roothost

If you are use to dreamweaver i suggest brackets.io it was founded by adobe and has several features that dreamweaver has

Not to dissimilar to us, it's a good chunk of money and we wouldn't want to loose it.
 
If you want colo or even Dedi Box's Racksrv is where we are at currently.

Thanks for your time just now Brian. Much appreciated

Yep, they are fairly shocking at the moment. We're in the processes of moving websites away from them now.
 
I think they should rebrand to YoYo Internet, it seems much more fitting.

Lol love it ... shouldn't it be ...
 
"We're in a pub in Lancaster with canal views, I think we parked the servers somewhere in Manchester"

Thanks for the mention. Our servers are in Manchester and we're in Lancaster, next to the canal, and a pub.

A Small Orange suffered the same fate when they were bought out. It's a shame.
 
I've since moved to Digital Ocean with Serverpilot. I like the amount of configuration you can do with each server. You can put all sites on a single server, but it's nice to be able to scale sites on an individual basis.
 
Also, I've heard good things about guru.co.uk, a UK based host.

It's still worth looking at http://www.clook.net/ - I've been with them for nearly 13 years now, solid reliable, excellent support. http://www.reviews.co.uk/company-reviews/store/clook-internet

As far as I am aware, still using TSO, although I am looking into alternatives. I use Digital Ocean, but only for dev sites and experiments.
Someone recommended NuBlue to us - https://www.nublue.co.uk/ and I have been researching - http://www.reviews.co.uk/company-reviews/store/nublue

I used to love TSO Host purely for the pro hosting with a free domain and their support always seemed spot on. But havent tried testing them with 200+ site migrations.
 
I have recently switched to using FortRabbit for my hosting as I mainly do Laravel stuff and its a world of difference.

Yep looks like their support is base in Bulgaria - http://www.paragon.net.uk/about

This happens all the time so it's nothing to worry about. Search engine indexes are dynamic and always changing, knowing Google they probably serve different results at different times of the day like you found so they can match specific local search requirements better.

The only company I've heard do this recently with any kind of success was Zapier. They created a tonne of landing pages explaining integration's between each product. It's usually the first thing that appears on Google if a company doesn't have an official integration with another product.
 
https://zapier.com/zapbook/asana/bugherd/
 
Whether it would work for e-commerce is debatable, and extremely dangerous if the site is doing well. Another thing that could lead to a loss of sales would be the random user interface. I think landing pages would create confusion, and really you want to make e-commerce as familiar as possible.
 
That's my take anyway.

The table cell method is a good one.
 
Sometimes, when I can't use it for equal heights, I use this - https://github.com/mattbanks/jQuery.equalHeights and call equal heights again, a few ms after the inner elements have resized.

This is one I wrote a while back for equal heights based on rows, where items on the same rows will all have equal heights rather than giving every targeted element the same height.
PROJECTNAME.equalHeights = { elementsArray: [], elements : '', init: function($) { "use strict"; var elementsArray = []; this.elements = $('.js-equal-height'); // reset the heights of all the selected elements this.elements.each(function() { // add each element to the array. elementsArray.push($(this)); }); this.elementsArray = elementsArray; this.execute($); }, execute: function($) { if (WASABIWEB.equalHeights.elements.length) { var count = 0, el, iPosition, elPosition, elHeight, iHeight, elementsArray = WASABIWEB.equalHeights.elementsArray, elements = WASABIWEB.equalHeights.elements; elements.height('auto'); for (var i=0, x = elementsArray.length; i<x; i++) { for (var j=0, k = elementsArray.length; j<k; j++) { var el = elementsArray[j]; iPosition = elementsArray[i].offset().top; elPosition = el.offset().top; // grab the top positions of the elements if (count !== i) { // check it's not the current item if (iPosition === elPosition) { // two elements are in the same vertical position. iHeight = elementsArray[i].outerHeight(); // set the heights equal to the tallest. elHeight = el.outerHeight(); if (iHeight >= elHeight) { el.css({'height' : iHeight}); } } } count ++; } } } } }; PROJECTNAME.equalHeights.init($); You can hook this too elements by adding the class .js-equal-heights
 
Example using elements in a Bootstrap inspired grid.
<div class="row"> <div class="col-sm-4 js-equal-height"> ... </div> <div class="col-sm-4 js-equal-height"> ... </div> <div class="col-sm-4 js-equal-height"> ... </div> </row>

There's quite a lot of nonsense in that demo that could be stripped out, but as long as everything is display: table-cell; within a wrapper with display: table; it will work.
 
I remember when a coworker first showed me that.
 

 
 

If I've got this right, you could do this with display: table; instead of JS.
 
Here's a rough example http://jsfiddle.net/9bhsckaf/

Just like graphic designers will be needed to design printed media like posters magazines etc. web designers will be needed for as long as people will be using web pages. You cannot automate a creative process.
Design is one of the trades with the lowest risk of beeing automated. Just look at the car industry: Robots might be building the cars but the car designers are not replaced by robots. in fact the design is probably the only aspect of the entire car manufacturing process that has not been automated.

Sorry, you say she was speaking? I missed that part...

Sorry, you say she was speaking? I missed that part...

Sorry, you say she was speaking? I missed that part...

As everybody else has said, it is always best if you are able to hire a photographer for the project specifically. You will end up getting a lot more for your money and you end up with completely bespoke images for that project.
 
Having said that, there are times when (also mentioned above) you may just need a single image, or something really specific (like the Sydney Harbour Bridge, for example) and this is where the stock image libraries come in.
 
I personally have a ShutterStock account with a daily download limit of 25 images (any size). There is obviously a cost involved with this, I currently purchase yearly at £1834.80 per year, including the VAT. Now this does sound like a lot of money, but straight away the VAT is claimed back. For the sake of the following though, let's leave the VAT where it is.
 
£1834.80, divided by twelve is only £152.90 a month, a figure easily worked in to just one project over the course of that month.
 
With 25 images per day available to you, with an average 30 days per month, over 12 months it works out at 9000 images at just over 20p per image.
 
Like I say, you can either work the cost (do monthly if it helps cashflow) in to every project you do, or (and I have done this on some projects) you can simply state in your project proposal and/or contract that your costings do not include the purchase if photographic elements and that the client can either purchase them separately or you will purchase them and invoice 9at cost).

hehe I didn't see the slider on that page

ithemes and akismet are more than enough.

One thing to remember is that opposing margins collapse.
 
If you are using border box as your box-sizing (You should be) Then paddings and borders are placed inside the box whereas margins are outside.
 
Let me try to illustrate:
If you have a box that you specify to be 100px wide and add 20 pixels of padding either side, then the box will still be 100px wide, but the padding being put on the inside will leave 60px available for content / other Dom nodes inside, borders work much the same way.
If you add a 10px margin to either side then the box is still 100px wide, but takes up 120px of space in the Dom.
 
You can have -ve margin on an element, you cannot have -ve padding.
 
top and bottom margins & paddings won't work on inline elements.
 
You can set auto on margins to center block level elements.
 
Don't use margins or paddings to vertically center content, this results in magic numbers that are entirely circumstantial. This is bad. Make use of other centering techniques such as display: table.