How to find a Web Designers in the UK

Does anybody know a good online list of UK-based web designers? I
found this for my local area of Hertfordshire:

http://ukwda.org/resultsnew.asp?county=Hertfordshire&searchtype=cou nty


Abbey Internet seems like a good web design company:

http://www.ukwda.org/viewdetails.asp?compid=abbeyint

http://www.abbeyinternet.com

Has anybody here used them before?


Here are some others that look ok:

http://www.abbeyinternet.com

http://www.web-designuk.co.uk

http://www.spex.co.uk

http://www.coastdigital.co.uk

http://www.mackins.co.uk

http://www.lovely.net

http://www.www.bluehalo.co.uk

http://www.bluechilli.net

http://www.pedalo.co.uk


Any other suggestions?

Many thanks.

On 20 Aug 2004 05:34:44 -0700, Alert wrote:

http://www.abbeyinternet.com

I gnerally do a quick check before I
ever actually look at the code of a
broken web-page, so it's habit I suppose
(my excuse and I'm sticking to it..)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.abbeyinternet.com

52 errors..

Given building web-sites is the primary aim/purpose
of a web-desing company, and they cannot even manage
to write valid HTML, I would give them a miss..

But then, maybe that is just me, I expect fewer
than 10% of the home pages of web design companies
would validate. ..what, *now* are you gonna' claim
that was just a gateway page? Shheeesh..

Anyway, same principle applies to the home page
of any company you consider. Can they even get
their own home-page valid? (Let alone robust,
accessible and resizeable, while degrading
gracefully through the browser mire..)

My 2c worth.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites (AT) www (DOT) invalid> wrote

On 20 Aug 2004 05:34:44 -0700, Alert wrote:

http://www.abbeyinternet.com

I gnerally do a quick check before I
ever actually look at the code of a
broken web-page, so it's habit I suppose
(my excuse and I'm sticking to it..)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.abbeyinternet.com

52 errors..

Thanks. At first you had me worried, but I checked these errors and
none of them are real problems. They are all attributes which are
required for cross-browser compatibility etc which don't happen to be
supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD. For example, the validator says there
is no such attribute as marginheight in the body tag, but as a
technical person like me you will know that it does exist and is
useful.

The HTML on that site is fine. Worth checking though.

Given building web-sites is the primary aim/purpose
of a web-desing company, and they cannot even manage
to write valid HTML, I would give them a miss..

But then, maybe that is just me, I expect fewer
than 10% of the home pages of web design companies
would validate. ..what, *now* are you gonna' claim
that was just a gateway page? Shheeesh..

Anyway, same principle applies to the home page
of any company you consider. Can they even get
their own home-page valid? (Let alone robust,
accessible and resizeable, while degrading
gracefully through the browser mire..)

My 2c worth.

On 20 Aug 2004 11:24:30 -0700, Alert <www_insider_org (AT) postmaster (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

Thanks. At first you had me worried, but I checked these errors and
none of them are real problems.

Missing tags and required elements are not problems in XHTML? What about
the fact that poorly-formed XML won't work?

They are all attributes which are
required for cross-browser compatibility etc which don't happen to be
supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD. For example, the validator says there
is no such attribute as marginheight in the body tag, but as a
technical person like me you will know that it does exist and is
useful.

I've never used it. Dude, what's the point of doing old-fashioned HTML
presentation in XHTML? All these can be eliminated with CSS.

You want to use all this invalid stuff, fine, but be smart and use
HTML4.01 transitional.

*Alert* wrote:

Does anybody know a good online list of UK-based web designers?

http://www.gawds.org/
--
Andrew Urquhart
- Contact me: http://andrewu.co.uk/contact/
- This post is probably time-stamped +1 hour - blame my ISP (NTL)
- 'Staccato signals of constant information
A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires' - Paul Simon

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

On 20 Aug 2004 11:24:30 -0700, Alert <www_insider_org (AT) postmaster (DOT) co.uk
wrote:


Thanks. At first you had me worried, but I checked these errors and
none of them are real problems.

Missing tags and required elements are not problems in XHTML? What about

There were no missing essential tage, elements or attributes.

the fact that poorly-formed XML won't work?

The XHTML was properly formed and it does work.

They are all attributes which are
required for cross-browser compatibility etc which don't happen to be
supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD. For example, the validator says there
is no such attribute as marginheight in the body tag, but as a
technical person like me you will know that it does exist and is
useful.

I've never used it. Dude, what's the point of doing old-fashioned HTML
presentation in XHTML? All these can be eliminated with CSS.

Because many people are still using old-fashioned browsers, especially
in less the well-funded academic institutions which are among my
clients. Not all browsers support CSS.

You want to use all this invalid stuff, fine, but be smart and use
HTML4.01 transitional.

I would not "invalid stuff" and I would not choose a web design
company that did.

Some things which an XHTML validator would report as invalid may be
essential in some web pages. The XHTML DTD does cover include every
tag and every attribute used by every browser.

Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Alert wrote:

Andrew Thompson wrote...

Alert wrote:

http://www.abbeyinternet.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.abbeyinternet.com

52 errors..

I checked these errors and none of them are real problems.

They are all real problems, as the validator reported. Perhaps you mean

In what sense are they "real problems"? If yuo can show me any
"problem" that is not required by some browsers and that would prevent
the page from being displayed, I will not use this company.

However, I have reviewed the HTML in detail myself and there is
nothing there that shouldn't be.

none are terribly serious problems. That seems reasonable, but if they
are not terribly serious, then it should be trivial to correct them, right?

You can't fix something that isn't broken. The tags present which are
not found in the XHTML DTD all serve a purpose.

They are all attributes which are required for cross-browser
compatibility etc

Oh? How did you reach that conclusion? Or better still, how did the
company reach that conclusion?

Show me one that isn't. I'm an experienced and qualified HTML
developer myself, and I would not use a web design company that
produced bad mark-up.

which don't happen to be supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD.

Then the site should not claim that it is XHTML 1.0.

What DTD should it be then? There is no HTML specification that
includes every tag and every attribute that any browser might use.
There never has been, and there probably never will be.

For example, the validator says there is no such attribute as
marginheight in the body tag, but as a technical person like me you
will know that it does exist and is useful.

I'm fairly certain that css margin and padding can replace marginheight
attributes.

Not all browsers support CSS.

The HTML on that site is fine. Worth checking though.

Indeed. If a web design cannot come up with a home page that does not
rely on non-standard attributes -- attributes that haven't been needed
for years, if they ever were -- then perhaps they don't have a clear
grasp of the web.

[pointless quoting snipped]

You don't sound very sure that you know what you're talking about.

On 21 Aug 2004 03:57:05 -0700, Alert <www_insider_org (AT) postmaster (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:<opsc1nnxt06v6656 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>...
On 20 Aug 2004 11:24:30 -0700, Alert <www_insider_org (AT) postmaster (DOT) co.uk
wrote:


Thanks. At first you had me worried, but I checked these errors and
none of them are real problems.

Missing tags and required elements are not problems in XHTML? What about

There were no missing essential tage, elements or attributes.


the fact that poorly-formed XML won't work?


The XHTML was properly formed and it does work.

Ending tags to elements were missing. I recall that specifically, as
that's what prompted my statement.

They are all attributes which are
required for cross-browser compatibility etc which don't happen to be
supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD. For example, the validator says there
is no such attribute as marginheight in the body tag, but as a
technical person like me you will know that it does exist and is
useful.

I've never used it. Dude, what's the point of doing old-fashioned HTML
presentation in XHTML? All these can be eliminated with CSS.


Because many people are still using old-fashioned browsers, especially
in less the well-funded academic institutions which are among my
clients. Not all browsers support CSS.

Then ok, fine, serve those old browsers a page suited to it. Serve valid
code to conforming browsers. But, in my opinion, the desire to hang onto
NN4 and related by some companies and organizations is absolutely
meaningless. It's a shame anyone has to support these ancient beasts any
longer.

You want to use all this invalid stuff, fine, but be smart and use
HTML4.01 transitional.

I would not "invalid stuff" and I would not choose a web design
company that did.

Some things which an XHTML validator would report as invalid may be
essential in some web pages. The XHTML DTD does cover include every
tag and every attribute used by every browser.

"Valid" is defined as "conforming to the DTD" - so you would indeed use
invalid markup to achieve your goals.

On 21 Aug 2004 04:04:26 -0700, Alert wrote:

There is no HTML specification that
includes every tag and every attribute that any browser might use.
There never has been, and there probably never will be.

Never should there be.. did it ever cross your
mind that a web standards association should not bow
to each and every pissant browser maker that invents
some 'clever' new tag/element?

How do these tags/attributes render on Lynx?
...Or is it irrelevant?

But, ..since you appartently have the amzing ability
to predict/extrapolate how these irrelevent elements
are processed and presented on the mutlitude of UA's
on which they might be viewed, maybe it is a moot point..

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Alert wrote:

Brian wrote...

Alert wrote:
I checked these errors and none of them are real problems.

They are all real problems, as the validator reported.

In what sense are they "real problems"?

In the sense that they are not fake problems. I'm asking you to make a
distinction between imaginary and not serious.

Name a browser that has a problem with this markup. There are
attributes in there which some browsers require, despite the fact that
they are not in the XHTML DTD used by the validator. It is impossible
to write a 100% XHTML compliant web page that supports these older
browsers.

If you show me how you would fix these "problems" on Abbey's website,
I will show you how it would stop the page form being properly
displayed on certain browsers which are still widely used.

which don't happen to be supported by the XHTML 1.0 DTD.

Then the site should not claim that it is XHTML 1.0.

What DTD should it be then?

The one to which the document conforms. If it conforms to no

It is impossible to write a page that complies 100% with any current
DTD and still supports all browsers and all possible functionality.
XHTML is transitional, it is not a final or perfect standard and
neither was the HTML standard which preceeded it.

dt-definition, then why pretend it does by including a dt-declaration?

I guess you didn't realise that a valid HTML XHTML or XML document
requires a declaration. The one specified is the best possible match
for the page in question.

If you ignore every tag and element that is not in the DTD you are not
using the markup to its full potential.

The only reason I can think is doc-type sniffing, but if you're using
marginheight, you likely want quirks mode anyways.

There is no HTML specification that includes every tag and every
attribute that any browser might use.

Don't write to a browser, write to the recommendation.

No need, this is a widely known fact. XHTML 1.0 is not a fully
comprehensive of final specification. If you think XHTML 1.0 is the
be-all and end all of the all applications of XHTML, you're missing
out.

The trick is to adhere to the latest specification while not
sacrificing feaures which are not included.

For example, the validator says there is no such attribute as
marginheight in the body tag, but as a technical person like me
you will know that it does exist and is useful.

I'm fairly certain that css margin and padding can replace
marginheight attributes.

Not all browsers support CSS.

CSS is optional in any case. The question is, why fret over minor

That answers your question then.

presentation details in e.g. Netscape 4, and create invalid markup in
the process. Sure, marginheight is unlikely to cause any serious
problem, but a web design company looks rather foolish producing invalid
markup for their own page.

You don't sound very sure that you know what you're talking about.

And now you've resorted to insults? After claiming that marginheight is
useful, you've little right to make such silly statements.

No, you resorted to insults by calling a web design company "foolish"
(and by implication me for selecting it).

In contrast I am simply stating a fact. Your statement, "I'm fairly
certain that css margin and padding can replace marginheight
attributes", does not sound very certain, does it?