I'm looking to create a small, simple website for a little venture I'm trying out. Whilst I can provide a lot of the actual graphical content I can't really put it together in website form. Does anyone out there build websites and if so how much will it cost and what will it take to set up??

Cheers Ears

try it yourself, it's not as hard as it looks

this is an excellent tool for making a website and it's a freebie (http://www.nvu.com/index.php)

try it yourself, it's not as hard as it looks

this is an excellent tool for making a website and it's a freebie (http://www.nvu.com/index.php)

I agree. I'm using an old version of dreamweaver and it's actually quite easy. Good fun as well!

Although I might be doing myself out of a potential client here, I agree with the above. If you have some graphics knowledge, and you only want a simple website, you may be as well off trying to throw something together yourself first. If you find it difficult on your own, then it might be more the time to bring someone else in.

My normal charge for a simple site is about £150 - £200, so as you can see you are saving yourself a fair whack if you think you might be able to handle it. If not, then by all means feel free to drop me a PM and i'll link you to my work samples post on these forums so you can see if you like my work.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours,

David

try it yourself, it's not as hard as it looks

this is an excellent tool for making a website and it's a freebie (http://www.nvu.com/index.php)
I agree. I'm using an old version of dreamweaver and it's actually quite easy. Good fun as well!
But what about making your sites accessible to the widest range of people possible, that includes people on slow connections, are your sites optimised etc?

Regular, non web-industry related people might not know, but accessibility is quickly becoming the new big thing on the net.

There is more to web development than just getting it to look right in Dreamweaver. This is the main problem with the net at the moment, too many poorly designed sites, not taking into account anything but how it looks.

Not having a go, but djeglin, if you were 'serious' you'd never tell anyone with no prior development knowledge to go and build their own site. The responsibility lies with 'us' the web designers/developers to make the web accessible to everyone.

Regular, non web-industry related people might not know, but accessibility is quickly becoming the new big thing on the net.

It could also land you into trouble with the DDA if your site isn't compliant.

Yes, there are problems with poorly designed sites out there, that are not meeting accessibility standards etc, but from the description given, it did not sound like this was going to be a complex website, and dreamweaver is actually getting reasonably good at helping with accessibility and web standards in its latest iteration. No, its still not perfect, but its not bad either.

So far as my "not being serious", I have 6 years industry experience, have managed 2 design studios, worked for one of the biggest and astest growing agencies in the world, and spent 3 years writing all of Computer Shopper's professional level graphics, web, and page layout software reviews. I have recently been contracted to write a book on web standards and good design (and how the two are not mutually exclusive terms). I do know my stuff, but it was my judgement that in this case, it may be more sensible to suggest to someone that it is not that hard to learn to build a basic, standards compliant website yourself, and that this way they could save themselves some money... which to many people is a major barrier to getting a good web presence, as there are too many cowboys who charge too much and deliver too little, and for many of the people who really do know what they are doing, the prices reflect that.

PS: Accessibility has relatively little to do with optimising code and images for people on slow connections (a minority nowadays), and more to do with making your site accessible to those with disabilities such as partial sightedness or blindness. Variable font sizes, semantic code and tag stripped, text only versions are all ways of helping a site be more accessible to these audiences, as well as making sure that images are properly tagged etc. There are a number of good books on the topic available if to topic starter wishes to read about it, but if they feel the task isnt for them, then, as i said I am willing to offer my services.

Cheers,

David

I dunno where this idea of disabled people wanting to visit every web page on the net comes from, but its wrong. And this trying to flog websites using the mighty DDA is even more wrong.
What you pay professional web designers for is not optimised graphics and accessible standard code (that should come as standard!), you pay them for making a website thats a pleasure to view and use, websites that give you usefull information you want rather than useless stock photos, crappy clip art and annoying animations.

adaline - agreed, but there are a great deal of cowboys out there, like i said, who don't know what they ae doing. Sadly, they are still getting work, partly by undercutting their more reputable counterparts, and partly because many people who want a website designed don't know any different. Its about time that businesses started receiving inormation packs about this from the EU, or from someone in a position to effectively inform them of what they need to do, and what they need to look out for. If this information was readily available, it may not be such a problem.

A bit off topic but hey!

David

Back to the topic then, you always get what you pay for. So its your own job, wibbles, to find who to use for your project and how much to spend on it. An hour of using google to find info and companies will give you some phone numbers, better knowledge of what to ask for and how much it cost.

Yes, there are problems with poorly designed sites out there, that are not meeting accessibility standards etc, but from the description given, it did not sound like this was going to be a complex website, and dreamweaver is actually getting reasonably good at helping with accessibility and web standards in its latest iteration. No, its still not perfect, but its not ...
it may be more sensible to suggest to someone that it is not that hard to learn to build a basic, standards compliant website yourself, and that this way they could save themselves some money... which to many people is a major barrier to getting a good web presence, as there are too many cowboys who charge too much and deliver too little, and for many of the people who really do know what they are doing, the prices reflect that.

PS:...Variable font sizes, semantic code and tag stripped, text only versions are all ways of helping a site be more accessible to these audiences, .... as i said I am willing to offer my services.


I'd endorse all of that and add that if you have a small business and enough time, learning how to put a simple web site together, and just generally travelling about through web tutorials on the subject, will pay for itself when it comes to commissioning a site from a professional agency or independent developer; if, and when, the time comes.

Not only will you be able to have a much better idea of how much work is actually involved, but you will also be much better able to specify the job - ill-specified jobs are the hallmark of the cowboy operator. With a good foundation like that you will be better equipped to "drive" the project.

Also, you may discover that a) your needs are relatively simple and easily satisfied, and b) any problems you have will be solved by a visit to this or any other more technically oriented site.

Well- just wanted to say.
My website kicks ass :hihi:

www.angelusxl.com
Its unique- which is how I like my sites :thumbsup:

:Edit: :Edit: :Edit:

It could also land you into trouble with the DDA if your site isn't compliant.

The DDA only applies to businesses, don't over complicate things. And even then it's only specific things that are covered;

Websites will most commonly be covered when they constitute the provision of a service, or they are related to education.

W3C compliance may be de rigour in the industry at the moment, but the majority of the world hasn't heard about it and really doesn't care.

Although I might be doing myself out of a potential client here, I agree with the above. If you have some graphics knowledge, and you only want a simple website, you may be as well off trying to throw something together yourself first. If you find it difficult on your own, then it might be more the time to bring someone else in.

My normal charge for a simple site is about £150 - £200, so as you can see you are saving yourself a fair whack if you think you might be able to handle it. If not, then by all means feel free to drop me a PM and i'll link you to my work samples post on these forums so you can see if you like my work.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours,

David
That sounds quite a reasonable price. Any links to your work??
I appreciate all the comments about doing it myself but I'm pretty busy with other things. I'd like the initial set up done proffesionally then maybe further down the line I can mainain and update it myself

Wibbles,

Okie dokie, there is a post at http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128909 with some links to a few pieces of work. If you would care to take a look, if you like what you see and you're still interested, drop me a PM and we can chat about your project, so I can get a better idea of what you're looking for, and give you a better idea of how much its going to cost you all-in-all.

Hope to speak to you soon,

David

Ok...so say I have the look and feel of the website sorted. Obviously it needs building but I also have a website address that I'd like to use. How do I go about registering it (???) or hosting it somewhere???

first, have a look on who is:

http://www.whois.net/

check the domain name you like is still available, then have a google around for a webhost or see if anyone recommends a hosting company highly.

Do you want you domain name registered with the same people you host with? Personally, i registered my domain with one company and use another for hosting because it i felt suited my needs best.

Just as an addition to the original question...does anyone build websites using Flash?

urgh, don't use flash, it's horrible.

No it isn't

Flash trumps all web programmes.... Dreamweaver is ok, but not nearly as good

yes it is. it's nasty and icky and no one in the entire world actually thinks that flash based sites are any good at all.

you are obviously crap at website design then

yes it is. it's nasty and icky and no one in the entire world actually thinks that flash based sites are any good at all.

you are obviously crap at website design then

I think the distain for Flash from Cyclone is down to its inapproriate and over use. Eg. intro screens...my pet hate on the web!

Flash can be a very effective tool in a site...just like the various scripting technologies and so on.

It is just a matter of knowing when to use the appropriate technology, as all of these may not be available on the visitors browser (Flash plugin not there, scripting disabled....etc).

If these issues are well handled then flash can add an extra dimension to a site.

you are obviously crap at website design then
Web design is differant to web programming. Flash is nasty for several reasons but it can look pretty, which leads to the old battle of designers vs. programmers ;)

Ones an artist, the other a scientist.

hmm... yes i agree, perhaps i was a little hasty there...
I'm coming at this from a designers point of view, where i judge a website mosly on aesthetics.

Ones an artist, the other a scientist.
Take a look at my site - ugly I'm sure you'll agree, but I'm more interested in tinkering with the serverside scripting, optimisation and database stuff than design.

yes it is. it's nasty and icky and no one in the entire world actually thinks that flash based sites are any good at all.
I can't take anyone who uses the word 'urgh' in a written sentence seriously. :hihi:

hey plumb, what do you think of this one?

http://dreamcolors.tk/

i'm sure everyone will agree that it looks pretty, but at the same time users might not even get that far because it can take a while to load.

i like the site, i dont think it matters if it takes a while to load as pretty much everyones on broadband these days.

good example of flash design though, is it your site?

Urgh was simply a typo, I meant Ugh

ugh ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g, k)
interj.
Used to express horror, disgust, or repugnance.

That about sums up my feelings about flash. Indeed the name is very descritive, all mouth and no trousers, flashy nonsense more important than any value or use.

I'll admit that i'm not a designer though, I can't do pretty.
What I can do is functional and useful.

I wish, it's one i saw on a different forum put up for people to critique, I like it but not sure at the same time. Just got to grips with Css and XHTML.

True, the same effect would not have been achievable to the same extent up markup but like some one has already said, flash plugin required, scripts disabled etc.

i do like the site but i was under the impression that flash was more for games (might be wrong) not really web design. But like someone already said, if used appropriately, very effective.

I think the distain for Flash from Cyclone is down to its inapproriate and over use. Eg. intro screens...

Heh, you mean things like this? http://www.skipintro.nl/skipintro/skipintro98.htm

I always thought if you needed a "skip intro" button, then you really hadn't thought about why you needed an "intro" in the first place.

Although I would hesitate to speak for cyclone, I think his urgh was particularly for sites built in flash, rather than simply flash on a site.

If these issues are well handled then flash can add an extra dimension to a site.
Too right. Flash is to the web what CGI is to the movies. The best work is the stuff you don't realise is CGI.



I think the antipathy for completely flash sites on the web is well founded though. i.e. Urgh.

Not only are they quite expensive to develop, but they contravene the whole point of the web. Sites like these will largely disappear as AJAX techniques duplicate or replicate the genuinely useful visual techniques available to flash (from a UI perspective) , like transitions, drag and drop, variable transparency/colour etc.

Flash is a multimedia tool. Its ability to be embedded in a web page owes more to the web than it does to flash. I think that, provided it is used to make things like games, screensavers, animated films, interactive toys and viral giveways, it's fine and does the job better than anything else out there.

For multimedia presentation, Flash has no equal. Youtube.com's success is due in no small part to Flash. And now that Flash Actionscript has adopted the ECMA standard, programming advanced interactivity is a lot simpler (if you already know JS). With Flash you can mash together sound, animation film, text, and even user audio and video input using (relatively) straightforward code to build in every imaginable logic and interactivity.

But a whole site in flash? If it is dripping with high quality production values and is solely promoting a new product or service then it can still work (although those sites cost money!), but if it is just replicating a standard 2nd or 3rd generation website (like 99% of most websites), then you have to ask, why bother?

Getting back to the original question...........

that's what i would like to have said Phan if i'd had more time to right it, so you can speak for me whenever you like regarding flash on the web in the future :-D

Ajax is very cool, we're using json at the moment to use it with struts. Makes it pretty easy to hook into our pages and dynamically change things/fetch data as the user changes values.

flash websites are usually far more accessable and user friendly and you dont get bored within 2 seconds trailing through plain text thats hard to read. theres a lot of crap websites out there from people who used html code etc, i think there should be some sort of regulations on websites, they should be made more user friendly.

why is it i can find hundreds of brillliantly designed, user friendly, accessable websites designed in flash, but cant find many well designed basic websites written in codeing or whatever it is?

Getting back to the original question...........
Sorry wibbles, but that's what you get for mentioning Flash and Web Design in the same sentence.

just one more flash thing.

www.yugop.com - a japanese flash programmers lab. He's into object oriented animation, and dreaming up new ways of viewing old data.


Anyway......
As djeiglin says: a simple 5 page brochure site with a contact form should cost you somewhere between 150-300 from an independent developer.

So,
Site: say £250 (5-10 page site with navigation, contact page, basic content management)
Hosting: from £0 - £10 a month, depending on choice.
Domain name - .co.uk £2.50 / year
.com £10/ year
.tv £30/year

or use dyndns.com and get a useable domain name for the moment, until you have settled what domain(s) you want.

costs wibbles.co.uk
1st year: £312.50
thereafter £62.50 annually (or much much less if you can find the good, cheap/free host that suits you)

point taken, i've seen some nasty sites coded in html, although alot of the time they look they've just been done in a wysiwyg editor that simply generates (vomits) the code. Therefore the person creating the site might not actually know anything about html or how to layout a page to take userbility into account.

But when you say accessible, accessible to whom? I know it isn't common, but what about people using text to speech editors? There are standards, have you visited www.w3c.org before? Your average amateur "web designer" may not be aware and is simply going on what looks good to them.

flash websites are usually far more accessable and user friendly and you dont get bored within 2 seconds trailing through plain text thats hard to read. theres a lot of crap websites out there from people who used html code etc, i think there should be some sort of regulations on websites, they should be made more user friendly.

why is it i can find hundreds of brillliantly designed, user friendly, accessable websites designed in flash, but cant find many well designed basic websites written in codeing or whatever it is?

point to the flash in the forum you seem to be happily using.

or for that matter on some of the most popular websites on the net.
amazon, ebay, wiki...

Wibbles,

So you know, I try not to work with Flash too much... I can, I just don't like it very much. Flash websites *can* look very nice, but on the whole, are less usable and less accessible than their (x)html counterparts. As has already been said, some of the most useful effects of Flash can now be reproduced in much more user-friendly ways (ie Ajax - Asynchronus Javascript And XML). Also, building a Flash website is a bigger time, and thus monetary investment than a "standard" website.

If used in the right way, and by people with the right skills, lash can be very efective as a web building tool. However, to say it trumps all, is over cooking it just a bit, I think. The biggest tool on the web is common sense and using your head. Whether a site looks pretty or not, if a user can't find what he or she is looking for, they won't give the site a second look. Flash creators often tend to overlook the concept of usability, deciding that for some reason it doesn't apply to them. (IMO the best example of how a Flash website should work is www.2advanced.com . These guys are absolutely the best in the world at what they do, and their website shows it. Also, they make updates easy on themselves. None of the content is hard-coded into the Flash move... It's all XML based and being called in from external sources. Very clever, but VERY expensive to have developed to that level)

If you give me a look at what you're trying to achieve with your site, maybe I can better evaluate where and how Flash could fit in to the picture?

Cheers,

David

Well the quality of the design is nothing to do with a medium, people make horrible websites in both html and flash. Maybe if wibbles tells us what is going to be on the site we can advise better?

Folks,
I was let down by someone who was going to help build me a website so I am bumping this again to see if anyone else can help.
I have the graphical content but would like someone to build a website out of it and maybe adapt it to suit or suggest different ways of doing things.
Please don't suggest software to do it myself as I am aware of all these options but wish to go down this road.

Please feel free to pm me if you're interested. I will pay for your services :thumbsup:

Cheers Ears

Do you already have hosting/webspace (and a domain?) organised or would you need that too?

Do you already have hosting/webspace (and a domain?) organised or would you need that too?
I have a domain, but no hosting/webspace as yet..I was open to suggestions on that one

Im interested, I could build you a basic html site at rates of £50-£100 (depending on website size) if you require more coding (php) such as a user account/login system, then that would be £100-£200 (depending on size) more advanced coding and time would cost more, and so-on..

some examples of my work are..

www.gw-radio.com -- Still needs a little work!
www.gw-radio.com/blog/ -- not far off completing

(These are hosted on a free host, so please forgive the popup)