Quote:
Originally Posted by uncyherb
To be perfectly frank, two of those three links are really bad websites that you should be showing to prospective developers to say "I DONT want something like this."
|
Well, none of them are really bad. They're probably down the bottom end of a hypothetical "websites ranked by how well they are designed" ladder, but they aren't right down the bottom.
They may not be particularly inspired aesthetics-wise, but they're clean. The layouts aren't terrible, and they're easy enough to use [though the size of the websites play a major factor in that].
Only one is standards-compliant [the home page, at least, validates] and the other two have, surprisingly, almost exactly the same invalid syntax [it looks like they were both built by a MelbourneIT webpage generator that isn't outputting great code]. Though aside from them not validating, they are all built using reasonably modern technologies, there's no table based layouts or anything ancient.
They may not be top-class websites, and they are definitely not anything I would pay for [though I'm a web designer myself so it's a moot point] but from a general layout point of view they aren't really bad at all. They are a good example of what you get for cheap, though, which should be a good indication to the OP that web design is, like so many other things, a field where you get what you pay for.