Web Design Recomendation - Visual Edge Design, Inc. ?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by JoeMalloyHDD@gmail.com, Feb 8, 2008.

  1. Guest

    I am looking for a web design company to create a website for my
    business. A friend recommended Visual Edge Design Inc. to me (http://
    www.visualedgedesign.com). They are a firm in the Tampa Bay area in
    Florida. I am not in FL so would like to know if anyone has had
    experience with these guys, and if so what is your recommendation.

    Looking at their web site design portfolio, I am very impressed but
    would still like some feedback from others.
    , Feb 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SAZ Guest

    In article <2426fb34-4ee7-465c-b5ea-
    >,
    says...
    > I am looking for a web design company to create a website for my
    > business. A friend recommended Visual Edge Design Inc. to me (http://
    > www.visualedgedesign.com). They are a firm in the Tampa Bay area in
    > Florida. I am not in FL so would like to know if anyone has had
    > experience with these guys, and if so what is your recommendation.
    >
    > Looking at their web site design portfolio, I am very impressed but
    > would still like some feedback from others.
    >

    There are thousand's of Web Design Companies out there, the odds of
    someone having specific experience with this one is unlikely.

    Something I always look at are the number of HTML errors on their
    business site. This is an indicator of the care they put into their
    work:

    Failed validation, 38 Errors:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%
    3A//www.visualedgedesign.com/

    Most of these are missing "alt" tags, a relatively minor issue, but
    there are several far more serious mistakes that could potentially cause
    problems when rendering in certain browsers.

    As for the designs, there's nothing special in their portfolio, but I
    have seen much worse.
    SAZ, Feb 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bergamot Guest

    SAZ wrote:
    >
    > Failed validation, 38 Errors:
    >
    > Most of these are missing "alt" tags, a relatively minor issue


    That particular error indicates that they aren't conscious of web
    accessibility, which is not such a minor issue these days.

    That alone is enough to make me steer clear of them.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Feb 8, 2008
    #3
  4. wrote:

    > I am looking for a web design company to create a website for my
    > business. A friend recommended Visual Edge Design Inc. to me (http://
    > www.visualedgedesign.com ). They are a firm in the Tampa Bay area in
    > Florida.


    ...who use Dreamweaver, without working hard at it. Pump and dump.

    This will probably wrap, but you get the idea:

    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="10" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="93" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="63" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="83" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="38" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="20" height="1" border="0"
    alt="" /></td>
    <td><img src="images/layout/spacer.gif" width="123" height="1"
    border="0" alt="" /></td>
    ....more...


    > I am not in FL so would like to know if anyone has had
    > experience with these guys, and if so what is your recommendation.
    >
    > Looking at their web site design portfolio, I am very impressed but
    > would still like some feedback from others.


    I was not really impressed. Several sites in the portfolio I looked at
    all are DW 'cookie-cutter' sites. It appears very little care is taken
    with individuality. And they use Verdana and small font sizes.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 8, 2008
    #4
  5. SAZ Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > SAZ wrote:
    > >
    > > Failed validation, 38 Errors:
    > >
    > > Most of these are missing "alt" tags, a relatively minor issue

    >
    > That particular error indicates that they aren't conscious of web
    > accessibility, which is not such a minor issue these days.
    >
    > That alone is enough to make me steer clear of them.
    >
    >

    I agree, but many of those "alt" tags are spacer.gifs inside <td> tags,
    another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    the better choice.

    The more I think about it, the more I would advise against this company.
    They do seem to take the easy route.
    SAZ, Feb 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Bergamot Guest

    SAZ wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> SAZ wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Most of these are missing "alt" tags, a relatively minor issue

    >>
    >> That particular error indicates that they aren't conscious of web
    >> accessibility, which is not such a minor issue these days.
    >>

    > I agree, but many of those "alt" tags are spacer.gifs inside <td> tags,


    All the more reason to avoid these guys - they're 10 years behind the
    times! :)

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Feb 9, 2008
    #6
  7. On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > the better choice.


    Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    same results... Hmmmm...
    Travis Newbury, Feb 11, 2008
    #7
  8. On Feb 8, 4:54 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:
    > I was not really impressed. Several sites in the portfolio I looked at
    > all are DW 'cookie-cutter' sites. It appears very little care is taken
    > with individuality. And they use Verdana and small font sizes.


    You know I was not all that impresses with their work technical work,
    and they are a Dreamweaver cookie cutter kind of web development
    company (this sample site is a template I have seen many times
    http://www.wahlsofwellness.com/main.htm), but, they have found their
    niche in a few vertical markets. While you may not agree with the way
    they create sites, the fact is, (based on the number of clients they
    have) they provide a service that people are happy happy with.

    If you is so sure that they believe you could do better then by all
    means jump in and contact their customers and tell them what crappy
    websites they have, and how you can get them all the def, dumb and
    blind pinball players they are currently missing. (my apologies to the
    who).

    My guess is that the customer will be laughing the whole time they are
    walking you to the door to show you the way out.

    (I use the term "you" generically, not you specifically)
    Travis Newbury, Feb 11, 2008
    #8
  9. Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 11, 10:00 pm, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    >
    > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > the better choice.

    >
    > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > same results...  Hmmmm...

    But it's actually less work you don't need to create extra images, you
    just place five or six values in to a stylesheet.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Feb 11, 2008
    #9
  10. place57 Guest

    On Feb 11, 6:28 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > > the better choice.

    > > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > > same results... Hmmmm...

    > But it's actually less work you don't need to create extra images, you
    > just place five or six values in to a stylesheet.


    I always attributed the term "lazy" with doing less work, but I do not
    disagree with you..
    place57, Feb 11, 2008
    #10
  11. Bergamot Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    >> another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    >> the better choice.

    >
    > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > same results... Hmmmm...


    Looking at the web site in question, it appears they let Dreamweaver and
    Fireworks generate all that nasty 1996-style code. It would indeed be
    extra work to learn some HTML and CSS and do a better job of it, or even
    learn how to make their tools produce better quality output.

    I hope you're not saying it's OK to do what they've done.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Feb 11, 2008
    #11
  12. Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 11, 10:58 pm, place57 <> wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 6:28 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    >
    > > wrote:
    > > > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > > > the better choice.
    > > > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > > > same results...  Hmmmm...

    > > But it's actually less work you don't need to create extra images, you
    > > just place five or six values in to a stylesheet.

    >
    > I always attributed the term "lazy" with doing less work, but I do not
    > disagree with you..


    But Travis was saying that useing CSS for the job of spaceing objects
    would be more work then the old images method. Which is simply not the
    case.
    But then again he is not a HTML + CSS developer, so what would he
    know!.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Feb 11, 2008
    #12
  13. Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 11, 11:24 pm, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    > >> another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > >> the better choice.

    >
    > > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > > same results...  Hmmmm...

    >
    > Looking at the web site in question, it appears they let Dreamweaver and
    > Fireworks generate all that nasty 1996-style code. It would indeed be
    > extra work to learn some HTML and CSS and do a better job of it, or even
    > learn how to make their tools produce better quality output.
    >
    > I hope you're not saying it's OK to do what they've done.
    >

    Umm Travis develops Video players done in Flash. So I don't think he
    has much of a clue on this issue.
    Did you not see that other thread he posted here the other week, he
    does sites for bands.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Feb 11, 2008
    #13
  14. SAZ Guest

    In article <d4ece2f6-6451-4887-b16a-6be673ca4367
    @c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, says...
    > On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <> wrote:
    > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > the better choice.

    >
    > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > same results... Hmmmm...
    >


    I think it's actually less work to use CSS.
    SAZ, Feb 11, 2008
    #14
  15. On Feb 11, 8:23 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 10:58 pm, place57 <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Feb 11, 6:28 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-

    >
    > > > wrote:
    > > > > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > > > > the better choice.
    > > > > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > > > > same results... Hmmmm...
    > > > But it's actually less work you don't need to create extra images, you
    > > > just place five or six values in to a stylesheet.

    >
    > > I always attributed the term "lazy" with doing less work, but I do not
    > > disagree with you..

    > But Travis was saying that useing CSS for the job of spaceing objects
    > would be more work then the old images method. Which is simply not the
    > case.


    No I was commenting what SAZ said:
    "I agree, but many of those "alt" tags are spacer.gifs inside <td>
    tags,
    another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would
    be
    the better choice."

    He said that the TD way was the lazy way. Lazy = less work.

    > But then again he is not a HTML + CSS developer, so what would he
    > know!.


    Your right, I am a Flash developer that knows HTML and CSS and
    understand when each is appropriate. ;-)
    Travis Newbury, Feb 12, 2008
    #15
  16. On Feb 11, 7:24 am, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > Looking at the web site in question, it appears they let Dreamweaver and
    > Fireworks generate all that nasty 1996-style code. It would indeed be
    > extra work to learn some HTML and CSS and do a better job of it, or even
    > learn how to make their tools produce better quality output.


    Dreamweaver CS3 is a huge step to creating good validating CSS code

    > I hope you're not saying it's OK to do what they've done.


    Nope not at all.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 12, 2008
    #16
  17. Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 12, 11:34 am, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Feb 11, 8:23 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > wrote:
    > > On Feb 11, 10:58 pm, place57 <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Feb 11, 6:28 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-

    >
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would be
    > > > > > > the better choice.
    > > > > > Better choice? So it is far better to do extra work to achieve the
    > > > > > same results...  Hmmmm...
    > > > > But it's actually less work you don't need to create extra images, you
    > > > > just place five or six values in to a stylesheet.

    >
    > > > I always attributed the term "lazy" with doing less work, but I do not
    > > > disagree with you..

    > > But Travis was saying that useing CSS for the job of spaceing objects
    > > would be more work then the old images method. Which is simply not the
    > > case.

    >
    > No I was commenting what SAZ said:
    > "I agree, but many of those "alt" tags are spacer.gifs inside <td>
    > tags,
    > another lazy way of achieving placement when CSS and no tables would
    > be
    > the better choice."
    >
    > He said that the TD way was the lazy way. Lazy = less work.
    >

    Yeah, I don't always agree with that, at times it is easier to just
    use a table to layout.
    Mind you I don't think it's a good idea to layout everything with
    tables.


    > > But then again he is not a HTML + CSS developer, so what would he
    > > know!.

    >
    > Your right,  I am a Flash developer that knows HTML and CSS and
    > understand when each is appropriate. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
    >

    Yeah, well that is probably a good thing.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Feb 12, 2008
    #17
  18. toolz

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    I only know about them because they sent me spam. I don't do business
    with spammers under any circumstance.
    toolz, Aug 15, 2012
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. adam

    typesafe session recomendation

    adam, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    416
    Yan-Hong Huang[MSFT]
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Ferdi Smit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    760
    Ferdi Smit
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. denish
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,587
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,582
  5. idle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    547
Loading...

Share This Page