Unified WebAssist Directory

I have a concern about your choice of naming conventions related to the Unified WebAssist Directory.

As a reseller my clients request a function or feature for their websites and I produce what they request using the tools available to me.

In general my clients are typically novices that hire me to do the coding and IT maintenance. However with all customers in a very competitive market, they shop around all the time looking for the best deal. The relationship is important, but the bottom dollar seems to always be the weighted decision maker.

To clearly announce that I am using Webassist products is not something that I do with my clients. I consider that my competitive advantage and the last thing I want to provide to my clients. This is my livelihood and how I accomplish the desired result is considered confidential business property and not public information.

I would like to strongly request that you not clearly call this directory WebAssist or webassist (all of which are easily googled).

I would like to recommend using /WA/ alone to keep a little anonymity.

Please take this as a very serious concern.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this... I'm not quite sure what I think.

In my mind, using WebAssist tools should be a sign of quality. This argument seems to imply that using WebAssist extensions is somehow a bad thing.

WebAssist tools, like any others, can only really sing in the hands of someone that knows how to use them. Just because someone can google and find out where you got your tools doesn't mean they could easily replace you or reproduce your result.

What is the negative consequence you anticipate if you had a folder named webassist? Anonymity is not a goal here at webassist, as you can imagine, so making in a change for the sake of anonymity doesn't make much sense. We want to spread the word about webassist, not keep it a secret.

However, making sure our users are successful is a goal, so I'm trying to get an angle on how this would effect yours and your customer's success. All things being equal we would like to get our name out, not keep people from finding it, but I'll continue to listen to and carefully consider any arguments like this.

The flip-side of having a webassist directory so that if someone abandons their client their client will be able to find us or find another developer that is familiar with our tools is the counter-argument for when anonymity can cause issues and prevent adoption.

I'm not sold either way, but I'm inclined to not change the course at this point. I'm happy to listen to other opinions or angles and am open to changing. I'm just not convinced since I see pros and cons to each approach.

I can understand what Tom is saying and likewise what you are saying Ray.

My only "concern" is when WA says that (for example) Powerstore 3 is completely white label. Well it isn't is it, if it has webassist as the names of folders. Perhaps PS3 still has WA_ as folder names I don't know, but I'm sure you get my point.

Just my thought.

You can rename the folder in DW in about 10 seconds.

We currently have WA_ folder names, and even with a /wa/ folder name you could make the argument that it isn't "white labeled".

If you want to truly white label, just go through and rename the files and folders.

Originally Said By: Ray Borduin

  You can rename the folder in DW in about 10 seconds.

We currently have WA_ folder names, and even with a /wa/ folder name you could make the argument that it isn't "white labeled".

If you want to truly white label, just go through and rename the files and folders.  

Yeah, it's no problem to me, I'm just playing Devil's advocate :)

I know. I could see that you weren't committed to either side in your previous post.

I'm just trying to give my perspective on the issue, and making sure everyone knows I'm listening ;)

This is an interesting debate, I make no secret of the fact that I use WA tools in the sites I build and this has brought me a number of enquiries exactly because I specialise in WA tools.

I would like to see a centralised folder structure and I think that naming it WA would be logical, after all if the client really wants to know what tools are being used on their site they only have to open up one of the WA helper files and read the copyright statement so......

I tend to agree with Ray, it is better for all of us if WA are seen as a tool of excellence

I really don't mind at all if the folder says webassist. I agree with Ray's earlier sentiment that even if a client were to buy all the extensions, they couldn't do it because the truth is that while the extensions all make it much easier on us, you still have to understand the theory of coding and having a mental roadmap for the final application you are producing... something that a novice wouldn't be able to bring to the table.

I also end up doing projects that require so much intricate customization that webassist provides only the starting point for me. I am all for keeping the "webassist" on the folder name as it makes it easier on the organization of the files... but those are just my thoughts.

Brian