Whirlpool

I've got a brochure/pamphlet in the mail from a company called. www.havealook.com.au.

$199 for a full website seems incredibly cheap to me. Before i call them and hear there feedback i was wondering if anyone has had any experiences with this company.

Please advice if you've dealt with them or know anything about them

Thanks

on the website it says from $199*

it does seem very very cheap so it's probably $199 for a basic 2 page website if you go with 12 months hosting or some other catch

What it will be is you pay $199 and they give you access to a custom site builder type thing, you select a template and put all your content in yourself.

Its kind of like a Mr. Site type thing, but I would personally stay away as you usually don't get much for your $200.

They have a very nice site. The red and white work really well there, and red is such a powerful colour too. Looks legit, and although the $199 seems cheap, there's the domain + hosting + SEO and other services they can sell too, so they might cut even on the site, but make the real money on the other items. Not a bad business model.

Aussie Bob writes...

although the $199 seems cheap

If $199 gets you a website, with a panel to edit content, and is a secure setup, then that's a bargain.

Not alot involved in setting that up. For example, you would have the front page, which accesses the content, and the admin page, used for updating the content, and a simple template which is used to present the content.

$199 - they are profiting nicely.

you can also achieve this by using Wordpress. All you need to do is modify some codes. With themes, you can also change the look of your website every quarter.

That's not an exceptional price, pretty much in line with what you'd get on one of the various "Get a freelancer" sites.
Their portfolio examples look good: All professional, not too obviously templatey. I presume for that price they're not going to do very much graphic design for you (You can't really expect them to create a corporate identity for you for $200), but assuming you've already got logo/letterhead etc, it looks like a reasonable deal.

(In other news, I'm very glad I got out of web development (and particularly design). I don't fancy my chances of doing any of those sites in 3 hours of billed time :) )

LG

Some companies host the web sites on overseas computers, which are cheaper then hosting in Australia.

The website states "starting from"

everyone can have a website for free.... just set one up on facebook!

Yeah I would say that your site wouldn't look like their portfolio ones, and if they do, then $200 isn't too bad.

You could always buy a template yourself and do it for $60, but I guess that would defeat the purpose of paying someone to make you a site!

It's kinda hard to say, they dont really give 'information' on the design, prices, what exactly you get, if you are required to host with them etc (my bets are on that you do, and maybe they make up for it in hosting fees?). It seems lacking in this basic information. It might only be $199 for the initial setup but what do you get for that? It also says "from" (magic words) $199* yet there is no where explaining what the * means and what you get for $199.

Yeah, anyone can bash together a template in Expression Web or Dreamweaver and sell it for $199. It will take 5 or 6 sites to be sold at $199 to make their money back and after that it is profit. Plus additional pages, customisations, scripts and the restrictions on what you can change yourself all add to their top line income.

Having said that, I don't mean that it is a bad deal. It may very well be quite reasonable for what you get or what you want/need. And they may be providing a great service to a market of "bargain basement" and entry level clients. But, if you want some interactivity, customisation etc find a web designer IMHO.

Jason M 'The Elite Geek' writes...

$199 - they are profiting nicely.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. =)

As another poster said it says 'from $199" with an asterix (sp?!?) at the end...my guess once you add hosting and any sort of template change then it will go up.

* could mean
'per page'
'per 50 words'
'per month'
'per week'
'per day'
I mean it could end up being a totally different thing once you work out what the 'from' and the* actually stand for. Anyone game to ring and ask ?? LOL

Entrepreneur08 writes...

$199 for a full website seems incredibly cheap to me.

Forgive me for not knowing, but what is an average price for having a website made these days?
eg. online store, company profile, small business information/location

lordmule writes...

eg. online store,

min of 10K

company profile

about 3-8K

were not talking about websites for one man bands. You will spend double that in SEO and promotion.

cheers

I would have to disagree there.
I think if you look around you can have a real website built for less than $500 and a cart done for around $200 if not too many products...say 50

Pete Z writes...

I think if you look around you can have a real website built for less than

im not saying what the lowest cost it can be done for, $0 is the fee open up word and create a site then FILE > Save as HTML. Im quoting what the going rate is from a professional company. Walk into any web dev agency and check it out for yourself. Oh and those $500 websites where the same person does the design and programing will do much more harm then good. Just like saying whats the cheapest you can get a new car for its, about $25,000 but your wellcome to go an buy one for $500 se how long before it breaks down and costs you more in the long run.

cheer

Hmmm...

One of the first things we recognised at Havealook was that our customers wanted to update their own web page easily without needing programming skills. So we went out and built a CMS (content management system) and have labelled it The Worlds Easiest Self Update Console.

I'm reminded of a Red Dwarf quote:

And I think it comes down to a choice between "The League Against Salivating Monsters," or - and this is my personal preference - "The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society." Erm, one drawback with that - the abbreviation is...

I would think twice before naming a CMS with an abbreviation of WESUC

caffeine writes...

I would think twice before naming a CMS with an abbreviation of WESUC

lol

Good luck to them, there's a real market out there for basic websites where all the trickery is taken care of.

But there's no way anyone can build you the full offering for under a few grand. Unless you can find experienced coders and designers willing to work for $20/hr.

The idea of grads building websites for beer money is ok in principle, but they also need business acumen and there are relationships to manage - and unfortunately that normally comes after you've had a fair bit of commercial experience.

Their main graphic home-banner.jpg weighs in at 247k. If you add up all the other bits on their home page, they're not very thoughtful of people on dial-up.

Sure, it's their call, balancing schmick v's performance, but still worth noting.

BTW I only mentioned the above because in their site they explicitly advertise for 'regional Australia'.

And there do seem to be at least two fees, item 9 of their Terms says:

9. You may cancel your website at anytime after Go-Live Setup fee and 1st year Hosting inc Update Console fee has been paid in full.

247kb is HUGE for an image of that size. You can flatten it down in photoshop to about a quarter of that with no noticeable loss in quality.

Perite writes...

Their main graphic home-banner.jpg weighs in at 247k. If you add up all the other bits on their home page, they're not very thoughtful of people on dial-up.

Folks are still using dialup? =^)

I think we passed the dialup thresehold a yr or 2 back, when sites can now be designed for Broadband, from a designer's perspective. This was what a designer friend of mine was saying last week.

sammo writes...

Good luck to them, there's a real market out there for basic websites where all the trickery is taken care of.

But there's no way anyone can build you the full offering for under a few grand. Unless you can find experienced coders and designers willing to work for $20/hr.

The idea of grads building websites for beer money is ok in principle, but they also need business acumen and there are relationships to manage - and unfortunately that normally comes after you've had a fair bit of commercial experience.

I'd say their business model is more backend $$ heavy, and they use the site as a foot in the door approach, and then there's the domain + hosting + SEO + . . .

Also remember that we're talking very basic template based sites here too, with no custom coding. They can churn these sites out pretty quick, and their clients can make updates by themselves.

Aussie Bob writes...

Folks are still using dialup? =^)

Yeah, I know it sounds silly and I reckon the average Whirlpool user is on 8mbit : ) but where I live I had to run a web company with multiple remote servers to admin all over Oz and UK and I did it all on ISDN.

I currently use NextG, but the previous experience has left me with a desire to see pages load fast regardless of pipe size.

I reckon 250k for a banner is high. I am cringing at my 90k one. That was as low as I could get it without it getting that horrid rotten stale jpg gone bad look. Although a lot of people are on Broadband, a lot are still using dialup and broadbands speeds in Australia can still be pretty average so I try to keep sites fast to load. 250kb on dial up is like pack a picnic lunch see you in 5 min LOL well not quite but this discussion brings back horrid memories of slow speeds and complete frustration.

Entrepreneur08 writes...

$199 for a full website seems incredibly cheap to me. Before i call them and hear there feedback i was wondering if anyone has had any experiences with this company.

This is not as "super cheap" as it sounds. I can have a fully custom design made for my clients for about $150 and have it sliced and coded for any CMS on the planet for a little more. If it was a straight static html site it would be about $200. Add a bundled hosting plan (Which I don't) and there is some profit to be made.

Web design in Australia is a joke as far as price goes. They are all way over priced and who the hell still uses static HTML sites? I use nothing but CMS's and never look back.

Which CMS package do you use?

NotSoMad writes...

y clients for about $150 and have it sliced and coded for any CMS on the planet for a little more. If it was a straight static html site it would be about $200.

sure you can, but do you have any idea how much damage these sites will cause those businesses? trust me your not helping anyone, let alone the industry or the clients. Theres a reason why business pay good money for good quality, and its not because only some whiz kid can do it for them, its not the 90's

MrMurdock writes...

sure you can, but do you have any idea how much damage these sites will cause those businesses? trust me your not helping anyone, let alone the industry or the clients. Theres a reason why business pay good money for good quality, and its not because only some whiz kid can do it for them, its not the 90's

I am far from a kid and the quality of my work speaks for it's self.

I do not run a home grown web design company. I have 100's of very happy clients and my design work is better then anything I have seen from any Australian designer. The prices I mentioned are my cost not my RRP.

If you would like to pay me $7000 for a crappy static site like you would some other company, then be my guest.

sammo writes...

Which CMS package do you use?

I recommend Drupal to all my clients but some insist on other, like Wordpress and Joomla.

NotSoMad writes...

I do not run a home grown web design company.

with those prices you couldnt even stay a flot with that, let alone what ever you think you do now.

I am far from a kid and the quality of my work speaks for it's self.

sure , and most likely it dosnt say anything good.

If you would like to pay me $7000 for a crappy static site like you w

most people would rather pay that and get a better return on the investment, rather then a cheap site that does them no favors and turns them away to their competitors.

but hey if you can design, build, and support it with all those hats and still run the business good luck becasue your charging way too little for your skills .

Im quoting what the going rate is from a professional company.

Thats what I mean. The "going rate" is about cost X 300. People believe you need to pay $5000-7000 for a decent site and $15,000+ for something extremely high quality. That prices will get you that but it will not have cost anywhere near that much to create, well not for me anyway. If there are company's out there charging that type of money and not make 200%-300% profit, they are doing something very wrong.

Oh and those $500 websites where the same person does the design and programing will do much more harm then good.

What do you mean by harm?

If you mean marketing and branding, then I think you have it the wrong way around. It is proven that plain less attractive site's tend to convert better then well designed "flashy" sites. This is not always the case but more often then not.

I have worked with big companies under the direction of there marketing team and it did nothing but decrease my costs.

MrMurdock writes...

but hey if you can design, build, and support it with all those hats and still run the business good luck becasue your charging way too little for your skills .

I have yet to tell you what I charge?

The prices I mentioned are my cost, not my retail price.

What I am saying is that the mark up on it is huge and some people seem to think it actually costs that much to get done. I'm just saying it doesn't, well not for me.

but hey if you can design, build, and support it with all those hats and still run the business good luck becasue your charging way too little for your skills .

I don't do any of the work. I have employee's to do that for me.

most people would rather pay that and get a better return on the investment, rather then a cheap site that does them no favors and turns them away to their competitors.

I have made $70 sales page in static HTML that convert at 30% on a $2000 product. That is an ROI.

Have you ever bought or sold any web design services?

Going by your seemingly uneducated responses, I guess not.

Well, this is getting a bit off topic, but from my point of view $199 will get you a slapped together mast-header made in 15mins, on a cookie-cutter CMS. It's probably never going to make your business any money.

The reason other website businesses out there charge a boat load more is because they will actually consult with you, and build you a solution that works, along with a design package that caters for your target market. Most successful websites have a little catch, or a niche that seperates them totally from everyone else, along with the "feel" that you're using a well-made and cared-for website when you visit, rather than a slapped together site.

It's also a reflection of your business, I'd see buying a cheap, crappy site as the equivalent of running your business out of a cardboard box on the side of the road, while your competitors have a nice modern office building, where are you clients gonna go. ;)

They are selling a templated cms.

yeah templated stuff is pretty good, but you might as well just do it yourself or buy a template ;P

one thing for sure is that these guys are making a killing out there with a large number of customers...see all the customers who are using their cms

www.google.com/search?hl...k%22&btnG=Search

good on them

iTajhay writes...

good on them

Yeah, I flicked through a few sites they've built, and they look really nice. There's a huge market out there for nice simple brochure type sites, that don't cost a packet. Their price point of $200 for the site, is spot on, for the wary business owner. There's also a good market out there for custom sites that do cost $xx,xxx.xx.

I have so much to say on cheapo websites but my poor fingers would start bleeding before I finished.

All I can say is that you want to be a lottery winner to want to sell websites for $500 or under, especially if they are built on a decent CMS.

I care about my client's branding.
I care about site security.
I care that the site is easily editable by someone else if need be.
I care that it runs well in all browsers.
I care that it is accessible to screen readers, non javascript or flash users.
I care about non-broadband users.
I care about after sales support.

All these things take time to implement or follow through, so like I said, if you don't have to rely on real money coming in then good luck to you, just down drag it down for the rest of us.

platinum writes...

It's also a reflection of your business, I'd see buying a cheap, crappy site as the equivalent of running your business out of a cardboard box on the side of the road, while your competitors have a nice modern office building, where are you clients gonna go. ;)

Would you consider this site - www.kitchenssquared.com.au one a "cheap, crappy site"? Would you consider that business's image damaged by that site?

I'd consider that a damn good site, that meets the objectives that the kitchen company requires. Sure, they could have bought in a team of web developers, and spent $xx,xxx,xx on the project, and taken 3mths, and got a swanky site with all the bells and whistles. But the site they have is a nice brochure style site and looks good. Small businesses are wary about spending large sums of $$ on something they might not know a lot about, so spending a couple of hundred is something they're willing to risk. Of course, there's ongoing fees to with the domain, hosting and possible SEO work etc.

I understand some web developers getting annoyed and feeling threatened with these companies offering these cookie cutter sites for only a few hundred dollars. What's even more frightening is if they mass market these cheaper sites, in the mass media. It's like the building industry, with Builders building custom homes to a very high spec, and then you have these project builders that work on volume, building cookie cutter style homes for less $$ than the other builders can. Here in is wisdom (or what I have come to understand) there is a place in the market for both, and the market needs both. The market needs those cookie cutter style sites for $200 and the market needs custom built sites for $xx,xxx.xx.

Aussie Bob writes...

I'd consider that a damn good site

its late so no doubt i will be wrong (i shouldn't post after 12) but from what i can tell both that site and the company's that created don't even validate

MrMurdock writes...

eg. online store,

min of 10K

company profile

about 3-8K

I find it interesting that these template like websites still cost alot of money to build. I could believe this price for the year 2000. But haven't we reached the point where tools/software packages are available to quickly throw together these commonly produced websites?

NotSoMad writes...

I recommend Drupal to all my clients but some insist on other, like Wordpress and Joomla.

From www.drupal.org
"Drupal is an open source content management platform. Equipped with a powerful blend of features, Drupal can support a variety of websites ranging from personal blogs, corporate brochures and large community-driven websites.

So, while these packages like drupal may not offer the online store functionality/security as of yet, im sure similar software packages for website development/management do. My question is, if all the typical features of website design become available in free software, what is the remaining cost for?

hosting, backup, updating, maintenance, auto-report generation, graphic design, any others?

lordmule writes...

So, while these packages like drupal may not offer the online store functionality/security as of yet, im sure similar software packages for website development/management do. My question is, if all the typical features of website design become available in free software, what is the remaining cost for?

hosting, backup, updating, maintenance, auto-report generation, graphic design, any others?

The CMS is the back end that manages the content. It does come with a pretty crappy template to begin with, but all the extra cost is in the design and coding of the custom template.

What standard drupal looks like:

drupal.org

Some examples of what Drupal can look and work like if you spend some extra cash.

buytaert.net/tag/drupal-sites

You can see the power of Drupal and how it can do almost anything you like.

The reason I tend to go go with a CMS is mainly for ease of use for the client. With a CMS they can easily add all the content they like them self's. I don't add content to clients site. I run a web design company not a data entry service and by using a CMS they don't need me or anyone else to.

I provide video's for them on how to use all the basic features and are more then happy to help them with any problems they have. That is not something you could do with a static site. You can't teach someone HTML in a 20min video.

ethix writes...

its late so no doubt i will be wrong (i shouldn't post after 12) but from what i can tell both that site and the company's that created don't even validate

Oh the Humanity! =^)

Aussie Bob writes...

Oh the Humanity! =^)

well in this day and age if your selling your services as a web site designer having valid code is pretty much a basic requirement IMO

ethix writes...

well in this day and age if your selling your services as a web site designer having valid code is pretty much a basic requirement IMO

And having the proper spelling too. ;)

ethix writes...

well in this day and age if your selling your services as a web site designer having valid code is pretty much a basic requirement IMO

i think youll find that very very few web design firms actually produce valid code, its not really a basic requirement, nor will make or break a site.

cheers

MrMurdock writes...

i think youll find that very very few web design firms actually produce valid code, its not really a basic requirement, nor will make or break a site.

Agreed. According to W3C's validator, Google.com has 50 errors -

validator.w3.org/check?u...ttp://google.com

Aussie Bob writes...

I'd consider that a damn good site, that meets the objectives that the kitchen company requires.

Meh, it's alright. I wouldn't say it's terrible, but it's certainly nothing extra-special. I reckon that might be a bit more expensive site than $199 design, they are marketing that below the $199.00 banner, and it certainly doesn't seem to be running off a CMS...

Yellow pages and citysearch do very similar things, offer 1 page "brochure sites" for people, and the amount of stories i've heard about businesses spending a bit to re-develop these sort of sites into something decent, and it paying off for them, is amazing. Don't underestimate the "vibes" websites can give the general public, because generally (even if a bit subconsciously) they will often recognise a well built site and base a purchase decision on that alone.

I designed a similar website for $1500 www.livingworlds.com.au. i wouldn't charge any less than that including CMS. $200 is very cheap price. But if this price range works for them by using templates, good on them.

iTajhay writes...

one thing for sure is that these guys are making a killing out there with a large number of customers...see all the customers who are using their cms

www.google.com/search?hl...k%22&btnG=Search

good on them

They look like a decent dreamweaver created sites for 200 dollars.

MrNav writes...

I designed a similar website for $1500 www.livingworlds.com.au.

I just poked around a few of your sites - assuming you are singh website design? - and noticed they are all the same template using tables? I thought tables were a big no-no now?

Serious question, as I'm no web designer and hardly in a position to criticise.

(Though my super creative front page at filedump.net *is* HTML 4.01 strict :P)

Aussie Bob writes...

Folks are still using dialup? =^)

I think we passed the dialup thresehold a yr or 2 back, when sites can now be designed for Broadband, from a designer's perspective. This was what a designer friend of mine was saying last week.

You obviously don't deal with people in regional areas.
Off the top of my head I can think of about 5 or 6 people still using dial up.
Some can't get broadband, some don't want anything else.

Dude1010 writes...

Off the top of my head I can think of about 5 or 6 people still using dial up.
Some can't get broadband, some don't want anything else.

I'll add half a dozen more to your list.

Just a thought on designing sites 'for' broadband... Nothing makes me crankier than sites that are full of design, and no content. Or content thats hard to find, and usually squashed up in a fixed-width template so that only 300px of screen real estate is dedicated to the stuff you actually went there for - the content. Just because we should all have ADSL2+ and 24" monitors doesnt mean you need a 20mb flash animation to fill that entire space with stock photos of women wearing headsets gliding gracefully across the screen.

Eh, I guess Im weird. My favourite site is still maddox's... 10 years of fantastic content, and hasnt bowed down to Web 2.0 'design' pressure :D

Dude1010 writes...

You obviously don't deal with people in regional areas.

I was joking, hence the "=^)"

;D

They use Adobe GoLive, their site says so on the fine print.

I produce valid code (where it can be made)

I also notice that the kitchen site mentioned above has horrific coding. Very poor for accessibility and extensibility purposes.

MrNav writes...

I designed a similar website for $1500 www.livingworlds.com.au. i wouldn't charge any less than that including CMS. $200 is very cheap price. But if this price range works for them by using templates, good on them.

Just a bit of professional advice, always use a DOCTYPE and try to move away from table based layouts now.

Did you use Visual Studio to create that site? The classes and inline CSS could be cleaned up much nicer.

This whole "move away from tables" crap is becoming boring. In regards to using tables for layout purposes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I have used tables in many of my designs and also use css to change the look and feel of it, and its a completely valid way of doing things.

Sure, CSS is a different and possibly more effective way of design due to flexibility, but there is nothing wrong with tables in most instances.

As for designing websites for $200.00, there is no sure way to say that this is the final payment amount. Hosting costs of approx $120 per year may be added on and the overall cost for the design may go up from anywhere between $100-$1000 depending on what the requirement is.

Did you use Visual Studio to create that site? The classes and inline CSS could be cleaned up much nicer

as well as dont use

styel1 , style2, style3, ect... give them meaning full names.

dont use styles in the content, put this <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"> in an actual style too, ie Style4 perhaps.

there is also no meta data.......

the proof is always in the puding and you usually get what you pay for

Repti|3 writes...

This whole "move away from tables" crap is becoming boring. In regards to using tables for layout purposes, there is absolutely nothing wrong

ermm, ok... but this isnt 1998 its 2008 really i could list a whole raft of reasons, but ill save mytime and just let you look them up in other threads.

For what you get it is not really a good price.

MrMurdock writes...

ermm, ok... but this isnt 1998 its 2008 really i could list a whole raft of reasons, but ill save mytime and just let you look them up in other t

For sure, there are some valid reasons, but with the majority of users still on IE6, which has poor CSS support, tables works brilliantly...and guess what, tables work in newer browser versions too.

Just a bit of professional advice, always use a DOCTYPE and try to move away from table based layouts now.

Did you use Visual Studio to create that site? The classes and inline CSS could be cleaned up much nicer.

Thanks for your feedback, Slim bim jim. I beleive that tableless design is a good way to do the design as it is much easier.

I have started a new website since your last comment to see what benefit could i have using table less design.
I found that table less design requires less coding and is easy to update.

I do all the coding in Notepad.

Regarding DOCTYPE, i beleive that i should start using it in all the websites. i was just being lazy.

Thanks for your feedback i am working on some of the things you mentioned.

Good for you and thanks for listening :)

Tables should be used for exactly that, table based data. Table based sites are bloated, inflexible and have poor accessibility not to mention all those spacer images!

For others, citing IE6 as a reason to stick with tables is a poor excuse as all my sites work perfectly well with IE6 without resorting to hacks. Sometimes a IE6 targeted stylesheet that overrules certain elements (such as padding or transparent pngs) does the trick.

If you are still using table based design in this age (unless its for email newsletters) you are either lazy or unprofessional and quite possibly both.

Repti|3 writes...

This whole "move away from tables" crap is becoming boring. In regards to using tables for layout purposes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I have used tables in many of my designs and also use css to change the look and feel of it, and its a completely valid way of doing things.

Sure, CSS is a different and possibly more effective way of design due to flexibility, but there is nothing wrong with tables in most instances

Tables for layout purposes will slow down load time, irrespective of connection. This is due to the way all browsers interpret tabled layouts in comparison to tableless layouts.

By using CSS and tableless design, the layout is loaded once and cached on the user's computer. It is simply refreshed from the cache when needed.

By using tabled designs, the layout is loaded piecemeal every time outside of cache and the only time the browser will display the page is when the browser can find the last closing </table> element and render all tabled elements within it...

So even from a basic visual perspective, because CSS can be gzipped and cached to a user's browser, the content is served quicker.

The only potential 'bonus' you could possibly get out of a tabled site is that it will substantially increase pageviews (from an advertising / sales perspective).. but the figure you will receive is not a true reflection of your site's value in terms of content.

As for the claim it's okay to use tables because everyone still uses IE6, IE6 still has enough support of CSS 2.1 to get layouts done using CSS.

Slim Bim Jim writes...

I also notice that the kitchen site mentioned above has horrific coding. Very poor for accessibility and extensibility purposes.

I checked that site on 3 browsers across 2 PCs and I'm not sure about it being "Very poor for accessibility". Can you elaborate on that?

Side issue, I showed the mrs some red splashbacks on one of their kitchens and apparently we're changing our kitchen splashbacks from tiled over to the red glass. Serves me right for showing the Mrs those pics. =^)

Cross browser compliance isn't the same thing as accessibility. This is where most designer/devs think they can get away with x/browser compliance, yet fail to meet the most basic web accessibility guidelines.

Here's the output from Fangs for your kitchen site:

Page has one heading and fourteen linksKitchens Squared, Kitchen Design Melbourne, Kitchen Renovation Melbourne dash Internet ExplorerTable with one column and twenty-four rowsTable with five columns and one rowTable endTable with five columns and two rowsTable with one column and one rowHeading level one Kitchens Squared dash Kitchen Design, Renovation and Installation Melbourne, Australia.Table endTable endTable with five columns and one rowTable endTable with seven columns and fourteen rowsTable with one column and nine rowsLink HomeLink Kitchen DesignLink Kitchen RenovationLink Kitchen SplashbacksLink Caeser Stone KitchenLink Two Pac KitchensLink GalleryLink VanitiesLink ContactTable endTable with two columns and four rows Kitchens Squared is an award winning kitchen design company that can design and build a kitchen in your new home. We also do complete renovations on existing kitchens, whether your style is modern, contemporary or classic. Have your kitchen designed, renovated, manufactured, site prepared and installed through to completion by our professional, experienced and patient staff. All kitchens are manufactured and assembled in our factories in Australia with Australian made board. Kitchens Squared specialises in colon Table with three columns and one row dash Kitchen Design dash Kitchen Renovations dash Kitchen Manufacture dash Kitchen Installation dash Vanity Design dash Vanity manufacture dash Vanity Installation dash Laundry Cabinet Design dash Laundry Manufacture dash Laundry InstallationTable end Our designers can design your kitchen on computer which gives you an accurate indication of what your kitchen will look like in three D. Allow yourself to see an accurate image of your kitchen before it arrives in your home. Our Designers and production team has won the following awards.List of four itemsbullet Designer of two thousand six – two thousand seven Cabinetmakers Association, WINNER Best Kitchen dollars fifteen thousand to dollars thirty thousand . bullet Designer of two thousand six RACV WINNER best stand kitchens and bathrooms . bullet Designer of two thousand five RACV WINNER best kitchen and bathroom stand . bullet Designer of two thousand five RACV RUNNER UP best stand under eighteen mtwo List end We also specialise in Kitchen Renovations. By quote Kitchen Renovations quote we do not mean quote kitchen facelifts. quote In most cases with Kitchen facelifts by the time new benches, doors and appliances are replaced, it is only a small investment to step into a completely new kitchen. The benefit of investing only a small amount more is a completely new design for function and style, as well as new soft close drawers and accessories, some of which cannot be incorporated into your existing kitchen. Our Melbourne kitchen design team can give you an amazing result through their years of design and practical experience in their field. B Link rowse through our gallery to see a wide range of our past projects. Visit our showroom and ask one of our experienced staff to show you around, details below.Table with two columns and one row Showroom opening hours colon Mon dash Thur nine am – five pm Fri dash Sat ten am dash three pm Other times by appointment Show Room Unit forty-two slash forty-one Norcal Road Nunawading, Melbourne Vic three thousand one hundred thirty-one Table end Kitchens Squared is a Link Melbourne based company that specializes in Link renovations , and kitchen installations. Kitchens squared is a member of the Cabinet Makers association and we pride ourselves on our customer service and take the extra step to ensure quality and finish. Contact us on left paren three right paren nine thousand eight hundred seventy-four seven thousand four hundred for further information.Table endTable endTable with five columns and one rowTable endTable endTable with two columns and one row copyright Kitchens Squared two thousand seven Link web linksLink web design by havealookTable end

What this means is that your entire site is announced as a H1 element because you've encapsulated the H1 element inside a table cell. The other issues are that your typical screen reader will announce the table cells, which will stop anyone using a screen reader finding the relevant links due to the tables themselves.

Added into this is the empty table cells you're using for spacing, and you've got redundant code (apart from the overall malformedness that Tidy is also reporting) that's not adding value to your client's site, either from an accessibility perspective or an SEO one.

Yet that's not the whole story, now is it ?

For $199 your clients are getting $199 worth of web specialist skills.. which isn't much at all at the end of the day. That means their business is being harmed by believing they need to get the cheapest site possible. Cheap cookie cutter sites of this nature diminish the professionalism and accountability that web designer/devs have to their clientele. How is this so ?

A designer/artist of any nature, commission to do a creative work for a client, has a responsibility to create a work that reflects the client and increases the overall value/respect/credibility the client has.. For $199 your clients are not getting an adequate return on investment that reflects the professionalism of their own business - they're getting cheap for the sake of cheap.

Aussie Bob writes...

I checked that site on 3 browsers across 2 PCs and I'm not sure about it being

your talking about compatibility, not accessibility.

Absalomedia writes...

Cross browser compliance isn't the same thing as accessibility. This is where most designer/devs think they can get away with x/browser compliance, yet fail to meet the most basic web accessibility guidelines.

What he said! Well met.

Aussie Bob writes...

Side issue, I showed the mrs some red splashbacks on one of their kitchens and apparently we're changing our kitchen splashbacks from tiled over to the red glass. Serves me right for showing the Mrs those pics. =^)

[sidenote] My brother just fitted a nice red splashback in his brand new kitchen, looks absolutely amazing - but I think the bill was a few dollars! Let me know if you want some pics. :p

platinum writes...

My brother just fitted a nice red splashback in his brand new kitchen, looks absolutely amazing - but I think the bill was a few dollars!

Gotta cover the cost of those websites somehow! ;)

MrMurdock writes...

your talking about compatibility, not accessibility.

Well how is the site not accessible?

platinum writes...

[sidenote] My brother just fitted a nice red splashback in his brand new kitchen, looks absolutely amazing - but I think the bill was a few dollars! Let me know if you want some pics. :p

My brother is a manager for a window company so I should get brother's rates. =)

Aussie Bob writes...

Well how is the site not accessible?

The lack of semantic structure and the overuse/abuse of tables as layout mean that there is no way a user requiring screenreader access can find any information on your site.

Sure, you stuck a H1 in there, but that does next to nothing in helping a screenreader user find the information they are looking for. Most, if not all, screenreaders operate in two distinct modes - announcing headers (i.e how the page is structured for readability) and announcing links (where to go to the next page they want).

Since you only have 1 heading, it doesn't convey the site structure and the fact it's wrapped in tables means each screenreader has to announce each and every table row before a user can even think of finding a link through or out of the site.

I haven't even hit colour constrast and JS testing as part of accessibility auditing, but I think you should get my gist..