One of the folks around the office has just shown me the website that a local designer has made for their new business.

Now, for those who can't guess, people shouldn't ask if I think their websites are any good. Not unless they want an honest answer.

The situation is improving, but it's been the case for some time that those making the decisions don't see the benefits of making good, standards compliant websites. More than that, it's often because lazy or uninformed designers don't make a case for those benefits, because coding (or marking up) without regard for standards is quicker, more seductive...

I'll normally hold judgement on whether it looks good, because my aesthetic sense is generally pretty poor (I know what I like: I have no idea about anyone else...). Instead I'll go straight for more technical or functional details, and although I'll gladly put praise where it's due it's an unfortunate fact that in the school of 'it's only a website, it just has to look good' opportunities for praise are often sadly lacking.

It's not to say that I'm an expert or anything. In fact traditionally I'm quite poor at web design, mainly because of my lack of taste and my hatred of pandering to the providers of buggy and quirky browsers: I can make simple sites that do what they're told because they're not too fancy, and that suits me fine. I don't know how to make the perfect site, but I have a huge list of things that will quickly make sure a site isn't perfect.

Incidentally, I do love to be helpful and if anyone has something interesting and hasn't been discouraged by the above (you are trying to observe standards, for example) then I'd gladly take a quick look. But you might be better off asking Lyle, Pete or someone.