Designing Layouts

[noticies]

Hi,
I would like to contribute just a few lines to this interesting thread.
I usually start my layouts for websites away from the computer. (and sometimes I make simple mockups using a drawing or painting app, such as CorelDraw or PaintShop Pro 4)
A good way to organize the design is using a "hidden" grid structure, let's say, divide a typical screen (800 px wide) in, say, ten columns, and use them to organize your layout. You can merge the basic columns, etc.
Once I have a basic idea, I use grid paper (it's better to use "technical" paper) since you can work more accurately.
Then I work out which table structure will be needed to place the pages' elements.
Finally, I recreate the structure and add the content in the html/site editors (by the way, it's Fusion, Homesite and 1stPage 2000 at home, and Dreamweaver at the office.)

You can go the easy way -- put the elements in layers (or "layout boxes" in Fusion), and then reconstruct the page using tables. Both programs will do it automatically for you, but the code tends to be over-inflated.
Other designers use a mockup image, then autoslice it, and often they get a structure that falls to pieces when you resize the font in the browser!
These are good reasons for a simpler hands-on-html approach!

My own sites are http://www.typephases.com,
http://www.mundofree.com and http://pagina.de/vigital

Best to all,
Joan

[dk_art]

"At some point, if you continue to design sites you will have to know HTML"

-----------------------------------------

I must disagree here ... I don't think one 'needs' to know a scrap of actual coding to make good webpages. I suppose it can't hurt but I have no desire or apparent need to learn how to code from scratch.

I work purely with software ( PhotoImpact6, XaraX , Namo Web Editor4, Swish and others ). With PI6 I can slice a design I make into a page with table data and image slices already set. I can make javascript rollovers with WE4. I can open exact sized windows with WE4 (etc...etc). I don't know any real html and couldn't make a page with notepad at all ... but why bother when there is software that does it so fast and easy.

Apart from some bizarre Netscape problems, my sites don't have any real problems (that I have found) and I'm learning what not to use that won't work right with Netscape.


David K
www.dkingdesign.com

[pduggan]

Hi David

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know any real html and couldn't make a page with notepad at all ... but why bother when there is software that does it so fast and easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. <LI>Control over what you're doing and adherence to standards.<LI>Satisfaction.

I challenge you to check your webpages against HTML Tidy or the W3C validation service and deal with the results!

And I'd like to turn your question on its head and ask why bother to learn to use fancy tools when I enjoy working with HTML and create leaner, meaner, standards compliant webpages as a result?

Peter</p>

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[dk_art]

It's all what you want to do really. If you enjoy coding by hand, that's great. But people who don't shouldn't think they can't create good sites if they know no html. Likewise there are tons of hand coders who's skills may be lower than your own and can't produce the desired effects or have the control you have with your hand-coding skills. I enjoy using the programs and hand-coding is something I really have no desire to do at all.

I check my sites using Internet Explorer 5.5 and Netscape 4.7 (argg!) and Opera 5.11 and if they work in these without errors then that's fine with me. I usually don't use complicated effects so they should work in most browsers. I know they might have some supposed "errors" but I can't see where they are any problem if they have no observed detrimental effect.

Anyway, I don't wan't to argue but my point is that it is not "needed" to make good web sites (ie... ones that work in the types of browsers which they were designed to work in)... I didn't say you couldn't make good web sites by coding by hand but good sites are made using software-only methods all the time.

As far as "leaner sites" goes, I'm very aware of optimizing my graphics to be as small as possible while looking good as well as trying to make the sites simple. If I use image slices for a design , all of my slices are optimized by eye separately to reduce the page size as much as possible.

I guess each to their own applies but I have no desire to learn to code by hand which would probably take me longer to do than my present methods anyway.


You said

"I challenge you to check your webpages against HTML Tidy or the W3C validation service and deal with the results!"


Below is a list of sites with numerous errors after checking with http://validator.w3.org/

http://www.dkingdesign.com
http://www.xara.com/
http://www.ulead.com/
http://www.adobe.com/
http://www.macromedia.com/
http://hotbot.lycos.com/
http://www.yahoo.com/
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/
http://www.creativepro.com/front/home
http://www.dictionary.com/
http://www.ebay.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.networksolutions.com/

Of course www.opera.com had no errors as they have a goal of adhering to exact standards.

Many of these sites are visited by millions of people daily.


David K
www.dkingdesign.com

[pduggan]

Hi again David...

I could point you to some 'Sibelius Scorch' pages on my own site that don't validate, but I could also point the finger at Sibelius for producing a very useful plug-in and supplying templates for webpages with proprietary code! And I already knew that many, many sites out there don't validate (including a number of those you've listed) because I enjoy looking at code and running checkers over it! I don't boycott sites just because their code doesn't validate, but I do believe that if all sites, browsers and authoring software adhered to standards then we wouldn't have problems with things like Netscape 4.7 (which I hate every bit as much as you do!)...

If you're happy with the web being full of things that don't comply with the official standards so be it, but remember that there lies part of your problem with things that don't work. When I can work out how to make my Scorch pages validate I'll have a completely compliant site and I'll be happier with that. I see 'a goal of adhering to exact standards' more as a road to a better web than as an end in itself, and don't see why the web should be any different in this respect than anything else in life for which there are set standards. Just because millions of people visit sites with bloated, proprietary code (oh yes, my 'leaner' comment was directed at code), missing or incorrectly nested tags and myriad other faults that may or may not limit their experience in two or three major browsers doesn't mean that all's well with these sites or the web.

But I don't want to start an argument any more than you do, so I'll leave it at that for now!



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[mbugbee]

My reason for not liking them isnt totally because I perfer hand coding, its because programs like those make it easier for people to make bad and I mean REALLY BAD sites. Just look at Geocities and Tripod, 90% of it has to be pages created with one of those programs.

The other thing that irritates me about programs like the ones you have mentioned, is that I have worked very hard to attain a level web development knowledge, to learn the ins and outs of building a page and to get to where I am now, so to go out on the Net and see people who just figured out how to use these brainless products calling themselves web developers and charging for their services is a slap in the face to me. I understand that alot people just use the programs to have fun, and that Im ok with, but when they cross that line and start thinking that just because they know how to work a software program that they can start a web development business, thats when I get pissed.

Matt
The above wasnt directed at anyone person.

[d-sine]

thats a fair enough point, but one of the main probs with the web (apart from a zillion "my pet hamster" sites!) is that most of the ppl who 'create' such items have no idea of design and this is their downfall. virtually anyone can learn to use a package and a lot can learn to code but design is something special, something inside, thats what i believe anyhow.

such packages should be thought of as making the lives of the knowledgable (spelling!) easier, rather than teaching the newbie how to produce a "masterpiece" in ten minutes flat. it's a tool, _not_ an answer.

just my bit, thats all. no offence intended to anyone.

p.s. i generally doodle a rough design and then work it through in photoshop, but my brain is working in tables anyhow coz i'm kinda odd like that [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[mbugbee]

I agree but there are still those who learn a sofware package and think thats it.

[d-sine]

heheh, i couldn't agree more, but well.. guess we all have our faults.. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

(or as the great m$ calls them, "features"!)

[dk_art]

Well I'm not going to sit here and argue this (except this last time unless something is said which really pisses me off!) .... my initial point was that one doesn't "need" to learn html to make nice websites but since some people have strict opposite opinions I'll drop this useless code issue right here ... it's really pointless trying to argue. I feel if you hand code ... great ... I'm glad ... I have nothing against people doing so to make great websites.

Certain negative things which were said in regard to people using software to make sites ARE taken as a 'slap in the face' to me personally regardless of the last closing statement on that post. Sure some people using this software make not-so-great sites with them but likewise many hand-coders make equally pathetic examples of websites. I don't consider myself to be in either catagory.

"there are still those who learn to hand-code and think thats it"


David King
www.dkingdesign.com