By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,572 Members | 959 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,572 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

my supervisor won't let me make my website in .net

P: n/a
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it. I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications, and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.

Mar 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
17 Replies


P: n/a
stubbsie wrote:
My
supervisor states that since I am just a web designer that I cannot
include .net programming to make the website.


http://www.monster.com
Mar 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
Just go in with the facts as you've expressed them. Put some fundamentals on
a peice of paper in a short outline and hand out to each person in
attendance explaining what you explained here but instead of closing your
statement wondering if it is a personal thing close your statement so the
people hearing your statement are left with no other choice but to recognize
that you have conducted yourself in a responsible manner and have shown
leadership where none was previously present. Close your statement by
acknowledging that you will continue to support any decision that is made
you will show the same responsible approach to do the best you can to learn
whatever is decided.

If you're successful they will thank you in front of the @sshole and let you
go back to work using ASP.NET but then you'll have to watch your back from
now on.

<%= Clinton Gallagher

"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it.
I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes
are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.

Mar 15 '06 #3

P: n/a
Hello 'stubbsie'

"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it.
I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes
are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.


After doing this kind of stuff (coding, that is) for over 25 years, I've
noticed that more bad decisions are made because of personality conflicts or
politics than any other single source. That may be your supervisor's
decision to stop you from deploying in a technology he doesn't like, or your
decision to use .Net without first clearing it with your supervisor. It is
hard for me to tell who is playing the "right" game and who is playing the
"wrong" one.

I disagree, respectfully, with Clinton's advice. Do not go in simply
explaining how you took training and no one told you that it was wrong to
write code in .Net. That will ignore the elephant in the room... that your
supervisor has the right to tell you what to do. For some reason, he (or
she?) believes that he has a good reason for telling you to stop. You (and
everyone above you) has to recognize that your supervisor may have a good
point.

You will get nowhere until you recognize the obstacles in your path and
overcome them. Perhaps your supervisor has an honest reason for believing
that the introduction of .Net technology in your application would be wrong.
Address it. Is he afraid that, were you to leave, that he would have to pay
for a highly paid "Senior Web Developer" to fix it, whereas you have a
lesser (cheaper) title? It's a valid concern. If that is the case, what is
your recourse?

Well, you can point out that the web app that you have written makes only
elementary use of .Net capabilities, such that an expensive programmer would
not be needed to maintain it. You can point out that Microsoft has been
working for years to make it easy for non-geeks to write small amounts of
useful code, and that maintaining the app would not require geeks, but
rather normal people. You can point out that, in fact, only a web designer
would be qualified to modify your site because of the keen and well-placed
graphical (macromedia) and usability elements you've inserted. You can
point out that the training that the local government has invested in you is
not wildly expensive, and that, therefore, the cost of replacing you is no
more than the cost that the local government would ordinarily spend on
building and maintaining the skills of any web developer.

In other words, do NOT show off how you've written code. Show off how
you've designed a web site that happens to use code in small and necessary
ways to do useful things. You are, after all, a web designer. The site you
created is no more and no less than the excellence that YOUR SUPERVISOR has
instilled in you and the rest of his team. (Always flatter the person you
are trying to prove wrong).

Tell your supervisor's boss what a great job he has done in providing you
with the educational support that is needed for the position. Point out
that any web designer would need these skills and that many web designers
have them. Point out that your supervisor has simply brought out the
behavior that your local government requires to get their job done.

Point out that deploying the site with .Net will not increase the costs to
the organization, and is the best way to meet the needs because it is so
easy to find web designers, both internally and externally, that are
familiar with the Microsoft .Net platform (as opposed to doing things in
popular languages that may require skills not typically found in your
organization, like Perl, TCL, or Java).

Then ask for the support of your CEO. Say, literally, "I am seeking your
support to continue to perform my duties in the excellent manner that my
supervisor has enabled and empowered me."

The end of every sales pitch is to ask for the sale. Don't forget to ask.
"I seek your support" is sufficient. Do not ask for a technical decision.
Do not ask for retribution against anyone, especially your supervisor.

Remember, if he loses face in front of your CEO, you will lose eventually,
even if you win tomorrow.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Mar 15 '06 #4

P: n/a
Nick,

As mostly we don't disagree, however.

There is in my opinion a difference between a webdesigner and a
webdeveloper.

I am by instance not such a well webdesigner. I try it however I am seldom
satisfied, I know to few of using the right colours, fonts etc in the right
way.

Therefore as stubbie says he is a designer, he can be a lousy webdeveloper.
Than it is better to use a real designer tool as Macro Media have or even
better work together with a webdeveloper.

If he has the opinion that he is a webdeveloper, however. Than nobody can in
my opinion state anything against him to use Net than personal preference.

This is of course an indirect answer to Stubbie, however adding it to yours
made it me easier to explain what I mean, because the rest is written by
you.

Just my thought,

Cor
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:cK******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello 'stubbsie'

"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even
mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it.
I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me
make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes
are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.


After doing this kind of stuff (coding, that is) for over 25 years, I've
noticed that more bad decisions are made because of personality conflicts
or politics than any other single source. That may be your supervisor's
decision to stop you from deploying in a technology he doesn't like, or
your decision to use .Net without first clearing it with your supervisor.
It is hard for me to tell who is playing the "right" game and who is
playing the "wrong" one.

I disagree, respectfully, with Clinton's advice. Do not go in simply
explaining how you took training and no one told you that it was wrong to
write code in .Net. That will ignore the elephant in the room... that
your supervisor has the right to tell you what to do. For some reason, he
(or she?) believes that he has a good reason for telling you to stop. You
(and everyone above you) has to recognize that your supervisor may have a
good point.

You will get nowhere until you recognize the obstacles in your path and
overcome them. Perhaps your supervisor has an honest reason for believing
that the introduction of .Net technology in your application would be
wrong. Address it. Is he afraid that, were you to leave, that he would
have to pay for a highly paid "Senior Web Developer" to fix it, whereas
you have a lesser (cheaper) title? It's a valid concern. If that is the
case, what is your recourse?

Well, you can point out that the web app that you have written makes only
elementary use of .Net capabilities, such that an expensive programmer
would not be needed to maintain it. You can point out that Microsoft has
been working for years to make it easy for non-geeks to write small
amounts of useful code, and that maintaining the app would not require
geeks, but rather normal people. You can point out that, in fact, only a
web designer would be qualified to modify your site because of the keen
and well-placed graphical (macromedia) and usability elements you've
inserted. You can point out that the training that the local government
has invested in you is not wildly expensive, and that, therefore, the cost
of replacing you is no more than the cost that the local government would
ordinarily spend on building and maintaining the skills of any web
developer.

In other words, do NOT show off how you've written code. Show off how
you've designed a web site that happens to use code in small and necessary
ways to do useful things. You are, after all, a web designer. The site
you created is no more and no less than the excellence that YOUR
SUPERVISOR has instilled in you and the rest of his team. (Always flatter
the person you are trying to prove wrong).

Tell your supervisor's boss what a great job he has done in providing you
with the educational support that is needed for the position. Point out
that any web designer would need these skills and that many web designers
have them. Point out that your supervisor has simply brought out the
behavior that your local government requires to get their job done.

Point out that deploying the site with .Net will not increase the costs to
the organization, and is the best way to meet the needs because it is so
easy to find web designers, both internally and externally, that are
familiar with the Microsoft .Net platform (as opposed to doing things in
popular languages that may require skills not typically found in your
organization, like Perl, TCL, or Java).

Then ask for the support of your CEO. Say, literally, "I am seeking your
support to continue to perform my duties in the excellent manner that my
supervisor has enabled and empowered me."

The end of every sales pitch is to ask for the sale. Don't forget to ask.
"I seek your support" is sufficient. Do not ask for a technical decision.
Do not ask for retribution against anyone, especially your supervisor.

Remember, if he loses face in front of your CEO, you will lose eventually,
even if you win tomorrow.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

Mar 15 '06 #5

P: n/a
Hello again, Cor. I hope that you are having a nice springtime.

I agree that there is a fairly sizable difference between a web designer and
a web developer. Stubbie noted that the government agency that he works for
already uses .Net, so they have no issue with a web "developer" using the
tool.

Yet, his supervisor asks him to stop. Stubbie says, "My supervisor states
that since I am just a web designer that I cannot include .net programming
to make the website." Ask yourself why? What obstacle does Stubbie need to
overcome? What shared goals does he and his supervisor share? Do they both
want a useful site? Do they both want the same features? Who gets to
decide what the features of the site should be? These are important
questions.

If Stubbie starts with the shared goals of the entire team, he can
illustrate that his position is really very close to that of his supervisor.
He can also show how the support of the CEO will not cause his supervisor to
lose face.

At the end of the day, an issue like this is usually either one of "control"
or "money." Either the supervisor wants to control him, and he doesn't want
to be controlled (problem a) or the supervisor fears that Stubbie is doing
something that will cost money (problem b). My response goes after problem
(b). If the problem is really (a), then Stubbie needs to find another job.

However, I disagree with the notion: "Than nobody can in my opinion state
anything against him to use Net than personal preference."
My experience with politics leads me to respond a bit more delicately.
Supervisors can say anything they want without a good reason. There is
always a reason... it is not always a good one. The person who asks Stubbie
not to use .Net has a reason. It would be foolish to simply state "I'm
right" without first stating "He is not wrong, and more information can show
that we are both right."

At the end of the day, the boss is right. Even when he is wrong.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Nick,

As mostly we don't disagree, however.

There is in my opinion a difference between a webdesigner and a
webdeveloper.

I am by instance not such a well webdesigner. I try it however I am seldom
satisfied, I know to few of using the right colours, fonts etc in the
right way.

Therefore as stubbie says he is a designer, he can be a lousy
webdeveloper. Than it is better to use a real designer tool as Macro Media
have or even better work together with a webdeveloper.

If he has the opinion that he is a webdeveloper, however. Than nobody can
in my opinion state anything against him to use Net than personal
preference.

This is of course an indirect answer to Stubbie, however adding it to
yours made it me easier to explain what I mean, because the rest is
written by you.

Just my thought,

Cor
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:cK******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello 'stubbsie'

"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even
mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving
it. I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me
make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a
web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The
classes are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination
or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.


After doing this kind of stuff (coding, that is) for over 25 years, I've
noticed that more bad decisions are made because of personality conflicts
or politics than any other single source. That may be your supervisor's
decision to stop you from deploying in a technology he doesn't like, or
your decision to use .Net without first clearing it with your supervisor.
It is hard for me to tell who is playing the "right" game and who is
playing the "wrong" one.

I disagree, respectfully, with Clinton's advice. Do not go in simply
explaining how you took training and no one told you that it was wrong to
write code in .Net. That will ignore the elephant in the room... that
your supervisor has the right to tell you what to do. For some reason,
he (or she?) believes that he has a good reason for telling you to stop.
You (and everyone above you) has to recognize that your supervisor may
have a good point.

You will get nowhere until you recognize the obstacles in your path and
overcome them. Perhaps your supervisor has an honest reason for
believing that the introduction of .Net technology in your application
would be wrong. Address it. Is he afraid that, were you to leave, that
he would have to pay for a highly paid "Senior Web Developer" to fix it,
whereas you have a lesser (cheaper) title? It's a valid concern. If
that is the case, what is your recourse?

Well, you can point out that the web app that you have written makes only
elementary use of .Net capabilities, such that an expensive programmer
would not be needed to maintain it. You can point out that Microsoft has
been working for years to make it easy for non-geeks to write small
amounts of useful code, and that maintaining the app would not require
geeks, but rather normal people. You can point out that, in fact, only a
web designer would be qualified to modify your site because of the keen
and well-placed graphical (macromedia) and usability elements you've
inserted. You can point out that the training that the local government
has invested in you is not wildly expensive, and that, therefore, the
cost of replacing you is no more than the cost that the local government
would ordinarily spend on building and maintaining the skills of any web
developer.

In other words, do NOT show off how you've written code. Show off how
you've designed a web site that happens to use code in small and
necessary ways to do useful things. You are, after all, a web designer.
The site you created is no more and no less than the excellence that YOUR
SUPERVISOR has instilled in you and the rest of his team. (Always
flatter the person you are trying to prove wrong).

Tell your supervisor's boss what a great job he has done in providing you
with the educational support that is needed for the position. Point out
that any web designer would need these skills and that many web designers
have them. Point out that your supervisor has simply brought out the
behavior that your local government requires to get their job done.

Point out that deploying the site with .Net will not increase the costs
to the organization, and is the best way to meet the needs because it is
so easy to find web designers, both internally and externally, that are
familiar with the Microsoft .Net platform (as opposed to doing things in
popular languages that may require skills not typically found in your
organization, like Perl, TCL, or Java).

Then ask for the support of your CEO. Say, literally, "I am seeking your
support to continue to perform my duties in the excellent manner that my
supervisor has enabled and empowered me."

The end of every sales pitch is to ask for the sale. Don't forget to
ask. "I seek your support" is sufficient. Do not ask for a technical
decision. Do not ask for retribution against anyone, especially your
supervisor.

Remember, if he loses face in front of your CEO, you will lose
eventually, even if you win tomorrow.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--


Mar 15 '06 #6

P: n/a
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be a
webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It would be
the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use a hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up between the
lines.

:-)

Cor

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:Cs******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello again, Cor. I hope that you are having a nice springtime.

I agree that there is a fairly sizable difference between a web designer
and a web developer. Stubbie noted that the government agency that he
works for already uses .Net, so they have no issue with a web "developer"
using the tool.

Yet, his supervisor asks him to stop. Stubbie says, "My supervisor states
that since I am just a web designer that I cannot include .net programming
to make the website." Ask yourself why? What obstacle does Stubbie need
to overcome? What shared goals does he and his supervisor share? Do they
both want a useful site? Do they both want the same features? Who gets
to decide what the features of the site should be? These are important
questions.

If Stubbie starts with the shared goals of the entire team, he can
illustrate that his position is really very close to that of his
supervisor. He can also show how the support of the CEO will not cause his
supervisor to lose face.

At the end of the day, an issue like this is usually either one of
"control" or "money." Either the supervisor wants to control him, and he
doesn't want to be controlled (problem a) or the supervisor fears that
Stubbie is doing something that will cost money (problem b). My response
goes after problem (b). If the problem is really (a), then Stubbie needs
to find another job.

However, I disagree with the notion: "Than nobody can in my opinion state
anything against him to use Net than personal preference."
My experience with politics leads me to respond a bit more delicately.
Supervisors can say anything they want without a good reason. There is
always a reason... it is not always a good one. The person who asks
Stubbie not to use .Net has a reason. It would be foolish to simply state
"I'm right" without first stating "He is not wrong, and more information
can show that we are both right."

At the end of the day, the boss is right. Even when he is wrong.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Nick,

As mostly we don't disagree, however.

There is in my opinion a difference between a webdesigner and a
webdeveloper.

I am by instance not such a well webdesigner. I try it however I am
seldom satisfied, I know to few of using the right colours, fonts etc in
the right way.

Therefore as stubbie says he is a designer, he can be a lousy
webdeveloper. Than it is better to use a real designer tool as Macro
Media have or even better work together with a webdeveloper.

If he has the opinion that he is a webdeveloper, however. Than nobody can
in my opinion state anything against him to use Net than personal
preference.

This is of course an indirect answer to Stubbie, however adding it to
yours made it me easier to explain what I mean, because the rest is
written by you.

Just my thought,

Cor
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> schreef in
bericht news:cK******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello 'stubbsie'

"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even
mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving
it. I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me
make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All
our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a
test site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a
web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The
classes are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages
as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is
of my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is
a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination
or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any
policy
against, how I am to design the website.
After doing this kind of stuff (coding, that is) for over 25 years, I've
noticed that more bad decisions are made because of personality
conflicts or politics than any other single source. That may be your
supervisor's decision to stop you from deploying in a technology he
doesn't like, or your decision to use .Net without first clearing it
with your supervisor. It is hard for me to tell who is playing the
"right" game and who is playing the "wrong" one.

I disagree, respectfully, with Clinton's advice. Do not go in simply
explaining how you took training and no one told you that it was wrong
to write code in .Net. That will ignore the elephant in the room...
that your supervisor has the right to tell you what to do. For some
reason, he (or she?) believes that he has a good reason for telling you
to stop. You (and everyone above you) has to recognize that your
supervisor may have a good point.

You will get nowhere until you recognize the obstacles in your path and
overcome them. Perhaps your supervisor has an honest reason for
believing that the introduction of .Net technology in your application
would be wrong. Address it. Is he afraid that, were you to leave, that
he would have to pay for a highly paid "Senior Web Developer" to fix it,
whereas you have a lesser (cheaper) title? It's a valid concern. If
that is the case, what is your recourse?

Well, you can point out that the web app that you have written makes
only elementary use of .Net capabilities, such that an expensive
programmer would not be needed to maintain it. You can point out that
Microsoft has been working for years to make it easy for non-geeks to
write small amounts of useful code, and that maintaining the app would
not require geeks, but rather normal people. You can point out that, in
fact, only a web designer would be qualified to modify your site because
of the keen and well-placed graphical (macromedia) and usability
elements you've inserted. You can point out that the training that the
local government has invested in you is not wildly expensive, and that,
therefore, the cost of replacing you is no more than the cost that the
local government would ordinarily spend on building and maintaining the
skills of any web developer.

In other words, do NOT show off how you've written code. Show off how
you've designed a web site that happens to use code in small and
necessary ways to do useful things. You are, after all, a web designer.
The site you created is no more and no less than the excellence that
YOUR SUPERVISOR has instilled in you and the rest of his team. (Always
flatter the person you are trying to prove wrong).

Tell your supervisor's boss what a great job he has done in providing
you with the educational support that is needed for the position. Point
out that any web designer would need these skills and that many web
designers have them. Point out that your supervisor has simply brought
out the behavior that your local government requires to get their job
done.

Point out that deploying the site with .Net will not increase the costs
to the organization, and is the best way to meet the needs because it is
so easy to find web designers, both internally and externally, that are
familiar with the Microsoft .Net platform (as opposed to doing things in
popular languages that may require skills not typically found in your
organization, like Perl, TCL, or Java).

Then ask for the support of your CEO. Say, literally, "I am seeking
your support to continue to perform my duties in the excellent manner
that my supervisor has enabled and empowered me."

The end of every sales pitch is to ask for the sale. Don't forget to
ask. "I seek your support" is sufficient. Do not ask for a technical
decision. Do not ask for retribution against anyone, especially your
supervisor.

Remember, if he loses face in front of your CEO, you will lose
eventually, even if you win tomorrow.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--



Mar 15 '06 #7

P: n/a
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be a
webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It would
be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use a hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up between
the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
..Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise." Is
that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision to
push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web developer,
with the title of web developer, in a department that supports web
developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a web developer. He
is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of course, it is not
uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills. However, the supervisor
has objected to his use of this extended skill set in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to spend
money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web site
that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps, in
his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to happen.
The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web app in good
health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for greener pastures.
Web developers are more expensive to hire than web designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean that
the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is reprimanded
for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie has
to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Mar 15 '06 #8

P: n/a
I can see a couple of other potential reasons why the supervisor may be
putting a stop to his efforts to migrate the web site to .Net.

First, stubbsie is a self-confessed web developer, and not a programmer.
stubbsie mentioned that he/she has " taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and
vb.net programming classes". Taking a few courses on programming, and being
a professional programmer are 2 entirely different things, especially when
it comes to OOP, more specifically .Net programming, and even more
importantly, ASP.Net programming, which incorporates OOP, .Net programming,
compiled programming, HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, XML, and a number of
other disciplines, as well as fully understanding the ASP.Net programming
model. ASP.Net programming is arguably the most difficult type of .Net
programming to do well. Taking a few courses in the technology and one
language will get your feet wet, and that's all. Yes, you may be able to
make a small web site that has a few dynamic aspects, and make it work under
limited circumstances without rigorous testing. But we all know that it is
seldom that an application (and an ASP.Net application is not a web site,
but an application) remains in any state for very long. Applications evolve.
New requirements are added; old requirements change. And we know that while
one can make something small that "works," ultimately that small seed will
become the foundation for everything that follows. Is it robust? Is it
extensible? Flexible? Scalable? Well-architected? Are these the sort of
things that a fladgling programmer understands and knows how to implement?

It may well be that stubbsie's supervisor is aware of these considerations,
and stubbsie is not. It takes years of diligent practice to make a competent
developer. That's why programmers make more money than web developers.

I would encourage stubbsie to continue to practice with ASP.Net and .Net
programming in general, on his/her own time, and perhaps to take on some
side work along the way. To aspire to become a programmer is an admirable
thing. To expect to be one after taking a few courses is naive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4********************@comcast.com...
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be a
webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It would
be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use a
hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up between
the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
.Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise." Is
that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision
to push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web
developer, with the title of web developer, in a department that supports
web developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a web
developer. He is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of
course, it is not uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills.
However, the supervisor has objected to his use of this extended skill set
in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to
spend money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web
site that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps,
in his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to
happen. The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web app
in good health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for greener
pastures. Web developers are more expensive to hire than web designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean that
the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is
reprimanded for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie has
to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

Mar 15 '06 #9

P: n/a
Hello Kevin,

Would it be correct to summarize your statement as this: "The OP has
created a web application where the supervisor asked for, and expected, an
HTML site. Therefore, since the supervisor may be saavy to the additional
testing and upkeep costs of a web application, and since he may be aware of
the OP's limited knowledge on the subject, he has rightfully asked the OP
not to roll out his .Net app in the organization."

I agree that this is another valid reason for the supervisor to wish to hold
the OP's web app out of production. A defect in a web app reflects on the
organization. In the case of a government body, it reflects poorly on the
competence of the elected officials, even when it is the civil service that
made the app available. The supervisor is correct in being aware of the
effects of releasing poorly tested code, notably the 'customer experience'
aspect. Perhaps he does not have available resources to test the app to his
level of comfort, in which case, halting its development is the right thing
to do.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I can see a couple of other potential reasons why the supervisor may be
putting a stop to his efforts to migrate the web site to .Net.

First, stubbsie is a self-confessed web developer, and not a programmer.
stubbsie mentioned that he/she has " taken 3 official microsoft asp.net
and vb.net programming classes". Taking a few courses on programming, and
being a professional programmer are 2 entirely different things,
especially when it comes to OOP, more specifically .Net programming, and
even more importantly, ASP.Net programming, which incorporates OOP, .Net
programming, compiled programming, HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, XML, and a
number of other disciplines, as well as fully understanding the ASP.Net
programming model. ASP.Net programming is arguably the most difficult type
of .Net programming to do well. Taking a few courses in the technology and
one language will get your feet wet, and that's all. Yes, you may be able
to make a small web site that has a few dynamic aspects, and make it work
under limited circumstances without rigorous testing. But we all know that
it is seldom that an application (and an ASP.Net application is not a web
site, but an application) remains in any state for very long. Applications
evolve. New requirements are added; old requirements change. And we know
that while one can make something small that "works," ultimately that
small seed will become the foundation for everything that follows. Is it
robust? Is it extensible? Flexible? Scalable? Well-architected? Are these
the sort of things that a fladgling programmer understands and knows how
to implement?

It may well be that stubbsie's supervisor is aware of these
considerations, and stubbsie is not. It takes years of diligent practice
to make a competent developer. That's why programmers make more money than
web developers.

I would encourage stubbsie to continue to practice with ASP.Net and .Net
programming in general, on his/her own time, and perhaps to take on some
side work along the way. To aspire to become a programmer is an admirable
thing. To expect to be one after taking a few courses is naive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4********************@comcast.com...
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be a
webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It would
be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use a
hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up between
the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
.Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise." Is
that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision
to push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web
developer, with the title of web developer, in a department that supports
web developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a web
developer. He is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of
course, it is not uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills.
However, the supervisor has objected to his use of this extended skill
set in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to
spend money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web
site that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps,
in his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to
happen. The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web
app in good health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for
greener pastures. Web developers are more expensive to hire than web
designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean
that the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is
reprimanded for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie
has to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--


Mar 15 '06 #10

P: n/a
Kevin,

That everybody has the right to do it his way, is for me essential in a free
democracy, founded on a productive and economic expansion without limits to
get the best results.

Just my thoughts reading what you wrote,

Cor
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> schreef in bericht
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I can see a couple of other potential reasons why the supervisor may be
putting a stop to his efforts to migrate the web site to .Net.

First, stubbsie is a self-confessed web developer, and not a programmer.
stubbsie mentioned that he/she has " taken 3 official microsoft asp.net
and vb.net programming classes". Taking a few courses on programming, and
being a professional programmer are 2 entirely different things,
especially when it comes to OOP, more specifically .Net programming, and
even more importantly, ASP.Net programming, which incorporates OOP, .Net
programming, compiled programming, HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, XML, and a
number of other disciplines, as well as fully understanding the ASP.Net
programming model. ASP.Net programming is arguably the most difficult type
of .Net programming to do well. Taking a few courses in the technology and
one language will get your feet wet, and that's all. Yes, you may be able
to make a small web site that has a few dynamic aspects, and make it work
under limited circumstances without rigorous testing. But we all know that
it is seldom that an application (and an ASP.Net application is not a web
site, but an application) remains in any state for very long. Applications
evolve. New requirements are added; old requirements change. And we know
that while one can make something small that "works," ultimately that
small seed will become the foundation for everything that follows. Is it
robust? Is it extensible? Flexible? Scalable? Well-architected? Are these
the sort of things that a fladgling programmer understands and knows how
to implement?

It may well be that stubbsie's supervisor is aware of these
considerations, and stubbsie is not. It takes years of diligent practice
to make a competent developer. That's why programmers make more money than
web developers.

I would encourage stubbsie to continue to practice with ASP.Net and .Net
programming in general, on his/her own time, and perhaps to take on some
side work along the way. To aspire to become a programmer is an admirable
thing. To expect to be one after taking a few courses is naive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4********************@comcast.com...
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be a
webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It would
be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use a
hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up between
the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
.Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise." Is
that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision
to push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web
developer, with the title of web developer, in a department that supports
web developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a web
developer. He is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of
course, it is not uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills.
However, the supervisor has objected to his use of this extended skill
set in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to
spend money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web
site that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps,
in his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to
happen. The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web
app in good health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for
greener pastures. Web developers are more expensive to hire than web
designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean
that the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is
reprimanded for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie
has to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--


Mar 15 '06 #11

P: n/a
Why do you put words in my mouth Nick? I did not say or even infer the OP
should go in to argue the rights or wrongs of using ASP.NET. In fact,
completely to the contrary.

People in management usually want the facts and nothing but the facts and as
I clearly stated I suggested the OP state the facts on paper in a short
outline where the facts are not the benefits of using ASP.NET. The facts are
the accomplishments of what the OP accomplished by taking responsibility to
make something happen. In the absence of other directives that's called
leadership.

I also clearly suggested the OP make it known that whatever the decision he
would support that decision with the same responsible attitude.

AFIC I wouldn't give a rat's @ss about the @sshole manager. I would want to
determine if my motivation to succeed and do the best for the company I was
working for was acknowledged and respected. Given any other result I'd agree
with the brief comment Bailo had to offer:

http://www.monster.com

<%= Clinton Gallagher
<snip />

After doing this kind of stuff (coding, that is) for over 25 years, I've
noticed that more bad decisions are made because of personality conflicts
or politics than any other single source. That may be your supervisor's
decision to stop you from deploying in a technology he doesn't like, or
your decision to use .Net without first clearing it with your supervisor.
It is hard for me to tell who is playing the "right" game and who is
playing the "wrong" one.

I disagree, respectfully, with Clinton's advice. Do not go in simply
explaining how you took training and no one told you that it was wrong to
write code in .Net. That will ignore the elephant in the room... that
your supervisor has the right to tell you what to do. For some reason, he
(or she?) believes that he has a good reason for telling you to stop. You
(and everyone above you) has to recognize that your supervisor may have a
good point.

You will get nowhere until you recognize the obstacles in your path and
overcome them. Perhaps your supervisor has an honest reason for believing
that the introduction of .Net technology in your application would be
wrong. Address it. Is he afraid that, were you to leave, that he would
have to pay for a highly paid "Senior Web Developer" to fix it, whereas
you have a lesser (cheaper) title? It's a valid concern. If that is the
case, what is your recourse?

Well, you can point out that the web app that you have written makes only
elementary use of .Net capabilities, such that an expensive programmer
would not be needed to maintain it. You can point out that Microsoft has
been working for years to make it easy for non-geeks to write small
amounts of useful code, and that maintaining the app would not require
geeks, but rather normal people. You can point out that, in fact, only a
web designer would be qualified to modify your site because of the keen
and well-placed graphical (macromedia) and usability elements you've
inserted. You can point out that the training that the local government
has invested in you is not wildly expensive, and that, therefore, the cost
of replacing you is no more than the cost that the local government would
ordinarily spend on building and maintaining the skills of any web
developer.

In other words, do NOT show off how you've written code. Show off how
you've designed a web site that happens to use code in small and necessary
ways to do useful things. You are, after all, a web designer. The site
you created is no more and no less than the excellence that YOUR
SUPERVISOR has instilled in you and the rest of his team. (Always flatter
the person you are trying to prove wrong).

Tell your supervisor's boss what a great job he has done in providing you
with the educational support that is needed for the position. Point out
that any web designer would need these skills and that many web designers
have them. Point out that your supervisor has simply brought out the
behavior that your local government requires to get their job done.

Point out that deploying the site with .Net will not increase the costs to
the organization, and is the best way to meet the needs because it is so
easy to find web designers, both internally and externally, that are
familiar with the Microsoft .Net platform (as opposed to doing things in
popular languages that may require skills not typically found in your
organization, like Perl, TCL, or Java).

Then ask for the support of your CEO. Say, literally, "I am seeking your
support to continue to perform my duties in the excellent manner that my
supervisor has enabled and empowered me."

The end of every sales pitch is to ask for the sale. Don't forget to ask.
"I seek your support" is sufficient. Do not ask for a technical decision.
Do not ask for retribution against anyone, especially your supervisor.

Remember, if he loses face in front of your CEO, you will lose eventually,
even if you win tomorrow.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

Mar 15 '06 #12

P: n/a
QUIT!
"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it.
I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes
are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.

Mar 15 '06 #13

P: n/a
Hello Clinton,

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Why do you put words in my mouth Nick? I did not say or even infer the OP
should go in to argue the rights or wrongs of using ASP.NET. In fact,
completely to the contrary.
I regret the misunderstanding. I responded without considering your words
as clearly as I could have, and for that, I apologize.

People in management usually want the facts and nothing but the facts and
as I clearly stated I suggested the OP state the facts on paper in a short
outline where the facts are not the benefits of using ASP.NET. The facts
are the accomplishments of what the OP accomplished by taking
responsibility to make something happen. In the absence of other
directives that's called leadership.
We have only the OP's side of the story in this. What may appear to be
leadership can, when in full view, be a case of mistaken ambition or worse.
Let's give the supervisor some credit for an average IQ and assume that he
or she had their reasons... reasons that are not clearly in evidence in the
OP's message.
I also clearly suggested the OP make it known that whatever the decision
he would support that decision with the same responsible attitude.
I agree with this advice and I never intended to convey that you did not
state this advice. If my words appear to convey that meaning, to you or to
anyone else, I have erred.

AFIC I wouldn't give a rat's @ss about the @sshole manager.
Perhaps. In my experience, when presented with only one side of a political
situation, I usually ask the participant to consider the viewpoint of the
"other side." While you wouldn't care about the manager, perhaps the OP
should. It may help him to grow in his career.
I would want to determine if my motivation to succeed and do the best for
the company I was working for was acknowledged and respected.


I suggested that the OP should consider what would make the supervisor make
the statements that he did. If you read my subsequent thread with Cor and
others, I believe that there are excellent reasons for the response that the
OP got (although he was clearly distressed by it, which is not the mark of a
good manager). Perhaps, in his desire to learn and grow and become a better
individual contributor, the OP's code contribution produces unseen effects.
Perhaps it will cost money to test his app, or maintain it. Perhaps he
delivered features that the manager doesn't want and doesn't want to pay
for.

In other words, perhaps he did what was best for himself, but what was NOT
best for the company. The company can acknowledge and encourage his drive,
self motivation, and desire (although government agencies rarely do), but
that does not mean that his work output should be valued if it adds no value
to the organization as a whole or to its customers.

With utmost respect and admiration for your highly valuable contribution to
this forum and others,

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Mar 15 '06 #14

P: n/a
Hello Nick,

:-)

<%= Clinton Gallagher
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nP******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello Clinton,

"clintonG" <cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Why do you put words in my mouth Nick? I did not say or even infer the OP
should go in to argue the rights or wrongs of using ASP.NET. In fact,
completely to the contrary.


I regret the misunderstanding. I responded without considering your words
as clearly as I could have, and for that, I apologize.

People in management usually want the facts and nothing but the facts and
as I clearly stated I suggested the OP state the facts on paper in a
short outline where the facts are not the benefits of using ASP.NET. The
facts are the accomplishments of what the OP accomplished by taking
responsibility to make something happen. In the absence of other
directives that's called leadership.


We have only the OP's side of the story in this. What may appear to be
leadership can, when in full view, be a case of mistaken ambition or
worse. Let's give the supervisor some credit for an average IQ and assume
that he or she had their reasons... reasons that are not clearly in
evidence in the OP's message.
I also clearly suggested the OP make it known that whatever the decision
he would support that decision with the same responsible attitude.


I agree with this advice and I never intended to convey that you did not
state this advice. If my words appear to convey that meaning, to you or
to anyone else, I have erred.

AFIC I wouldn't give a rat's @ss about the @sshole manager.


Perhaps. In my experience, when presented with only one side of a
political situation, I usually ask the participant to consider the
viewpoint of the "other side." While you wouldn't care about the manager,
perhaps the OP should. It may help him to grow in his career.
I would want to determine if my motivation to succeed and do the best for
the company I was working for was acknowledged and respected.


I suggested that the OP should consider what would make the supervisor
make the statements that he did. If you read my subsequent thread with
Cor and others, I believe that there are excellent reasons for the
response that the OP got (although he was clearly distressed by it, which
is not the mark of a good manager). Perhaps, in his desire to learn and
grow and become a better individual contributor, the OP's code
contribution produces unseen effects. Perhaps it will cost money to test
his app, or maintain it. Perhaps he delivered features that the manager
doesn't want and doesn't want to pay for.

In other words, perhaps he did what was best for himself, but what was NOT
best for the company. The company can acknowledge and encourage his
drive, self motivation, and desire (although government agencies rarely
do), but that does not mean that his work output should be valued if it
adds no value to the organization as a whole or to its customers.

With utmost respect and admiration for your highly valuable contribution
to this forum and others,

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

Mar 15 '06 #15

P: n/a
Hi Cor,
That everybody has the right to do it his way, is for me essential in a
free democracy, founded on a productive and economic expansion without
limits to get the best results.
This is a political statement. Politics is about political goals. Political
goals are goals which strive to change the rules by which a society
operates. Changing the rules by which a society operates, which may or may
not be a worthwhile endeavor, does not change the success or failure of an
individual in the course of his/her professional life.

Another way to explain what I'm talking about is to look at one's
professional career as a game. After all, we work for a living. Our living
is dependent upon our income. Our income is dependent upon our work, or our
career. Therefore, one's work can be viewed as a game in which the object is
to accumulate wealth, or income. It is very much like a game if you
disregard the emotional aspects of it.

A game has certain rules which dictate how the game is played. Regardless of
the rules, everyone plays by the same set of rules, and the success or
failure of an individual is dictated by how well the individual plays in the
context of the rules of the game. The rules of the game are the environment
in which we operate while playing the game.

The rules of the "game of life" are created by a combination of factors,
including cultural considerations (the societal mores and folkways of the
immediate environment), the laws of society, which is dictated by politics,
and those factors over which humans have no control, such as weather,
season, availability of natural resources, etc.

In many cases, the laws of society are of little or no importance. If the
immediate cultural environment is such that laws are ignored by common
agreement, those laws are of no effect. As an example from personal
experience, I might mention the speed laws in the immediate area of
Washington D.C. Interstate 95 has a speed limit of 65 Miles per hour. But
everyone drives at a minimum of 75 miles per hour. The police are not
concerned about this, and therefore, the cultural consensus is that the
speed law is of no consequence.

In some cases, the laws of society are overruled by considertations beyond
human control. Consider the recent hurricane that swept most of New Orleans
under water. I remember an incident in which a young man literally stole a
bus that was sitting idle in a parking lot (due to the fact that the local
political leaders were not aware of these busses), and drove several dozen
people to Austin, Texas. Was he prosecuted for his crime? No. He was
considered a hero. He saved lives.

Finally, the laws of society are changing all the time. Regardless of what
these laws are, everyone must play the game, and play to win. Survival is a
necessity. Prosperity is a desirable goal. And regardless of what the laws
are, we must deal with them, *as* they are.

Therefore, there is no politcal solution to stubbie's problem. He/she must
concentrate only on what will lead to his/her success or failure in his/her
career. Unless stubbie wants to make a career of politics, stubbie's rights,
and anyone's opinions of what they are or should be, is irrelevant to the
solution.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uI**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Kevin,

That everybody has the right to do it his way, is for me essential in a
free democracy, founded on a productive and economic expansion without
limits to get the best results.

Just my thoughts reading what you wrote,

Cor
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> schreef in bericht
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I can see a couple of other potential reasons why the supervisor may be
putting a stop to his efforts to migrate the web site to .Net.

First, stubbsie is a self-confessed web developer, and not a programmer.
stubbsie mentioned that he/she has " taken 3 official microsoft asp.net
and vb.net programming classes". Taking a few courses on programming, and
being a professional programmer are 2 entirely different things,
especially when it comes to OOP, more specifically .Net programming, and
even more importantly, ASP.Net programming, which incorporates OOP, .Net
programming, compiled programming, HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, XML, and
a number of other disciplines, as well as fully understanding the ASP.Net
programming model. ASP.Net programming is arguably the most difficult
type of .Net programming to do well. Taking a few courses in the
technology and one language will get your feet wet, and that's all. Yes,
you may be able to make a small web site that has a few dynamic aspects,
and make it work under limited circumstances without rigorous testing.
But we all know that it is seldom that an application (and an ASP.Net
application is not a web site, but an application) remains in any state
for very long. Applications evolve. New requirements are added; old
requirements change. And we know that while one can make something small
that "works," ultimately that small seed will become the foundation for
everything that follows. Is it robust? Is it extensible? Flexible?
Scalable? Well-architected? Are these the sort of things that a fladgling
programmer understands and knows how to implement?

It may well be that stubbsie's supervisor is aware of these
considerations, and stubbsie is not. It takes years of diligent practice
to make a competent developer. That's why programmers make more money
than web developers.

I would encourage stubbsie to continue to practice with ASP.Net and .Net
programming in general, on his/her own time, and perhaps to take on some
side work along the way. To aspire to become a programmer is an admirable
thing. To expect to be one after taking a few courses is naive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4********************@comcast.com...
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be
a webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It
would be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use
a hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up
between the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
.Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise."
Is that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision
to push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web
developer, with the title of web developer, in a department that
supports web developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a
web developer. He is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of
course, it is not uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills.
However, the supervisor has objected to his use of this extended skill
set in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to
spend money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web
site that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps,
in his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to
happen. The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web
app in good health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for
greener pastures. Web developers are more expensive to hire than web
designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean
that the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is
reprimanded for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie
has to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--



Mar 16 '06 #16

P: n/a
Hi Nick,

That's it exactly. I would not want to discourage stubbie from pursuing a
career in programming. After all, it is my delight, and I feel that anyone
wishing to pursue it is not wasting their time at all. But I would encourage
stubbie to be patient. After all, patience is an essential aspect of a
programmer's personality!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pq******************************@comcast.com. ..
Hello Kevin,

Would it be correct to summarize your statement as this: "The OP has
created a web application where the supervisor asked for, and expected, an
HTML site. Therefore, since the supervisor may be saavy to the additional
testing and upkeep costs of a web application, and since he may be aware
of the OP's limited knowledge on the subject, he has rightfully asked the
OP not to roll out his .Net app in the organization."

I agree that this is another valid reason for the supervisor to wish to
hold the OP's web app out of production. A defect in a web app reflects
on the organization. In the case of a government body, it reflects poorly
on the competence of the elected officials, even when it is the civil
service that made the app available. The supervisor is correct in being
aware of the effects of releasing poorly tested code, notably the
'customer experience' aspect. Perhaps he does not have available
resources to test the app to his level of comfort, in which case, halting
its development is the right thing to do.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I can see a couple of other potential reasons why the supervisor may be
putting a stop to his efforts to migrate the web site to .Net.

First, stubbsie is a self-confessed web developer, and not a programmer.
stubbsie mentioned that he/she has " taken 3 official microsoft asp.net
and vb.net programming classes". Taking a few courses on programming, and
being a professional programmer are 2 entirely different things,
especially when it comes to OOP, more specifically .Net programming, and
even more importantly, ASP.Net programming, which incorporates OOP, .Net
programming, compiled programming, HTTP, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, XML, and
a number of other disciplines, as well as fully understanding the ASP.Net
programming model. ASP.Net programming is arguably the most difficult
type of .Net programming to do well. Taking a few courses in the
technology and one language will get your feet wet, and that's all. Yes,
you may be able to make a small web site that has a few dynamic aspects,
and make it work under limited circumstances without rigorous testing.
But we all know that it is seldom that an application (and an ASP.Net
application is not a web site, but an application) remains in any state
for very long. Applications evolve. New requirements are added; old
requirements change. And we know that while one can make something small
that "works," ultimately that small seed will become the foundation for
everything that follows. Is it robust? Is it extensible? Flexible?
Scalable? Well-architected? Are these the sort of things that a fladgling
programmer understands and knows how to implement?

It may well be that stubbsie's supervisor is aware of these
considerations, and stubbsie is not. It takes years of diligent practice
to make a competent developer. That's why programmers make more money
than web developers.

I would encourage stubbsie to continue to practice with ASP.Net and .Net
programming in general, on his/her own time, and perhaps to take on some
side work along the way. To aspire to become a programmer is an admirable
thing. To expect to be one after taking a few courses is naive.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4********************@comcast.com...
Hello again Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Nick,

I used probably to much words.

If he can get it, that he will be called a *WebDeveloper* instead of a
*WebDesigner*, than he is probably closer to his goal.

If he is *the* WebDeveloper, than nobody can tell him (or it should be
a webdeveloper as well) what should be the tools he wants to use. It
would be the same as telling a carpenter that he is not allowed to use
a hammer.

That was the meaning of my message. It did obviously not show up
between the lines.

:-)

Cor

Let me repeat what I hear you saying, to make sure I'm getting it right.
You are saying "If the OP is a web developer, he has the right to choose
.Net as his tool, and no one should have the right to say otherwise."
Is that close?

I agree on the surface. I can make a case for a situation where a web
developer can be told, for good reason, not to use .Net but that doesn't
apply to the OP, because he is NOT a web developer (in the eyes of his
supervisor). He said this himself. His title is "web designer" and his
supervisor is using the title, not the skillset, to justify the decision
to push back on .Net.

I think that you and I agree: being a web developer requires some common
skills. It also requires that you are hired into the job of a web
developer, with the title of web developer, in a department that
supports web developers. It appears that the OP is not employed as a
web developer. He is employed as a web designer. Different skills. Of
course, it is not uncommon to find a person with both sets of skills.
However, the supervisor has objected to his use of this extended skill
set in his web design work.

I can see two reasons: either the supervisor may lose control of his web
site (or his employee) if .Net is used, or the supervisor may have to
spend money if .Net is used.

Since the site itself won't cost money to deploy (according to Stubbie),
perhaps the cost will go to Stubbie himself! Perhaps by posting a web
site that uses .Net, then Stubbie can declare himself to be, in fact, a
professional web developer. Perhaps that is one of his goals. Perhaps,
in his organization, that makes him eligible for moving to a better paid
position. Perhaps his supervisor cannot afford him if that were to
happen. The other reason for "cost" may be the cost of keeping the web
app in good health in the event that the OP does, in fact, leave for
greener pastures. Web developers are more expensive to hire than web
designers.

On the other hand, perhaps the supervisor will not be allowed to keep
control over the web app if it uses .Net since that makes it an
"application" (according to some local policy), and "applications" are
managed by the "applications team." Therefore, using .Net could mean
that the supervisor loses control of the web site and potentially is
reprimanded for creating an application when he is not allowed to.

All of these are plausible situations. All of these would produce the
observed behavior. All are understandable, even justifiable. Stubbie
has to cope with them if he hopes to continue on his path of using .Net.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--



Mar 16 '06 #17

P: n/a
> QUIT!

That is a fine idea if the OP has an opportunity to do better or just as
well elsewhere. However, if the OP is partially responsible for the
circumstances which cause him/her to quit, and does nothing to change
his/her behavior and/or attitude which contributed to the circumstances, it
is likely that the situation will arise again in the future, with similar
results. Eventually, the OP will be too old to start a new career.

IOW, quitting is not necessarily the solution. It may be, but a careful
consideration of the problem would be in order first.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer

Presuming that God is "only an idea" -
Ideas exist.
Therefore, God exists.

"Stuart Irving" <sp**@stuartirving.net> wrote in message
news:ey*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
QUIT!
"stubbsie" <st******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B5**********************************@microsof t.com...
Hi,
I have redesigned our official public government website in .net and it
has
taken me a few months to redo. I have been the sole designer of the
website
from its humble beginnning a few years ago when no one wanted to even
mess
with it. Since then I have been steadily maintaining it and improving it.
I
am about halfway done, and all of a sudden my supervisor won't let me
make
the website in .net. Our programmers use .net to make web applications,
and
there are no policies or limitations in what language we choose. All our
servers are microsoft, and our corporate network is all with microsoft
windows users. I have newly redesigned website already working as a test
site
on our public web server. My supervisor states that since I am just a web
designer that I cannot include .net programming to make the website. I
have
taken 3 official microsoft asp.net and vb.net programming classes, of
which I
learned to make my site dynamic with some asp.net technology. The classes
are
freely provided with a work contract, to improve our work skills and
productivity. I use visual studio.net and dreamweaver mostly with
designing
the site, and I have incorporated a bit of ajax in it for a couple of
pages.
What main points can I provide in my defense? I have a meeting tomorrow
with
the CEO, and need to provide information.
My redesigned site is very nice, and I am working on making the pages as
accessible as possible, to try to conform to WAI guidelines, which is of
my
choosing, since I believe the website needs to be. It is a local
government
website.
I am deeply hurt that I have been told I cannot use .net. I feel it is a
personal assault against me. Is there any defense? Like discrimination or
something? Like I stated before, there was no indication, nor any policy
against, how I am to design the website.


Mar 16 '06 #18

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.