I am developing a new website for a new non-profit institute at a univerisity (I have also started a thread about our ill-fated logo design contest, but I had so many questions that had nothing to do with the contest, I am starting a separate thread). I work for a department at the university where I redesigned, and currently maintain and do some light web application development for the department's website. I write accessible, validating, layout-table free code. My sites designs are (in my opinion) clean and reasonably attractive, but not particularly sophisticated, graphically, and definitely not 'sexy'. My development technique up to this point has been to do what I thought was best. This time, however, I swore I was going to do it right. I was going to do all the things you're supposed to do, like figuring out who your users are, designing around their 'deeper needs', and testing your site out on actual users, early and often. However, since I am and have always been the only web developer in my place of employment, my only notion of how 'real' developers go about doing these things (and convincing others they should be done) comes from articles on the internet (Adaptive Path contributed that bit about the users' 'deeper needs'). Also, those articles tend to be geared toward organizations that have more than one person working on the website. The Institute pays the department that employs me for 6 hours/week of my work until the job is done. There is no specific deadline for the site's debut, so it is difficult to know what the budget for this site is, and therefore difficult to know how much money is justified for things such as logo design and user testing. I'm also finding it difficult to budget my own time. I tried breaking down the tasks as I understood them at the beginning of the project, but that breakdown was based on my old way of doing things, and it fell apart quickly, partially because developing the structure and content is proving more difficult that I anticipated, and partially because of the failed logo contest. I have no idea how long its going to take, and by extension how much it's going to cost. I saw a saying somewhere that out of fast, cheap, and high quality you could have two of those things. They seem to want cheap and high quality, and thus far they have been more concerned about what it's going to be like than when its going to come out. Whether they want cheap or high quality more would depend on what the higher quality website can do for them, which they expect me to tell them. The problem is, although I know in theory what the higher quality website can do for them - get the word out about their institute, impress potential funding sources, and allow people who are looking for specific information to find it - I'm not sure how much they *should* spend on that, how much value such an impressive-looking, throughly user-tested site would add, as opposed to an okay-looking site organized with the users in mind, but without any imput from those users. So, does anybody have any advice? How do I define the site's value to the institute? And how do I, as a web development team of one, develop the highest quality site that they can afford and I can produce? How do I plan and budget all of this? And how do I arrange user testing on a site with a specialized audience that commands a high salary? If I test on users from outside that audience how do I know if the results are valuable?