theprofessional — Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:33:18 +0000

I agree about the sites. They were just examples anyways, just the front page.

Quote: Then dive in and clean out all the superfluous crap.

Quote: Best to create guides first to define where the table cells will be, then slice accordingly..

Good pointers here. I actually didn't think about concieving the table structure first, then force the image app to slice accordingly. But yes, I do always go back to the code in my HTML editor to clean house and modify according to my needs. Thanks for the help.

Megan — Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:18:35 +0000

You have to be really careful when slicing your images if you're planning on using the code it generates. If you don't think about how the table structure is going to turn out you can end up with a big mess. I mean, if you meant for two images to line-up but end up a pixel off, it will create extra table cells to fill in the space and you could end up with a whole lot of those. Best to create guides first to define where the table cells will be, then slice accordingly.

I think that all sites contain elements of both artistry and functionality. I often find that it's difficult to separate the two. Is a stylized navigation menu functional or artistic? Can a functional site not be visually attractive? Is artistry not functional? (note: these are rhetorial questions. They are not meant to be answered).

Actually, of the two sites you listed I would find the second one to be just as artistic as the first. In that case they are using not only graphics but also backgrounds and colours to create artistic intrest. Artistry doesn't have to be done by graphics alone. Both sites are largely text-based after the front page, but the Jesset.com site has done IMO a better job of using colours and text to create visual style.

taff — Mon, 01 Apr 2002 13:42:42 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by theprofessional
Have you ever designed an image intensive site straight from the code and try to fit the images in afterwards? I'd rather let my image app. create the complicated table structure to accomodate all those sliced images. Am I wrong?

The resulting "complicated table structure" is invariably more complicated than it needs to be. By all means, on a image intensive layout, let your graphics app generate code for you. Then dive in and clean out all the superfluous crap. Don't let the app code your entire page. At the most, rely on it for smaller complex table structures that you can then pop into your overall layout structure.

theprofessional — Mon, 01 Apr 2002 13:33:55 +0000

Point well taken. Thanks for the help.
I will continue to use the image app. to create the very basic of sites that have an artistic look. And use advanced coded layouts for more complicated, larger sites.
Hows that?

The Webmistress — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:05:10 +0000

I think the thing here is that you need to develop your way of doing things, what you are comfotable with and not try to get a definitive answer to 'What's the perfect way of doing things?' Everyone will design sites diferently but as long as the three main things work - acceptable download times, browser compatibility & easy navigation - you will have a good website.

Suzanne — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:42:33 +0000

Yes.

Okay, long answer -- without understanding of how the underpinnings works, you will not be able to create things in a graphics app that work properly across browsers and resolutions. Additionally, graphics app code is not well known for its browser compatibility, forward thinking or general completeness.

I use a graphics app to work out the designs, when I am doing that. The designers I contract use graphics apps to design. But they have a fundamental and clear understanding of what is possible, what it possible but will suck bandwidth, and what is really a flash or shockwave application, not a website.

theprofessional — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:46:53 +0000

Good advice, thanks for the encouragement.

I've heard the statement: "sites designed purely in an image app. are amaturish". Considering this makes the entire site based on graphics:rolleyes:, it's harder to update etc..., and the fact that this is like the days of FrontPage wysiwig crap, I'd agree somewhat.
But, to design a site that is artistic in appearence is almost impossible otherwise. Have you ever designed an image intensive site straight from the code and try to fit the images in afterwards? I'd rather let my image app. create the complicated table structure to accomodate all those sliced images. Am I wrong?

disaster-master — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:44:10 +0000

Quote: just take your time, code nicely (readable) as if someone else was going to edit your work, think ahead for future additions, play with things, learn, enjoy and be happy

Why that is the best advise I've heard all day oh Great Busy One.

Busy — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:18:20 +0000

I think a lot of it comes down to common sense, you wouldnt make a funeral site using animated animals and big flashing banners and stuff, or a wedding site wouldnt have a black background and no images.
The content makes the layout work or not, nothing is written in stone when designing we sites, but so much as been used, tested, tried again why try to reinvent the wheel.
draw up a site design, make it up in your graphics program, cut it up or whatever, now look at it, does it need mouseover images? does it need those blinding bright colors? can I get to every page within the site in 3 clicks? do I have to explain how the site works? ... remember you make web sites for others, not for yourself, and if you do want it for yourself, save us all the bandwidth and get a diary.

I think from reading your posts over the last month or so that you're a little bit unsure about your work, it seems you havent found your way of doing things yet, your trying to hard. just relax, go with it, dont try to be anyone but yourself, make sites, graphics etc and a style will come to you, once you have this style you'll find most things just fall into place. dont worry about who made the programs you use, what version you use, just take your time, code nicely (readable) as if someone else was going to edit your work, think ahead for future additions, play with things, learn, enjoy and be happy

doublehelix — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:57:13 +0000

You don't save much by slicing large images, the individual pieces still take a long time to download.

Yea, websites look different and perform different functions. Government sites are different from fashion sites, which are different from game sites, which are different from onLine stores, etc. Best description I ever saw was somebody who said the web is like a dog show -- you judge the poodles against poodles, and the dobermans against dobermans.

However, that applies to look and feel and functionality, the skin and not the flesh of the site. IMO the basics are still the same... content, coherent navigation and reasonable download time. You can commit a multitude of sins on websites, but messing one of those three up gets the back button hit quick.