Web Design Pricing

heggie

looks like the industry won't be revolutionised just yet. 61 errors, and broken on a mac, you do blow your own horn don't you!

WebExpert

heggie wrote: »

looks like the industry won't be revolutionised just yet. 61 errors, and broken on a mac, you do blow your own horn don't you!

They made a lot of changes themselves. Please don't blame me for those issues but I can easily fix them

Webmonkey

WebExpert wrote: »

If you would rate this 3/10 then I would like to see the websites you rate 8/10

I would also rate it 3,4/10 - sorry to sound harsh

For a start it has 69 HTML errors that doesn't look too good

The Mighty Ken

Listen mate - 3 out of 10 is being very generous. I'm not trying to offend you purposely but the first step you need to take towards being a good Web designer is to stop being so deluded and take a look around you to see what the real pro's are producing. If it's any consolation, you're in the same boat as hundreds of other noob Web designers who think they're the dog's bollox. The fact is that you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a heavyweight... or even a middleweight.

Having said all of this, there is potential there. The site you've shown us is very basic and looks aged (something like that would have passed for a site back in the mid-late 90's). Still, at least there's understanding of grid and structure and you've made some (albeit a blundered) attempt at understanding Web standards. Your site would be about above average for someone starting out so kudos to you in that regard.

If you want to see some 7/10 - 10/10 efforts, have a look at sites such as CSS Beauty, Design Shack, etc.

WebExpert

Webmonkey wrote: »

I would also rate it 3,4/10 - sorry to sound harsh

For a start it has 69 HTML errors that doesn't look too good

No problem Webmonkey, I will work on future designs to raise the standard. This feedback is extremely valuable.

The HTML errors I can fix easily. Can you advise me on other areas where I need to improve?

WebExpert

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Listen mate - 3 out of 10 is being very generous. I'm not trying to offend you purposely but the first step you need to take towards being a good Web designer is to stop being so deluded and take a look around you to see what the real pro's are producing. If it's any consolation, you're in the same boat as hundreds of other noob Web designers who think they're the dog's bollox. The fact is that you have a long way to go before you can call yourself a heavyweight... or even a middleweight.

Having said all of this, there is potential there. The site you've shown us is very basic and looks aged (something like that would have passed for a site back in the mid-late 90's). Still, at least there's understanding of grid and structure and you've made some (albeit a blundered) attempt at understanding Web standards. Your site would be about above average for someone starting out so kudos to you in that regard.

If you want to see some 7/10 - 10/10 efforts, have a look at sites such as CSS Beauty, Design Shack, etc.

Thanks Ken.

Can I just say, the CSS Beauty site looks not so good to me, a nightmare for me to read. The other website is very good and I can produce websites to this standard also, I would rate 9/10.

I think I have the capability, its just that there are so many different opinions flying around. Technical type people seem to like totally different websites to "normal" people.

Thanks. Can you advise me more on how to improve?

Axwell

On www.isasensing.co.uk any particular reason why you need an image on the about us page that is 1.3 meg is size? Surely as a web expert you would have had the time in those 7 hours to do a bit of image optimisation, also the images in the flash banner are blurry and distorted.

http://www.futumeter.ie/ - links at the bottom to the 3 sections have the border appearing around the titles, text on the Gas page isnt aligned properly, all sits to the left.

I think you hyped yourself up a bit too much to begin with - your work isnt terrible but you didnt help with all the comments about how good it was and then showing work that most people would say is average but then when you have all these errors in the background on top of that well that just makes it worse again.

Also i would assume Ken is telling you to look at the designs on CSS Beauty not the site itself to see how good sites should look.

WebExpert

Axwell wrote: »

On www.isasensing.co.uk any particular reason why you need an image on the about us page that is 1.3 meg is size? Surely as a web expert you would have had the time in those 7 hours to do a bit of image optimisation, also the images in the flash banner are blurry and distorted.

http://www.futumeter.ie/ - links at the bottom to the 3 sections have the border appearing around the titles, text on the Gas page isnt aligned properly, all sits to the left.

I think you hyped yourself up a bit too much to begin with - your work isnt terrible but you didnt help with all the comments about how good it was and then showing work that most people would say is average but then when you have all these errors in the background on top of that well that just makes it worse again.

Thanks Axwell.

The futum website changes were mostly made by them but I agree with you on the isasensin website too.

Thanks

heggie

in addition to what's mentioned you really need to learn how to design. By that I mean, the use of a grid, eye paths, typography, colour interaction etc, there's no point in having a well coded ugly site.

forbairt

The sites aren't that bad ... (apart from the red thing)

As was just said ... you've hyped yourself up too much.

Yes ... one can put together 15 websites in a week no hastle. Unfortunately what you've shown us is that you can put together 15 unpolished websites in a week. You're mentioning some of them taking 9 hours and 7 hours ??

Given that is roughly 2 days you're releastically talking about being able to put together 7 unpolished websites in a week. Now if you start to polish up the websites further you're down to 3 or 4 a week ... Add into the mix administration / meeting customers .. tweaking designs ... creating a highly polished design and some other work in there and you'll be luck to get 1 - 2 websites done in a week.

This is me talking from experience .. others may differ but I doubt it. I've a number of projects on the go all the time not to mention support and other things so it can be every 2 or 3 weeks that I release a website or even more depending on what I'm doing.

The Mighty Ken

WebExpert wrote: »

Can I just say, the CSS Beauty site looks not so good to me, a nightmare for me to read. The other website is very good and I can produce websites to this standard also, I would rate 9/10.

CSS Beauty isn't really supposed to look good. It's the designs that it showcases that are supposed to be the example! Admittedly they're not all good but, by and large, these are the kind of gallery sites you want to visit to get inspiration.

WebExpert wrote: »

I think I have the capability, its just that there are so many different opinions flying around. Technical type people seem to like totally different websites to "normal" people.

Thanks. Can you advise me more on how to improve?

There are no real hard or fast answers that I can give you to help you become a better designer overnight. The bottom line is that you have to love design. You have to live it and breathe it and appreciate it in all it's forms - not just on the Web. You also have to practice. I'm a developer but the best designers that I've worked with spent years with no life and an inordinate number of late nights in front of their computers, mastering their art. Then there are people who, despite working their asses off, will never be any use due to lack of the specific type of talent and aesthetic taste that it takes.

It's a tricky one but most people can become at least decent, professional level designers with a lot of hard work and a passion for their jobs. But if you're lazy and deluded into thinking you're some sort of a demi-god before you've even made it out of the starting blocks, then you're completely f**ked. That's the best advice I can give you - learn more about design, work hard at it, be humble and realistic about your ability and know your weaknesses.

Gauge

There's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said, but here's a couple of things that stood out to me, the areas you should improve on:

- Large images scaled down to a smaller size using code. No. I'm using broadband and half your images are taking forever to show. This is a pet peeve of mine.
- Between your two pages, I'm getting over 90 errors when I attempt to validate them. You should definitely try to make sure your pages validate.


I reckon you would do well to learn about CSS, and some colour theory and typography. TBH the lack of hours you put into these sites really shows. Your pages look ok if my browser is maximised, but if I make the window smaller it all goes to hell. Lots of potential though. Where are the sites that you said you would give 9/10 to though?

turgon

Ok tbh Web Expert I dont think you deserve all of the criticism thats being dished out. The sites arent awful, and they look to me very much what sites like that usually look like.

However, Im not saying there perfect. Not to be arrogant or anything, but I would advise you learn css far more throughly (www.yourhtmlsource.com/css/ is where I learned). Sorry now if im going over my head (Im young enough, and dont have professional experience: Im talking as an amateur but I fully use valid xhtml and css) and sound like Im lecturing, but If you can fully implement css into your site you can seriously cut down on the sizes of pages and produce more harmonious sites.

One more point: very important to test your sites in different internet browsers. The numbers using Firefox are (thankfully) on the rise.

WebExpert

turgon wrote: »

Ok tbh Web Expert I dont think you deserve all of the criticism thats being dished out. The sites arent awful, and they look to me very much what sites like that usually look like.

However, Im not saying there perfect. Not to be arrogant or anything, but I would advise you learn css far more throughly (www.yourhtmlsource.com/css/ is where I learned). Sorry now if im going over my head (Im young enough, and dont have professional experience: Im talking as an amateur but I fully use valid xhtml and css) and sound like Im lecturing, but If you can fully implement css into your site you can seriously cut down on the sizes of pages and produce more harmonious sites.

One more point: very important to test your sites in different internet browsers. The numbers using Firefox are (thankfully) on the rise.

Thanks.

Whilist I accept the critism on here I do think that there was a purpose in it in that web deisgners are very fearful of low cost web design in Ireland. There is a competitive edge to the nature of the replies.

Out of this thread and having seeing my "portfolio" 2 web design companies have shown an initial interest in doing business by contacting me via PM. Therefore, I must be doing something right.

I know I can improve much more but my prices will remain at €350 for a full static website. I think this is both fair and that my work is worth this amount.

I have just started my own website and I will post a link tomorrow when its finished.

Thanks for all the feedback, both positive and negative.

heggie

i dont think that reply is fair. you came on here stating you are a **** hot developer/designer and have since learned that is far from the truth. There are SO many cowboys (of which you are one at the moment if you are selling those 'websites'). You've been offered advice on how to improve, and create a quality product, but retort thinking that your undercutting a professional service - you're not. Some of your clients sooner or later will want a more professional solution, and it'll be 350 wasted.

smemon

I agree with most of what's being said...

On futumeter i think there's too many images and i don't think the colour scheme matches personally.. red/white and that awful blue on the background just hurts my eyes.

Also the diagram beside the header is just too busy...

But the logo / nav text etc... looks pretty good and for €350, i'm sure the client is happy and at the end of the day i'm sure the client doesn't give a toss about standards or a few xhtml errors if everything works.

On http://www.isasensing.co.uk/, the footer doesn't render for me properly in FF3, it's almost left aligned whereas the main body is center aligned.

It's also a bit too eye burning for me but again, if mr client is happy with it and doesn't care about colours and what not, then you can erase this post from your memory

Having said all that, if i were designing/developing a site myself for someone and getting paid, i'd feel guilty handing it over not validating. I'd also SEO it and do basic things like re-direct the non www to www etc... But that's just me trying to do everything i can for the client when in reality i shouldn't for the cash being paid - like i said i doubt the client cares or even notices.

WebExpert

heggie wrote: »

i dont think that reply is fair. you came on here stating you are a **** hot developer/designer and have since learned that is far from the truth. There are SO many cowboys (of which you are one at the moment if you are selling those 'websites'). You've been offered advice on how to improve, and create a quality product, but retort thinking that your undercutting a professional service - you're not. Some of your clients sooner or later will want a more professional solution, and it'll be 350 wasted.

The clients were extremely happy. The one in Galway is doing really well, told me that they got many business inquiries through their site. Im not a cowboy, my website designs are good according to the clients.

The XHTML validation is only a requirement for public bodies as far as I know?

heggie

what? quality should be a requirement. I'm not a car mechanic, so if someone sold me a lemon I wouldn't know unless I see immediete problems with the car. It is irresponsible to be selling such a service imo, it's a bad product end of. You need to ask your self, do you really want to do this as a career? if you do then I suggest taking some of the advice here, educate and improve yourself and be proud of the work you do

Sully

heggie wrote: »

i dont think that reply is fair. you came on here stating you are a **** hot developer/designer and have since learned that is far from the truth. There are SO many cowboys (of which you are one at the moment if you are selling those 'websites'). You've been offered advice on how to improve, and create a quality product, but retort thinking that your undercutting a professional service - you're not. Some of your clients sooner or later will want a more professional solution, and it'll be 350 wasted.

To be fair, while I agree with some of what your saying - its up to the client at the end of the day to look over a portfolio and see for themselves. Iv met plenty of businesses who pick either very expensive designers who have no variation in their design or designers who are simply awful.

I think all clients should look over the portfolio of the designer, see if its something they like (the quality of the design) and if so - negotiate a price with them.

A lot of people think with their money, and not with their head I wouldn't like the quality shown by the OP and he is nowhere near the "hot stuff". But for 300euro, I can see why people picked him.

Sully

WebExpert wrote: »

The XHTML validation is only a requirement for public bodies as far as I know?

Nope. Your website should always validate. Might not be possible to get it 100% perfect, but you should try your best. The same applies to accessibility guidelines.

WebExpert

www.boards.ie - 101 errors

Fai.ie - failed

nuigalway.ie - failed

foot.ie - failed

daft.ie - failed

myhome.ie - failed (153 errors)

rte.ie - 92 errors FAILED

And people are having a go at me. For feck sake. All the top websites in the country fail this test. :pac:

Gordon

WebExpert wrote: »

Hi,

Here is a 2nd one, this one took 9 hours. Its a related company to the above. Some changes were made from the original design but I did the full template:

www. futumeter.ie/

Can I just point out that I called Bubbles first.

WebExpert, why did you destroy the urls? Hmm?

forbairt

Gordon wrote: »

WebExpert, why did you destroy the urls? Hmm?

I had noticed that earlier as well ... let it slide

heggie

WebExpert wrote: »

And people are having a go at me. For feck sake. All the top websites in the country fail this test. :pac:

you're right, and thats what I mean about this industry being full of cowboys. shouldnt you aspire to better though? for your own sake? for example, what will your clients do when IE8 comes out?

Webmonkey

WebExpert,

Ok lets be fair your site isn't the worst BUT its fair from perfect. I really can't stand people that think they are doing a great job themselves and all proud when they actually arn't - they are deluded.

What annoys me, is I put pride in my work, I won't just simply throw something together for someone just because I'll under charge them. Hell Even If they paid me the proper price, I would much prefer to put my name to a good quality site that looks unique and not like a lot of trash out there done up on the cheap.

If you have the attitude that your site is 8/10 then you won't get fair my friend. Sometimes when we look at our own work we seem to think its nicer than it really is -
Your site would only be 3/10 for me - you must accept this and work towards the 10.

It really makes me sad to see businesses fall for such deals. As said above, they think about how much they can save.

As for the being XHTML valid - I can assure you if you develop to these standards, you won't have much cross browser compatibilty issues.

And heggie is correct - the industry is full of cowboys - so aspire to be better than them and develop your skills and charge what you deserve then.

EKRIUQ

WebExpert wrote: »

www.boards.ie - 101 errors

Fai.ie - failed

nuigalway.ie - failed

foot.ie - failed

daft.ie - failed

myhome.ie - failed (153 errors)

rte.ie - 92 errors FAILED

And people are having a go at me. For feck sake. All the top websites in the country fail this test. :pac:

(There must be a gathering card, runs off to get one)



I hope its bubbles too!

Sully

WebExpert wrote: »

And people are having a go at me. For feck sake. All the top websites in the country fail this test. :pac:

... and that means what exactly? You wouldn't have this problem only for you boasted about being a great designer. Not every website will pass the test perfectly but you should develop your website to the best of your ability so that it is close to passing the test.

The Mighty Ken

WebExpert wrote: »

Whilist I accept the critism on here I do think that there was a purpose in it in that web deisgners are very fearful of low cost web design in Ireland. There is a competitive edge to the nature of the replies.

Oh dear. Well then you haven't learned anything and you're just another deluded amateur cowboy, producing crap work.

What you're charging for sites at the moment is, actually, a fair enough price. As long as you realise that you need to get a lot better at your job over the coming years before you could be considered a professional Web designer.

Gauge

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that someone would call themselves a web designer while going out of their way to declare that they're unwilling to do something so simple as validating their code.

Axwell

WebExpert wrote: »

The clients were extremely happy. The one in Galway is doing really well, told me that they got many business inquiries through their site. Im not a cowboy, my website designs are good according to the clients.

The XHTML validation is only a requirement for public bodies as far as I know?

In fairness web expert most of your clients wont know what valid xhtml is or about browser issues. They will have an idea in their head of what they want and if you produce it they will be happy. Since they arent an expert in the area they will of course be happy with your design, but does that mean you have done it right or according to standards, probably not.
As a web designer its your job to do the job right and according to standards, just cos your client says its good doesnt mean anything when they dont know it fails validation and has 61 errors in the background and doesnt work across all browsers.