To be clear, I am no longer a full-time freelance web developer. Indeed, I haven’t been a full-time web developer for a number of years, though I do still take projects on the side.

I did, however, think I had enough info to write out the following rather lengthy answer, which I hope to refine and turn into a lesson page later on this semester. There are quite a few better sources to turn to than I, and there have been a few recent articles and books on this subject, but here’s how I framed this particular answer in a way that hopefully walks the student through my thought process and tips them off to at least a few of the bigger picture items that must be considered sooner or later:

First, you need to decide if you’re going to charge hourly or lump sum. I prefer the latter, and I think clients do too.

Even so, I still start by calculating how much I need to be earning per hour–this is a figure I keep internally, and don’t share with clients.

Then, start adding upwards.

For instance, now that you’re working freelance you’re considered to be self-employed by the US Government, and will need to add about 30% for Federal taxes on top of everything else. (Make sure you put that 30% in a separate bank account!) What about State taxes? That varies state-to-state, so check your local codes.

There’s also a matter of other costs you’ll eventually need to roll in to your charges, especially if you look at doing this full time: What about Internet access, computers, software, electricity — these don’t come free! Do you need this work to pay for benefits for you/your family (health insurance, dental, life, etc)? What about advertising (if any) or time spent drumming up business? These need to be absorbed, too.

I’m going to keep it simple in this example and exclude those costs, and I think you probably don’t have to worry too much about this when you’re first starting up–especially if you’re doing freelance in addition to another job. However, be sure to consider these costs later after you move your business forward.

So if that the take-home amount is, say, $15/hour (which is not too bad for someone just starting out–most of my student developers get less than that) first add 30% for taxes, rounding up to $20/hour.

Then, figure that if you were doing this full time you’d be working at least 40 hours a week at least 4 weeks a month. This gives you a number through which you can absorb business costs on a per-hour basis by simple division. So if I’m working from a home office my internet, electricity (for just my office), computer upkeep might add up $160 a month, which is convenient because it means I just add another dollar to my hourly rate. Etc.

The next number to determine is tougher. How many hours will the project take you? Be realistic, and include meeting times. The best way to know for sure is to have tracked your time on projects in the past. I’ll give you just one example: I wrote XHTML and CSS for someone’s resume the other weekend, which turned out to be a 3 hour job including the initial meeting, and some minor experimentation with CSS 3’s @font-face property at the client’s request. Then I spent an hour testing it across browsers and making minor adjustments. So 4 hours for 1 page of content.

In this case we just needed one page, but in sites with multiple pages using templates will make things go faster. Because of this I usually charge on a first-page, additional-page basis, if that makes sense.

At any rate, it’s common to undercharge early on by not accurately estimating the time involved. And that’s OK early on, because you’re learning! But learn from your mistakes, and track your hours, so that in the future you can be more on-target and provide good service at competitive rates. Consider using a project management or time-tracking tool to help you with this.

Another practice I’ve heard others use in the past is to take my estimated time for a project and double it. This is based on the presumption that we always underestimate how much time tasks take us. I think this is true initially.

So now I know my per hour rate ($21), and I’m confident that for a media-free (text-based) static page it takes me about 4 hours. So I might charge $80 for that first page, and, using that first page as a template, charge $20 for each additional page. Now we’re starting to have a basic formula!

Oh, but what if you have to do visual design? Logo design? Will it take you 20 hours to come up with a good visual design? 40? 60? What about changes the client will inevitably request? Certainly you want to include the client at each step, from thumbnails to comps to finished versions. Heavy involvement early on will reduce the likelihood of conflict and frustration later.

Now if Javascript or PHP come into it, we start talking big money. Not just because it takes longer to develop, but because you must work with other people’s web servers, you must be secure, your code must not break on any browser, you must case-test for a number of different user scenarios, etc.

Don’t be afraid to ask yourself if you need to outsource tasks where your skills are not yet adequate. This is a good way to ensure your client gets what they are paying for–and can save you time in the long run. For instance, if I had a client needing a Flex app, I’m not going to spend 200 hours on it when a skilled Flex developer could do it in half that time. Sure, I have to pay them, but sometimes you can barter your skills for theirs.

Finally, make and maintain a master list of services you could provide with a dollar charge next to each, i.e. Basic web page production (HTML & CSS): $200 first page, $50 each addtl page. MySQL database set up: $50 per table, limit 30 fields. etc. I keep my own Excel spreadsheet with as many options as I can think of, and I modify this as I learn more about my own time, resource expenditures, and costs.

That’s it. As I said, this was just an e-mail I kicked out to a student, and this omits important info on contracts and agreements, but it’s a big topic, one which I expect to reflect upon and revisit in this or another post.

.post img { max-width: 100%; }

This prevents the sort of thing we often see when an image is slapped into a blog post without being resized especially for that design. Here’s an example this just popped up in my Google Reader:

In addition to preventing IMGs from breaking out of the box (or, worse, growing the box) this can be applied to other elements as well. In the case of my themes’ CSS I also include OBJECT (and, just to be safe, EMBED):

.post img, .post object, .post embed { max-width: 100%; }

With the entrance of HTML 5 one can imagine adding/replacing AUDIO and VIDEO in this list of selectors.

I’m thinking about this today because on Twitter Jeffrey Zeldman RT’ed Stephanie Hobson quoting Ethan Marcotte:

This is a fine solution, and reminded me that just last week I was talking with colleague Ken Woodward applying max-width in a more generic fashion–more generic, even, than to all IMGs:

div * { max-width: 100%; }

This is very broad, of course, and could cause problems in a number of particular designs, however I’m thinking the principle is still valid, particularly as it applies to inline elements, for the W3 reminds us:

If an inline box cannot be split (e.g., if the inline box contains a single character, or language specific word breaking rules disallow a break within the inline box, or if the inline box is affected by a white-space value of nowrap or pre), then the inline box overflows the line box.

Why wouldn’t I just write the rule without the DIV ancestor? Most elements that I need to control naturally fall within a DIV, and this limitation helps me feel safer, though I haven’t done enough testing to see how when/where it might fail. I am certain there is probably not enough specificity to override width problems that may be caused by miscalculated pixel widths of directly targeted descendant elements (i.e. DIVs), but those should probably have been done in percentages anyway. If specificity is a problem, adding a relevant parent CLASS or ID to the selector could probably solve it.

More than just troublesome for pretty CSS-based pages, quirks mode, triggered on standards-compliant pages, can negatively affect the usability and functionality of the learning experience. For example, we use an inline quizzing Javascript that renders questions and answer choices and feedback based on standards mode CSS. In quirks mode this self-assessment tool is useless.

Blackboard Was Made For Quirks

Basically quirks mode means the browser thinks your web skills are not up to snuff, and the browser therefore renders your CSS in a non-standard fashion. Quirks mode is triggered when a DOCTYPE, e.g.:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

…is missing, or invalid, or unknown, or not where it should be (i.e. the first line of the document).

javascript:alert(document.compatMode) pasted into the Internet Explorer address bar kindly informs us that this browser is rendering this page in quirks mode. Firefox will tell you if you go to Tools > Page Info. Advanced Box Model Test

But even if you’ve been careful to put a valid DOCTYPE into your web pages, once it’s loaded up into Bb Vista and linked to, either from a Folder or a Learning Module, the browser will go into quirks mode. Why does this happen? Simple: Bb Vista inserts XHTML and JavaScript at the beginning of all web pages onload. 140+ lines of it, to be exact. It’s an odious thing to do, but, what do you expect? It’s Blackboard.

It may (or may not) be important to note that this does not happen when viewing a page in the File Manager–only when a page is loaded from a link within the course.

What You Can Do

Not much. And yet this could be a big issue for Internet Explorer users (FireFox renders page in quirks mode [not "Almost Standards Mode" as I'd hoped], yet most standards-compliant XHTML and CSS still render well).

And though most users are still on IE 6 or 7 I had some hope for a way out with Internet Explorer 8. You see, Microsoft promised that “a page explicitly opts into standards mode” when it includes “a metatag in the page that specifies IE=8 or IE=EmulateIE8″. For example:

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=IE8" />

In practice, however, this META tag alone does not force IE8 into standards mode in Bb Vista–the misplaced XHTML is apparently too much for IE8 to ignore.

So the most practical solutions I can think of are:

1. Write custom CSS for Blackboard that renders (or re-renders) the page according to the quirks mode box model. This could be done using Internet Explorer conditional comments, for example:

   
   <!--[if IE ]>
     <link href="ie-quirks.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
   <![endif]-->
   
   

   I haven’t yet considered what CSS rules would need to be written to accommodate this, but if it was possible this seem like the most robust and efficient solution.

2. Rewrite the page with Javascript. After Bb has loaded (or begun to load) the page, Javascript triggers a full rewrite of the page, either wiping out or rewriting the Bb XHTML and Javascript in a more appropriate location (e.g. in a targeted, ID’ed element). I’ve asked one of my developers to try this out today, but already fear the additional load time it might put on the Bb-hosted page.

Any other ideas?

If this were only about appearance I wouldn’t be raising a fuss, but this can and does affect the usability of certain e-learning tools, and forces developers to ask, “How will this work in Blackboard?” yet again.

Tim’s applied this to “shelf shadows”, where a nav item appears to be propped up on a shelf with a shadow below:

I looked at the CSS and thought, “This is cute, but could be more elegant with just two 1kb images.” So I wrote it, and it turned out fine. In fact, it turned out better, in my opinion, because the shadow edges were anti-aliased. I showed my developer Tyrel Kelsey the results, then bragged, “I can even make both the shadows and the shelf size scale with the text.” Then whipped up that solution as well.

In short, my first solution used two images: a x-repeating 1×20 “shelf” hooked to the UL, and a 10×20 “shadow” hooked to each LI in place of Tim’s border corner.

My second solution used a 1px square for the top “shelf”, and a 1px border–both hooked to the UL. The top shelf was set 1em from the top to allow for scaling.

The “shadow” was a much larger image, 100×200, and set .1em to the left and 1em from the top of each LI, thus masking it’s gargantuaness (similar to sliding doors).

It was a slick application for the same effect, but then Tyrel popped my balooon.

“Are you on FireFox 3?” Tyrel asked. “Because mine already scales on FF3, and it doesn’t look all jagged like yours.”

Page zoom. I still am on FF2, and I remembered earlier in the week how I embarrassed myself in the web design course I teach when the page zoom disturbed an effect I was demonstrating. In fact, a lot of the em-based scaling approaches so popular just a year ago are sliding towards obsolescence thanks to page zoom on IE 7+ and now on FF3 as well..

Not only are they made obsolete, current CSS-based designs that are enhanced by the elasticity (e.g. layouts with reading-width columns or other applications of em-based scaling (e.g. sliding doors) may look worse with page zoom. My second example sure did when scaled in IE7. And if you open my design 2 on FF3 and compare the page zoomed rendering to the rendering with Zoom Text Only turned on, you’ll agree that the clarity is compromised in the former.

So while I’m proud of my two CSS variations on Tim Wright’s shelf-and-shadow concept, and they are great solutions for older browsers (I can’t believe I’m referring to FF2 as “older”!), it’s also clear to me that em-based scaling and elasticity is on it’s way out, and browser-based page zoom will solve a lot of designer’s accessibility-influenced design challenges–but not, perhaps, without affecting our “tricks” of the past.

1. What do you do as an instructional designer/technologist?

   In the mode of an instructional designer I either work with instructors directly or I work independently.

   When I am working with instructors, I am probing and listening. We are discussing their teaching objectives, their mode of instruction, their activities, and their assessments. I am trying to gauge their teaching philosophy, and looking for ways to replicate their teaching activities in a technology-enhanced or online environment without abusing or neglecting the realities of that environment. While I believe that online teaching should be fundamentally different than traditional classroom teaching, that belief can not be forced upon traditional classroom instructors in it’s totality.

   When I am working independently as an instructional designer, I focus on the student experience. I match desired outcomes to available tools and technologies, avoiding any significant negative impacts on usability, accessibility, or facility. Then I prototype activities, materials, assessments for one lesson and test. I reflect, considering the student’s perspective regarding the usability of the tools, courseware, and environment. I attend to completeness and clarity of the instructions, the materials, the activities, the assessments through revision. I imagine the course from the point of view of an hour, a day, a week, a semester. Then, having spent as much time as is reasonable on the first draft, when I am satisfied with a prototype, and when I am assured of the instructor’s satisfaction, I call on one or more of our student developers to assist me in replicating it to complete the course.

   In the role of instructional techologist I focus on rapid development of educational tools that are usable and enhance the teaching/learning experience. To this end I try to focus on the creation of new tools or modification of existing tools that can amplify a pedagogical principle or provide improved facility. By principle I mean an aspect of one’s teaching philosophy or the actualization of a teaching objective/learning outcome. By facility I mean simply the ability and the process: how we make this happen, and in the easiest possible way for both instructor and learner?

2. Why did you choose to become one?

   I am enthusiastic about technology, I believe in the power of learning, I am committed to improving teaching, and I want to make education accessible to folks who are at geographical or temporal disadvantages. My profession in distance education fits.

   And while “distance education” is morphing from it’s roots as primarily an “independent study” mode to one that is more centered on the idea of a “classroom community” I have, in my own life, benefited from and enjoyed independent study, and believe that the relatively small niche of learners who thrive and can excel in independent study modes of learning are important and worthy of the support of our educational institutions.

3. Where did you work as an instructional designer/technologist?

   I began as a student Web developer and technical writer for FACT at Utah State University in 1997, where I converted paper-based independent study course to a relatively new mode of delivery: The World Wide Web.

   I then moved up to a position with Distance Education program in 1999, working with faculty in the department of Special Education to develop technology for and produce live, 2-way audio/video, Internet-delivered distance education courses with online course supplements.

   After completing my Masters degree and spending some time abroad teaching, I returned to instructional technology as an instructional designer for Distance Education at Utah Valley State College in 2002. Since that time, I have created UVSC’s Technology Enhanced Teaching Center, created dozens of new online courses, and been promoted to Director of the Instructional Design Services unit, where I oversee all aspects of Distance Education course production and educational technology development.

4. What surprised you the most after actively working in the field?

   One aspect that still surprises me is faculty and student preconceptions of distance education. Instructors still want to believe distance education is only independent study and it doesn’t deserve the same attention, committment, and rigor as their on-campus classes; students still want to believe that distance education is self-paced and, unfortunately, easier or less rigorous.

   But, in general, the most positive surprise has been to witness how effective distance education can be when Done Right. With a committed instructor, sound technology choices, and some sense of adventure in the students, a fully online course can be as productive, as effective, and more engaging and fulfilling than a traditional face-to-face course.

5. What has been your most discouraging experience in the field of instructional design/technology?

   This would have to be the persistence of ignorant or just plain negative attitudes amongst some instructors and administrators toward distance education. This is not just prevelant in the handful of distance education naysayers, but also present in some of the distance education instructors, who, as I mentioned above, still maintain wrong perceptions or inadequate committment to their distance education courses and students. There are plenty of motivated, interactive, and engaging instructors involved in distance education, but I am still discouraged in the numbers of underprepared, undercommitted, or underenthused instructors as well.

6. If you could change one thing about about your job as an instructional designer/technologist what would it be?

   I wouldn’t change much about my job, though I would happily take advantage of additional human resources. In higher education, and in educational technology particularly, even if one has open positions (which itself is a rarity), skilled educational technologists, seasoned instructional designers, and creative multimedia producers are hard to find and harder to hold on to. I am lucky to have a handful of exceptional professionals working with me, but too often I notice that we don’t have enough resources to keep up with our ideas, the changing face of technology, and the needs of students and instructors.

7. What aspect of being an instructional designer/technologist has given you hope for the future?

   Making education…

   • more accessible to everyone
   • more convenient for instructors and students
   • more open to potential learners everywhere
   • more engaging and interactive
   • more authentic and sustained–carrying it beyond the classroom by capitalizing on personal learning environments
8. If you could give a piece of advice to someone considering a career as an instructional designer/technologist what would it be?
   • Learn: adventure, focus, study, interact, reflect, write, revise
   • Teach: profess, engage, assess, interact, revise
   • Build: analyze, prototype, test, observe, reflect, revise