XXV4 - website frustration

**pauland** · 05 April 2008, 12:34 PM

I'm really pleased about Xtremes website generation and though I'll never use it as final solution, it's a great idea for a basic proof of concept. The only problem is that because of the way I work, I just can't use it because it's inconsistent with Xtremes handling of layers for print. I hope it's a bug rather than a feature.

I use Xtreme for building client approval pages for website clients. I mock up the pages using Xtreme and using multiple layers. I use the layers to allow me to have common navigation elements across all pages and to separate out graphics. It works really well.

Currently I have a design that uses several layers for button navigation and each web page uses three layers each. One layer for the page-specific background, one layer for page-specific text and graphics and one layer for masking between the front layer and the background. So three layers per page.

Ideally I would have a nested layer structure so I could control the visibility of each page rather than organise the layers in one lump. Ah well.

Anyway, to show and print my page mockup I enable layers with navigation and the three layers for my specific page proof. I can then print - perfect.

In the past I would export the visible elements as a jpg and use that for a very crude mockup.

Right so why not use the html export? Well the big problem is that it doesn't honour the visibility settings for the layers, therefore making it useless for these quick mockups. The result is a mess.

I've attached an example to show what happens - I've deliberately shown a small slice from the page rather than the whole thing.

Please change it Xara!

I also hope this example goes some way to explain why more sophisticated layer management is important - particularly for website graphics.

[Some eagle-eyed readers might spot the istockphoto watermark. This is only there because they are just client proofs and once approved I pay for the real things.]

**gwpriester** · 05 April 2008, 12:49 PM

My suggestion is to create screen shots and print from the screen shots.

But to give your client a better idea how the page will look, why not post some sample pages on your website for your client to see.

I have not done much website design for clients recently, but when I was doing quite a lot I would post the designs on my server and give the client the URL.

If you want to go over the designs you can do it either in your office or on the phone while you both read from the same page (so to speak).

I do this too with logo designs. Here's an example of the last site I designed. My client is in Oakland and I am over 1,000 miles to the east. I posted these designs and then we spoke by phone after she had reviewed the designs.

Gary

**pauland** · 05 April 2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by gwpriester

My suggestion is to create screen shots and print from the screen shots.

But to give your client a better idea how the page will look, why not post some sample pages on your website for your client to see.

I have not done much website design for clients recently, but when I was doing quite a lot I would post the designs on my server and give the client the URL.

If you want to go over the designs you can do it either in your office or on the phone while you both read from the same page (so to speak).

I do this too with logo designs. Here's an example of the last site I designed. My client is in Oakland and I am over 1,000 miles to the east. I posted these designs and then we spoke by phone after she had reviewed the designs.

Gary

Yes, I do all that already (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). It just seems mad to have a website export that doesn't honour layer visibility and I hope it gives an idea why layers are important and perhaps why nested layers would be an absolute boon. Currently, if I take my laptop to a client and we discuss a change, I have to click through the visibility settings of at least six layers when it should just be two. If I had a more complex layout there may be more than three layers per page.

While the current behaviour is a nuisance for me, Xtreme owners using the website export must find the layer visibility thing a real pain.

Paul

[Gary, I forgot to say - thanks for the heads-up and a great link - slick work]

**ss-kalm** · 05 April 2008, 12:58 PM

Wouldn't it just be better to do as Paul requests. Make the layers honour the visibility settings.

If I export a page and it doesn't work correctly because I didn't turn a layer on, It's my fault.

Not only that you can have multiple schemes in one drawing by turning layers on and off. In fact it would make a big drawing, but the whole site could be one drawing (especially if the navigation bars are all common).

However if the visibility settings aren't honoured then it will never work properly.

**Charles Moir** · 05 April 2008, 01:45 PM

Er, how can we honour layer visibility when layers are used for all the mouse-over and pop-up effects? That's the core method used by the HTML export and is designed to work that way.

i.e. you put an object on layer 'fred' give another object a URL of 'fred' and that layer will appear as you mouse-over the object. So the layer is switched on or off depending on mouse-position. So it doesn't make any sense to take account of the visibility state in Xtreme.

**pauland** · 05 April 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Charles Moir

Er, how can we honour layer visibility when layers are used for all the mouse-over and pop-up effects? That's the core method used by the HTML export and is designed to work that way.

i.e. you put an object on layer 'fred' give another object a URL of 'fred' and that layer will appear as you mouse-over the object. So the layer is switched on or off depending on mouse-position. So it doesn't make any sense to take account of the visibility state in Xtreme.

LOL, well you can see I wasn't looking to export anything sophisticated, nor had I really looked at the documentation.

Seems to me that it's another argument for more sophisticated layer handling.

My opinion is that avoiding takling more sophisticated layers has resulting in breaking a core behaviour of the software with regard to web export. If layers had types we could have a rollover layer which would then restore the behaviour that is present in all other parts of the software.

I think that more sophisticated layer support is a major trick missed by Xara. It could have been used for page handling and would allow the use of master pages, it could also support page handling for websites.

Anyway, it's not in XXV4 and layer handling for website export is as it is, so it's not as I'd like it, but fair enough. I won't be using XXV4 html export for website proofs.

Paul

**ss-kalm** · 05 April 2008, 03:13 PM

The more sophisticated layer handling would allow for a mouseover layer as a sub-layer of the main layer. That way all the main layers could be switched off or on at will, and the mouseover layers or other sublayers work as they do now to provide the HTML functions.

Maybe as a layer is created it automatically creates a mouseover sub-layer of it's own. I'm not sure of the issues involved .... as so far I haven't tried the HTML functions

Maybe I'm not making sense .... Maybe I should shut up ....

**covoxer** · 05 April 2008, 03:18 PM

Hi Paul,
if I understand your concern correctly, there's no need in sophisticated layer support in XX as you suggest. I think you would be more or less satisfied, if all layers except those that are explicitly used for rollover and pop-up effects, would preserve their visibility on HTML export.
Am I right?

**pauland** · 05 April 2008, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by covoxer

Hi Paul,
if I understand your concern correctly, there's no need in sophisticated layer support in XX as you suggest. I think you would be more or less satisfied, if all layers except those that are explicitly used for rollover and pop-up effects, would preserve their visibility on HTML export.
Am I right?

You're half right. I think Xtreme needs better layer handling but as a pragmatist I live with what's available.

If there were layer types it would be possible to identify what was a rollover or not and thereby honour layer visibility and rollover support. In effect a modest extension of the existing layer handling.

Paul

**Charles Moir** · 05 April 2008, 04:09 PM

Well there are sort of layer types already. The type is simply defined by the name. So a layer called MouseOver is a special layer type, where all mouse-over effects are. Others than have a name that matches that of a URL, are used for pop-up effects.

So that's one way in which we could identify 'mouse effects layers' and all others could be exported reflecting the visibility switch perhaps. I suspect that's what John is alluding to.