Hyperlink Properties / CSS / Styles & Classes

[Drwyd]

...I would be more than casually curious to see some examples of how CSS might be used in placeholders. Anyone?

Hmm, I'm thinking menus, list and tables but without HTML the CSS is nothing.

If a CSS file was added to the head section then it may be possible to make use of the classes used by XWD but I can't think how off the top of head.

Drwyd

[StevenWWinters]

Your original post suggest that some tasks are easier to solve by programming than by designing. This is true. But WD is a design tool, not programming tool. So if it was a suggestion, then I don't know how it is related to WD.

John, first let me say that it is rare to have the opportunity to interact with an application's developer, so I really appreciate both your availability and patience here.

Perhaps some of the confusion comes from the fact, as I bounce between hand coding and XWD I think of how I design in one mode and want the same capability in the other, which doesn't always translate well or apply. But I think there are some parallels which are applicable.

More specifically I guess there are two suggestions I would give.

First, give the ability to set the hover/mouseover attributes for any piece of selected text without having to duplicate the text on the mouseover layer. This would include Mouse Off Color, Mouse Over Color, Visited Color, Underline Text links. In other words, not just a global setting, but a per hyperlink setting.

Secondly, consider giving XWD users the ability to create user defined styles which can be re-used through out a .web document. Re-usability, whether in programming code, html/css, or design, is what allows for the efficiency I was alluding to previously.

Xtreme, for example, already uses this concept in the area of named colors. As you well know, if you name a color and apply it to any number of objects, it is a simple matter to redefine it to a different color and instantly all those objects change to the new color. That's powerful!

Again as you well know, that's also the way CSS classes work. Redefine the class and all the html "objects" with that class will instantly have the new characteristics.

User defined styles in XWD, could include the ability to define a style "myStyle" and set the following properties: Font Name, Font Size, Bold, Italic, Underline, Mouse Over Color, Mouse Over Color, Visited Color, Underline Text links, Justify, etc.

Then you could select any number of text objects and assign "myStyle" to them in the same way that you can name objects today. Now, if you need to redefine "myStyle", all objects with that style or class applied, will instantly have the new properties.

This is an improvement in the design process and well within the realm of XWD as a design tool. It doesn't have to map to HTML/CSS classes in the exported code (and likely wouldn't). How XWD would handle that is irrelevant.

I'm not sure it would be applicable to objects other than text as my guess (without actually looking at the exported code) is that anything else (rectangles, lines, etc) are exported as graphics and not as divs with borders or hr (horizontal rules) etc. But for text, it would be a boon.

Does this make sense?

[covoxer]

Yes, the styles concept is a powerful thing without a doubt. And it's high on a wish list for a long time now (for Xtreme). But to implement it properly is not a trivial task.

[cursor]

First, give the ability to set the hover/mouseover attributes for any piece of selected text without having to duplicate the text on the mouseover layer. This would include Mouse Off Color, Mouse Over Color, Visited Color, Underline Text links. In other words, not just a global setting, but a per hyperlink setting.

As you may be aware, Steven, some effort has been made by Xara to address this with the implementation of 'soft goups'. Changing the text string on one mouse layer, changes the text string on the others (but only if the text strings were equal when the components were soft-grouped). Elements left out of the picture (not shared across mouse layers) are font, color, and size. The fact that these are independent can be constructive, however. Being able to define 'by style' (as I choose to define it) which elements are shared (and how) would be positive.

Xtreme, for example, already uses this concept in the area of named colors. As you well know, if you name a color and apply it to any number of objects, it is a simple matter to redefine it to a different color and instantly all those objects change to the new color. That's powerful!

This same color naming system has been implemented in Web Designer. See Website Colors in the Help documentation.

Does this make sense?

Certainly does. Great ideas, Steven.

[slavelle]

If you are comfortable enough working with code, there's not much reasons to use WD. Well, maybe for prototyping.

I know you are the developer, so in a lot of things, you definitely know best, but coming at this as a guy who is at least fairly familiar with CSS/html combo and how I've done all my other sites, I can say that there are still plenty of reasons for me to use XWD (the most obvious is that I use xxtreme to do my graphical design stuff anyway). First of all, not everyone needs to be able to edit the html after they have gotten their site. Most people are afraid to, and realistically, even though I've stuck to standards and write at least fairly tidy code, my clients would realistically need MS Expression Web to edit them effectively, which they typically won't be able to do - if they could, they'd likely just have done their own site.

Now, I am mostly practicing with XWD at this point until I feel comfortable with getting everything right, making the sites look less "xara like" and more traditional, while still taking advantage of the things that I otherwise can't deal with with hand coding. But I DO have a production site that I'm working on that is going to be a lot cooler than what I could have done with the same amount of css/html effort. There are some things that I couldn't do with my current knowledge/tools without XWD, such as the pop up layers that are so easily attained.

How does this relate to this topic? Well, I've actually started mixing and matching where it's needed so I can do most of the site with XWD and fill in the blanks with the HTML/CSS. In the production site that I'm working on, I'm adding a Pseudo Blog so that the client can update that page easily (using coffee cup form app to allow writing to a SQL DB, which then I read into a placeholder with some PHP script). The <head> update that was added allows me to put all the css I want for the various tags I'm going to read into right into the code that is generated, so I can do really straightforward html code, allowing for the client to update without any knowledge at all - and without having to resort to creating another similar looking template to the site using something like Wordpress.

In short, XWD DOES allow me to do things that I wouldn't be comfortable doing with standard stuff and much faster, not just for prototyping, but for more rapid development as well.

[alilister]

I know. Newbie... what do I know. Actually, a little. I am a professional designer, and I know good software when I see it. XWD is at a very delicate stage. The program is utterly amazing, even as it is. You are on the cusp of making it even better - or ruining it. I urge you to carry on doing what you are doing - listening very selectively to the suggestions of your users. Being steadfast and avoiding including everything wished for is vital, because you know what this product is supposed to be, whereas everyone else has their own vested interest: this gadget, that widget, the other thingummy.

XWD has been a big surprise to me. It is the best new thing in web design for about a decade. I feel terrified that XWD may now get feature bloat and die. It is fantastic as it is, and needs only a very gentle touch... I realise it sounds a bit odd, but please try not to "improve it". I know how to do web design, and I can code by hand, but working in XWD is so pleasurable that I don't think I can go back to anything else.

Netobjects Fusion contains the big lesson, doesn't it? What an amazing program that was, but it is now almost dead of feature bloat, and bears little resemblance to the elegant and uplifting piece of software it used to be. No one knows any more what its market is meant to be. No one knows how to use half the features. No one needs them.

I am not being a party pooper here. I have just lived a long time and seen destroyed so many beautiful programs.

OK off soap box.

Ali