Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Books Media Programming Book Reviews IT Technology

Web Design on a Shoestring 214

Posted by timothy from the buffet-shops-cheap-though dept.
charliedickinson writes "Web Design on a Shoestring offers the premise that modest budgets for Web development can pay off in focused, uncluttered, appealing Web sites. Author Carrie Bickner, who took on Web development with a professional background as a librarian (she is now Assistant Director for Digital Information and System Design at The New York Public Library), eschews the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of Web page crafting for a comprehensive overview of 'project management, usability, design, copywriting, hosting, and post-launch maintenance.'" Read on for the rest of Dickinson's review.
Web Design on a Shoestring
author Carrie Bickner
pages 220
publisher New Riders Publishing
rating 6
reviewer Charlie Dickinson
ISBN 0735713286
summary A broad offering of tips on how to create and maintain a Website with limited resources.

Bickner defines the audience for this book with four brief portraits of hypothetical individuals, all of whom need Web sites in a fairly low-key, resource-poor way. That is, something from the Web equivalent of an entrepreneur's business card to a non-profit organization's Web site. Although Bickner is apt to invoke "we Web professionals," this book is not really appropriate to Web creatives-for-hire (who would be better advised to seek out clients with the wherewithal to ask for something original, cool, and spendy). This book's broad scope is better suited to those with a more casual interest in Web sites, or those who have added Webmastering to other job responsibilities.

But the more I read, the more I was convinced Bickner's shoestring design theory went beyond financially embarrassed budgets. In a spirit of inquiry, I looked at two Web sites where skimpy budgets should not apply. Namely, the world's two richest persons and their employers. Microsoft's Web page is a well-wrought, complex assemblage of linked pages (though the splash page's security download du jour fairly shouts subtext). In contrast, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway's Web site is possibly more shoestring than even Bickner would advocate. The point being, even when the financial resources are bountiful, one can always, as Bickner says, "dare to do less."

One first impression of Web Design on a Shoestring is its excellent organization, an attribute librarians assume with famous pride (working in a library -- though not as a degreed librarian -- I've observed the species up close). Each chapter begins with a checklist preview. The text has ample sidebars covering budget gotchas ("Budget Threat"), saving opportunities ("Spinning Straw into Gold"), and special definitions. Plenty of screen shots (mostly from Mac OS X) and code listings visually support topics under discussion.

After the intro and first chapter set out the book's scope, Chapter Two, "The Pound Wise Project Plan," tackles how one might spec out a Web site project. This is the analytical, well-organized approach: a goal list, plus written documents for functional requirements and technical requirements. "Brainstorming," inspiration, playing with what a Web site might look like -- that's probably for another book, another author. In a book titled Web Design on a Shoestring, though, I did expect some definition, in real dollar ranges, of what constitutes a "shoestring budget."

Chapter Three, "Usability on the Cheap," is a once-over-lightly of several arguments made earlier in Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think! One of the themes in this book, accessibility, comes naturally to librarians, who work in the public arena. Bickner offers brief, informed comments about how page navigation can work sans mouse and sans Java.

Chapters Four and Five are key to any Web site creation: copy and graphics, respectively. For the supposed target audience, I wanted to see a tutorial approach, but the book's ambitious scope appears to preclude anything other than summary discussion. "Why Good Copy Counts" covers writing style, appropriate voice, plus the need to chunk and headline text. Bickner correctly claims words are a powerful tool for elevating the status of a low-budget site. On words alone, the playing field among Web site creators is level. Moreover, words -- in digital format -- need minimal computing resources compared to other tasks like image processing.

The next chapter, "The Design: Looking Good With Less," continues with the basics of font selection and usage, the advisability of using Cascading Style Sheets for fonts and colors, and some tips on keeping graphics and artwork affordable. When it came to image editors, I thought Bickner's command to buy Adobe Photoshop (or the alternative Macromedia Fireworks) arguable: "... in the case of image editors, I am not going to suggest an inexpensive alternative; spend the money. If you skimp on image editors, your site will suffer."

Even a year before Web Design on a Shoestring's publication date, Adobe Photoshop Elements was available. I run Elements on a Windows partition--reputedly eighty-percent of the functionality of the professional version at a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, no mention is given to the open-source and cross-platform GIMP (which should not be ignored, given the shoestring premise). A major flaw of this book, for this reviewer, was the relative lack of dollar-based data to bring alive the shoestring strategy -- I need more than pictures of shoelaces to get in the spirit.

But Bickner warms up to open-source software in Chapter 7, the second longest chapter in the book. "Content Management on a Tight Budget," left me wondering, though, whether the book's audience had morphed. Yes, Content-Management Systems (CMS) have benefits, especially for concurrent authoring and version control, but I don't see individuals putting together Web sites on a shoestring budget worrying such issues. I'd speculate discussions of such CMS as Zope (Bickner uses Zope for one of her sites) had more to do with her work at keeping Web sites functional at NYPL than identifiable needs of the target audience proposed in the book's intro.

Chapter 8, the longest chapter, "Save Money and Time with Web Standards," is a fairly predictable plea for contemporary coding conventions to separate structure and presentation with XHTML and CSS. Evidently, Ms. Bickner has a personal interest in this advocacy. As she notes in the last paragraph of the chapter, "Jeffrey Zeldman is my personal favorite web standards evangelist ... his book Designing with Web Standards fills in where this chapter leaves off. I know that because as I write this book, he is sitting behind me writing his book. We don't get out much."

The last chapter, "Bang-for-Your-Buck Hosting and Domains," is a caveat emptor about finding a satisfactory host to serve up the newly created shoestring Web site. Predictably, low-ball rates do not guarantee long-term happiness.

At book's end, I concluded Web Design on a Shoestring's intriguing premise and ambitious scope made for good intentions. But the execution (spotty and thin discussions, with a paucity of dollar-based illustrative data) did not add up to a $24.99 recommended buy. (A library loan, maybe.)

If one really wants to design a Web site on a shoestring, go for the rifle, not the shotgun. Pick up Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think! for usability and any book, new or used, by Robin Williams for Web design. I vouch for Krug and Williams because any page of their books shows the understanding and passion of a person in their gift. Reading these books generates enthusiasm the DIYer on a shoestring must have.

In contrast, rewards of reading Bickner often turn out to be, I hope, unintentional. The "easter egg" of reading Ms. Bickner's home address and home phone number in a screenshot figure showing Zope metadata. A "Definition: UNIX and Linux" I'm tempted to e-mail Richard Stallman. But it was the final paragraph that gave Web Design on a Shoestring a sweet finish:

"Shoestring design is not for the rich and famous, although shoestring designers have occasionally spun straw into gold and low-budget sites into fame and fortune. It is also not for the unmotivated or the easily discouraged. But if you keep at it, you will grow creatively and professionally in ways you never imagined. And that is something no amount of money can buy. See you in the discount rack!"

I trust Warren Buffett will never read these words.

Before joining Multnomah County Library, reviewer Charlie Dickinson was a technical writer for a publications group at Intel and elsewhere. His Web sites are "stories & more", first hatched in 1998; and "An American in Yaris" , a fledgling work-in-progress. You can purchase Web Design on a Shoestring from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Design on a Shoestring More

Web Design on a Shoestring

Comments Filter:
  • Does this mean that 1 line webpages will become populour?

  • In my opinion (Score:5, Informative)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:02PM (#11692762) Journal
    The most important thing you need to realize about a website is the color scheme. Website layouts are easy to make (use CSS to help save your life in the future)...but coming out with eye appealing colors is so key. We want it to be original so we avoid colors like white, but we don't want it to hurt/offend the eyes.

    • Re:In my opinion (Score:5, Funny)

      by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:04PM (#11692791) Journal
      We want it to be original so we avoid colors like white, but we don't want it to hurt/offend the eyes.

      Obviously, Slasdhdot did not consult you before creating this. [slashdot.org]

      • Shame on them, shame on them :D

        Nothing is wrong with using white, I just find that when I design web pages I try and avoid the white background - why? Because so many people use it...Maybe a cream color? I think /. is a great layout (except that one time they put the god awful puke/beige color I believe it was). I like the green/blue layout schemas :D
        • except that one time they put the god awful puke/beige color

          Sounds like you didn't click on my link. :)


        • What the heck are you talking about? Your own website has a placeholder page for crying out loud!

          Besides, websites are the scorge of the software industry. The Internet would be much more useful if less time was spent trying to differentiate brands and more time was spent making similar functions, such as store locators, online purchasing and information catalogs more consistent.

          • Actually, my personal/business web page should be pretty much down. I was in the process of moving to another ISP but have been to busy to complete the process. If you want a sample of my work, ne-eye.com and afaeh.org are site' that i designed. The afaeh.org does is not complete due to the owners not providing me the data that I need.

            One thing I know many people to do in the past - while they offer great looking sites to their customers, they do a half-assed job on their own sites for whatever reason.
            • while they offer great looking sites to their customers, they do a half-assed job on their own sites for whatever reason.

              The cobbler's children never have shoes.

              • Did you look at the "great looking sites" he identified? The cobbler's clients don't have shoes either.

                It's a sad day for graphics design. Heh.
        • Apart from the web, almost all of the written word in existence is in black on white. It's easiest on the eyes.

          If you really must be different for the sake of being different, please try to stick with extremely high-contrast colors (like black on off-white, or white on black).

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Nor this [slashdot.org].

    • Re:In my opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kainaw ( 676073 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:12PM (#11692875) Homepage Journal
      The most important thing you need to realize about a website is the color scheme.

      I think this should, at most, be second most important. The most important part of any website is the content. With a long history of web design, the most troubling issue is trying to get content out of the clients. They worry about color, logos, font size, on and on. After a year, all I can get is a pretty page that says "Content will go here when the client pulls their heads out of their asses."

      Another problem is having print-advertisers involved in the design. In print advertising, it is very important to catch the browser's eye. Be it a bulletin board or magazine ad, you want to get attention. On the web, people don't walk or drive past random websites. They do some sort of action that makes a website appear. Once they type in a URL or click on a google link, they want content. They don't want a 15 minute flash intro that makes the advertising department all hot and wet. So, again, the top priority is content.

      • Re:In my opinion (Score:5, Informative)

        by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:25PM (#11693028) Journal
        The last webpage i designed. I had one brochure and was asked to design it. The site is up (i am not 100% happy with it) and they are giving the site information out (they seem to be happy with it), but the actual data is not complete (it's liking pulling hairs from a dolphin).

        Yea content is key (thats the point of the site). I love flash, i hate waiting for some insane flash page that just says "loading"....Flash can be done in great ways - most people botch it up - so I agree it can suck...i think design is the most important. If someone makes a poor looking web page, people won't even bother to give the information a fair shake.

        Lets make a black background with forest green text ;)
        • Black background and green text (any flavour of green, especially lime) should be made illegal.

          The only thing worse is when people use Times New Roman with the wonderful colours of red, blue, yellow and lime green. (Mix and match background and text) then get their granny to go "ooh very nice dear" and they call it their homepage.

      • Re:In my opinion (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:45PM (#11693247) Homepage Journal
        The most important part of any website is the content.

        While I'm generally with you, I'm not sure you can make that generalization with perfect confidence. Playing devils advocate, I can think of non-trivial counterexamples.

        For example, you are a small business on the web, let's say you're a health club. Chances are you are not all that interested in running a free excercise and nutrition service. You want to accomplish two things:

        (1) Get the user excited about your business.
        (2) Give the user your location and phone.

        OK, arguably item two is content, but you aren't going to spend a lot of time wondering what they should be. You are going to give quite a bit more thought to the impression that you give.

        Furthermore, the rubric "content" may be too broad, containing qualitatively different things. For example, I'm a business selling some product over the Internet. Now maybe I want to put all kinds of support information about my products on my web site. But it might not be my highest priority. My highest priority might be to make it convenient and easy to locate the item you want and order it from my on-line store. This, I guess, is "content-y", but really it's equally if not more a matter of good organization.
        • You are correct. As with most /. posts, I was being overly brief. Content is different for different businesses. A health club needs to make it quickly obvious what services they have and how to get to their club. Online sales need to get the products to the forefront. I used that in my last website design [hungryhedgehog.com]. I put the cart and products right up front and all the other 'useful but not necessary' stuff behind links.
        • You wouldn't believe how many small businesses *fail* to include rudimentary info like that. Sometimes they even have sites that obviously took several man-weeks if not man-months to "design" but for example:
          • Don't list a email-adress or contact-form anywhere.
          • Fail to give their phone-numer or adress.
          • Are a swimming-hall but forget to mention their opening hours (probably the no-1 fact people want to know)
          • Present some product but fail to mention what it costs, OR how to order it.

          Sure. A small site doe


    • I don't remember being overwhelmed by the cries of "why didn't they print this book on coloured paper, white paper is so old" when I visit the bookshop.

    • A good color scheme is nice, but how does it become "the most important thing"? What about actual content? Ease of use? Good organization? These all deserve more attention than your color scheme.

      Heard of Google? They managed to attract one or two users wihout any color scheme at all.

      It's almost offtopic, but I can't resist mentioning Bruce Lawson's supremely ugly CSS skin, Geocities 1996 [brucelawson.co.uk]. Unfortunately, Firefox is unable to manage the more epilepsy-inducing effects. Soo much for browser independence!

      • I wanted to do that as well and call it the "1995" skin. Instead I just did this: FD1995 [fantasticdamage.com]. I think most good web page design is a mix between knowledge of organization / spacing / interface, good coding, good visual design. Most people are good at one, if any.
  • I wonder if these guys [shoestringwebs.com] read the book...

  • New York (Score:3, Funny)

    by stupidfoo ( 836212 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:04PM (#11692784)
    Why does a a state need a Assistant Director for Digital Information and System Design for their library system?
    • I guess I was wrong, the NY Public Library is for New York City [nypl.org]

      And people wonder why the city of NY has a government 1/7th the size of the federal government...

      • Re:New York (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        We have 8 million people, and since we all live in close proximity to each other, we understand the need for good public services. Some quick facts about the NYPL:

        - over 49 million items in 4 research libraries and 85 branch libraries
        - 74% of funding is from government; they get the other 26% from contributions, endowment, etc.
        - 15 million visitors/year
        http://www.nypl.org/pr/objects/pdf/2003nyplfacts.p df [nypl.org]

        They need an assistant director for digital stuff, among their 3000+ employees, because their websi
    • Maybe because the Director for Digital Information and System Design was so busy that she needed an assistant?

  • Easy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:04PM (#11692789)
    Find a site you like (there are literally millions to choose from.)

    Copy the html.

    Change the content to match your company.

    Bingo....cheap website.

    • Re:Easy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:06PM (#11692803) Journal
      until someone finds out and sues you for copying their code, layout, etc.

      And yes some company (I wont name) copied my companies site (even the text word for word)... once we found out, their site was taken down on pain of lawyers.

      • Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b17bmbr ( 608864 )
        while one cannot "steal" graphics, it would be hard to argue that copying someone's .css file, or a bunch of nested tables, considering that the source is a click away, is copyright infringement. obviously, one could argue, what's it called, brand dilution, if i set up a site called ebey.com and copied the general layout and functionality. but that's different. i someone took layout from one of my sites, hell, i'd be flattered. i'd think it would be quite difficult to trademark html. and,considering th

    • Re:Easy (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Even easier: use a template from FrontPage. Your site will look professional and it will help you attract a lot of business.
      • And will look just like all those other FP template sites :-)

        Plus if your web "designer" is lazy enough to do that, then chances are they are going to be pretty crap at creating a site more complex than a brochure.

    • Re:Easy (Score:5, Funny)

      by mu-sly ( 632550 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:11PM (#11692870) Homepage Journal

      Find a site you like (there are literally millions to choose from.)
      Copy the html.
      Change the content to match your company.
      Bingo....cheap website.

      You forgot:

      ...Find yourself humiliated on Pirated Sites [pirated-sites.com]

      • Of course, some of those sites could simply be multiple companies purchasing the same cheap web template.

    • Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cham31e0n ( 746424 )

      I seriously hope you're kidding. It's easy, and it's incredibly tempting. Some people might even be impressed by "your" handiwork. Then the person or company you ripped off will find out eventually. If they're a large corporation, they may send a pack of bloodthirsty intellectual property lawyers your way. Even if you get away with as little as a cease-and-desist order, you're going to wind up having to re-do your site, probably at great expense, unless you want to take your chances and copy another one. Yo

      • Re:Easy (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Neil Blender ( 555885 )
        I was joking but given the paradigms embraced here at Slashdot, I am not surprised that it was modded both insightful and interesting.
    • Or just goto to one many template sites [templatemonster.com] and buy a template for $20 to $80. Drop your content in and your done. For dynamic driven content, grab nuke portal [phpnuke.org] software. You can easily have full operating website in a weekend sans content of course.
    • Well that is neither legal nor moral. I'd recomend that they learn HTML [w3schools.com] and CSS online instead. [w3schools.com]

      Cost: none.
    • I find your suggestion reprehensible... nobody ever copies another's sacred layout on the web.

      Just use this very clean looking search page from Yahoo and just try and find too web pages that look remotely similar: http://search.yahoo.com/

    • As someone who can appreciate, but for some reason finds it really challenging to create visually pleasing layouts, I find OSWD [oswd.org] a real life saver.

      All most ask is if you use their design, let 'em know.

      • The irony is that the featured templates on http://www.oswd.org [oswd.org] are the exact same as the featured templates on http://www.templatemonster.com/ [templatemonster.com]

        lol speaking of copying sites... At first I thought "well maybe that these sites were submitted by the same user to multiple sites". Then I thought " What are the odds that the featured templates appear the same on both sites?"

        Do I smell a conspiracy, or do I have my ass hat on?
        • Your ass hat is on too tight, it's restricting blood flow to your brain =P The premium templates are in fact, resold through templatemonter.com. See our tesitmonial on templatemonster. [templatemonster.com] The premium designs section takes care of hosting costs, and actually helps people when they can't find the right free design.

          What you skipped over is the 1001 FREE templates. Totally free public domain templates. The entire front page is dedicated to the free designs. The Browse, Search, Design Or Not, etc. are all free des

  • Cheap Site (Score:5, Informative)

    by Space_Soldier ( 628825 ) <not4_u@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:08PM (#11692833)
    Step one to creating a cheap web site is to to not buy useless web books. All you need to know is on the web. Start with A List Apart [alistapart.com].

    • Re:Cheap Site (Score:5, Informative)

      by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:16PM (#11692910) Homepage Journal
      Yup, that and http://htmlhelp.com [htmlhelp.com].

    • Re:Cheap Site (Score:5, Insightful)

      by renderhead ( 206057 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:28PM (#11693066)
      Just because you can find the information on the web doesn't mean that's the best way to get it for everybody. A book is a good way to present information in an organized and always-accessible way.

      Books also do something that almost all websites (including ALA) lack: information presented in the order in which it's easiest to learn. I use ALA all the time. It's a great reference, but that's what it's for - reference. Learning something from scratch is a lot harder when you have to glean your knowledge from sites that have unclear assumptions about your existing skills, or if you are unfamiliar enough with the subject that you don't know what to search for.
      • While learning from references might seem hard at first, I find that references are better because you remember your mistakes and accomplishes and learn faster than following HelloWorld1, HelloWorld2, etc. that an author presents in a book. I guarantee you that you will learn better and faster writing your own code from references than memorizing examples found in books. I tried books and found that they are a waste a money.

      • The big advantages of books (Score:5, Informative)

        by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:46PM (#11693265) Homepage Journal
        For me the biggest advantage is that books eliminate annoyances.

        I can have the book out next to me (and if it's perfect-bound like O'Reilly's books, they'll generally flat when opened) and I don't have to devote screen space to a website. I often find that even when referring to ALA or other sites, I'll print out the article and keep the hard copy next to my keyboard, so that my screen doesn't get too cluttered.

        For some people, keeping a bunch of windows open and cycling through them is easy, but I find that a bit overwhelming and certainly distracting. Also, reading dense information on screen for a protracted period of time is simply more difficult.

        Books provide easily accessed information that I can read anywhere (on the bus, in the waiting room at the dentist's office, and so on), whether I'm online or not. I find this particularly important because there are times when I want to *not* be jacked in, but I still want to absorb information having to do with development.

        The great thing about the profusion of websites and books is that they offer choice. Get what you need for this project from a website, and get what you need for the next project from a book. Whatever works is good.

    • A List Apart is a terrific site, if you're already familiar with HTML, CSS, and perhaps some JavaScript.

      As a resource for the novice user, however... no way. Uh uh. Heck, their motto is "For people who make websites," plural, which isn't likely to be an apt description of the target audience for this book.

      Don't Make Me Think [amazon.com], mentioned elsewhere in the review: good, but Joe Shmoe who just wants to get his site up and running isn't likely to read a whole book on usability. A better choice might be Web [amazon.com]
    • But you do appreciate the irony, don't you? All those people out there selling their web expertise, but not using the web to dispense it?
    • Buy? Surely everyone's planning to get it out from the library...

  • What stick do you bang with? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:17PM (#11692920)

    FTFA: "eschews the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of Web page crafting for a comprehensive overview of 'project management..." yadida...

    All well and fine. And I agree with the (book) author's general approach to things. But I don't see any treatment of the question that often makes projects unmanageable--namely, what will you and your neophyte web designers use to code the site?

    The usual answer is the worst answer. Front Page, because it's there.

    Dreamweaver and its kin can turn out nicer stuff, but there's a steeper curve to be learned.

    Best of all is hand-coding, which brings us back to the regrettably eschewed nuts and bolts. Learning curve: steeper still.

    Shoestrings are great, sometimes. And sometimes, you'd be better off investing in a decent pair of boots up front.

  • Define "success"... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:19PM (#11692945)
    Both Microsoft and Berkshire-Hathaway have websites that achieve their company's goals effectively.

    Berkshire-Hathaway wants to make vital and basic information about the company easy to find on its website. It succeeds.

    Microsoft wants to make vital and basic information about the company hard to find on its website. It, too, succeeds.

  • Content Content Content (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:21PM (#11692977) Homepage
    I've always been of the philosophy that content is what makes a website. Yes, usability comes in, as well as visual appeal and all that wonderful stuff. However, if you don't have content (and purpose), any amount of eyecandy fluff isn't going to save you.

    I've also always thought that web development/design is a service industry that for a long time have overcharged for what they do. (web devs, hear me out here before you tune out)

    I'm not some artsy guy who can do killer tricks with photoshop...but for the most part, a lot of web stuff is fairly simple to do. Thus I've thought that rates for web work were waaay high.

    Then I worked with the clueless. Folks who ask for a design, then change spec in the end. After a redesign, they want another a week later. People who, after you show them your detailed design document with goals and other specifics, suddenly get amnesia a meeting or two later. It's people like those who tend to drive costs up.

    Don't get me wrong -- I try to clue them in. I'd walk them through the design process and stuff but they don't care for it. I present plans that they sign off on, and they don't care or forget they even agree to it. Then they complain when they find out it's going to cost more.

    Other clients who send electronic versions of copy and images, ask for changes well in advance, and overall request (and respect) rather than obnoxiously demand are a pleasure to work with.

    Shoestring budgets? That's easy enough to work with. Whatever "shoestring" means to you. Being a nightmare client, on the other hand, will eventually cost more. Not necessarily due to being a nightmare, but the extra hours of undoing plans, reimplementing changed specs, etc. will definitely add up.
    • Content is important (it's usually the downfall of a brochure site project). But you usually get what you pay for.

      If you want a content-rich website with poor design, you can get that for cheap. And design itself does count for something. Potential customers see your design as reflective of your company - and a poor design (especially when your competitor has a great site) reflects poorly. It's a first impression.

      There are other things that drive up that cost when you hire someone with the experience, kno

  • Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stick_Fig ( 740331 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:25PM (#11693030) Homepage
    Is it a good sign for the author that her page was showing a bunch of garbage when I loaded it?

  • Funny coincidence... (Score:4, Informative)

    by DudeAbides ( 694172 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:29PM (#11693079)
    that Carrie Bickner happens to be the wife of Jeffery Zeldman [zeldman.com]. It's also funny that NYPL happens to be his biggest client. For more examples of her writing, check out her articles on A List Apart [alistapart.com]

  • I use Dreamweaver 2004 which is... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Harry Balls ( 799916 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:30PM (#11693087)
    ...well worth the 400 bucks or so it costs.

    A big monitor helps.
    You basically see two views of your website:
    The HTML code and a "real world" view.
    You can make changes in both views and the other view will be updated accordingly.
    400 bucks sounds like a lot, but think of it in terms of time saved, not of money spent.

    Highly recommended.

    No, I'm not affiliated with Macromedia in any way - I just have a small web-based business and created the website myself.

    • Save $400. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You basically see two views of your website: The HTML code and a "real world" view. You can make changes in both views and the other view will be updated accordingly.

      Why not go the even cheaper route?

      • Open HTML code in one window.
      • Open web browser in other window.
      • While changes are to be made:
        • Change HTML code.
        • Click "refresh" in browser.
      • Enjoy website.

      Saves you $400...

    • wow $400 for a web browser and text editor, thats more than my computer cost me !!

    • Re:I use Dreamweaver 2004 which is... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @05:27PM (#11693717) Homepage
      I do pretty much the same thing, but I use Amaya. That gives me a WSYWYG window and, if needed, I can open another window and "view structure." I can edit in either, and see the changes in both. If I really need to enter codes by hand, I can open the source in a text editor, make the changes, save, then reload the page in Amaya. Nice, simple, easy to uses. And the best thing is, it's free from the W3C consortium.
    • I loathe dreamweaver, but I use it because it's Sites feature makes it easy to keep things synced across multiple servers and my local machine.

      If someone could make a sites application that, after you defined the locations to keep synced, would keep them that way, uploading automatically on a save, I would be very grateful. Editing code in Dreamweaver is torture.

  • Talk about a coincidence.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by XorNand ( 517466 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:31PM (#11693095)

    I'm a technology generalist who pays my bills by providing services on a contractual basis to small bizs. Occasionaly this entails web design.

    Talk about a coincidence... I clicked over to /. while I was waiting for my order at templatemonster.com [templatemonster.com] to process. I was vaugly aware of the sites like this, but never really looked at the templates until yesterday. They offer full, very professional website templates for download for only around $60(!). I'll never design a website for a client from scratch again.



    (Disclaimer: The URL above includes my affliate ID, but isn't my reason for posting.)
    • Wouldn't this make you more of a Web Facilitator rather than a Web Designer? I have nothing against it, but I was wondering about this as well in relation to clients, etc. I guess the ultimate goal is to provide our clients with what they want, no matter what the means.
      • Eh, yeah, I know what you're saying... I kinda feel a bit weird about it. But I just spent three weeks designing a (small-ish) site from scratch. Clients never trully understand the amount of work that goes into creating a truly professional site. (Thank God for Change Orders though) They want it on the cheap AND to look sharp. If I can use templates to offer them a bit of both, and they're happy, then we both win.
        • Yes. I was looking at http://oswd.org/ [oswd.org] last night and saw some interesting templates for use with a current client. I also feel weird about it. But time is money and if I can meet both our goals in a fast manner, everyone wins. Not to mention, it's not like I would use the site exactly as is.

    • Re:Talk about a coincidence.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Quixote ( 154172 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:47PM (#11693275) Homepage Journal
      (Disclaimer: The URL above includes my affliate ID, but isn't my reason for posting.)

      Then why include it? It would have taken less time to edit it out, than to add the disclaimer.

    • Talk about a coincidence... I clicked over to /. while I was waiting for my order at templatemonster.com to process. I was vaugly aware of the sites like this, but never really looked at the templates until yesterday. They offer full, very professional website templates

      I just had a look at their code. Their website isn't even valid. They use proprietary element types and attributes, they miss off important accessibility hints like alt attributes, they include a number of mistakes in their CSS that o

      • Well, can't comment on the the validity of the site itself, but why does it matter? You're not buying *that* site. They just act as a broker for templates created by independent designers. The templates themselves are just sliced up Photoshop files embedded in HTML tables, nothing special about it. Some of them use CSS, but most do not.

        As I mentioned in my OP, I just bought one a half-hour ago. Looks kosher to me in both IE and Firefox. I'm working on customizing it in Photoshop as I write this.

        • Well, can't comment on the the validity of the site itself, but why does it matter? You're not buying *that* site.

          Because if they can't even get their own website right, how can they be qualified to judge the quality of the templates they broker?

          Some of them use CSS, but most do not.

          This isn't the mid 90s. I'd certainly expect anything called "professional" to use CSS.

          Looks kosher to me in both IE and Firefox.

          That's about 1% of the configurations a professional should test in. Firefo

    • There's a similiar site like this called Open Source Web Design [oswd.org] which gives away basic HTML and CSS template. They have a strict rule of no images (which I'm fine with) and even require all designs be W3C X/HTML/CSS validated.

      With these requirements they're usually pretty light and basic, you can find some good designs to start you off with

  • CMS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by papasui ( 567265 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:34PM (#11693128) Homepage
    Once again people fail to understand that timespent equates to lost money lost in some way or other. The big advantage with CMS's is that all the basic functionality is already there for you to access. I can easily create a custom CMS for my own use, but I choose to use Mambo because it less work to harness something that already works and been tested. Unless you plan to build a better wheel, why bother? (Except for the love of doing it)

  • three short words (Score:3, Funny)

    by madaxe42 ( 690151 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:41PM (#11693213) Homepage
    vim, google, gimp
  • Please, if I am looking at a company website and it looks like complete crap, it gives me a horrible impression. A well designed easy to navigate site catches people and makes them stay and spend money. Something that is boring will lose peoples interest as well as something that is difficult to navigate (2advanced site comes to mind).

    The web is one of your defacto ad tools. To ignore it with a $200 site is just stupid.
    • >Something that is boring will lose peoples interest as well as something that is difficult to navigate

      Ah, but if something is easy to navigate and simple (yet attractive), boring doesn't enter into it. Web sites don't have to "do" anything except be appealing on the eyes and easy to use, so that users can find what they need without thinking about it.

      Consider that Warren Buffet site. If style sheets were used to make to tweak the font, colors and layout into something attractive (but boring), it could

  • On a shoestring? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Inkieminstrel ( 812132 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:42PM (#11693221) Homepage
    I don't know about you, but I design on a computer.
  • Step one to creating a cheap web site is to to not buy useless web books.

    Who says you buy them? Why not check them out from the library? Surely even the author of this book would recommend that. *wink*

  • My own steps forweb design on a shoestring budget. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Linuxathome ( 242573 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:58PM (#11693366) Homepage Journal
    My steps for web design/web server on shoestring budget (steps 4 and 5 are for those who just want a design).

    1. Learn linux enough to manage a server--all the docs and how-to's you ever need are on the web, don't buy books (unless you want a standalone easy quick reference).
    2. Buy a domain name from godaddy.com [godaddy.com].
    3. Get a VPS plan from rimuhosting.com [rimuhosting.com] or the multitude of other VPS providers. I prefer to have Debian installed in the VPS because it's minimal in disk space usage and packages can easily be installed with apt-get (i.e. you have have to muck around to try to find rpm's or tar.gz files)--you'll need to apt-get apache to get the webserver up. You'll also need to install a content management engine like wordpress, moveabletype, drupal, geekblog, etc.
    4. With the money you saved by NOT buying books on how to design, purchase a web logo from The Logo Company [thelogocompany.net] or any comparable business that supplies you the logo for your site. They include full ownership of your logo (to file for trademark if you want) and all the vector graphics files you need to take it from there and build your own templates, CSS, etc. This is the most important part of the "design" process because you will use your logo to assemble your website -- it has the color palette that you want and the overall theme that will be persistent in your site.
    5. Using the logo as "inspiration", create the CSS for the content management engine such as wordpress, moveabletype, geekblog, drupal, etc. Drop the CSS into your server.

    Obviously, there are lots of in between steps I didn't care to mention, but the main steps are listed. Overall, for the startup cost and the first month of your web page going live, you shouldn't need to spend more than $105 USD ($75 for the logo, $20 per month for the VPS, $10 for a year's worth of domain name service) -- the price of 3 or 4 books.

  • Orthagonal Skills Needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Java Ape ( 528857 ) <.ten.063. .ta. .sggirb.ekim.> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @05:07PM (#11693468) Homepage
    I've done a fair bit of web-coding, and I think the "magic" recipe is to have multiple people do the work.

    Content is king - So let the advertising staff, tech writers, or even a manager (who can usually write better than we give them credit for) lay out the text. Besides, if you write it, they'll just re-write it into a hash by the end of the project anyway.

    Presentation is Queen - Speaking from experience, most of us overestimate our artistic abilities. Fonts, colors, whitespace, branding etc. are both a science and an art. I have seen first-hand the difference a good graphics artist can make. For a few hours of consultation, you can get more good ideas that most of us will come up with in a year of fiddling around.

    The Joker is in the Details A good nerd is the magic glue that makes it all happen. Sombody has to know the standards, be able to code, and make the decisions about which technologies to use. Some sites just require basic HTML and maybe a bit of CSS, but most modern sites require a whole lot more.

    The point is that very few people can combine all of these skills at a professional level. The skills are orthagonal - being good at one implies nothing (or very little) about your abilities in the others. Ego aside, most of us would get far better results if we were humble enough to ask for help -- a brief survey of web sites should convince ANYONE that really good designes are few and far between (and no, slashdot is NOT a shining beacon of perfection).

  • Oh good! Someone finally wrote a book about something I already know. Heh.

    Seriously, though, both of my siblings are librarians, and when I do web design single-handedly I always get complements on how straightforward and useable -- yet attractive -- my web sites are. It truly is wonderful how quickly you can publish a useful and attractive site for very little money if you keep your priorities straight.

  • spendy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bodrell ( 665409 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @05:38PM (#11693848) Journal
    Although Bickner is apt to invoke "we Web professionals," this book is not really appropriate to Web creatives-for-hire (who would be better advised to seek out clients with the wherewithal to ask for something original, cool, and spendy).
    The second I read the word "spendy," I was betting this reviewer was from Oregon. And yep, he's from the Portland area.

  • The Aptly Named GIMP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by podperson ( 592944 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @06:05PM (#11694176) Homepage
    I'm getting tired of Open Source folk proclaiming GIMP as being a useful substitute for Photoshop.

    The GIMP is just too clunky to do good work with, as evinced by its ugly logo and sample documents. About the most creative thing anyone does with it is more-or-less trivial photo retouching that can be done in something like iPhoto or Elements.

    And if you think that Elements has "80%" of Photoshop's functionality, you haven't used 90% of Photoshop's functionality.

  • Dual Screens (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jcdenhartog ( 840940 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @06:19PM (#11694338)
    Dual screens are nearly indispensible for web design. If you want to keep a web tutorial open on one screen, and your code/web site on the other, dual screens are the way to go. It's also great for coding on one screen and previewing in the other. Just a warning... once you go there, you will never want to go back to a puny single screen of desktop real estate.
  • ...of a web designer who can't even keep their own home page from being full of easily fixed 404 errors [roguelibrarian.net].

    (hint: they're all supposed to be in a photo/ subdirectory but someone forgot to do that update when the files got moved...which wouldn't have happened anyways if they'd used relative hrefs in the first place...)

  • CMS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @06:29PM (#11694439)
    Quoth the reviewer:
    "Content Management on a Tight Budget," left me wondering, though, whether the book's audience had morphed. Yes, Content-Management Systems (CMS) have benefits, especially for concurrent authoring and version control, but I don't see individuals putting together Web sites on a shoestring budget worrying such issues.
    I'm currently putting together a shoestring website for my parents' church, which sounds like the profile you mentioned at the top of the review. The first thing I did was to look at the current site, which someone put together in Frontpage, and make notes on what needed to be done. Then I went and researched CMSs. I settled on Typo3. Why use a CMS? I may be putting in a small amount of time to admin it once it's set up - although ideally I won't need to, because I'm simply not going to be available much - but keeping it up-to-date will be done by a number of people: the youth leaders will update the youth section, etc. None of them know any HTML, so using a CMS is by far the easiest way to get a consistent look-and-feel. Moreover, Typo3 allows me to create users who have control over different sections of the content.

  • I tend to agree (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @07:05PM (#11694792)
    Web sites with massive budgets often tend to spend those budgets on areas that have nothing to do with content, which is, after all, what most of us really want from the Web (if we wanted a lot of useless graphics we'd go see a movie.) Expensive, gratuitous flash animations and the rest of that crap can easily detract from the true value of a Web site, or at least can obscure that value to the point where no-one can find it.

    Many companies could take a lesson from Google and its minimalist approach to screen design (Yahoo, for example.) A cleanly-designed, truly elegant Web site is a joy to behold and to use. The mistake that many designers make is in equating complexity with elegance. In the old days, we said that ridiculously colorful and complicated displays (whose only goal was to prove that the programmer knew how to do complicated things) were victims of the "Christmas Tree Effect". I must say, the mindset behind the CTE is alive and well, and living on the Web.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now here's something you're really going to like!" -- Rocket J. Squirrel

Close