Web Designer for Hire

[ShirkDeio]

Hope this is allowed...I couldn't find anything that said it wasn't

The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, I would like to see if anyone is interested in having me design them a website. Second, I would like some thoughts on my website.

So, as for the first reason, I would like to say that I am available to design websites in HTML and/or PHP, with CSS, Javascript/Ajax, Flash, and/or MySql.

Second, my (temporary) website can be found here. It's temporary because I haven't bought hosting or a domain yet--that will happen if I see that it would be worth the money, which will be if I get anyone interested in hiring me (at least interested, but it'd be nice if they actually hired me as well).

The website is updating constantly, as I'm still looking for bugs or whatever.

Please check it out, let me know what you think about my site (and, if you're interested in hiring me, let me know).

[yhar]

Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't work that way around.
Get a good portfolio site up, do work on the cheap to build up your portfolio of worked on sites THEN go looking for customers.

You can't stick up a site on a free host and expect customers, it shows you're not serious about it.

[ShirkDeio]

At 5/21/08 04:31 PM, yhar wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't work that way around.
Get a good portfolio site up, do work on the cheap to build up your portfolio of worked on sites THEN go looking for customers.

You can't stick up a site on a free host and expect customers, it shows you're not serious about it.

Yeah, that's what I thought the response would be >_<

Although I already have a decent (small) portfolio, if you look at the site I provided.

[yhar]

Yeah, i posted before actually looking at the site. It was something that struck me as "Don't bother looking at the site if it's on a free host."

On the subject of the site, it's okay, but it just seems unoriginal. If you take a look at sites like http://cssmania.com you can see some really outstanding sites, maybe get some ideas from there.

Also, on your portfolio page, don't just link to the domain of the site - What happens when the owners decide to change the site, or it goes down? Always keep a link to a version hosted on your site.

[smulse]

Yay!

[ShirkDeio]

At 5/21/08 04:47 PM, smulse wrote: Yay!

I already use that, I just don't like sticking a bunch of empty "alt"s in my img tags. As for the rest of the glitches, I haven't really had the chance to do it yet.

[DougyTheFreshmaker]

I already use that, I just don't like sticking a bunch of empty "alt"s in my img tags.

So fill in useful information instead...

[Seachmall]

At 5/21/08 06:38 PM, ShirkDeio wrote:

At 5/21/08 04:47 PM, smulse wrote: Yay!

I already use that, I just don't like sticking a bunch of empty "alt"s in my img tags. As for the rest of the glitches, I haven't really had the chance to do it yet.

Your alts should contain information for those with screen readers, or if your images don't load.

[BoneIdol]

At 5/22/08 03:20 AM, Seachmall wrote: Your alts should contain information for those with screen readers, or if your images don't load.

...and as such you should give purely decorative images (such as that thing in the top left) an empty alt tag and only give alt text to images that have some kind of purpose, such as a photo of someone recieving an award or something.

[WoogieNoogie]

Because everyone knows that a good website has to be valid.

[DannyIsOnFire]

At 5/22/08 06:04 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote: Because everyone knows that a good website has to be valid.

Game, set and match.

[smulse]

At 5/22/08 07:33 AM, DannyIsOnFire wrote:

At 5/22/08 06:04 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote: Because everyone knows that a good website has to be valid.

Game, set and match.

That's still a poor excise to write shit code.

Anyway, wtf is Google and why is it so good?

[Seachmall]

At 5/22/08 06:04 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote: Because everyone knows that a good website has to be valid.

If someone offers to build a site for someone and can't write decent code on his own site he won't get much work. Having a valid site makes it more flexible and its alot less likely to break with the release of new browsers whom follow W3 validation. It also makes it easier for screen readers to read the screen (although that depends on where the site breaks validation).

[WoogieNoogie]

At 5/22/08 12:06 PM, Seachmall wrote: If someone offers to build a site for someone and can't write decent code on his own site he won't get much work.

If someone is hiring a web designer, decent code - to them - means something that works and looks nice. Or maybe just one of the two.

Having a valid site makes it more flexible and its alot less likely to break with the release of new browsers whom follow W3 validation.

That would be true, if it actually happened. Most of the time, if you want something to look the way you want it, you code it to look that way. If it's invalid...it still shows the way you want it to. No browser conforms to W3 validation, and most have tags that work in that specific browser.

It also makes it easier for screen readers to read the screen (although that depends on where the site breaks validation).

Screen readers reading through a web page is not a decent defense for requiring validation. Invalid code can be read through very easily, depending on what it is that is invalid. Also, writing code for screen readers...in my opinion...is like writing code for text-based browsers like Lynx. Sure, people use them, but not enough to care about.

That being said...the only part of my website left that I actually coded...here. If I can, I validate my code. However, certain things like an embed tag don't validate, no matter how hard you try. I've been able to use the object code for Firefox, but IE doesn't take it. Sure, I can do a work around in Javascript...and have in the past...but code validation for me is just personal preference.

[polym]

At 5/22/08 11:32 PM, WoogieNoogie wrote: That would be true, if it actually happened. Most of the time, if you want something to look the way you want it, you code it to look that way. If it's invalid...it still shows the way you want it to. No browser conforms to W3 validation, and most have tags that work in that specific browser.

if your code doesn't conform to web standards, then it will never display properly in all browsers, even if they don't necessarily follow standards themselves.

Screen readers reading through a web page is not a decent defense for requiring validation. Invalid code can be read through very easily, depending on what it is that is invalid. Also, writing code for screen readers...in my opinion...is like writing code for text-based browsers like Lynx. Sure, people use them, but not enough to care about.

have you considered blind-people or people with slow connections (ie, the images take forever to load)? you just lost a visitor.

That being said...the only part of my website left that I actually coded...here. If I can, I validate my code. However, certain things like an embed tag don't validate, no matter how hard you try. I've been able to use the object code for Firefox, but IE doesn't take it. Sure, I can do a work around in Javascript...and have in the past...but code validation for me is just personal preference.

if you can't be half-assed to validate your code, then that shows you're a lazy, and incompetent programmer. who would want to hire you?

[WoogieNoogie]

At 5/23/08 12:24 AM, polym wrote: if your code doesn't conform to web standards, then it will never display properly in all browsers, even if they don't necessarily follow standards themselves.

Even if your code does follow web standards, it won't display properly in all browsers. Sorry.

have you considered blind-people or people with slow connections (ie, the images take forever to load)? you just lost a visitor.

Sorry, I don't understand why slow connections would use screen readers.

if you can't be half-assed to validate your code, then that shows you're a lazy, and incompetent programmer. who would want to hire you?

No, it does not. You can be a very meticulous programmer that took the time to find out exactly what code it took to place the objects where he needed. Then come to find out, oh, it doesn't validate.

Then he comes to find out...it doesn't matter.

[polym]

At 5/23/08 12:34 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote: Even if your code does follow web standards, it won't display properly in all browsers. Sorry.

no, but it'll get closer to actually displaying properly in all browsers. a browser not conforming to web standards is no excuse for bad mark-up. if you can't get it to display with proper mark-up, that you have to have validation errors, you got a problem.

Sorry, I don't understand why slow connections would use screen readers.

my point was that the alt information tag affects people NOT JUST with screen readers. don't be so closed-minded.

No, it does not. You can be a very meticulous programmer that took the time to find out exactly what code it took to place the objects where he needed. Then come to find out, oh, it doesn't validate.

then fix your mark-up.

Then he comes to find out...it doesn't matter.

it does matter.

[WoogieNoogie]

At 5/23/08 01:12 AM, polym wrote: it does matter.

You can try defending your views, but it doesn't change the fact that someone who's looking to hire a programmer won't check if the code is valid markup. That's what matters. I used to think it mattered, too.

[BoneIdol]

I agree with WoogieNoogie, most people don't care about valid markup and it certainly won't make your site work exactly right in all browsers if you follow it.

Doesn't mean I don't like having open standards as a framework to work on, but every single web browser is an interpretation of the w3c standards. There are quite a few areas in the various standards that aren't set in stone.

I've always found that if you re-label correct code as a buzzword like "semantic markup" people tend to pay a bit more attention. This is essentially snake oil though.

Lastly, no matter how good your code is sooner or later your client is going to hire an SEO consultancy to ruin it.

[smulse]

I agree with points raised by all of you, but I have to say pages are more likely to be (more) cross-browser compatible if your code is valid. Plus, if you don't enforce strict rules in PHP, don't close tags in the right places - leave them open etc the code simply won't run. If only the same happened with browsers.

[Seachmall]

At 5/23/08 01:42 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote:

At 5/23/08 01:12 AM, polym wrote: it does matter.

You can try defending your views, but it doesn't change the fact that someone who's looking to hire a programmer won't check if the code is valid markup. That's what matters. I used to think it mattered, too.

If your using your site to promote your work it should be valid. Odds are if an employer has visited your site they have visited other sites which promote valid markup. I you can't replicate that promise you've lost a customer. Plain and simple.

Regarding valid sites displaying differently in different browser,
we see it as every new browser is released they are closer to conforming, in a few years all browsers my be 90%+ conformity, if that happens your site will break in all browser if its not up to standard. Its an insurance to minimise the amount of redesigns needed.

[WoogieNoogie]

At 5/23/08 11:18 AM, Seachmall wrote: If your using your site to promote your work it should be valid. Odds are if an employer has visited your site they have visited other sites which promote valid markup. I you can't replicate that promise you've lost a customer. Plain and simple.

See, on that point, I'd strongly disagree. If someone goes shopping on portfolios, some will have "Valid HTML" some won't. Just because they see it on one, doesn't neccesarily mean they'll look for it on the others. You have to understand that if someone's shopping for a web designer...they most likely have no idea what the hell they're doing or looking for. They want someone else to take care of it.

we see it as every new browser is released they are closer to conforming, in a few years all browsers my be 90%+ conformity, if that happens your site will break in all browser if its not up to standard. Its an insurance to minimise the amount of redesigns needed.

I'd love to see that. If all browsers started conforming more, it would be great. I write valid code myself, and I hate it when I have to use a tage that "isn't supported", such as embed...which doesn't have a feasible alternative. However, I've been hearing that kind of statistic for a few years now...Firefox 2 and IE7 were supposed to be the closest we've gotten, but I haven't noticed much change at all, except a few things from IE6-IE7.

I also hope everyone realizes that this is just a friendly debate to me...I don't mean to come off as an arrogant jackass or anything.

[Kuso416]

At 5/23/08 06:58 PM, WoogieNoogie wrote:You have to understand that if someone's shopping for a web designer...they most likely have no idea what the hell they're doing or looking for. They want someone else to take care of it.

and that's where i come in, crash the party and disagree with you. If you explain to someone the "massive benefits" of valid HTML, they will probably keep that in mind.

[WoogieNoogie]

At 5/24/08 12:46 AM, Kuso416 wrote: and that's where i come in, crash the party and disagree with you. If you explain to someone the "massive benefits" of valid HTML, they will probably keep that in mind.

I just try to look at it from a non-developer standpoint. Simply...does it work. I don't care about whatever the "W3C" is, I don't want a weird image on my site saying it's valid, I don't want someone trying to explain to me all the ins and outs of "valid markup". I want it to work.

[smulse]

And if you explain (like you should) that valid markup means it's more likely to work, Imma stick with that one.

[Seachmall]

At 5/24/08 03:40 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote:

At 5/24/08 12:46 AM, Kuso416 wrote: and that's where i come in, crash the party and disagree with you. If you explain to someone the "massive benefits" of valid HTML, they will probably keep that in mind.

I just try to look at it from a non-developer standpoint. Simply...does it work. I don't care about whatever the "W3C" is, I don't want a weird image on my site saying it's valid...

People arent stupid (well they are but stick with me on this) if they see on one site '100% Valid Markup' they're going to think valid=good (which it does) so they will be on the look out for that. Unless your site/portfolio is unbelievable better then the previous you won't get that job.

I don't want someone trying to explain to me all the ins and outs of "valid markup". I want it to work.

And if its valid it will work.

[Jessii]

At 5/24/08 03:40 AM, WoogieNoogie wrote: I don't want a weird image on my site saying it's valid

You don't have to put the ugly little image on your site if it's valid. A lot of people chose to do it, I think it's stupid and don't care. The problem is that if closing tags are missing in other languages or if a comma is missing somewhere, the whole program will throw an error and not work and that's why people are arguing for valid code. It doesn't have to display properly in all browsers, just close to properly so that it looks fine. Sometimes valid code does it and other times it doesn't. It just depends on the usage of code and how it's all placed.

[Bobby444]

Change the body font to Neophyte YK and you're awesome!

[Seachmall]

At 5/24/08 03:11 PM, Bobby444 wrote: Change the body font to Neophyte YK and you're awesome!

Not a web-safe font. Don't use it.

[Seachmall]

At 5/24/08 04:22 PM, bagoverhead wrote: Wow you faggots can tear most genuine people to shreds for no reason eh? Yeah I'm sure you'll have a smart arse reply but you guys are just gay leave him alone.

Don't know what you're refering to but if its the WoogieNoogie thing we're just discussing the benefits of Validation and getting both sides.