• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

A redesign of a redesign - See what you think.


Senior Member
I must say, I much prefer it to your previous redesign. It's a lot more compact and easier to digest!

The only thing which I'd add is the same navigation at the bottom to the top. That or just cut and paste it. This is because I saw your content before your nav, and because of the 'elsewhere' links on your page, it didn't strike me as linked internally.

Once again, maybe I'm wrong!

Hope this helped!


Senior Member
oh and just a few coding things, to make me look clever... (really i just copied jaz!)

your CSS style sheet is currently attached by...
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css" type="text/css" />

change that to...
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css" type="text/css" media="screen"/>

your XML statement...
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

change that to...
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

Also, create a plain text file named '.htaccess' and enter this into it...
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.theworkof\.co\.uk [nc]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.theworkof.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L]

In the words of Jaz...
"What this will do is redirect your www. and non www. versions to the www. version. This in the search engines eyes makes the site 1 site other wise it is classed as 2." [helps with SEO]

Also, I'm gonna speak for him, or in the style of him, again (living legend by the sounds of it), you should insert alt="image description #" or even leave it blank, when stating an inserted image, for accessibilty reasons. 'That way a blind person' will have their computer read out the alt to them, instead of the URL of the image."Also change your doctype to strict so rather than having transitional, which allows more errors ~

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

change it to ~

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">" [also from Jaz!]

brown = html
blue = new html
red = mod_rewriting


Senior Member
Im going to pick up on the alt descriptions for blind people comment, ive heard it before and still wonder... why would a blind person be looking at a graphic design website?


Senior Member
br3n said:
Im going to pick up on the alt descriptions for blind people comment, ive heard it before and still wonder... why would a blind person be looking at a graphic design website?
They might own their company and be looking for a designer? - they may only be wanting the contact details, but if the description entices them, they could have a carer or reliable friend/workmate who could check the site themselves for the quality of the work?


Senior Member
Im going to get shouted at im sure - but the amount of blind users browsing a website must be similar to the amount using 640*480 for a resolution on 28k dial up - its a bit of a jump on the bandwagon thing and I dont think you should get carried away with it, 2advanced dont pass any validaters :)

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://2advanced.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

Nor do google...

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.google.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

Nor do fantasy interactive

[Invalid] Markup Validation of http://www.f-i.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

thats two of the BIGGEST web dev companies on the planet, and the search engine your all aiming to please?


Senior Member
*cough cough*

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and Web Accessibility

Can you be sued?

Basically, yes. The RNIB has approached two large companies with regard to their websites. When they raised the accessibility issues of the websites under the DDA, both companies made the necessary changes, rather than facing the prospect of legal action (in exchange for anonymity).
The DRC launched a formal investigation into 1000 websites6, of which over 80% were next to impossible for disabled people to use. They issued a stern warning that organisations will face legal action under the DDA and the threat of unlimited compensation payments if they fail to make websites accessible for people with disabilities.
I'm all for equality, but logic takes precedent. I don't think a blind person would be checking out graphic/web design sites. They'd probably hire someone to do so if they ran a company. Alt tags aren't really going to show you the caliber of a designer.

Debate aside, I would say make the blog look more like the other pages, and that the homepage needs a little tweaking. It feels just a little plain to me.


Senior Member
Unfortunately, my Wordpress skills are minimal and I wouldn't even have a clue about how to go about setting it up on my server. And, even when it was set up, I don't have the coding expertise to incorporate my design into a Wordpress theme. This is why I set up an account on Wordpress.com instead and used a generic template.

What would you like to see on the homepage? What would you say needs adding or changing?


Senior Member
Don't change it dramatically, if at all. It looks professional to any client.

Oh, and once more, I'm going to disagree with Sneakyheathen! Sorry!

You do need alt tags. If a client knows what they're looking for and it's not there, you're stuffed. What about people who I know? They're not blind, but very partially sighted. Is it fair we don't include alt tags because we can't be arsed?


Senior Member
I still think your overlooking the fact that the majoirty of the BIG web players arn't conforming to these rules.


Active Member
Hey br3n, although i totally agree with your point relating to the big players not conforming, they do however have one major advantage, over the smaller players and that is they have massive marketing budgets and other avenues of pulling in potential custom to such a degree that they can negate the smaller disabled minorities out of being potential customers /business. To this end if they cannot reach say 0.5% (pinch of salt added) of their possible total customer base it doesn't register on the anual takings and thus they have no justification to spend.

if this doesnt make sense ill re word it after i get some sleep im shatterd


Active Member
Well like to see my work here is done before I actual view a thread, ummm..... didn't think I was that good. Loving your work. :lol:

Br3n, here comes the shouting, lol.
As Miss Accessibility Lady, Bluecote, rightly says you can be, and sites are on a regular basis, sued.

As people living in the UK and the US, or for that 1 total of 17 countries, including Korea and Singapore, that have a few little things called disability laws, that cover web design, by not including it you are breaking the law.

A major example would be, O I dunno, I had to actually look this up to get the correct details, I'm not that sad, lol ~

Case ~ Maguire V sydney Organising Committee for the 2000 Olympic games.
Outcome ~ Maguie, who is blind, won $20k in damages,

Maguire was awarded $20k due to the fact he couldn't buy a ticket. It was probably made worse as the Olympic committees advice to him, when he said I can not buy a ticket, was get a sighted person to do it for you, :D, yeah they deserved it TBH.

The other 1 that always sticks with me, cant find the case, is a skate boarding site couldn't let a blind user buy a skate board, why would a blind user skate? in-line with your question Sneakyheathen, errrr........what about a present for his grandchild, he got $5k in damages as a result.

But the alt attribute is not just for Screen readers it has 2 other main uses that I cant think of. ~
1. Search engines read it and thus know what words to accredit to the following page, with out it you are doing harm to your site in the results.

2. It's main role is to display Alternative text if the image fails to load, so their is is some textual reference to what the designer was trying to get across.

and the search engine your all aiming to please?
Also errrr......no, I aim to please Window Live Search first, Yahoo! and Google second.

I still think your overlooking the fact that the majoirty of the BIG web players arn't conforming to these rules.
Or do they not follow the W3C's documentation on valid coding practise?
Which is different to the US's section 508.

<img alt="Google" height=110 src="/intl/en_uk/im.....
Src: Google.co.uk

First time I have been thier in a year.

But you are right, in a way, the image says Google UK so should the alt attribute, as other wise they are displaying different content to what the site visitor gets, possible discrimination their IMO, wouldn't say it was a suable issue though. :D

But the big sites do follow accessibility rules, IBM is a massive follower, in fact they actually came up with some pretty ingenious ways of matching accessibility with design constraints.

But vision is only 1 disability that you can be sued for, what about people with reduce motor neurone disabilities, who blow and sip into a straw, type machine, to view the internet?

1-in 7 people have a visual impairment of some kind.


I personally prefer the original design, with minor changes if I'm honest.
Sorry, I do like it and I do think it looks professional but, I prefer the original version.

Ha rant over. :D

Purple ~ XHTML


Active Member
Why thanks for the correction, 1 thing though it's Jazajay as in and, some of my friends call me Jaz and some call me Jay, for short so.......

But that does make sense, you do appear to be octopus mad, so I can see it now, lol.

But thanks for your unwavering love, I'll add it to the list of other women who confess it on a daily basis,TBH, lol. :D