Freeway Pro, Site Grinder...?

[Esh]

You fell for that one there Spark Creative.

[Corrosive]

It's like using cheap stock photography - it's ok, to a certain level, but everyone will know you've used stock photography and that's probably not the image you want to project.

Same goes for Freeway, SiteGrinder, Wix etc. OK, amateur site, fine. Professional, absolutely no way

[SparkCreative]

Lol guess so. I'm not sure the difference is so obvious at the client end though. With the visual side, it's obvious there's a difference. When the difference is all under the hood, I think it's probably more difficult for the client to tell. That's not to say that the under the hood stuff isn't important.

[Esh]

Like I said, it's up to the client, if they know whats on offer and it's what they want, thats their choice. I'm still learning to build sites properly for the reasons mentioned before, but I still stand by what I said. Theres no reason a site using a WYSIWYG builder can't be professional. Not everyone aims to get to the top of Google, and those that do pay, most never do anyway.

Personally, I'd be more than happy if someone used one of those leaflet/brochure template designer things...doesnt really make much difference as people still use Publisher etc. If they want personalised they'll go to a designer. As for websites, a graphic designer is still able to put together a decent site in a 'builder', even if the 'back end' isn't up to the standards of those that code. They're the only ones who really fuss about it.
Still, who knows, by the time my build skills have improved, I might be saying the same as you.

Since graphic design/web is so subjective, despite all the fuss designers of each discipline make, levels of professionalism is a bit hard to measure I think. If people are willing to try and build themselves an extremely ugly template website in Wix and Co then there is clearly a market for those at the 'lower end' of the web spectrum.

[Corrosive]

Lol guess so. I'm not sure the difference is so obvious at the client end though. With the visual side, it's obvious there's a difference.

But I think there is a huge assumption there that everyone can see! Any user with a visual impairment 'sees' a page on a website in a different way to you or I and those visitors will see pretty much a garbled mess when they view a 'generated' page. In fact there are UK guidelines all about this supported and advocated by the RNIB; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. You shouldn't discount this section of the population from using or appreciating a website.

When the difference is all under the hood, I think it's probably more difficult for the client to tell. That's not to say that the under the hood stuff isn't important.

All the more reason to do a good job I reckon. Apply the 'what the customer can't see won't hurt them' line to the building or used car trade.

[Corrosive]

They're the only ones who really fuss about it.

Not true, visit the RNIB website.

Still, who knows, by the time my build skills have improved, I might be saying the same as you.

You will, trust me.

Since graphic design/web is so subjective, despite all the fuss designers of each discipline make, levels of professionalism is a bit hard to measure I think. If people are willing to try and build themselves an extremely ugly template website in Wix and Co then there is clearly a market for those at the 'lower end' of the web spectrum.

Totally agree (and with your first statement) that if you are honest about what the client is getting then there is a market for every level. I accept that totally and you get what you pay for.

[byronc]

Text in images, inline styles, no external (and so cached) stylesheet, tables, image maps for links. Whoever the 'people who know about these things' are you've spoken to don't know squat about coding a good layout. It just flies in the face of everything you need to be competitive online nowadays. It is the usual story with WYSIWYG, on the face of it, it looks great but there is some seriously nasty stuff lurking just below the surface...

unfortunately - non savvy small time cutomers have no clue. they are generally very impressed with something that "looks" good, but doesn't rank in serps at all. I guess if a web page is just a front then it can be just a gui, but if you want people to actually find you on the net then you need technically correct websites:icon_thumbup: