I am mainly a programmer, and while I have extensive Photoshop and Illustrator experience, alongside a decent understanding of html5, and CSS, I have just never been able to do a proper WYSIWYG drag and drop website design with dreamweaver ( kind of like you can with visual studio.net or eclipse windows builder).
I don't understand why it is so damn hard ? the CSS divs and layers are sooo complicated to place, you have to do all these calculations, sometimes increasing margins,decreasing margins, type of divs , maybe it is just me, but after many months of headaches I have switched to using a website builder such as one provided by webeden.co.uk ( this isn't an advert, i m not affiliated with them, ). I mean ALL i want to do is drag and drop a few divs, click a few buttons and for them to just work, and webeden can do it online and the dreamweaver which is the software solely designed for web development cant. I am desperate to switch back to dreamweaver as it is a lot more powerful, but doing the layouts is a nightmare.
Is it just me, do I just need hundreds of hours to get all my divs and spans just right? or maybe I am not suited as an occasional web-developer? or did adobe put a curse on me for leaving dreamweaver ?
thanks
Unfortunately or fortunately for me, to have nicely coded, custom website you need a human being with programing experience and knowledge of latest techniques and technologies. Sure you can create a word document and and save it as an html file, but have you seen the code behind it? Bleh. But you as a designer probably don't care about that, a developer does and so do server people who see your bloated website eats up bandwidth. So the answer is, you are just not suited to be an occasional developer just as developers are not suited as occasional designers no matter how good their Paint skill are
In all honesty dreamweaver is bloatware. It costs too much, and a real professional wouldn't touch it.
That being said. The guy talking about crap code and bandwidth is obviously a derp. The code itself on even a large site will not chew up that much bandwidth. The major bandwidth usage in any site will be it's media.. i.e. images, videos, music etc..
In my honest opinion, one only needs notepad to create a decent website.
As for drag-n-drop technology. I have yet to see an implementation of it that is fast, powerful, and complex enough to have the options for what i want to do. That isn't counting what the resulting code would look like.
My suggestion to anyone creating a website, is for them to learn html, and css. There are more powerful languages out there to build sites with, but for a beginner, html, and css are a great foundation. After that if you wish, go on to learn javascript, php, perl, and python.
Related
I understand that this question may be subjective, this is why I need an answer from an ASP.NET dev who has actually tried using Dreamweaver in conjunction with VS2010 ASP.NET MVC development.
While working on a web site development project, I spend 60% of the time fine-tuning the markup and css, 30% of time writing JS code and only 10% goes to C# logic coding. I am looking for the way to reduce the markup-mingling time to finish the projects more quickly. Is Adobe Dreamweaver able to help me, an ASP.NET MVC developer, to implement markups provided by designers more quickly?
It's a big Yes and No and I'll try to explain because it's kind of up to how you use it.
The Design view
If you approach the whole implementation visually, from Design View, like Adobe thinks you're supposed to do it, it's a big conspiracy. You'll find yourself spending more time traveling miles across the screen with your mouse. Keyboard coding -> always faster, but not for newbies.
Live View / Split View
If you plan on using the built-in "Live view" or "Split view", it's slower than going with Alt+Tab / Ctrl+R. And there's no trick to solve cross-browser inconsistencies
What really speeds thinks up
The regular code completion, syntax highlighter, automatic tag closing (like when typing </), the xHTML templates, not using hacks on top of other hacks, not using conditional styles, ignoring everyone else in the room.
What can you do to speed up front-end dev in general
Besides outsourcing, it helps to know HTML & CSS good, and your experience and technique. If you put a div, then switch to CSS then back to some more divs, then back to some other CSS this takes longer than writing header + footer html code, then moving onto styling the divs, the menus, etc.
On top of everything, slicing images still takes time. And if you want to be able to rapidly change things in your layout in the future, or make sub-layouts based on a template, it's naturally going to take more time. And add to that, the cross-browser compatibility testing. If you have a boss and he tells you "let's support IE6" you might want to consider a career in a different company.
P.S.: Is this another hunting topic? :)
As a new to web development i wonder, where should i start learning.
Should i start from a big good book on HTML5&CSS3 and hope, that FF and Chrome will support what i do, OR the whole world novadays doesnt write CSS themselves, and use help of JS-based CSS frameworks?
I think i wont be able to do a real world website in a year, so we must keep it in mind.
I hope, with modern browsers bit by bit support of new futures of HTML&CSS, many things can be done by native CSS3&HTML5 to the moment i 'graduate' w3school:)
If you are new to web development, I suggest you stay away from CSS frameworks and concentrate on "basic" HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It is surprisingly easy to make a "real world" website with these basic tools. The whole world does NOT use CSS frameworks, most web designers do write the CSS themselves.
The best way to learn is practice. I would find something you are interested in and use that as a project to work on. Show off your knowledge and talent with whatever you are into!
You should be aware it will be many years before HTML5 and CSS3 are supported by all browsers, I expect that many will stick with IE8 for a long time since IE9 won't work with XP.
you should start by getting a little project. Make random sites. Pretend you got a webdesign studio. Look at other sites. view their source. Get your hands dirty. W3schools is your best friend.
start with html,css then add javascript(jquery) then go serverside. you could do this backwards too.
thats how i started.
my 2 cents.
HTML and CSS are very simple. Being a good developer is having the experience to know how things work and when to apply what.
On the other hand jQuery is a library, thus like a real life library you are always reading. Learn how it works, and then learn to google regarding what you are looking for.
Don't skip ahead to HTML5 and CSS3, that's a lot like starting with a beta product, they are not yet standardised, but have been adopted (thus far) by the browsers.
Analogy
A very good developer is a cowboy with his hand at his holster ready to whip out the perfect bit of code, due to experience and practice.
The novice has to get his gun out of bag, clean it, load it and aim it . As long as you are not going up against an expert your fire eventually, just hang in there.
P.S. Nearly forgot, the only point of framework ultimately is to increase the speed at which you can develop. If you don't know how it works it will only slow you down, and you don't need that on top of everything else.
This is a best-practice topic.
I saw it as a prefer method for some web developers. Instead of doing the CSS layout from scratch, they start a photoshop mockup first and then decode it into CSS.
What do you think about this approach?
Best to all,
Mockups are great, but I don't know if photoshop is the very first thing you'd want to try for the purpose -- at the very start, when you're just trying to get a logical layout for the various pages of the site (before refining it in terms of looks &c), a whiteboard with dry-erase markers and post-it notes affords for very fast, repeated mock-up rearrangements for the early brainstorming. Once there is some reasonable agreement on one (or a very few) possible arrangements of information, then visually more accurate tools enter into play.
BTW, just don't forget to photograph the whiteboard before changing it (any decent cellphone will do, you're not trying for high quality here;-) any time there are ideas or suggestions you may want to revisit or ponder in the future!
It is fast. This is why i always use this method. You don't want to spend the time building cross-browser CSS until you are actually set on a layout.
Most webdesign graphic artists work this way.
Many programmers simply find it a waste of time.
It has advantages, and disadvantages.
Advantages:
Many graphic artists grok photoshop/illustrator more than they do dreamweaver.
Customer gets a preview of the final product that works everywhere: mac, pc, firefox, ie, safari, whatever. Sending an html preview in early stages of production with developers using firefox and customer using MSIE always stirs up trouble.
And don't think to be on the smart side, scribbling MSIE driven html. Starting with non-standard html and converting to standard is more painful than doing it the other way.
There's one more catch: many web site customers tend to have a Mac and use Safari. Web committents tend to have a stronger taste for graphics than the average, so the chance to bump into Mac maniacs is higher in this sector than in others.
More design alternatives can be prepared spending less time on each one. This could be a dramatic advantage while dealing with murky clouds of executives with no designated decision-makers on the customer side. Alternative mockups will be passing hand-to-hand until general consensus is reached on one design or the other.
Disadvantages:
"Cutting" the graphic design into html becomes an additional work and it's not clear who's gonna pay for that extra time.
It favours graphic-centric, and rigid, design workflows. Customers agree pre-emptively on a given preview and that's what they get by contract. Every graphic modification means money, behaviour and programming instead tend not to be well defined, or worst, ill defined by the mockup.
The quest for pixel perfect cross-browser adherence to the mockup may drive you insane. If you agreed on a given rigid design with the customer, that could become a dire issue to pursue.
Dirty CSS tricks shoe in into your design. Using an HTML mockup, the customer would have approved a design driven by code with less tricks in place.
Anyway, I wouldn't suggest photoshop for a mockup, but inkscape. (or illustrator, if you worship adobe by burning piles of money into magic circles at midnight)
A scribbling stage is good too, while discussing the contract live with the customer.
I prefer pencil and paper to felt-tips, and I webcam shoot ideas for archiving and email forwarding. When it comes to scribbling, anyone does what feels more natural.
Not doing any and rely onto sample site examples and screenshots for graphical reference is always an option.
If you're productive that way, why not? Not everybody manages to envision their Web site perfectly as they're typing in a bunch of angle brackets.
More seriously put: It's your job, so it's your responsibility to do it in a way that allows you to do it effectively.
When prototyping, it's important to choose the right fidelity. This article from BoxesAndArrows provides a nice introduction to the various options and their uses.
I particularly like this line by Bill Buxton which the article quotes:
There is no such thing as high or low fidelity, only appropriate fidelity.
In this TechTalk by the Facebook Design Team, they mention how they use Photoshop in their design process (IIRC it's somewhere midway through, but I can't seem to forward through the video).
I am a web programmer who knows html and css fairly well. I can use a graphic program for it's basic functionality, but desinging a complete graphical web site is not my thing.
I let a graphic designer use his or hers graphic program to create a nice looking layout, and than code the website by hand in html and css.
It works for me, and gives my customers a design they like (cause a graphical designer will always make a much more nice looking design than most web programmers).
Agile methodology would suggest something easily modified in consultation with the customer. Dave Thomas in Agile Web Development with Rails suggests scribbling on paper. But anything has got to be better than chipping away directly at handmade CSS unless you really know what you want.
I was thinking about saying "scribbling might not cut it for a formal presentation" but the awesome SO crowd beat me to it in the comments...
Personally, and at every webdev firm I've worked at, I've always mocked-up in photoshop first. Jumping straight into CSS and markup is more of a bottom-up approach and makes sense to a lot of programmers but in web development you have to keep in mind that there are aesthetics to consider and a creative direction to follow. It's not enough that your product is functional, it needs the input of a professional creative-director/graphic-designer in order to make the product pleasant to look at and use.
In my experience, the problem has always been wrestling with inflexibility of team-members. Graphic designers who are aesthetics focussed and refuse to compromise their design integrity; which sometimes results in impossible or extremely difficult and un-semantic layouts. Developers who flatly refuse to compromise the integrity of their code where there is a workable solution - which might be a little less elegant. The key is to have a creative team who is intimately familiar with CSS and what is and isn't possible and an engineering team who have an appreciation of the importance of design and aesthetics.
In my freelance life (having had the benefit of working in both camps) I find it much easier to mock-up in photoshop first because I know what I can and can't do. And photoshop mockups are a lot easier to change on client feedback than are CSS and markup. Also, if you can show your client a mock-up, they feel more secure because they know that their money is going into a well planned project with a definate direction.
Hope this helps!
I still find myself hand coding Visual Studio projects more than using the variety of UI-driven menus and dialogs. For example:
web projects: hand code html/css in Source View vs dealing with the Design View / Properties Window
flushing out class files: code by hand using stuff like the prop-TAB-TAB Create Property keyboard shortcut and good ole Ctrl+[X|C|V] instead of the Class Diagram feature
Do I need to give the dialogs and menus another shot, or is this the current state of IDEs? Intellisense is the best thing since sliced bread IMO.
Steve
I'd be quite content to have Microsoft remove the design view from Visual Studio. I find myself cursing it every time I accidentally hit the button and wait ages for the broken rendering engine to kick in. This is from the perspective of a web developer mind you - I'm sure it's essential for developing windows apps.
Generally I think most of the RAD tools are not particularly useful, and in the long run end up being problematic as they're not very flexible. When developing web forms asp.net applications the listview and repeater are generally the only controls that I use. Hand coding html/css would be the preference for most designers anyway. Tools like Dreamweaver are nice initially when you're learning, but you do get to a stage where you realise you're using them as a glorified text editor.
Intellisense as you mention is utterly bad arse, and the one thing that I would miss if I switched to something like e or Textmate.
I am not a .NET programmer, and I understand Visual Studio does provide a lot of nifty code generation tools. However, I think it's rather important that a developer knows the code in his application. If you feel comfortable hand-coding it because you feel more in control that way, I don't think that should bother you at all.
Also, as someone who writes a lot of HTML/CSS by hand, I know that Visual Studio's Design View does not churn out 'quality' front end code a lot of the time.
I personally hand code html/css as well as my class definitions 99% of the time. Exceptions would be things that would be hard to hand-code otherwise (does anyone hand-code WCF proxies?)
It's all about YOU. What makes YOU more productive. What makes more scenes for YOU.
It's good to know and learn alternative ways to achieve your goal. You can give it try but if it slows you down return to the way YOU used to code.
I certainly find the the UI designer only works for the simplest of pages, and even for them only for a few design iterations. I find this for two reasons
1) When laying out a page, there are often several legitimate choices, and I don't like the choices VS makes. For instance, it will set the width of tables using pixel sizes, while for most fluid pages percentages make more sense. Nothing wrong with what it does, but for whatever reason I find myself fighting it more often than not.
2) It hard-codes a lot of style information, and even creates synthetic styles in an in-page style sheet. I'd rather have a concise and comprehensive CSS for the site as a whole, minimizing overrides on each page (or in each element!). Again, I fight it more often than not.
Well the designer for WPF/Silverlight is pretty cumbersome to use. So I pretty much hand code xaml and C#. At the moment I do not do much asp but with MVC, I would assume I would hand code that.
With visual studio having intellisense for a lot different syntaxes now, it is easier then ever to hand code, well, code. :) I mean intellisense works for C#, CSS, javascript, asp, and XML (if set up right). It is pretty easy to code now days. The youngsters have it so easy now days. They do not know how hard it was to code back in the day.
I'd say it absolutely, 100% depends on what you're writing.
If it's a basic CRUD interface for a simple database, then I'd say yes, 80% is way too much.
If it's a Web Application with plenty of JQuery UI and no persistent data source, then 80% is probably less than I'd expect.
As Vadium said, it also depends on what makes you more productive. Personally, I fly along with Intellisense, but I'm not too good on using UI tools to build an app.
I always feel dumber using Visual Studio, but I have to finish my project sometime this century to get paid.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
As a little side project, I am starting to build a new website for a certain organization I am affiliated to, which current site is simply outdated.
I am regularly a Java developer, and last time I really did some web development was back in the late 90s, when <p> was still more popular than <div> and Javascript was cutting-edge technology (JQuery is for lazy bums these days :) ).
Anyway, I feel really outdated. The website basically is going to be:
Django based
mostly serve static information pages
it will have a dynamic news and updates page (based on Django admin capabilites)
and some basic apps I'll develop myself (polls, small registration app, etc...)
My problem is designing the whole thing. I found some nice web-based CSS layout generators that got me going, but I still feel I'm wasting my time smoothing out the CSS files and aligning <div>s.
Are there any tools - the simpler and faster, the better - that you recommend I can use to speed up the design part of the site so I can concentrate on the real work?
I don't need anything fancy, just a nice looking layout and design that I can tweak a bit so the site will look presentable.
I second Brandon's suggestion to use a CSS framework. It won't give you 100% freedom to design anything you like, but it can speed up your design process greatly and free up your hands to do the coding you really want.
Suggestions Updated July 2013:
Twitter Bootstrap http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/ - complete grid, typo, UI widget prototyping framework
ZURB Foundation http://foundation.zurb.com/ - responsive grid, type, UI widget prototyping framework (similar in scope to Twitter Bootstrap, but feels 'cleaner' in some ways)
960 http://960.gs/ - grid layout system
Tripoli http://devkick.com/lab/tripoli/ - really good typography, but no grid system
YUI Grids http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/grids/ - very customizable (to the point of overkill) grid system
Blueprint http://www.blueprintcss.org/ - grid system and basic typography
BlueTrip http://www.bluetrip.org - a hybrid system, mixing the best of the Blueprint grid with the best of the Tripoli typography
I won't lie to you. This website isn't the best place to go if you're looking for reliable Web Design advice. Stack Overflow is a programming community and programmers rarely know anything about design. If you want to get some real advice then I would strongly recommend the main Web Design/Development forums on the Internet, especially SitePoint.
That being said, as a former freelance Web Designer/Developer I'll offer my input on the issue. Not that you should value it, of course. After all, this is a programming website.
NEVER EVER SAY CSS LAYOUT GENERATOR EVER AGAIN! If you're going to seriously get into designing web pages then you need to learn semantic XHTML and CSS first. Whilst many people tout W3Schools as the definitive resource I see it as a programmers answer (i.e. not very good) and would prefer that you read up on the subject using...Google. There are countless examples of great websites to pick up the basics of Web Design/Development that Google is probably the best website for the job. Also, with a plethora of new websites offering this information you know it's going to be more improved than W3Schools. You'll seriously want to get clued-up on writing your design because it'll be much harder to fix things later on in the project.
If you're going to be designing web pages it would be a good idea to learn what actually makes a good design. Check out CSS Vault for a fantastic resource of some of the best-designed web pages around, of course with all the source code intact so you can have a play around with their code and see how they've managed some of the wonderful effects they've produced. I've learnt more than a thing or two from websites that have been featured on CSS Vault. On top of that you should read up on Web Design from the big Web Design/Development sites. Two of my favourites are SitePoint and A List Apart, two names that you'll near time and time again when you hear people talk about resources. Browse those websites, check their forums, see what REAL Web Designers/Developers are using, not what programmers are using.
On the subject of CSS Frameworks; they do help! The problem with using them is that you'll often spend so much time looking for a worthwhile framework that you could have finished most of the CSS for your website yourself. You'll either love them or hate them, but many people will say that they're not necessary.
Once you've got your mind set on what a good design looks like and you've got the resources you need to make something of value I suggest that you get to work! In reality when you're designing a web page all you really need is a text editor with a save function, an image manipulation program, a browser window and FireBug. An IDE helps a lot of people, but if you do use one then you'll definitely want to work in its text mode. I use NotePad++ or Emacs exclusively but a lot of people like to use Aptana Studio, so it may be worth a look.
When you're getting to actually building the code behind your website you can't really go much worse than your favourite IDE/Text Editor and a source control tool. As a Java programmer you're better suited to talk about programming so I won't lecture you on a subject you already know.
In the end, Web Design is going to take time and many of the tools that we choose to use that we claim will "save time" save very little in reality. If you're not a design guru then it will take you a substantial amount of time to create a great-looking website. It's a fact of life. Call me old-fashioned (a funny word coming from a 21 year old) but I still think that the quickest way is to sketch a design out on a piece of paper (a image program if really necessary) and to just get out there and make the damn thing! Again, I'll have to take this hunting for the silver bullet mentality as a programmers trait, one that really won't help that much when designing, because designing a web page is vastly different to writing a Java program.
In short, ignore everything you read here, read what REAL designers are doing and just make the damn thing!
There's one piece of advice that saves more time than any other when it comes to rapid development of CSS styled sites and that's KEEP IT SIMPLE
Use an attractive simple layout that doesn't require pixel perfection and that can 'gracefully' degrade in less compliant browsers (IE6). Minimise the amount of CSS and fix the basic bugs mentioned by meouw above. Then get on an concentrate on content and functionality...the real work
In my previous employment I created dozens of templates for websites.
The most useful too I ever discovered is the Firefox Web Developer Toolbar.
It has a wealth of small useful tools. My favorite feature is the ability to edit the CSS and see the results in real-time. This saves on the whole edit - upload - refresh cycle. Watch out for ie CSS inconsistencies though!
Off the top of my head, these are the most important gotchas.
double margin bug [google: double margin bug]
incorrect (but more intuitive) box model [google: box model]
incorrect (but more intuitive) float clearing [google: clearfix]
FireBug is another really usefull Firefox plugin for more in depth analysis.
I've always found Open Source Web Design to be a good resource when looking to get started trying to design something.
- http://patterntap.com/
- http://www.dotemplate.com/ (interesting concept of customizing template)
- http://www.templatemonster.com/
- http://www.freelayouts.com/websites/html-templates
- http://www.templateyes.com/
No idea what the site is going to be, but have you thought of using a pre-build CMS like Drupal, Joomla etc etc.? You can then tweak templates etc, rather than worrying about making it from scratch.
This question is pretty old, but since we're in 2012, it's only proper that I answer my own question with the exact thing I was looking for, back in 2009.
Twitter Bootstrap
Have you looked into any CSS frameworks? If you are competent enough with CSS something like a framework could help speed things up.
Don't forget firebug :) if you're worried about tweaking the design it's really great. With the inspect feature allowing you to real-time edit the CSS of your page.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843
I second Jens Roland's list of CSS frameworks.
But I would also suggest you have a look at websites such as Smashing Magazine. You might find this article of interest, amongst a lot of others. They tend to do a lot of nice and long mash-ups for the web developers that will at least give you inspiration if not a direct solution.
A colleague of mine has been trying to convince me all week that Dreamweaver, 5 years after I was last forced to use it at gunpoint, is actually now worthwhile for knocking up a design quickly and painlessly, and is also now competent at producing the HTML for that design.
I refuse to invest the 10 minutes it would take to find out based on my previous experiences of it, but you might like to give the demo a quick run around the block :)
I'd recommend finding a CMS package, since you're using Django, look into django-cms. It has TinyMCE and Markdown Support so updating your pages should be easy. Also django-cms integrates well with the Django admin interface.
A piece of paper to sketch your design
A text editor (preferably set up to save directly to a development server local or otherwise) to write up the initial HTML/CSS
FireBug/IEDeveloperToolbar to inspect each element that looks wrong and edit its CSS directly in the browser until it looks fine, followed by commits with the text editor
If you're doing any JavaScript development, use an advanced editor that highlights errors and warnings as you type. This kind of functionality has until recently been the province of static language editors only, but the free NetBeans 6 achieves this amazing feat. Traditionally, you first discovered JavaScript typos and simple bugs when first loading the parent page into a browser. The speed-up you get from being able to short-cut these iterations is profound.
NetBeans 6 also highlights CSS errors and is a more than capable editor for most all languages a web developer is likely to use these days.
You can also use www.zbugs.com - it will help you speed up a process of compressing and gzipping your CSS and Javascript files