Setting up a website for my gite.

[glacier1]

Hi there [:)]

exciting times!  I'm going to start my business in a months time but I have still not launched the website, or for that matter, found anybody that's compitent to write it.  I do not know where to start, does anybody have a company they can highly recomend to not only create the website, but also, who can monitor it? 

I do not want to break the rules of the forum, if you have names, please PM me with the details.  Thanks guys!

Dave

[Théière]

Why not do it yourself?

There are some excellent programs out there like Serif's webplus series

[Iceni]

glacier1 - PM en route

John

[glacier1]

I will check the web program out, I'm lost when it comes to doing a webpage.

[glacier1]

how easy it is to use Webpro X2?  Any experience with it?

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

Something that all these DIY Web design tools don't do is help with search engine optimisation. If you just want your own site that people can get to from Gites de France, or whatever, then it doesn't matter, but if you want a site that people can find via Google then it's not just a matter of making it look good.

You also need to think about stuff like taking bookings via the Web. If you want that then DIY starting from very little knowledge just isn't cost effective.

[Théière]

Webplus from Serif, if you can arrange things on a page you can produce a web site, no need to lean HTML code unless you want to.

My first website took me three hours from opening the book to publishing, had to do it as learned nephew let me down and potential renters were asking for it.

Actually my first 1 page under construction site, published whilst doing the main site took about 45 mins and was done using Pageplus. I bought webplus 10 after getting delusions of grandeur. [:D]

Hosting was arranged via 1and1 internet as was the website name.

It may sound like learning another language but I struggle to learn French, I can build web pages though. There is excellent support from Serif technical and user forum.

Sorry Albert info Gypsy.

You are wrong on both counts, there are google search engine descriptors and other bits in Webplus and I take bookings via the website without any problems using Serif's web resources and the forms built into Webplus.

 

[Scooby]

[quote user="Albert the InfoGipsy"]

Something that all these DIY Web design tools don't do is help with search engine optimisation. If you just want your own site that people can get to from Gites de France, or whatever, then it doesn't matter, but if you want a site that people can find via Google then it's not just a matter of making it look good.

You also need to think about stuff like taking bookings via the Web. If you want that then DIY starting from very little knowledge just isn't cost effective.

[/quote]

I agree Albert.  Also a 'homemade' looking web site presents an unprofessional image and suggests cheap skating...it may imply you run the rest of your business that way.

[Théière]

Sorry Scooby, the ability to produce a good website is down to the Artists imagination.

Not allowed to advertise on the Forum so here is my friend Ali's "homemade" website.

 

[Scooby]

[quote user="teapot"]

Sorry Albert info Gypsy.

You are wrong on both counts, there are google search engine descriptors and other bits in Webplus and I take bookings via the website without any problems using Serif's web resources and the forms built into Webplus.

 [/quote]

All the off the shelf packages do re search engine optimisation is insert meta tag keywords.  Search engine optimisation is a more complex (and changing) problem than that.  Re the booking, I'm guessing Albert means availability calenders rather than a simple feedback form.  There are free / cheap packages that will do this, but from my experience they are much more vulnerable to hacking / spamming.

[krusty]

[quote user="Scooby"]

I agree Albert.  Also a 'homemade' looking web site presents an unprofessional image and suggests cheap skating...it may imply you run the rest of your business that way.
[/quote]

There you go teapot .....Scooby has thrown down the challenge , lets see your website [;-)]

[Théière]

Sorry Scooby,

I have an availabilty calendar too and a proper booking form not a feedback form. Captcha or however it's spelt is also a feature to help with spamming. Any site can be hacked, re the pentagon and microsoft.

 

[Scooby]

Site is not DDA compliant - which, if it is meant to be accessed by the general public, it should be.  For a start it uses fixed font sizes.  Div tags are defined in absolute terms so that, if the fonts were changed to variable size, (to allow resizing by the partially sighted) the layout would distort completely (i.e. to make it compliant would need a complete redesign).  Fonts should be hierarchical to allow for unsupported fonts...  In addition it failed the following web standards.

W3C failure report

xhtml validation failure report

Re the hacking - open source software is vulnerable because the source code is easily available to hackers who can (easily and quickly) cause widespread damage by spiders.

[Théière]

Sorry to disapoint Krusty, my site is my business and is not available for criticism by the forum

Scooby I guess we are just lucky that people shopping on our sites or any other for that matter don't carry out W3C tests or Xhtml tests before shopping.

No doubt youll go and run a keyword search next [geek]

[Scooby]

As an aside using 'please click here' as the text for a link is not a good idea for search engine optimisation.  Links (like headings) are weighted to have higher priority than text (as is the relative position of text on the page) and so should include key search words whenever possible.

[Scooby]

[quote user="teapot"]

Scooby I guess we are just lucky that people shopping on our sites or any other for that matter don't carry out W3C tests or Xhtml tests before shopping.

[/quote]

Ignoring the sarcastic emoticon, (you, after all, did solicit my opinion) - accessibility for disabled users is a serious issue.  And it's not about being a 'geek' - it's the difference between a professional website and one done by an enthusiastic amateur.  No different than an electrician wiring to industry standards cf an enthusiastic DIYer.

PS - A booking form is a feedback form - it just has your choice of fields.

[Théière]

Hi glacier1,

You hopefully have been following your thread, I have an update to Scooby's point on DDA access re websites. This is a direct quote from a forum member after I asked the question about Webplus X2 (WPX2). The point about hacking is down to the ISP and server security where your website files will be stored.

"Hi Teapot,

I'm responding as a disabled person and as an advocate for disabled people.

All the browsers in which I test (including IE8, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera) use Ctrl+ to zoom the window and Ctrl- to "unzoom" the window. So far as I can ascertain, WPX2 webs zoom and unzoom correctly when this functionality is used. This would seem to provide the same functionality as a dedicated screen magnifier but it is incorporated into the browsers.

HTML text is recommended for body text as is ALT text for images so that speech software can vocalize the content.

It is generally seen to be bad practice to compile web pages so that the source code cannot be read. The content is displayed in the browser anyway so why try to hide it?

Should you wish to include proprietary code that cannot be seen by looking at the browser source code then the best way of doing that is to use server-side scripting languages such as PHP rather than client-side languages like Javascript (which you can switch off in browser preferences anyway)".

 

[Âme]

[quote user="glacier1"]...does anybody have a company they can highly recomend to not only create the website, but also, who can monitor it?  

...please PM me with the details.[/quote]

Have sent you a PM

[Scooby]

[quote user="teapot"]

The point about hacking is down to the ISP and server security where your website files will be stored.

[/quote]

No - also down to badly written code.

[Théière]

[quote user="Scooby"][quote user="teapot"]

The point about hacking is down to the ISP and server security where your website files will be stored.

[/quote]

No - also down to badly written code.
[/quote]

Err yes, how do gain the ftp server address and password from the badly written code?

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

Just a further general comment. I've got a slightly odd professional background -- it includes graphic design, photography, marketing and heavy-duty database programming. I've written some ASP and HTML for specific purposes, but if I ever need a Web site to sell my goods or services I'll hire someone who knows what he/she is doing.

Making a site look pretty is not the same thing as making it easy to use, reliable or professional-looking. I'm sure that I could do all those things, given time, but I'd rather hire someone else to do a decent job quickly while I carry on doing what earns me money (or relaxing on a beach).

[krusty]

I have nothing and no service to sell , but if the example given by teapot on page one is an example of a home made website , it looks perfect to me.

It gives all the information I would need and I would not be able to distinguish it from any other website.

When I need to book a gite I don't run a test on the website to see if it has been put together correctly.

[Scooby]

[quote user="teapot"]

Err yes, how do gain the ftp server address and password from the badly written code?

[/quote]

Any website function that allows server or database access is a potential vulnerability.  For example, a badly written mail function (that allows your visitors to contact you via a form on your website) can be hijacked and used to spam multiple email addresses.  The effect? Thousands of junk mail are sent appearing to come from your email account and so your email address is blocked by other servers.  There are many, many other examples.  

You're obviously not a programmer so it's pointless trying to discuss with you.  Badly written code will leave your website vulnerable - period.

[Théière]

[quote user="Albert the InfoGipsy"]

Just a further general comment. I've got a slightly odd professional background -- it includes graphic design, photography, marketing and heavy-duty database programming. I've written some ASP and HTML for specific purposes, but if I ever need a Web site to sell my goods or services I'll hire someone who knows what he/she is doing.

Making a site look pretty is not the same thing as making it easy to use, reliable or professional-looking. I'm sure that I could do all those things, given time, but I'd rather hire someone else to do a decent job quickly while I carry on doing what earns me money (or relaxing on a beach).

[/quote]

Albert the InfoGypsy, I have always enjoyed reading your posts. You often bring valuable comment and information to a thread.

It is your absolute right to employ a web designer should you need one, I gave an example of a website produced by a friend of mine who definitely knows what she is doing.  I agree making a site look pretty is not the same as making it easy to use, providing that the code runs on all the browsers reliabilty is more down to the servers than anything else.

One guy who uses Webplus did so as a response to his boss hiring a professional company that produced a poor website. His site looked and worked far better and is now the companies adopted site. He did it because he was worried that the professional site would loose them business and therefore his job.  It's like anything in life, good tradesmen and bad, good doctors and bad, yada yada yada.

As I said of my site, no time was spent that was valuable earning time, all out of hours, possibly time better spent than some on this forum [:D]

Just one request, pleased don't follow some on the forum that criticise a product without ever owning or using it.

 

[Benjamin]

I was watching this thread as I may have to produce a web site soon.

Thanks for your positive comments teapot. Some of the "experts" were so in danger of disappearing up their own b*cks*des that I thought Glacier1's thread was going the same way.[+o(]