Recommendations for Good Website Designers

[Simon]

We've been talking about this in the chatroom lately and I'm starting this thread to see if we can clear the air a little and maybe come up with a list of good site builders for those of us who want certain specific kinds of sites created for us.

First, let me be clear that what we've be talking about in chat is building sites which may contain several different sections, all under one coherent design concept. The sites may contain a Blog, a section with Galleries, another with listed Free Sites, a place for Dating, maybe a Live Cams section, a Theater, plus whatever else the webmaster may want included. I believe the term coined here some time ago was "Morphed Conglomerate."

This morning we were talking about how we often see designers posting on the board offering their services, but rarely see anything but tgp, gallery, paysite and banner designs in their portfolio samples. Never anything to show that a site like what I mentioned above is something they've ever done successfully.

Also, too many designers seem to still be using Tables in their layouts and don't seem to have a good grasp on why they should have moved away from doing that a long time ago. A lot of designs we've all looked at may seem okay at first glance but are really poorly coded, besides showing a complete lack of knowledge of how CSS can be used to replace tables and add various Human Interface enhancements to ease navigation and improve the surfers' experience on the site.

So what I'd like to see in this thread are recommendations from other webmasters who are happy with the work some designer/site builders have done for them. I'm not interested in whether the designer can make good banners, or galleries, or build paysite tours. I'm looking for those who can come up with or take a basic concept we give them and execute a design which is consistant across an entire site which has multiple, and different, sections of the kinds I mentioned in the second paragraph above.

Also, they must be able to do it using cross-browser and cross-platform compatible layouts using CSS, with no tables and no out-of-date coding. My personall preference is that they be able to code the entire site to the XHTML Strict doctype, but XHTML Transitional would be okay.

I mentioned when I started this post that we've talked about this in the chatroom recently, but I want to mention that this is not just for conversation for some of us. Several webmasters are interested in hiring someone to build sites like this right now, and personally I need more than a few of them built for some older domains that it's time to bring out of mothballs and for some sites which need makeovers.

I know we have a few good designers among the regulars on this board but I'm not going to mention anyone in this first post even though I've used them and been happy with their work in the past because I want to solicit feedback from others and not have this post seem like I made it in order to promote a couple of good designers I've used myself. So please do post information about any designers you've used or know about who can do projects like this.




P.S. If you're a designer yourself and want to post in this thread that *you* can do this, please be prepared to post or supply some examples which demonstrate the truth of your statement.

[Cleo]

As someone that still uses tables what is the big deal about still using tables?

I just find tables so much easier to use then containers but then again I haven't really tried to use containers.

[Simon]

As someone that still uses tables what is the big deal about still using tables?

Well, tables were never designed to be used as they have been for years. I used them myself for a long time because there wasn't really another good way to do things. Still have plenty of sites using them. But I would never, ever, pay someone to build something for me if they wanted to use them.

The time has come to move on to better way to design things. Some of the table attributes have been deprecated since HTML 4.01 (align and bgcolor for example) and are not supported at all in the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. Plus there are ways to use CSS positioning that really helps with Search Engines since you can stick all the important content at the top of your source code where you may want it, and use CSS to make it appear wherever you want to the surfers.

If anyone wants to use tables in their own work it's sure no skin of my nose (or any sensitive other places) so let's say it's a personal preference of mine to want to use designers who stay at the cutting edge of their profession and therefore are very comfortable using XHTML and CSS to create their sites and pages.

Also, that's what we've been discussing in chat. No one wants to pay for old-style table designs per our conversations there.





No more tables for layout

Why Tables Are Bad For Layout

[MadCat]

Originally Posted by Cleo

As someone that still uses tables what is the big deal about still using tables?

I just find tables so much easier to use then containers but then again I haven't really tried to use containers.

The thing with the HTML doctypes is that using tables puts browsers in "Quirks" rendering mode, where you get to deal with all the little differences between IE and Firefox. Using XHTML Strict basically enforces a standards compliant mode of rendering, which makes a site (theoretically still, mind you) look the same across all browsers.

There is also some speculation that sites using xhtml strict get a slightly higher ranking off search engines but I'm still calling bunk on that one.

Anyway, using tables for layout at this point in time is also not in your best interest due to the way tables are often rendered (slowly), and nested tables can seriously hang a browser for a few seconds which means that the surfer might just close the window and go "eh fuck it".

So, say, you have a table layout for galleries, 5 columns, 4 rows for a total of 20 pics. To put that in xhtml strict, first we need some styles:

#gallery {
  width: 800px;
  margin: 0px;
  padding: 0px;
}

#gallery div.row {
  clear: both;
}

#gallery div.image {
  width: 150px;
  padding: 10px;
  float: left;
  position: relative;
}

#gallery div.image img {
  border: 0;
}

.clear {
  clear: both;
}

And then here's your layout:

<div id="gallery">
  <div id="row1" class="row">
    <div id="image1" class="image">
      <a href="/image.jpg"><img src="/image_thumb.jpg" /></a>
    </div>
     .
     .
     .
     .
  </div>
  <div id="row2" class="row">
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
  </div>
</div>

It will come out looking more or less like your average old table layout, but renders fast, and from a size perspective, your page becomes a couple bytes smaller

Caveat: It should look the same as your table layout but I'm doing this from memory so it might not look right

[J. Falcon - ACW]

The guy who made my newest site is pretty good. He has done all my sites and I plan to continue using him. If anyone is interested I can give you his contact info.

[HarryM]

Originally Posted by MadCat

There is also some speculation that sites using xhtml strict get a slightly higher ranking off search engines but I'm still calling bunk on that one.

haha, wouldn't that be nice... hey at least it would weed out a lot of the shit out there.

[Simon]

There is also some speculation that sites using xhtml strict get a slightly higher ranking off search engines but I'm still calling bunk on that one.

One of the reasons I want some sites coded to xhtml strict standards is to test some things out about that myself. I've heard the speculation, some from good sources, that even though it may not do much for rankings just yet, there may be a time not too far in the future when strict adherence to xhtml code standards will be taken into account.

You just have to look at how many adult sites are 'coded like it's 1999' (appropriate apologies to Prince (glad he changed his name back or I couldn't have written that) to see how a change in ranking based on something like that could really shake things up.

But really, who knows? All I know is that there are more than a few webmasters looking to spend money getting sites coded that way.

[MadCat]

The thing is that using xhtml also means you've got much better control over page layout, and you can use the same page design with a different stylesheet to still render it on a mobile, or for print.

Added benefits are also the fact that a lot of nice UI enhancements can be done with javascript and so on; ajax-based image browsers, etc.

That stuff tends to not work right when in quirks mode

[urb]

Funnily enough, I'm a designer....

I can work either way, with tables or css, or both. It depends on the job. It's like, do you use .html or .php extensions on your pages, I think a little variety covers all bases.

I've tested both table sites and css sites on Google and the sites complying with xhtml do a little better, but it's not a majorly significant edge. There are far too many other factors involved.



My main concern is making sure sites work cross platform. But it's only recently that I've seriously looked into dropping tables... perhaps because it's trendy?

"Coded like it's 1999"

I think more people should test sites using IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc... the browsers are the main yardstick.

[LD]

Even if you use css, aren't there still instances where you would use tables? When I build freesites I still use a table for my recips because it seems to me it's tabular data which is handled best by tables. Is completely tableless design preferable?

[Simon]

I'm really hoping we can turn this thread back around to its original intention. Which was to get people to recommend good designers (like Urb ... hiya ) who some of us could use to develop websites coded to XHTML specs using CSS and no table layouts.

Everyone is of course free to use or not use tables to their heart's content, and if someone likes to use them for recip links instead of doing them with CSS positioning it's fine by me. But please, let's stop discussing why or where we can or might use tables or why they're good or bad to use for one thing or another. (And no, recips are not tabular data, and can easily be coded without using tables.)

Maybe we can create a separate thread to discuss the benefits of using tables versus not using them, because otherwise this is like discussing why someone doesn't agree with some Link List's rules but still wants to submit there. In this case the rules are simple: no more tables and no more ancient/legacy code in any of the new website projects which some of us would like to pay someone to build for us.

Now... does anyone have a recommendation for other good designers who build sites to XHTML (strict) standards, or are designers like that as rare in the adult biz as it seems at times?

[urb]

Hello Simon

[MadCat]

Sorry for the thread hijack Simon, I seem to be in a bit of a hijacking mode recently :/

Anyway, I used to work with a fellow that was pretty much on top of his game but I can't locate him anymore, I'll try and find his details and post em

[Simon]

Hiya Urb

And no worries, MadCat... I kind of expected it to go off-track for awhile anyway. Just something that always happens in web standards discussions. (Or talking about any rules really.)

[ali25extreme]

Are you looking to hire someone for your company full time or what? sorry just a wee bit confused.

[Simon]

Are you looking to hire someone for your company full time or what? sorry just a wee bit confused.

No, we're not looking to hire someone full-time to do this, at least not at this point or in this thread. I'd have written a very different post if I was looking to hire someone for a full-time salaried position.

The intention of this thread is simply to come up with a list of recommended website builders who are capable of coding pages and sites to the latest web standards so that various other webmasters here will know who we can use as needed on a per-project basis to build sites we'd like created for us.

I hope that helps clear up any confusion.

Now... any more recommendations from anyone out there?





.

[Mr. Blue]

I've never used this designer personally, but I do remember that he does css designs as he posts a bit on GFY. LumpyImages.com - again I can't recommend him personally but I'm pretty sure he does css / tableless designs.

[NY Jester]

I do all my own designs. But Im not moved up to CSS only design. But as far as ranking..I can say that picstable.com is #2 on Yahoo and #9 on Google for the main Keyword Phrase I targeted and Ive only been live for 2 weeks. I'd be interested in knowing the resuolts as well. And as far as designers other than myself.

Lumpyimages.com
bluedesignstudios.com
zuzanadesigns.com

[Simon]

Mr Blue - thanks

NYJ - I see you had Blue's suggestion on your list too. I'll be checking out those three.

On the ranking idea, again that would make for a good separate thread, which you can start if you want by quoting me saying that I'm interested in strict xhtml/css layouts for two reasons. One: not everyone can do them. Two: I believe there will be real advantages to having your pages built that way in the future so I'm investing that way.

Okay .. so... any more recommendations?

[NY Jester]

Simon, all good. I think what makes the adult community so diverse is the fact that there's as many opinions as there are webmasters Which I believe helps generate progress.

[LeRoy]

Hi Simon,

I'm a table guy but after reading your post. I need to learn and start to implement css table less coding. My sites and network would run better too.

Have you looked at Dickmans Design?I have heard and have read good things. I read some things about css and table less coding. on his site that might be right up your alley.

Hope this helps. Nice thread

[Fonz]

I've been quite pleased with the work http://www.adultdesignevolution.com/ has done for me so far.

[annie_cash]

I do my own designs. My best example using CSS is creamysites.com

[Simon]

Thanks, LeRoy ... yep, I know the Dickmans ... kind of like The Ramones except everyone's a Dickman.

Fonz - Thanks, I'll take a look... and may hit you up to see what they did.

Annie ... I like the new version of creamysites.com (and those customized logos you have on some of the pages-- good idea ).

I wish I had the time to do everything I want to do myself, but I've given up on that dream. That's one of the reasons for this thread. We were kicking around various ideas we don't have time to do ourselves in the chatroom and more than a few of us agreed we'd pay someone to execute a few designs for us if we knew for sure who was a good designer/site builder who could code to the current/future standards we'd like to see used.

Some good recommendations received so far, including the folks who didn't want to out themselves in this thread.

Please do keep them coming.

[SirMoby]

These guys just did http://honeyschool.com/ for me and the code is really clean with some nice design features. Talk to Andrew at Blue Design Studios http://www.bluedesignstudios.com/ as I think he and his staff and designing for the next generation.