Website Development

Potency

Hello,
I have basic knowledge of web development (html, css, bit of javascript)

If I was to create a basic site, which included about 15 pages with basic features such as a simple nav-bar, banner, text and pictures, how much should I charge? I would have said it would be no where near a real company but still don't know what's reasonable.
Thanks

DonkeyStyle \o/

€100

Myxomatosis

Potency wrote: »

Hello,
I have basic knowledge of web development (html, css, bit of javascript)

If I was to create a basic site, which included about 15 pages with basic features such as a simple nav-bar, banner, text and pictures, how much should I charge? I would have said it would be no where near a real company but still don't know what's reasonable.
Thanks

"Real Companies" can charge massive amounts for utter crap so you might as well too.

Potency

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

€100

Interesting... Not bad, considering my skills :P

Myxomatosis wrote: »

"Real Companies" can charge massive amounts for utter crap so you might as well too.

I know... well... sometimes. Maybe after I get a bit better... plenty of time (hopefully)

Thanks

forbairt

1: post an example of what you've done previously
2: we can suggest pricing.

or

1: decide what your hourly rate is and what the length of time to create the "15 page" site.
2: multiply the two.

a website will probably cost anywhere from 100 - 100000 it all depends on who you go to. What you can charge depends on your skill level.

so as I said post some examples of what you've done.

swordsinfo

following that thread how much would you have charged for a site like this

just looking for what the costing standards would be

www.wcpos.org

forbairt

swordsinfo wrote: »

following that thread how much would you have charged for a site like this

just looking for what the costing standards would be

www.wcpos.org

www.wcpos.org coming soon

Agenda Communications registered website

Hmm ... well 1 would have to register the domain ... sort out hosting ... decide on the font to use for that message ... put it online and so on

swordsinfo

sorry i havent made it live yet

try www.wcpos.org/test.asp
very interested in your costing est

forbairt

swordsinfo wrote: »

sorry i havent made it live yet

try www.wcpos.org/test.asp
very interested in your costing est

I think you should start your own thread for this

swordsinfo

will do but still interested in your thoughts for now?

Potency

swordsinfo wrote: »

will do but still interested in your thoughts for now?

Looks very nice.
I won't give you a price seen as how I asked the question... :P

swordsinfo

ha ha ha i suppose I deserve that seen as I jumped ur thread non intentionally and I appologise It seems if you have a big name u can charge big prices. Cheers for the compliment though!

Potency

swordsinfo wrote: »

ha ha ha i suppose I deserve that seen as I jumped ur thread non intentionally and I appologise It seems if you have a big name u can charge big prices. Cheers for the compliment though!

I would if I could... but I actually don't know how much its worth.

p

If you're still a beginner, then it's probably not worth all that much.

mewso

swordsinfo wrote: »

sorry i havent made it live yet

try www.wcpos.org/test.asp
very interested in your costing est

I'm not going to give you a costing estimate but if say I was looking to buy this design I would ask you the following questions:-

1. Why are using a XHTML doctype when not all browsers can display xml?
2. Why if you are using an XHTML doctype are you declaring the content type as html?
3. If you have a good reason for it to be an XHTML doctype then why transitional? What are you transitioning to? Is this site halfway to something?
4. div, div and more divs. Can you try using some semantic markup like H1 for the title of the page, ul for a menu (no need to wrap it in a div)
5. "<span class="style2">" ??? What does this do? Can't this just be the default text in a paragraph?
6. I assume all the inline styles are for testing?
7. <img src="images/wcpos_test.jpg" alt="wcpos title" width="386" height="47" /> - Why this alternate text since alternate text is only technically required when the image has some semantic meaning that should be described in the absence of the image - otherwise alt="" is fine. Blind visitors 'aint gonna thank you for that text.
8. Images again - why have width, height and border attributes when the image should have the width and height you want anyway and the border for all images can be specified in your styles? Same goes for the align attribute.
9. Even more image questions. Why images for the text links? And with useless alt values? Also an image for the main title of the main content and the alt just says welcome instead of the same text as the image?

Despite this you'd sell it easily. I doubt many people would ask these questions. Looks great though have to say.

swordsinfo

cheers for the comments was nearly crying by the end then you restored my faith in myself - only newly switched to div layouts hence why the overkill on divs however the pages still load quite fast. Images onthe menus were for astectics. Look better than the standard text and for the sake of a hlaf a second I think it may be worth it.

I have seen the ul for menus but have yet to put it into practice.Once I get it right once I will solve that as most of the pages use includes.

xhtml was only because when testing the site w3c soemwhere along the line promoted the use of it. Doe it cause a problem with many browsers. I uses analytics to keep an eye on the traffic to ensure all works ?

Once again thank you for your comments

mewso

Don't worry I was being overly critical. You are streets ahead of guys we pay hard cash for average sites. In terms of design the site is excellent. Theres just been such a huge push over the last few years towards xhtml when it's not supported well enough by the browsers. HTML 4.01 strict is the ideal doctype imo. Of course I would still advocate standards.

The divs thing is part of the whole xhtml movement and semantics has lost a bit along the way. If I can use a header element or a list etc. instead of a div then I will. They can all be styled as necessary. When I use divs I make sure the id values are descriptive of the content within. They are currently the best alternative to tables for layout but with some effort can still be kept to a minimum.

I work for a County Council (hopefully not as one of the layabouts wasting public money) and so accessibility is a big issue. Thats where images as text links becomes a big issue. There are ways around it like using both text and an image and indenting the text off screen (but still visible to screen readers and so on). It's always worth being mindful of screen readers even if you can't test with one you can imagine if an alt attribute or title attribute is only going to waste time being read out by one.

Trojan

To go off on a tangent...

musician wrote: »

Theres just been such a huge push over the last few years towards xhtml when it's not supported well enough by the browsers. HTML 4.01 strict is the ideal doctype imo.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you about the compatibility of 4.01, but I'd argue that the huge push toward xHTML has forced the browser developers to become standards compliant far more quickly than otherwise.

mewso

Trojan wrote: »

To go off on a tangent...



Not necessarily disagreeing with you about the compatibility of 4.01, but I'd argue that the huge push toward xHTML has forced the browser developers to become standards compliant far more quickly than otherwise.

Absolutely I'm not saying the effect was a bad thing only that using an xhtml doctype is relatively pointless when an xml content type won't be displayed properly anyway.

charybdis

musician wrote: »

The divs thing is part of the whole xhtml movement and semantics has lost a bit along the way.

I don't understand how using an XHTML doctype makes one prone to using divs or less semantic markup. Could you elaborate?

musician wrote: »

Absolutely I'm not saying the effect was a bad thing only that using an xhtml doctype is relatively pointless when an xml content type won't be displayed properly anyway.

Only in certain browsers, and if all browsers were standards-compliant in this regard they would be displayed properly. Although I agree that in almost all current cases HTML 4.01 Strict served as text/html is preferable in many ways but realistically any XHTML (well formed or otherwise) served as text/html will suffice also.

mewso

charybdis wrote: »

I don't understand how using an XHTML doctype makes one prone to using divs or less semantic markup. Could you elaborate?

XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout and I think a knock on effect has been the use of divs in situations where it is unecessary. <div class="largefont"> for example instead oh <h2>. I think when a site uses divs for layout you're more likely to see this kind of thing. I see it a lot anyway. It is easy to lose sight of semantics while concentrating on creating valid markup. It's important to be aware that they are not the same thing.

charybdis wrote: »

Only in certain browsers, and if all browsers were standards-compliant in this regard they would be displayed properly. Although I agree that in almost all current cases HTML 4.01 Strict served as text/html is preferable in many ways but realistically any XHTML (well formed or otherwise) served as text/html will suffice also.

I'll wait for full support myself. I would certainly like to see less people using the transitional doctype.

Trojan

musician wrote: »

XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout and I think a knock on effect has been the use of divs in situations where it is unecessary.

It is easy to lose sight of semantics while concentrating on creating valid markup.

I agree with you 100% on the 2nd point there. On the overuse of divs, well it beats trying to decipher 18 layers of embedded tables!

On that note, I just looked at a backup of a site I created years ago... cringeworthy

swordsinfo

at least you have the "years ago" aspect.

Man up till recently I was working with embedded tables on tables and tables. Least now with divs I find I have more control. So would you stick with strict or transl

The Mighty Ken

musician wrote: »

XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout and I think a knock on effect has been the use of divs in situations where it is unecessary. <div class="largefont"> for example instead oh <h2>. I think when a site uses divs for layout you're more likely to see this kind of thing. I see it a lot anyway. It is easy to lose sight of semantics while concentrating on creating valid markup. It's important to be aware that they are not the same thing.

That's the designer's fault, not the technology.

charybdis

musician wrote: »

XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout and I think a knock on effect has been the use of divs in situations where it is unnecessary. <div class="largefont"> for example instead oh <h2>. I think when a site uses divs for layout you're more likely to see this kind of thing. I see it a lot anyway. It is easy to lose sight of semantics while concentrating on creating valid markup. It's important to be aware that they are not the same thing.

I'm sorry but I don't understand how XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout, nor do I understand how you can suggest that writing valid markup somehow makes semantics harder.

Apart from a couple of of deprecated elements, mostly relating to element style, XHTML and HTML have the same elements. cf.: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp

You can (mis)use any of the elements you have described in either language, and frankly I think if someone is prone to writing <div class="largefont"> they're more likely to default to writing <font size="5"> than using a semantically correct tag (like <h2>). Furthermore, you can use divs for layout in HTML in the same way you can use tables for layout in XHTML, language has no bearing whatsoever on this.

White I agree that divs are presently overused, often at the expense of semantics, I suspect they are rarely used in deference to semantics but are used in deference to tables, and even the most brutal misuse of divs is semantically preferable to any use of tables other than the markup of tablature data.

musician wrote: »

I'll wait for full support myself. I would certainly like to see less people using the transitional doctype.

The Doctype doesn't matter as long as it is the correct one for the document's markup. That's the point of web standards.

mewso

charybdis wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't understand how XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout, nor do I understand how you can suggest that writing valid markup somehow makes semantics harder.

Apart from a couple of of deprecated elements, mostly relating to element style, XHTML and HTML have the same elements. cf.: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp

You can (mis)use any of the elements you have described in either language, and frankly I think if someone is prone to writing <div class="largefont"> they're more likely to default to writing <font size="5"> than using a semantically correct tag (like <h2>). Furthermore, you can use divs for layout in HTML in the same way you can use tables for layout in XHTML, language has no bearing whatsoever on this.

White I agree that divs are presently overused, often at the expense of semantics, I suspect they are rarely used in deference to semantics but are used in deference to tables, and even the most brutal misuse of divs is semantically preferable to any use of tables other than the markup of tablature data.

I'm guilty of not wording my thoughts correctly as usual but I had hoped my meaning would be obvious. By XHTML I should have said the movement/push/fad (I used "movement" a few times in earlier posts) for web standards and it's association with XHTML by most of it's advocates. Most of the articles written on the subject over the last few years have pushed the idea of divs for layout as opposed to tables. I did not mean to imply that it is exclusive to XHTML but that most people would have discovered this kind of approach through their exploration of the whole xhtml/standards movement.

I disagree with you on the fact that someone using div to style text would go back to font as most of them would have first discovered the use of divs in their study/reading of the new layout approach in general and as such would probably be mindful of the deprecation of the font element at the very least. I think that a site designed with standards in mind will often be noticeable in the prominence of div elements over say td elements, something that I think has grown from the css layouts particularly for designers who read the first page on these kinds of things.

charybdis wrote: »

nor do I understand how you can suggest that writing valid markup somehow makes semantics harder

Again poor wording on my part again. I said something along those lines after mentioning the idea of divs being overused. I can have divs all over the place and it will be valid markup but far from semantic a trap that would be easy to fall into. You agree that divs are overused at the cost of semantics so I'm not sure where you disagree with me. I suppose you don't think this is happening because of peoples interest in standards/css layouts all pushed in the boat that is xhtml. If someone has <div class="largefont"> I don't think they are doing that in deference to tables.

charybdis wrote: »

The Doctype doesn't matter as long as it is the correct one for the document's markup. That's the point of web standards.

If you serve your content as xhtml-xml and you are using an xhtml strict doctype then it's the correct one. If you are serving it as html (as most would be) then it's arguably not the correct doctype. Where are the standards in that?

charybdis

musician wrote: »

I'm guilty of not wording my thoughts correctly as usual but I had hoped my meaning would be obvious. By XHTML I should have said the movement/push/fad (I used "movement" a few times in earlier posts) for web standards and it's association with XHTML by most of it's advocates. Most of the articles written on the subject over the last few years have pushed the idea of divs for layout as opposed to tables. I did not mean to imply that it is exclusive to XHTML but that most people would have discovered this kind of approach through their exploration of the whole xhtml/standards movement.

I think you are setting up a straw man in suggesting that the web standards movement has pushed the idea of divs over tables, or at least misrepsesenting their actions. I think it would be fair to say that they have furthered the idea of the separation of semantically marked up content and presentational information. Divs (or any (X)HTML tag) are not intended to be used for layout, they are intended to be used as markup.

musician wrote: »

XHTML has encouraged the use of divs for layout and I think a knock on effect has been the use of divs in situations where it is unecessary. <div class="largefont"> for example instead oh <h2>.

musician wrote: »

I disagree with you on the fact that someone using div to style text would go back to font as most of them would have first discovered the use of divs in their study/reading of the new layout approach in general and as such would probably be mindful of the deprecation of the font element at the very least. I think that a site designed with standards in mind will often be noticeable in the prominence of div elements over say td elements, something that I think has grown from the css layouts particularly for designers who read the first page on these kinds of things.

My point was more that I don't think anyone aware of the semantically appropriate way to markup an element would decide to use a div with a presentational class name as opposed to say <h2>.

I agree that a standards-compliant site will likely have far more divs than it will table cells (unless it contains tabular data), but this and the use of divs in general is not a bad thing. There are many cases where a div is semantically the most correct element.

musician wrote: »

I said something along those lines after mentioning the idea of divs being overused. I can have divs all over the place and it will be valid markup but far from semantic a trap that would be easy to fall into. You agree that divs are overused at the cost of semantics so I'm not sure where you disagree with me.

I disagree with you not in the sense that I advocate anything but semantic markup but in that I think you are incorrect in appearing to take a position suggesting the move towards web standards and XHTML is somehow harmful to the use of semantic markup.

musician wrote: »

If you serve your content as xhtml-xml and you are using an xhtml strict doctype then it's the correct one. If you are serving it as html (as most would be) then it's arguably not the correct doctype.

It arguably is.

musician wrote: »

Where are the standards in that?

Right here. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/

The Mighty Ken

musician wrote: »

I think that a site designed with standards in mind will often be noticeable in the prominence of div elements over say td elements, something that I think has grown from the css layouts particularly for designers who read the first page on these kinds of things.

Why do you keep equating Web standards with an over-use of div's? You can hardly lambast a technology or methodology because some people misinterpret it, for God's sake! I don't think anyone would argue with you that div's should be sparse and that document elements should be meaningful and semantic. But you're making two completely separate points there.

Do you still mark-up your sites using nested tables as a matter of interest? How do you find maintenance? Are there any accessibility issues you've come across or do you even care? Are your documents semantically correct and, more to the point, why even bother interweaving meaning into code soup? Do you know what semantics and standards are ultimately pushing towards? If so, what are you doing to future-proof your client's sites?

mewso

charybdis wrote: »

I think you are setting up a straw man in suggesting that the web standards movement has pushed the idea of divs over tables, or at least misrepsesenting their actions. I think it would be fair to say that they have furthered the idea of the separation of semantically marked up content and presentational information. Divs (or any (X)HTML tag) are not intended to be used for layout, they are intended to be used as markup.

My point was more that I don't think anyone aware of the semantically appropriate way to markup an element would decide to use a div with a presentational class name as opposed to say <h2>.

You are right. Every piece of literature I have read on standards did not talk about, give any examples or recommend using divs for layout instead of tables.

Nobody took this learning and misused it in any way, shape or form. Sites that we see today with divs used inappropriately happened by accident. Not one person missed the point of semantics.

My whole point was an attack on every single designer who applys web standards because they all do it wrong and was not an attempt to point out how some people have misunderstood along the way and might benefit from a reminder of semantics.

charybdis wrote: »

I agree that a standards-compliant site will likely have far more divs than it will table cells (unless it contains tabular data), but this and the use of divs in general is not a bad thing. There are many cases where a div is semantically the most correct element.

Again I agree with you and regret the many times I have stated here that divs are never correct and always wrong semantically.

charybdis wrote: »

I disagree with you not in the sense that I advocate anything but semantic markup but in that I think you are incorrect in appearing to take a position suggesting the move towards web standards and XHTML is somehow harmful to the use of semantic markup.

Exactly I've been trying to show how xhtml is nothing but a bad thing all along. Fair cop. In another life I was discussing how some designers might lose sight of semantics if they don't understand things properly. Not here though.

charybdis wrote: »

Right here. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/

Case closed. Lets never discuss content negotiation, parsing content as xml for the efficiency benefits, our xhtml breaking when it finally does deliver it in an xml content type because we were getting away with things like document.write in javascript, not having the xml declaration at the beginning of the document, not using namespace based dom script and so on. Lets embrace standards, validate it with w3c and never ask questions about it ever again.

mewso

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Why do you keep equating Web standards with an over-use of div's?

I'm not. I'm saying the idea of using divs was brought to peoples notice in most cases by standards advocates. Of course plenty of designers knew of them before then but I'm NOT making a point about every designer out there. I'm saying if some people out there are using them inappropriately it may be because they misunderstood what they were reading. I am not writing off the web standards movement as a bad thing at all. I feel as I'm being attacked for knocking web standards when I am not doing that. I simply noticed divs used badly in a link someone posted and pointed out that I see this kind of thing quite often and it may be because someone didn't grasp the idea of standards and divs fully.

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

You can hardly lambast a technology or methodology because some people misinterpret it, for God's sake! I don't think anyone would argue with you that div's should be sparse and that document elements should be meaningful and semantic. But you're making two completely separate points there.

Again I'm not knocking it "for God's sake". I was saying that I believe some people have misunderstood. I think standards are great. You seem to be taking great exception to me for something I have not said.

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Do you still mark-up your sites using nested tables as a matter of interest?

Nope why would I? Why do you think I would?

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

How do you find maintenance?

Maybe ask someone who doesn't believe in the benefits of web standards and semantic content.

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Are there any accessibility issues you've come across or do you even care?

Again no idea where in high Heaven you are getting this from but by all means keep going. Oh wait you did...

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Are your documents semantically correct and, more to the point, why even bother interweaving meaning into code soup?

Why indeed. This fictional me probably wouldn't bother.

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

Do you know what semantics and standards are ultimately pushing towards? If so, what are you doing to future-proof your client's sites?

Hi fictional me here. No clue what semantics are and wouldn't waste my time future proofing my clients sites. I don't try to ensure my content is valid semantic markup. I don't develop sites that work without javascript, then build my script on top of that so it degrades gracefully and remains fully accessible. I don't ensure my content will actually parse as xml when it is required to be an xhtml document. I don't write script that correctly uses the dom methods to manipulate it. I don't use labels with for attributes linking to inputs so screen readers can easily traverse a form and then build that form in a fieldset and not in a table. I don't write tables for tabular date only with thead and th cells with scope="col" to assist screen readers to correctly interpret tabular data. I don't ask questions about when to use xhtml transitional and when to use html or xhtml strict. There are so many things I don't do I lose count but when I have the time I like to hit the Web Dev and Design forum and jump down people's throats for any kind of disparaging comments they make about standards and the possible negatives.

Trojan

Storm in a teacup. If you take hypotheticals it's easy to get knickers in a twist.

My bet is you take production code from musician, charybdis and Almighty Ken, you'll see some pretty decent semantic, standards based code.

Care to share a sample guys?