Design

[startsphere]

Me and sumone else might start a web design company. He made the preliminary website at http://www.ParaNorth.com and I would like for anyone to evaluate it. Any comments very much appreciated.!

[greasonwolfe]

This probably should have been posted in the Site Review portion of the forum rather than in the HTML/CSS Help section.

You might want to review the posting rules
http://www.codingforums.com/rules.htm
and guidelines
http://www.codingforums.com/postguide.htm
as well as taking note of the various sub-forums.

GW

[startsphere]

Ok thanks for the point. Can any moderators move this thread to the site review category?

[Do'h!]

I think you prices are just a Little to much.

thanks

[blain]

Tell your friend to stop using tables for layouts and learn CSS-P, then start a web design company.

[mark87]

It looks ok, but seems too crowded - needs some more padding! Some images wouldn't hurt either.

But yup with regards to Blain's post, how can a web design company be taken seriously if they still use tabled layouts and deprecated tags!? Fair enough, a small amount of CSS has been used, but it's internal! :(

[Archangel]

While CSS, in many opinions, may be better, I don't feel it's a neccessity for someone designing websites. If people are looking for sites one of the big things they will be looking at is design...if you can pull off a good design using tables that works on the browers, then go for it. When building websites that are compliant all the way across the board I have had to do pretty much just as much tweaking using CSS as using tables.

A couple things...

1. In your portfolio section when you link to sites you've done I would have those sites open in a new window. That way they don't loose your site.

2. I agree...looks a little crowded, and maybe you can add some 3D elements in there?

[bazz]

If people are looking for sites one of the big things they will be looking at is design...



While that might apply to customers who are not technically au fait, my view is that the professional web person, who values their clients, should advise the customer on how it should be done better, to give them maximum return.

Tabled design can reduce SEO and can slow down the page loading. It can make the site less likely to work properly in all browsers at all resolutions.

There are others here who can explain even more reasons for correct coding so I'll pass over the them.

bazz

[blain]

While CSS, in many opinions, may be better, I don't feel it's a neccessity for someone designing websites. If people are looking for sites one of the big things they will be looking at is design...if you can pull off a good design using tables that works on the browers, then go for it.

What that little paragraph sounds like to me is.

CSS in my opinion is something that I can't really be bothered to learn, so if I just don't mention to my customers that I will be misusing HTML in order to produce websites that are only accessible by people using Computer based graphical web browsers, everything will be fine.

[bustamelon]

What that little paragraph sounds like to me is.

CSS in my opinion is something that I can't really be bothered to learn, so if I just don't mention to my customers that I will be misusing HTML in order to produce websites that are only accessible by people using Computer based graphical web browsers, everything will be fine.

:D
Or.... "I LOVE <font> tags!"

[Archangel]

I will admit that I have created table sites and am just now (i.e. within the last week) learning to create CSS-P layout pages. And when I was talking about CSS, I actually meant CSS-P...I have always used CSS to tell my fonts what to do and agree that it's ridiculous not to use CSS to tell your fonts what to do.

With that being said I will agree that, IMO, CSS-P is the way to go for layout. Already, while converting a site for my company I have noticed that it is a lot easier to work with, change things and I have a LOT more fine control.

All I was saying is there are arguments either way and I don't think it's right to tell someone they can't or shouldn't be a web developer just because they design layouts using tables instead of CSS-P.

[bazz]

I'm confused.. :(

isn't CSS, Cascading Style Sheets?
Is css-p, CSS-Positioning?

Why the difference in name? If one is to design, with css, it should all be done in it, rendering such a distinction, moot. Or am I missing something?

bazz

[greasonwolfe]

Eh, I kind of look at it as CSS-P being a sub-class of CSS where CSS-P is more directly related to the physical layout of elements while CSS in general is helping to define the asthetic appearance of the layout. Of course, I am sort of in the same boat that Archangel is in and just now really delving into the CSS positioning features and getting away from tables. But if you think of it in old school terms of 3.2 CSS is kind of like the whole <font size........> thing while CSS-P could be related to <table.....>. At least that's the way I try to think of it.

[blain]

Yes CSS & CSS-P are the same, but we separate them when we are talking about them.

Just HTML - Tables for layout & HTML presentation tags (font, B, I etc)

HTML & CSS - Tables for layout and CSS for presentation

HTML, CSS & CSS-P - HTML for content, CSS for Presentation and layout.

SO generally when we say CSS-P what we mean is that no tables were used for the layout.

[bazz]

But if you think of it in old school terms of 3.2 CSS is kind of like the whole <font size........> thing while CSS-P could be related to <table.....>. At least that's the way I try to think of it.

Ahhhhhhhh; nice to see that at 41yrs of age, I am not old school :D
My sites are html CSS and CSS-P and generated on the fly too :) :smug:

To me a site, either, is built with css fully or it isn't a css site.

bazz