Slashdot Mirror
Web Design on a Shoestring
Bickner defines the audience for this book with four brief portraits of hypothetical individuals, all of whom need Web sites in a fairly low-key, resource-poor way. That is, something from the Web equivalent of an entrepreneur's business card to a non-profit organization's Web site. Although Bickner is apt to invoke "we Web professionals," this book is not really appropriate to Web creatives-for-hire (who would be better advised to seek out clients with the wherewithal to ask for something original, cool, and spendy). This book's broad scope is better suited to those with a more casual interest in Web sites, or those who have added Webmastering to other job responsibilities.
But the more I read, the more I was convinced Bickner's shoestring design theory went beyond financially embarrassed budgets. In a spirit of inquiry, I looked at two Web sites where skimpy budgets should not apply. Namely, the world's two richest persons and their employers. Microsoft's Web page is a well-wrought, complex assemblage of linked pages (though the splash page's security download du jour fairly shouts subtext). In contrast, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway's Web site is possibly more shoestring than even Bickner would advocate. The point being, even when the financial resources are bountiful, one can always, as Bickner says, "dare to do less."
One first impression of Web Design on a Shoestring is its excellent organization, an attribute librarians assume with famous pride (working in a library -- though not as a degreed librarian -- I've observed the species up close). Each chapter begins with a checklist preview. The text has ample sidebars covering budget gotchas ("Budget Threat"), saving opportunities ("Spinning Straw into Gold"), and special definitions. Plenty of screen shots (mostly from Mac OS X) and code listings visually support topics under discussion.
After the intro and first chapter set out the book's scope, Chapter Two, "The Pound Wise Project Plan," tackles how one might spec out a Web site project. This is the analytical, well-organized approach: a goal list, plus written documents for functional requirements and technical requirements. "Brainstorming," inspiration, playing with what a Web site might look like -- that's probably for another book, another author. In a book titled Web Design on a Shoestring, though, I did expect some definition, in real dollar ranges, of what constitutes a "shoestring budget."
Chapter Three, "Usability on the Cheap," is a once-over-lightly of several arguments made earlier in Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think! One of the themes in this book, accessibility, comes naturally to librarians, who work in the public arena. Bickner offers brief, informed comments about how page navigation can work sans mouse and sans Java.
Chapters Four and Five are key to any Web site creation: copy and graphics, respectively. For the supposed target audience, I wanted to see a tutorial approach, but the book's ambitious scope appears to preclude anything other than summary discussion. "Why Good Copy Counts" covers writing style, appropriate voice, plus the need to chunk and headline text. Bickner correctly claims words are a powerful tool for elevating the status of a low-budget site. On words alone, the playing field among Web site creators is level. Moreover, words -- in digital format -- need minimal computing resources compared to other tasks like image processing.
The next chapter, "The Design: Looking Good With Less," continues with the basics of font selection and usage, the advisability of using Cascading Style Sheets for fonts and colors, and some tips on keeping graphics and artwork affordable. When it came to image editors, I thought Bickner's command to buy Adobe Photoshop (or the alternative Macromedia Fireworks) arguable: "... in the case of image editors, I am not going to suggest an inexpensive alternative; spend the money. If you skimp on image editors, your site will suffer."
Even a year before Web Design on a Shoestring's publication date, Adobe Photoshop Elements was available. I run Elements on a Windows partition--reputedly eighty-percent of the functionality of the professional version at a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, no mention is given to the open-source and cross-platform GIMP (which should not be ignored, given the shoestring premise). A major flaw of this book, for this reviewer, was the relative lack of dollar-based data to bring alive the shoestring strategy -- I need more than pictures of shoelaces to get in the spirit.
But Bickner warms up to open-source software in Chapter 7, the second longest chapter in the book. "Content Management on a Tight Budget," left me wondering, though, whether the book's audience had morphed. Yes, Content-Management Systems (CMS) have benefits, especially for concurrent authoring and version control, but I don't see individuals putting together Web sites on a shoestring budget worrying such issues. I'd speculate discussions of such CMS as Zope (Bickner uses Zope for one of her sites) had more to do with her work at keeping Web sites functional at NYPL than identifiable needs of the target audience proposed in the book's intro.
Chapter 8, the longest chapter, "Save Money and Time with Web Standards," is a fairly predictable plea for contemporary coding conventions to separate structure and presentation with XHTML and CSS. Evidently, Ms. Bickner has a personal interest in this advocacy. As she notes in the last paragraph of the chapter, "Jeffrey Zeldman is my personal favorite web standards evangelist ... his book Designing with Web Standards fills in where this chapter leaves off. I know that because as I write this book, he is sitting behind me writing his book. We don't get out much."
The last chapter, "Bang-for-Your-Buck Hosting and Domains," is a caveat emptor about finding a satisfactory host to serve up the newly created shoestring Web site. Predictably, low-ball rates do not guarantee long-term happiness.
At book's end, I concluded Web Design on a Shoestring's intriguing premise and ambitious scope made for good intentions. But the execution (spotty and thin discussions, with a paucity of dollar-based illustrative data) did not add up to a $24.99 recommended buy. (A library loan, maybe.)
If one really wants to design a Web site on a shoestring, go for the rifle, not the shotgun. Pick up Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think! for usability and any book, new or used, by Robin Williams for Web design. I vouch for Krug and Williams because any page of their books shows the understanding and passion of a person in their gift. Reading these books generates enthusiasm the DIYer on a shoestring must have.
In contrast, rewards of reading Bickner often turn out to be, I hope, unintentional. The "easter egg" of reading Ms. Bickner's home address and home phone number in a screenshot figure showing Zope metadata. A "Definition: UNIX and Linux" I'm tempted to e-mail Richard Stallman. But it was the final paragraph that gave Web Design on a Shoestring a sweet finish:
"Shoestring design is not for the rich and famous, although shoestring designers have occasionally spun straw into gold and low-budget sites into fame and fortune. It is also not for the unmotivated or the easily discouraged. But if you keep at it, you will grow creatively and professionally in ways you never imagined. And that is something no amount of money can buy. See you in the discount rack!"
I trust Warren Buffett will never read these words.
Before joining Multnomah County Library, reviewer Charlie Dickinson was a technical writer for a publications group at Intel and elsewhere. His Web sites are "stories & more", first hatched in 1998; and "An American in Yaris" , a fledgling work-in-progress. You can purchase Web Design on a Shoestring from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Does this mean that 1 line webpages will become populour?
Have you metaroderated recently?
The most important thing you need to realize about a website is the color scheme. Website layouts are easy to make (use CSS to help save your life in the future)...but coming out with eye appealing colors is so key. We want it to be original so we avoid colors like white, but we don't want it to hurt/offend the eyes.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I wonder if these guys read the book...
Why does a a state need a Assistant Director for Digital Information and System Design for their library system?
Find a site you like (there are literally millions to choose from.)
Copy the html.
Change the content to match your company.
Bingo....cheap website.
Step one to creating a cheap web site is to to not buy useless web books. All you need to know is on the web. Start with A List Apart.
If your metric of success is "dollars of company revenue per dollar spent on Web site" then (as long as we disallow the division-by-zero case) Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway looks unbeatable!
FTFA: "eschews the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of Web page crafting for a comprehensive overview of 'project management..." yadida...
All well and fine. And I agree with the (book) author's general approach to things. But I don't see any treatment of the question that often makes projects unmanageable--namely, what will you and your neophyte web designers use to code the site?
The usual answer is the worst answer. Front Page, because it's there.
Dreamweaver and its kin can turn out nicer stuff, but there's a steeper curve to be learned.
Best of all is hand-coding, which brings us back to the regrettably eschewed nuts and bolts. Learning curve: steeper still.
Shoestrings are great, sometimes. And sometimes, you'd be better off investing in a decent pair of boots up front.
View | Source
That's all you need to know.
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
Both Microsoft and Berkshire-Hathaway have websites that achieve their company's goals effectively.
Berkshire-Hathaway wants to make vital and basic information about the company easy to find on its website. It succeeds.
Microsoft wants to make vital and basic information about the company hard to find on its website. It, too, succeeds.
... you're a webdesigner ? :)
I've always been of the philosophy that content is what makes a website. Yes, usability comes in, as well as visual appeal and all that wonderful stuff. However, if you don't have content (and purpose), any amount of eyecandy fluff isn't going to save you.
I've also always thought that web development/design is a service industry that for a long time have overcharged for what they do. (web devs, hear me out here before you tune out)
I'm not some artsy guy who can do killer tricks with photoshop...but for the most part, a lot of web stuff is fairly simple to do. Thus I've thought that rates for web work were waaay high.
Then I worked with the clueless. Folks who ask for a design, then change spec in the end. After a redesign, they want another a week later. People who, after you show them your detailed design document with goals and other specifics, suddenly get amnesia a meeting or two later. It's people like those who tend to drive costs up.
Don't get me wrong -- I try to clue them in. I'd walk them through the design process and stuff but they don't care for it. I present plans that they sign off on, and they don't care or forget they even agree to it. Then they complain when they find out it's going to cost more.
Other clients who send electronic versions of copy and images, ask for changes well in advance, and overall request (and respect) rather than obnoxiously demand are a pleasure to work with.
Shoestring budgets? That's easy enough to work with. Whatever "shoestring" means to you. Being a nightmare client, on the other hand, will eventually cost more. Not necessarily due to being a nightmare, but the extra hours of undoing plans, reimplementing changed specs, etc. will definitely add up.
Well that is neither legal nor moral. I'd recomend that they learn HTML and CSS online instead.
Cost: none.
With an author as hot IMHO and obsessed with XHTML validity (just a few URI errors on the NYPL home page) as Bickner, I wouldn't mind. I like writing valid XHTML--the awareness to validation keeps me awake, if only a waste of time in the process. That said, I too prefer the GIMP over paying for anything like PS/Fireworks; it seems good enough and "cheap" enough to me. I can see the flood of e-mails to Bickner now, with Subject: GIMP...
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Is it a good sign for the author that her page was showing a bunch of garbage when I loaded it?
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
that Carrie Bickner happens to be the wife of Jeffery Zeldman. It's also funny that NYPL happens to be his biggest client. For more examples of her writing, check out her articles on A List Apart
Is it being prepared to do the right thing, whatever the cost. Isn't that what makes a man? That and a pair of testicles
A big monitor helps.
You basically see two views of your website:
The HTML code and a "real world" view.
You can make changes in both views and the other view will be updated accordingly.
400 bucks sounds like a lot, but think of it in terms of time saved, not of money spent.
Highly recommended.
No, I'm not affiliated with Macromedia in any way - I just have a small web-based business and created the website myself.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
I'm a technology generalist who pays my bills by providing services on a contractual basis to small bizs. Occasionaly this entails web design.
Talk about a coincidence... I clicked over to /. while I was waiting for my order at templatemonster.com to process. I was vaugly aware of the sites like this, but never really looked at the templates until yesterday. They offer full, very professional website templates for download for only around $60(!). I'll never design a website for a client from scratch again.
(Disclaimer: The URL above includes my affliate ID, but isn't my reason for posting.)
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Once again people fail to understand that timespent equates to lost money lost in some way or other. The big advantage with CMS's is that all the basic functionality is already there for you to access. I can easily create a custom CMS for my own use, but I choose to use Mambo because it less work to harness something that already works and been tested. Unless you plan to build a better wheel, why bother? (Except for the love of doing it)
Wouldn't this make you more of a Web Facilitator rather than a Web Designer? I have nothing against it, but I was wondering about this as well in relation to clients, etc. I guess the ultimate goal is to provide our clients with what they want, no matter what the means.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
vim, google, gimp
Please, if I am looking at a company website and it looks like complete crap, it gives me a horrible impression. A well designed easy to navigate site catches people and makes them stay and spend money. Something that is boring will lose peoples interest as well as something that is difficult to navigate (2advanced site comes to mind).
The web is one of your defacto ad tools. To ignore it with a $200 site is just stupid.
I don't know about you, but I design on a computer.
The "Pirated Sites" website makes no mention of the possibility that they website were created from templates seperately purchased by different organizations. So they could be "pirated" or they could be legit. That's what happens when you use a template, after all.
Other than that, this a conversation by "coders" for "coders". In the art world, it's done all the time. That's where the phrase "Good artists copy, great artists steal" came from.
Anytime you put something out in the world, you have to expect that someone is going to take it and use it. That's life. It's only packs of ravenous lawyers that have created this "It's mine and no one can have it" attitude.
How do artists "compete" then? We out-innovate the competition. By the time we put something out in the world, we are already working on something cooler, and don't really give a shit about what we did in past.
If you don't believe it, find some artists and ask them. Then ask their lawyers, and you'll find out that they are the ones who created this environment, and the ones who really profit off of it.
I can have the book out next to me (and if it's perfect-bound like O'Reilly's books, they'll generally flat when opened) and I don't have to devote screen space to a website. I often find that even when referring to ALA or other sites, I'll print out the article and keep the hard copy next to my keyboard, so that my screen doesn't get too cluttered.
For some people, keeping a bunch of windows open and cycling through them is easy, but I find that a bit overwhelming and certainly distracting. Also, reading dense information on screen for a protracted period of time is simply more difficult.
Books provide easily accessed information that I can read anywhere (on the bus, in the waiting room at the dentist's office, and so on), whether I'm online or not. I find this particularly important because there are times when I want to *not* be jacked in, but I still want to absorb information having to do with development.
The great thing about the profusion of websites and books is that they offer choice. Get what you need for this project from a website, and get what you need for the next project from a book. Whatever works is good.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Step one to creating a cheap web site is to to not buy useless web books.
Who says you buy them? Why not check them out from the library? Surely even the author of this book would recommend that. *wink*
You probably shouldn't click this.
You basically see two views of your website: The HTML code and a "real world" view. You can make changes in both views and the other view will be updated accordingly.
Why not go the even cheaper route?
Saves you $400...
Or this one: http://cowboy-neil-for-president.slashdot.org/
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
My steps for web design/web server on shoestring budget (steps 4 and 5 are for those who just want a design).
1. Learn linux enough to manage a server--all the docs and how-to's you ever need are on the web, don't buy books (unless you want a standalone easy quick reference).
2. Buy a domain name from godaddy.com.
3. Get a VPS plan from rimuhosting.com or the multitude of other VPS providers. I prefer to have Debian installed in the VPS because it's minimal in disk space usage and packages can easily be installed with apt-get (i.e. you have have to muck around to try to find rpm's or tar.gz files)--you'll need to apt-get apache to get the webserver up. You'll also need to install a content management engine like wordpress, moveabletype, drupal, geekblog, etc.
4. With the money you saved by NOT buying books on how to design, purchase a web logo from The Logo Company or any comparable business that supplies you the logo for your site. They include full ownership of your logo (to file for trademark if you want) and all the vector graphics files you need to take it from there and build your own templates, CSS, etc. This is the most important part of the "design" process because you will use your logo to assemble your website -- it has the color palette that you want and the overall theme that will be persistent in your site.
5. Using the logo as "inspiration", create the CSS for the content management engine such as wordpress, moveabletype, geekblog, drupal, etc. Drop the CSS into your server.
Obviously, there are lots of in between steps I didn't care to mention, but the main steps are listed. Overall, for the startup cost and the first month of your web page going live, you shouldn't need to spend more than $105 USD ($75 for the logo, $20 per month for the VPS, $10 for a year's worth of domain name service) -- the price of 3 or 4 books.
Linux at home
Maybe because the Director for Digital Information and System Design was so busy that she needed an assistant?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Content is king - So let the advertising staff, tech writers, or even a manager (who can usually write better than we give them credit for) lay out the text. Besides, if you write it, they'll just re-write it into a hash by the end of the project anyway.
Presentation is Queen - Speaking from experience, most of us overestimate our artistic abilities. Fonts, colors, whitespace, branding etc. are both a science and an art. I have seen first-hand the difference a good graphics artist can make. For a few hours of consultation, you can get more good ideas that most of us will come up with in a year of fiddling around.
The Joker is in the Details A good nerd is the magic glue that makes it all happen. Sombody has to know the standards, be able to code, and make the decisions about which technologies to use. Some sites just require basic HTML and maybe a bit of CSS, but most modern sites require a whole lot more.
The point is that very few people can combine all of these skills at a professional level. The skills are orthagonal - being good at one implies nothing (or very little) about your abilities in the others. Ego aside, most of us would get far better results if we were humble enough to ask for help -- a brief survey of web sites should convince ANYONE that really good designes are few and far between (and no, slashdot is NOT a shining beacon of perfection).
You need to create a file in a murky proprietary format, submit that file to some sort of parser and review process, and that gets transmogrified to tag-soup, table-laden HTML illuminated with all manner of popup menus and navigational horrors. Saying "CSS" around here gets blank looks. It's like designing web pages from a command line.
...but the Milwaukee County Library system has had their card catalog in electronic form since the mid-nineties. From a terminal (many of which are still the nostalgic green screens) you can search for a book, see whether or not it's in the library you're in, and get it transfered across town from another library. You can also access it online from home so you can have a book reserved and held for you.
Someone had to put together that system, and someone has to maintain it.
TRHOnline - Staggering Towards Brilliance
Unfortunately, the content matters little if the color scheme is so dreadful that the user has to highlight the text or open the source HTML to read said content.
... you think I'm joking, but making your teeny-tiny-point font match your background color seems to be popular in certain web circles. I have found this correlates highly with the "2 inch by 2 inch iframe" and "I'm 1337 with my warez copy of Dreamweaver" school of web design.
My point is that you're assuming a minimum level of usability to the color scheme to begin with, and I think that that's a dangerous assumption.
All most ask is if you use their design, let 'em know.
I pulled a jack move to cop this sig
You've obviously never worked in a library. Job title inflation, especially when attached to IT stuff, is rampant. Librarians are still pissed they couldn't control the Web. Since they can't make much money, they settle for fancy titles to make themselves feel more proficient.
There's a similiar site like this called Open Source Web Design which gives away basic HTML and CSS template. They have a strict rule of no images (which I'm fine with) and even require all designs be W3C X/HTML/CSS validated.
With these requirements they're usually pretty light and basic, you can find some good designs to start you off with
Oh good! Someone finally wrote a book about something I already know. Heh.
Seriously, though, both of my siblings are librarians, and when I do web design single-handedly I always get complements on how straightforward and useable -- yet attractive -- my web sites are. It truly is wonderful how quickly you can publish a useful and attractive site for very little money if you keep your priorities straight.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
I'm getting tired of Open Source folk proclaiming GIMP as being a useful substitute for Photoshop.
The GIMP is just too clunky to do good work with, as evinced by its ugly logo and sample documents. About the most creative thing anyone does with it is more-or-less trivial photo retouching that can be done in something like iPhoto or Elements.
And if you think that Elements has "80%" of Photoshop's functionality, you haven't used 90% of Photoshop's functionality.
For me, the most useful thing to take away from this book is not necessarily the blah about web standards coding techniques (there are better resources for that), but the techniques for planning a website, such as listing out in plain language what you want the website to do.
I provide advice to small businesses about websites, and its rare to find one that has even has a basic requirements list, never mind a structured, budgeted website development plan that is regularly reviewed and updated by management.
Most small businesses regard their websites as either a tacked on extra, or as something for the in-house geek to deal with.
Most of them don't need a website. They'd be better off with listings in business directories such as Kellysearch and Yell.com.
Those that have a real need for a website should be using a cheap, web-based content management system that spits out standards compliant code, not training in Dreamweaver, Frontpage (gah!), Contribute, et al.
Textpattern hacked to include a WYSIWYG editor would fit the bill nicely. Implement that with 12 months support for £1000 and you've got clients.
All out of bubblegum...
Heard of Google? They managed to attract one or two users wihout any color scheme at all.
It's almost offtopic, but I can't resist mentioning Bruce Lawson's supremely ugly CSS skin, Geocities 1996. Unfortunately, Firefox is unable to manage the more epilepsy-inducing effects. Soo much for browser independence!
Buy? Surely everyone's planning to get it out from the library...
Dual screens are nearly indispensible for web design. If you want to keep a web tutorial open on one screen, and your code/web site on the other, dual screens are the way to go. It's also great for coding on one screen and previewing in the other. Just a warning... once you go there, you will never want to go back to a puny single screen of desktop real estate.
"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." - Henrik Ibsen
...of a web designer who can't even keep their own home page from being full of easily fixed 404 errors.
(hint: they're all supposed to be in a photo/ subdirectory but someone forgot to do that update when the files got moved...which wouldn't have happened anyways if they'd used relative hrefs in the first place...)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
As usual, I'm left alone, with even the valid-XHTML-typing semi-nerdy* women taken. sigh...but I'll still type mine validly in her honor.
*said knowing I am far nerdier.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Web sites with massive budgets often tend to spend those budgets on areas that have nothing to do with content, which is, after all, what most of us really want from the Web (if we wanted a lot of useless graphics we'd go see a movie.) Expensive, gratuitous flash animations and the rest of that crap can easily detract from the true value of a Web site, or at least can obscure that value to the point where no-one can find it.
Many companies could take a lesson from Google and its minimalist approach to screen design (Yahoo, for example.) A cleanly-designed, truly elegant Web site is a joy to behold and to use. The mistake that many designers make is in equating complexity with elegance. In the old days, we said that ridiculously colorful and complicated displays (whose only goal was to prove that the programmer knew how to do complicated things) were victims of the "Christmas Tree Effect". I must say, the mindset behind the CTE is alive and well, and living on the Web.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If you look at our website, you'll see lack of clutter. Imagine that! We've never believed that clutter will get people to your content. All the designs we've done have been clutterless. Granted some of them from way back in the day look rather....childish and I'm not exactly happy to have our names on them now since the client refuses to update, and things changed when I took over the company.
But alas, I've always wondered where having a busy site actually became what was "cool".
- Use the GIMP for image processing. Cost $0.00
- Go over to the CSS discuss Wiki to get lots of great example CSS, freely reusuable. Cost still $0.00
- Make sure your site looks acceptable with Internet Explorer's awful CSS. Cost: $0.00 if you have a friend with Windows, or go to the local library to look at the site. Otherwise $Bill_gates_tax
- Viola. You have a great looking site.
CSS has made it possible to quickly and easily make a great-looking web site. Compare this to the old days when it would take days to figure out what table hacks looked right in Netscape, and hope that not too many blind people or Lynx users try to look at your site.(Actually, I still use tables for basic layout because IE doesn't support max-width and min-width for CSS elements sizes; this can be somewhat hacked around with <td width=whatever>.)
I've recently been applying a methodology which has been getting popular lately: totally separating content & markup from presentation. What this implies is that you structure the content & information architecture BEFORE doing the aesthetics & visuals.
In my opinion, this approach presents a maturing of the the web development process. As a designer/developer, you are more focused on having a solid plan and laying the groundwork as opposed to making placeholders for content. This would a huge amount of time since it lessens the "figuring out" phase in deciding how to layout the site.
Need a color? Try 100 random colors
"even the text word for word"
Are you sure it wasn't just google's cached version of your webpage?
Heh - Your talking to an expert! I started my off-line business 2/half years ago. I decided I needed a web site but eeeK! The Cost! 2/half years later I now design websites, basic, clean, simple one's as described in xhtml/css and I started while living on social benefits! Don't think you can get anymore shoestring than that!
A lot of that time has been a learning curve and since I totally dumped html 4.0/4.01 for xhtml I haven't looked back.
In fact I think I just may have landed a job with a new file sharing software tonight so I'm on a buzz...(check out 'Grouper' - well worth it!)
And the article is right, it can be done - I do it almost daily still.
They must've ported it to shoestrings by now...
Yes, I'm quite familiar with virtual desktops. While handy, they still present the necessity for "shifting" which is the very element that I find distracting in using a reference for an extended period of time while working on a project.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
i don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
With overall budget, did they include the cost of the book?
I like this javascript color mixer ColorMixers
You can browse some of the presets or make your own set of colors, quite useful.
Sample this!
Again, only a 'shoestring' budget if your time is worth nothing to you at all.
I love the Berkshire Hathaway site. Take it as some advice from some people who know how to make a lot of money with a minimum of waste. Looks like someone's nephew put it together in a few hours circa 1996, and it's one of the most easy-to-use and clean sites I've seen in months. No need to impress anyone with slick graphics there
mod me negative all day long I have karma to burn
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I'm so glad that this book was written... After years of creating websites, I now see how hard it is and how much must go into them!
;) - not shoestring web sites!
And here I thought it was only a text file accessable by a little file reading program we call a web server... Silly me!!!
Seriously though, making web sites is free - making them good is an art - getting people on them is hard work... I skimmed though this book at borders the other day and had to laugh... I guess we're going to see a lot more junk one line sites after the gen. public see's $$$ in their eyes... doesn't poor Google have enough garbage to already parse? We need to conserve Google hard drive space for Slash Dot articles
Present some product but fail to mention what it costs
A lot of sites that sell expensive products do this. The site often states that the user is expected to send an e-mail to sales@example.com to find out that the product costs 100 times what the user was willing to pay.
Use a double monitor setup assuming you have the desk space.
And flip how many burgers to afford a second video card and a second monitor? And what about Mac mini owners, who cannot add to or replace the machine's onboard video? Is there a good USB 2, FireWire, or Ethernet video card?
Getting Y100 back, that is...hey, HFS rose from the grave...
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?