also evolved. There are now many specialists in user experience and digital design, with accompanying great new design programs, seemingly designed for a modern workflow.

However, the need for uniqueness and identity still permeates and defines web projects. What something looks like is easy to understand, but the technology that buzzes and runs in the background is not. 


When visuals set the tone

Designers and design agencies appeal to our emotions. They are masters of communication and the power of persuasion. Technology agencies and developers are often perceived as more introverted, rational and problem-focused. Everything is expensive and complex, and they're not particularly good at talking about it in an easy-to-understand and accessible way. This means that it's usually the visuals that set the premises for what is to be produced. This is what safeguards the identity and distinctiveness of a brand. 

An example of a number of websites that try to create their own unique identity, but still appear very similar.
An example of a number of websites that try to create their own unique identity, but still appear very similar.

The starting line is where the work begins

The problem is just that for most people clients this comes at the expense of innovation and value creation. Firstly, the customer's digital budget is often empty before the website is launched, and the project even gets to the starting line. And that's when the real work begins. Second, when the website is finally launched, and analysis and real user behavior mean that the solution needs to be changed and optimized, the lack of a basic system often becomes a continuously increasing burden. The relationship between design and implementation is on the wrong side, but we are so used to this being the way to do it - and only a small number of customers question this process. The combination of an alluring exterior and a lack of technological understanding means that most clients is, in the absence of a better alternative, willing to pay what it costs. Which all too often is too much.

There are several areas we can be inspired by. The common denominator is that in these cases, the designer is held responsible for ensuring that there is a relationship between the time invested and the value created.

Technology first

Online shops and those who supply them are fascinating. There is little relationship between the success of an online store and the uniqueness of its appearance. Many of those who create online stores are the ones who have come the furthest in systematizing and streamlining their deliveries. Too many clients in this segment, appearance is secondary to payment solutions and the flow of goods actually working.

We in Dekode have seen many examples of online store projects, which started on the drawing board of a designer, but have become so expensive that the customer has not been able to afford good product and logistics solutions. In some cases, this can create such big problems that the shops cannot survive. Those who turn this around and invest in effective solutions, which actually work, manage to generate turnover. They can then reinvest in what creates the most value at any given time. For some, this will be more design, but in surprisingly few cases.

Design systems

The second example, from which there is much to learn, is large digital product companies where the pace of change is so fast that they simply don't have time to start from scratch every time they need to do an optimization or test. These companies invest heavily in robust design systems and coding systems. These enable change and speed, freeing them from the artistic whims of a single designer. There are many great examples of this, and design systems are rightly getting a lot of attention these days.

But developing and, not least, implementing a design system in this way is time-consuming, expensive and generally difficult. And if we look at the two examples mentioned above, the common denominator and motivation for one variant or the other is business value. In the case of online stores, it's primarily about prioritizing what creates the highest value. Design often has to make way for technology. For large digital product companies, prioritizing design is not an option, but it is systematized so that it can be used effectively.

The choice between design and function

So what about an ordinary Norwegian medium-sized brand that is dependent on maintaining its identity and can neither afford nor need a large, complex design system?

I would argue that they are the losers in this case, because they have to settle for an outdated design approach, where the alternative is mostly to choose between something that looks great but is not necessarily sustainable or solves a long-term need. Or they have to prioritize technology that scales but doesn't necessarily safeguard their brand and identity.

Undated to work on spec

As mentioned above, the visual is often easier to understand. It appeals to our emotions in a completely different way than the rational, i.e. the technical. After all, most of us are emotionally driven, and it feels good and safe to end up in the arms of a trendy design agency. But agencies often live from project to project and are rarely held accountable for the impact or value of what their work creates. They have already delivered what they have been asked for and they are long overdue with new projects for new ones clients . This is by no means the fault of the agencies alone. Today, the purchase of digital services is mostly done on spec with a clear start and end. This is an outdated method and rarely facilitates the long-term perspective needed to create good results digitally. We have written more about this in this article .

Growth Driven Design

At the top of our wish list at Dekode is to be able to offer long-term, flexible solutions that enable customers to master a modern digital working day. At the same time, we want to safeguard the need for the individual brand's uniqueness.

As a result, we've had to go back to the drawing board and completely rethink how we solve web projects on behalf of the people we work for. 

First and foremost, we have completely rethought how we solve projects procedurally. If the largest value for a client is not about getting a project to the starting line, but through the work that happens after launch, we must work from a process that addresses this. We have been inspired by a process developed by Hubspot, called Growth Driven Design . In short, this is about launching faster, preferably something that is much better than what exists today, and then working continuously to further develop and improve based on data and real user behaviour.

Websites based on Gutenberg

Dekode has specialized in WordPress for over ten years. With the launch of Gutenberg in 2019, WordPress has really enabled us to work long-term with the web solutions we create. Before, it was all about templates, which didn't take into account the fact that neither business needs nor user needs could be constantly changing. Whereas with Gutenberg, it's all about blocks or modules. 

This means that instead of creating rigid templates that you quickly outgrow, we offer flexible modules that can be combined to meet both current and future needs. With the right building blocks in place and a flexible modular approach, you'll be able to create and adjust all aspects of your website or service both urgently and over time. Read more about Gutenberg here.

Teft - a design system for websites

Last but not least, we have been inspired by the big product companies and have developed Teft. Teft is a design system and code framework that covers most recurring needs from project to project. All projects solved on Teft will be several hundred hours into the project before we have even started working together. A framework like this will give any project superpowers.

Get started faster

The Teft framework consists of a scalable UX design system that can be easily customized to embrace each project's unique identity. Each UX component has its counterpart in code, which allows us to quickly set up a prototype. This will take care of functionality that the vast majority of websites depend on. For our customers, this means that they can get started with content work and receive training in the solution in good time before launch. For the project, it means we can spend more time and resources on the parts of the website that are unique to each project and contribute to creating value. This could be tailored functionality, which can be crucial to your conversion goals. Or it could be that we move the resources that would previously have gone into large design and coding projects to preparing and facilitating the operational part of the project.

Digital maturity

At the same time that we as a supplier have to change, it also requires that customers approach projects in a different way. Hence this article. We see a clear match between digitally mature clients and the willingness to rethink how we carry out projects. Those who are able to see past the initial specification, where the project has a clear start and end, but work with continuous improvement and prioritize the tasks that at any time have the potential to create the highest value, reach infinitely more than those who implement a specification and then sit back and hope for the best.

How can we help you? 

Would you like to know more about how we can help you with a website based on WordPress, Gutenberg and Teft? Then send us an email!