Average Price of UK website designed?

In article , Cuthbert HigginBottom writes

In article , Cuthbert HigginBottom writes

Well, if you take £500 a site and multiply it by the number of site a typical designer has on their portfolio (say 15) ... £7500pa!!!

Snip

Indeed I looked at that website, and well it just was not clear and looked rather bland but most importantlly it did not load very well, in fact I clicked off it before it fully loaded. The scroll bar did not load at all Probably I did not wait long enough...I agree, not good at all.

Ah now search engine ranking is another thing entirely.

Not my speciality but I believe there are only really about 3-4 engines you need to be on: google, msn, yahoo and probably inktomi as well. a lot of the rest either arent used, or get data from the big three/four. (85%+ plus searches through the top engines, I believe, but I could be wrong). Google is the number one; over 50% of all searches, and they actually has a very good guide about how to get ranked (in their webmaster section). Yahoo is just paying the cash. Im happy to leave msn and inktomi out but i'm not a search engine pro and i've probably missed out a whole bunch of stuff.

Althogth the best way to get a #1 ranking is to offer a very specialised service. if you have a hotel booking agency for the UK, dont advertise it as that. Setup a london one, a birmingham one, etc etc. "Hotel london UK" is a lot better for you in the engine.

Sandy

Precisely that probem. I have dial up...it was terrible. In fact I did'nt like the colour scheme. Apart from that once it had loaded it looked ok...nothing fantastic but it looked alright.

Any suggestions about how much that would cost to make?

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:02:27 +0100 John Smith broke off from drinking a cup of tea at NoSpam to write:

Here! here!

Plain HTML has the added benefits of displaying on all platforms, and being accessible by the blind and deaf/blind.

Matt

It certainly looks like he's messed up your dreams of being the nation's number one website provider, Golden Gun.

Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk

It loaded immediately with ADSL and on my display there wasn't a scrioll bar.

Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk

Sadly, this is already the de facto situation with websites; many work only with IE6. I hate it, but I can't change it.

Exactly.

People suggest that I should let them improve my site but I know that the main problem is me sitting down and sorting out what I want!

Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk

In article , Glory Box writes

There is more than one good way of creating as good website - the most important thing is that the person doing it should understand the tools they are using and their effects in the real world.

Small business owners trying to create their first website do not have this understanding, so will have problems whatever they use. The extra problem of using web design software is a sense of false security.

No. You ensure it comes out on top of *all* relevant searches. Your web site can advertise itself as many different things at the same time.

The URL is usually far less important than the search engine ranking. Unless you are a very well-known company, people will not be entering your URL by hand except when they copy it from an advert or elsewhere.

But I can't imagine anyone who is a "professional" (whether self-employed or working for a design agency) charging £500 for a site.

I'd probably go for somewhere between £1000 and £2500 for most small (but decent) brochure sites, so somewhere between 15,000 and 37,500 based on your example 15 customer portfolio.

You get what you pay for... Too many people think "I can get HTML for Dummies for 15 quid, why should I pay X thousand for someone to do it for me". The reason is that "You get what you pay for...".

Cheers,

Andy

Thanks Dave, only just realised I had a reply...

Fireworks (great image program) will slice an image up and create the HTML to hold it together for you. To be honest, I'd probably advise anyone wishing to do a website at home to do this - it means more work for me when it all goes wrong ;-)

Cheers,

Andy

I completely agree. The problem is you can have the nicest looking site in the world, but if no-one knows it's there you won't do much business through it.

I agree, but it's not just visual. You need the combination of visual and technical.

I'd still disagree. A good consultant can extract from the client their exact requirements, he can pester them to get the content and it never arrive. Also, even if the client has all the information and can specify his requirements, doesn't mean he knows anything about HTML let alone CSS or PHP/SQL.

Cheers,

Andy

I would say make it out of an HTML base, with a graphical topping and a CSS2 sprinkle. When you get better use more CSS and maybe a dash of PHP.

Don't use Flash for anything important (certainly not site navigation, your logo or contact form!)

Cheers,

Andy

In message , Peter Saxton writes

So nice to see after 6+ years on uk.legal that at the end of a debate "Plain "British" Common Sense can sometimes emerge"!!!!!

Chat is easy, work is hard!!!!!!!

Work!! Like knowing what ones wish is and what is required!!!!! Knowing that sales persons can deceive!!!!! And are trained above all "To tell people that they wish the hear"!!!!!!!

Grotty

From Banbury (Well 6 miles from.) PS. It is all in the detail!!!!

I was thinking that myself ;-)

Go Firebird!!!!

Cheers,

Andy