Thank you Martin - for the third time!

[Mark Wild]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is with the word "Bundles"

[Gareth]

I noticed that. It's a valid point. I think I'll ask Martin to remove them...It shows I'm versatile though. There lots of links taking people to Posh etc so they can see what else I do. BUT - I agree...doesn't seem righ

I agree with that but your site is aimed at weddings though

[Booche]

I like the new look mate and style mate so nice work VV/Martin

Charlie i dont mean to come across mean etc or dont want to start anything BUT i do agree with what Daren has said, yes ok you do have 30+ weddings under your belt but does that class you as a expert ?

You do have a nice selection of sites which differ for clients ie: Partys, Posh and now Weddings which im sure you are going to see reflection of work wise but i have to ask what are you going to do with your day job ? as now you offer most of what people want for any type of event apart from a few ares which im sure people will mention like Karaoke, pub quizs etc or do you consider these non money worthy etc ?

As for 'Bundles' as soon as i see that word i start to think of Butlins,Pontins or something that a shop has to offer to get you to buy cheap things altogether lol

Hope this works out for you mate though

Good work Martin/VV

[DeckstarDeluxe]

I think you charge too much Charlie and I do wonder how you manage to run these sites and an so called events company while also holding down a full time job?

Site itself is nice I will say.

[Danno13]

If I had 30 weddings booked in for this year already (as a sole operator) I'd be worried I was too cheap

[ppentertainments]

If I had 30 weddings booked in for this year already (as a sole operator) I'd be worried I was too cheap

That was my initial thought. Charlie - how many bookings are you aiming for this year, or is it 'as many as possible'

Excellent site, probably go so far as to say it's the best DJ site I have seen, so simple yet informative.

Packages - if they work go for it imo, makes things a lot simpler, however make sure it does not restrict you, or that you actually loose add-ons because of it

Edit : Don't like having 'Charles Brown' then links to 'Charlie Brown', make it seem a bit false.

[STEVE HANLEY]

Sheer class. Love it

Well done Martin & Charlie. Top marks

[yourdj]

If I had 30 weddings booked in for this year already (as a sole operator) I'd be worried I was too cheap

You have a point I am beginning to think I am too. I have about 23 odd personally and a few more for the other DJ's.

Down to over advertising I would say which may be charlies reasons too as he is priced the same as me.

[Marc J]

The VV Web, Youtube and Facebook links should also open in a new window really.

To be valid XHTML you can't have links open in a new window, as there is no "target" attribute for <a> elements. The site actually fails validation on this one issue (although the WC3 checker says it passes), because of the target="_parent" in the iframe for the scroller (why is this an iframe, anyway, it would be much better as a div?).

Of course, you can have links open in a new windows and still validate, by using Javascript to do it. This is a workaround but really flies in the face of the fundemental issue why it was removed in the first place - you're forcing a behaviour on the visitor which isn't expected. If they want to open in a new window / tab they can right click / middle click / hold CRTL etc. It used to be standard practice to open all external links in a new window, but not so much now.

To say these links should open in a new window is wrong.

[BeerFunk]

To be valid XHTML you can't have links open in a new window, as there is no "target" attribute for <a> elements. The site actually fails validation on this one issue (although the WC3 checker says it passes), because of the target="_parent" in the iframe for the scroller (why is this an iframe, anyway, it would be much better as a div?).

Of course, you can have links open in a new windows and still validate, by using Javascript to do it. This is a workaround but really flies in the face of the fundemental issue why it was removed in the first place - you're forcing a behaviour on the visitor which isn't expected. If they want to open in a new window / tab they can right click / middle click / hold CRTL etc. It used to be standard practice to open all external links in a new window, but not so much now.

To say these links should open in a new window is wrong.

The technicalities aside, it's fairly obvious that you don't want someone clicking a link which takes them away from the site, and their attention becoming drawn to something else.

You're probably right to say that external links don't open in a new window as much these days though, probably due to people becoming more experienced browsing the Web (ie. they know how to go back to the site if they wish).

Having said that, on this site, I'm not sure why some of the external links open in new windows and some don't

Anyway, these are minor issues which are detracting from what I said in the first instance - the site looks and performs very well indeed