ConsigneDesign.com - Catch clients in your WWWeb with a custom website [Archive]

View Full Version : ConsigneDesign.com - Catch clients in your WWWeb with a custom website

Myra

04-22-2006, 02:07 AM

ConsigneDesign.com is a website design business. We're located in Kansas City, MO and we serve clients anywhere in the world. We know how to create an online presence to favorably impress clients and potential clients. We feel that a website of quality and distinction is a critical marketing tool in today's business climate, and will inevitably translate to increased revenue.

We work with companies of any size, creating custom web solutions that are affordable for every budget. If you are looking for a website designer who can implement or improve your website, then please visit us at http://www.consignedesign.com. You can learn about our company there, look at the services we offer, and contact us for a timely and free no-obligation price quote.

Or feel free to email us at info@consignedesign.com.

Here is a partial list of the services and technologies we utilize for our clients:

> Website management, maintenance, updates, and enhancements
> Website hosting
> Development, testing, and deployment on multiple browsers
> Search engine submissions and optimization
> Domain registration and renewal
> Graphic design and logos

> HTML
> DHTML
> XHTML
> XML
> CSS
> CGI/Perl
> Forms
> JavaScript
> Flash

We hope to work with you soon.
Thank you!

phppete

04-22-2006, 04:55 PM

Andilinks

04-22-2006, 07:29 PM

A modest but promising beginning. Best of Luck Myra.

Andi

Myra

04-23-2006, 02:29 PM

You have one site in your portfolio
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autodonationcenterofkc.com%2F
and you can't even get the basic HTML correct. If you are to offer web design services then surely validating the sites you produce should be the absolute minimum standard.
If you require help with basic HTML please PM me, I will be happy to help you fix your sites for a small fee.

My main page/index html validates perfectly. My index.css validates perfectly except for the scroll bar options. I don't think scrollbars validate for anyone since they're specific to IE, but I opted to use the options anyway. I've found that none of the web designers I watch have css that validates. I'm validating my other pages as time permits.

Regarding the one site in my portfolio; people have to start somewhere. It's not an indication of inferior breeding or character or skills, else no one would evolve from the first customer in any industry to the second and third... So I fail to understand why I'd be chastised for being a young business.

Regarding your offer to "help" me for profit, thanks but no thanks. I don't need your help even for free. I'm very capable of figuring things out on my own. Maybe you should try validating my index again given that it validates perfectly for me.

Myra

Myra

04-23-2006, 02:31 PM

A modest but promising beginning. Best of Luck Myra.

Andi

Thank you Andi. I really appreciate your encouragement and good wishes.

Myra

Myra

04-23-2006, 02:35 PM

Oh hey! Does anyone here recognize where I, uh...borrowed the colors from for the "Search" page on my site? :)

The first person to answer accurately wins valuable cosmic brownie points.

Myra

sheila

04-23-2006, 03:17 PM

This is a reminder from your friendly FutureQuest support team, that the forums are intended to be Family Friendly and you are asked to be Kind to Each Other.
Guidelines (http://www.aota.net/forums/register.php?do=showrules)
:sprint:

Myra

04-23-2006, 03:21 PM

Wassercrats

04-23-2006, 03:47 PM

Validation doesn't matter. Don't the most expensive WYSIWYG editors have problems creating valid HTML? What percentage of professional web developers create valid webpages?

Andilinks

04-23-2006, 03:48 PM

W3 validation is extremely important...

To people who check the validation on other people's sites to harrass them.

Most sites just don't validate, even (especially) the big important technology companies' sites. Check it out. :)

I use the W3 validator as a tool to find errors but I'm not really worried about whether the final page validates so long as it works properly in all the browsers.

Now I know all the arguments about why I should be a "good citizen" and only post pages that validate. I also know why most people don't.

But if you're charging money to design a site it should validate or you should learn to tap-dance around it. (It's an easy tap-dance, like I said most of the big tech companies' sites don't validate.)

Andi

http://www.nytimes.com/
Failed validation, 396 errors

http://www.google.com/
Failed validation, 52 errors

Wassercrats

04-23-2006, 03:55 PM

If you don't break one rule, you end up breaking another. Sloppy markup, using forms for layout, inlining CSS, using conditional comments, etc. Good developers do all of the above.

phppete

04-23-2006, 04:02 PM

Validation doesn't matter. Don't the most expensive WYSIWYG editors have problems creating valid HTML? What percentage of professional web developers create valid webpages?

You are correct on both points, but does that mean you are correct? I work with web designers who typically use DW which is the best WYSIWYG IMHO, however the mess they usually manage to create is beyond a joke. I prefer to create valid sites, im my opinion it should be a minimum requirement. I also believe in creating the most basic HTML structure possible and separating presentation from structure.

Just because 99% of web designers code like crap, does it make it right?
Go to 90% + of PHP web sites and corrupt the query string in dynamic urls, something like product.php?id=236, change that to product.php?id=;hello and 9 times out of 10 you get a mashed page with loads of mysql errors plastered all over it... does that make yet another sloppy practice OK?

If you are selling your services, surely you should be delivering quality and not a bag of crap to your client.

Wassercrats

04-23-2006, 04:28 PM

I've gone out of my way to do those things for my own websites, and I think it's reasonable for a client to expect all those things because they're all "by the book," but that doesn't make the client or the book correct. I don't want to be a web developer because I wouldn't want to argue with the client that "the book" is incorrect, but I don't want to go through the hassle of going by the book either.

Myra

04-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Validation doesn't matter. Don't the most expensive WYSIWYG editors have problems creating valid HTML? What percentage of professional web developers create valid webpages?

Interesting question/interesting subject. There are about 8 or 9 web designers whose sites I regularly look at in interests of knowing the competition. Of them about half validate for html, just half. And no one's css validates out of my sample group.

But I do agree a website designer's html should validate so I've been in the process of cleaning each page of mine up for a few days (boy W3 hates six digit hex, understandable). But I'm at peace with the fact that my css won't 100% validate 'cause I've chosen to customize scrollbar colors on every page, which validators barf on.

Myra

Myra

04-23-2006, 06:05 PM

Validation doesn't matter. Don't the most expensive WYSIWYG editors have problems creating valid HTML? ...

Really? I didn't know that. Do you know if that includes Dreamweaver?

Myra

Myra

04-23-2006, 06:07 PM

W3 validation is extremely important...

To people who check the validation on other people's sites to harrass them.

:)
Andi you're the best.

Myra

Myra

04-23-2006, 06:12 PM

If you don't break one rule, you end up breaking another. Sloppy markup, using forms for layout, inlining CSS, using conditional comments, etc. Good developers do all of the above.

I've discovered that by attempting to validate a sample size of designers' sites after this subject came up.

I want my html to validate mostly because I want to be as sure as possible that sites will look reasonably ok on multiple browsers. There are still tons of quirks (e.g., scrollbar cusomization), but at least html validation helps sites look more uniform across browsers.

Myra

Snarpy

04-23-2006, 06:19 PM

:)
Andi you're the best.
There was a little girl that had a little curl
right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good, she was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was HORRID.:dopey:

PS - I know that poem because it was quoted to me frequently a child. I don't have a curl, either.

Wassercrats

04-23-2006, 06:30 PM

Really? I didn't know that. Do you know if that includes Dreamweaver?I remember for sure that people complain about the HTML produced by the major WYSIWYG editors. I'm not sure about validation, but the W3 validator is still in beta, and not long ago I noticed one of my webpages that previously validated no longer did. I don't know how well Dreamweaver produces valid HTML, but I wouldn't pay that kind of money for it based on the sloppy HTML I've heard about. That's another reason I don't want to be a web developer. I'd be competing with people who use these tools and get away with sloppy markup, and I might have to lower my standards to be as fast and successful.

Andilinks

04-23-2006, 07:48 PM

But when she was bad she was HORRID. :EG: . Interestingly, "someone" downvoted my first post in this thread adding this comment:I don't recall asking you to jump in!I reiterate my claim that I've lost more points than most people have...

Andi

Myra

04-23-2006, 08:41 PM

:EG: . Interestingly, "someone" downvoted my first post in this thread adding this comment:I reiterate my claim that I've lost more points than most people have...

Andi

Well, Andi, things have a way of balancing out...

Myra

georgeek

04-24-2006, 09:09 PM

Validation doesn't matter. It may not matter to you or indeed the majority of people who own one or two websites. However for those of us who are responsible for 1,000s of websites it is extremely important.

Firstly explaining to clients that validated code is what they get and hence any unforeseen problems in rendering the code by future versions of Firefox, Opera, Safari etc. are a browser problem and are not due to amateur coding soup, saves time and money and instills confidence as far as the client is concerned.

Secondly I would say 20% of clients who seek seo arrive with a poorly performing site that could have been avoided by validation. Simple things like a missing > which mean the SE bots fail to index a key section of text.

As an aside my 11 year old who is a better web designer than 99.99% of designers was told at an early age to validate his code. The mere act of validation and sorting out the anomalies has taught him more about web design than any other single aspect.

- George

Wassercrats

04-24-2006, 10:13 PM

I have five or six examples of common, unimportant problems that the W3C validator catches, but my browser stopped responding and I don't want to repeat them. Here's one for now: this (http://www.polisource.com/diffnote/042406-KjTfyOzX.shtml) page loads very slowly for some people because of a long Javascript search and replace. Leaving out the alt tags in the replacement text would probably help significantly, and it wouldn't validate.

The browser stopped responding when I accidental pasted 400K into my Google toolbar.

steveinspain

04-28-2006, 06:47 PM

Myra

05-01-2006, 07:43 PM

Hey Myra:

You just keep on building your site to validate, and keep on working to W3C standards. CSS and XHTML have been around for years, and it's a pity that more folks aren't using this form of coding.

Personally, I'm with you all the way. We did our first version of our site in GoLive (a monumental turkey) because we didn't know any better. Then I started to get down to understanding Web Standards, and we rebuilt from the ground up with DW, using CSS for everything (with the exception of one table to center our white field on a monocolour background) and XHTML.

As our site grows, there's no way I'm gonna rebuild again. Full 100% CSS is a dream when it comes to making modifications, build it once and add in future flexibility from the beginning. If I decide that I need another nav button, or want to reconfig a page, we can make a modification to our site and it is live in minutes.

As to HTML, well, this is gonna upset some of the old timers on this forum. But it's gettin' kinda creaky and it is at "end of product" status. As we (the site owners' community) need more functionality for mobile devices, and the market is going that way, all of the HTML sites will have to be rebuilt. I decided to do it now, so we're working in XHTML transitional, and we love it!

And Shiela, thanks for your deletions and comments. There are some real nasty forums out there, with some real malicious members (most of whom are wannabees) who really need to find a life. I have always felt that the FQ community was a safe haven for me, where I could find help, without fearing reprisals.

Not everybody is a seasoned pro when it comes to developing their web presence, and here at FQ we should help each other become better at our craft. Besides, it's wonderful for the karma.

All the best,

Steve

Hey Steve,

Thank you for a super nice post. All my html validates now; I was surprised how few errors there were and how easy they were to fix. It helps a lot to use the developer's toolbar on Firefox. I think W3 did a pretty good job defining standards and expanding the available toolset. That had to be a nightmare job, akin to herding cats.

Now I'm working with my second customer so that should help fill out my portfolio just a tad. And I posted a great testomonial letter from customer #1. But my website will always be somewhat fluid as I learn new techniques.

I use CSS whenever possible; it's so much more flexible and I like the results better. I used straight html with my first customer but use CSS on my site. Still, I think there's a place for tables in documents, just not for overall layout. Perhaps you agree since you used a table one place in your revamped site. Hey, if I need columns and rows to present data...viola-table.

Say there, would you recomment Dreamweaver? I mean for someong who builds websites professionally? I hear there's a fairly steep learning curve, and I've heard concern that the output doesn't validate easily, but that it creates great looking sites. I've love to see a site it created. Because of the cost I'd think long and hard about buying it, so I'd love your impression.

You're right too; I need to branch out and get more savvy with programming for handheld devices. So many learning curves in so many directions.

I agree about the FQ community, I see it - more often that not - as a true support forum where I can let down my guard, admit I dont' know everything, and thereby be open to learning from the braintrust here so I can become that seasoned pro. Gotta have someplace to start and someplace to grow.

The forum is one of the major FQ assetts, as is the remarkable staff, fantastic customer support, and really pretty website colors. Just feels cozy. I feel sorry for the poor schmoes who simply don't know about FQ.

Great hearing from you.
Wow, Spain...

Myra

Snarpy

05-01-2006, 08:39 PM

Say there, would you recomment Dreamweaver? I mean for someong who builds websites professionally? I hear there's a fairly steep learning curve, and I've heard concern that the output doesn't validate easily, but that it creates great looking sites. I've love to see a site it created. Because of the cost I'd think long and hard about buying it, so I'd love your impression.I assume the question is open to all of us, not just Steve.:smile:

I have Dreamweaver MX, but I don't use the WYSIWYG interface anymore. I bought it at first because I was told it was the best - but now I only use it in code view. Most of my pages use PHP anyway, and the PHP support in DW is not what it could be. I am very likely to not upgrade DW and work in something like UltraEdit in the future. Compared to working notepad or something, it is handy to quickly wrap a tag around something with just a click (and no typos!) and to switch to editing the stylesheet with just a click. I think other editors would do all that just as well, but since I haven't used them, I can't say.

Overall I'd say, no, I don't think DW is worth it. I bought the whole Studio though, and I do use Fireworks a lot. I hope to switch to Photoshop someday.

Myra

05-02-2006, 02:10 AM

I assume the question is open to all of us, not just Steve.:smile:

I have Dreamweaver MX, but I don't use the WYSIWYG interface anymore. I bought it at first because I was told it was the best - but now I only use it in code view. Most of my pages use PHP anyway, and the PHP support in DW is not what it could be. I am very likely to not upgrade DW and work in something like UltraEdit in the future. Compared to working notepad or something, it is handy to quickly wrap a tag around something with just a click (and no typos!) and to switch to editing the stylesheet with just a click. I think other editors would do all that just as well, but since I haven't used them, I can't say.

Overall I'd say, no, I don't think DW is worth it. I bought the whole Studio though, and I do use Fireworks a lot. I hope to switch to Photoshop someday.

Yes yes Snarpy, open to all. I appreciate your input. And I'd never heard of UltraEdit so I'll look into that.

It's just that there are websites that I don't know how to create from scratch, and I assume some were built using Dreamweaver or something like it but I don't know for sure and I don't always see the answer in the source code.

For example this one: http://www.tavernonrush.com/. I wonder if that top brown arc is created with software or just a background gif. This next one (http://www.synchicago.com/) says Dreamweaver in the source code. Can that kind of look be achieved manually with just CSS and photoshop?

I guess I'm trying to decide if really polished web design can be done cost-effectively, and reasonably rapidly, without tools like Dreamweaver.

I welcome all input on any of these questions (not just Steve's :)).

I hope you get photoshop soon if you want it snarpy. It has quite a learning curve.

Myra

Snarpy

05-02-2006, 03:56 AM

Can that kind of look be achieved manually with just CSS and photoshop?I'm a little confused by this question. CSS is something you should use whether or not you use Dreamweaver or any other tool. I think you might be trying to figure out how designers make polished designs that are not table-based? Tavern On Rush is table-based, but beautiful and complex designs can be done without tables. Check out the archives at CSS Zen Garden. (http://csszengarden.com/) All these designs are done with pure CSS. Tables are easier, but on the way out.

Regarding efficiency and cost-effectiveness, are you comfortable coding directly? If not, DW may be worth it to you. It was helpful for me at first, when I was learning HTML and CSS. Perhaps by going to a library or bookstore and checking out a Learn Dreamweaver type book, you'll be able to judge how helpful it would be for you. Dreamweaver does lots of stuff that I choose not to do, because I've been converted to web standards. For instance, I use CSS & text for my menus rather than images, so I don't make javascript rollovers.

I don't always see the answer in the source code.
To help you analyze websites you like, if you use Firefox as your browser, you can install an extension called Web Developer. Many tools are built into this extension, including the ability to outline images (or any element), disable background images, edit the CSS, and tons more. This is very helpful when deconstructing other websites and debugging your own. There are other extensions for Firefox that you may find helpful including ColorZilla (to identify any color on a page), MeasureIt (a dynamic pixel ruler), Windows Resizer, Opera View and IE View.

steveinspain

05-02-2006, 06:06 AM

Hey Steve,
Say there, would you recomment Dreamweaver? I mean for someong who builds websites professionally? I hear there's a fairly steep learning curve, and I've heard concern that the output doesn't validate easily, but that it creates great looking sites. I've love to see a site it created. Because of the cost I'd think long and hard about buying it, so I'd love your impression.
Great hearing from you.
Wow, Spain...
Myra

Hi Myra, et al.

Where do I start? My techie, Mike, and I came from many years in the print side of things, me 13 years and Mike 47 years! So we have print knocked in the head for any and all aspects. We are completely fluent in PhotoShop, Freehand, Illustrator, PageMaker, Quark, Indesign, Acrobat, MS Office Suite, Fontographer, FileMaker, and many more I can't even remember now, but sit in our software cabinet. We do our own pre-press and have high-end professional kit. So we had a background in layout and tweaking stuff before we ever sat down to code our first HTML page, and we had that learning curve to tackle in order to achieve our "look and feel" goals. I won't say it was easy, but nothing ever is when working to professional standards.

Dreamweaver? It's a delightful monster! But a well-crafted and extremely efficient beast once one becomes comfortable with it. We have the Studio 8 suite, and the integration is seamless. We use the WYSIWYG, split and coding views depending on our application.

Validation? Astoundingly seamless. When we start a new site, we specify it's XHTML, and DW does the rest. Any non-validation is caused by "pilot error" on our part, not DW's. Plus, DW uses "Tidy" to validate on our machines before we send it to W3C for certifying, and DW catches everything, and I do mean everything, and it guides you to the fix. It's superb.

I don't know where you heard that DW generates extraneous, non-validating, code, it's just not true. Now GoLive is a pig on this count, in fact don't even consider GoLive, it's a piece of junk in our opinion.

I can't comment on the other programs mentioned by our colleagues in this thread, because I don't know them. What I can say is that long ago, I adopted a work philosophy of "Work Smart, Not Hard". So we really appreciate the WYSIWYG capabilities (very much like page layout in print) and the total integration of Studio 8, of which DW is a part. I have no idea what Adobe is going to do to it, and I shudder to think.

If you want to see a site in XHTML, 100% CSS for text control and positioning, done in DW, have a look at ours:

http://www.villas.com

We can make changes and have those changes live on the web in minutes. A real boon when you've got an impatient client standing over your shoulder.

Learning the programs. You must check out:

http://www.lynda.com.

For a few hundred bucks you get a year's subscription to online training videos for every program you can imagine, and I mean 1,000's of hours of videos! We use Lynda daily, and Mike trained up for many months. Another superb tool! And Snarpy's comment about CSS Zen Garden is correct too. A delicious book.

Finally, as to the cost. I look at my huge investment over the years in gear and software as the tools of my craft. If you are a pro, be prepared to make the investment, and take the time to learn how to use your tools to create beautiful things, for which you will be justifiably proud. And don't let anything leave your atellier that hasn't achieved your highest standards of perfection. You'll have clients beating a path to your door!!

All the best,

Steve

Randall

05-03-2006, 09:12 AM

For example this one: http://www.tavernonrush.com/. I wonder if that top brown arc is created with software or just a background gif. This next one (http://www.synchicago.com/) says Dreamweaver in the source code. Can that kind of look be achieved manually with just CSS and photoshop? Designers I know (myself included, but I don't do it for a living) frequently design the basic layout in Photoshop, then cut up the pieces and translate them into HTML. I don't know if Dreamweaver has the flexibility and built-in tools needed for designs as complex as those (although the Syn Chicago site is much simpler than it appears). But perhaps in conjuction with Fireworks you could streamline the process. I guess I'm trying to decide if really polished web design can be done cost-effectively, and reasonably rapidly, without tools like Dreamweaver. If you already have Photoshop or something similar at at your disposal, I would say yes. You can mock up the site and then figure out how to reproduce it on a web page. Especially if you're still feeling your way around with HTML and CSS, it helps to get the mechanics of web design out of your way so you can concentrate on pure design.

That said, Dreamweaver would still be useful if you want to stay within the visual world and just tweak the code where needed. Picking apart your mockup and reassembling it on the page may be much easier with Dreamweaver.

But also consider that having a design goal ("this is how the site should look") will give you lots of opportunities to learn the nuts-and-bolts of coding. Depends on how much of an engineering geek you are -- I think of myself as more engineer than artiste, so diving into the code is half the fun. :wink:

In any event, I think DW is still available for a 30-day trial. Once you have your design (in your head or in Photoshop), that should give you enough time to decide whether it's easier to work with the WYSIWYG or code view.

Randall

Andilinks

05-03-2006, 10:55 AM

I agree with Randall on everything he has just said. I would like to comment on something Myra asked about creating web sites,...cost-effectively, and reasonably rapidly...I would advise against on-the-job-training if you are trying to turn a profit while learning your craft on the fly unless you have a client who is aware that this is what you are doing and is entirely supportive of it.

Certainly you can solve all your design problems by querying people on this forum and I'll be pleased to help as best I can. But if I were you I would develop as many other avenues of learning as possible as well. Buy and study books, find every resource on the web and enroll in a web design course and a programming course at a local community college. Perhaps you are already doing these things, if so I apologize for being redundant. :)

Andi