On 13 Oct 2005 13:18:29 -0700, "Samuel Murray-Smit"
<leuce (AT) absamail (DOT) co.za> wrote:
It's reasonable good practice for 1998.
As it's such a simple site (minimal graphics, trivial layout, simple
navigation) then it's difficult to make a bad job of it. What they have
is sparse, possibly ugly, but it is broadly functional. You can make a
case for improving it, but the real benefits won't actually be that
great - bad _simple_ web design just doesn't suffer as badly as even
slightly-poor complicated web design.