«

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.

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 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

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

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 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

On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <saz1...@nospamexcite.com> 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...

On Feb 8, 4:54 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> 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)

On Feb 11, 10:00*pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:52 pm, SAZ <saz1...@nospamexcite.com> 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

On Feb 11, 6:28 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.au> 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..