macromedia.com

[DaShi]

Off topic, but then I've been this entire thread. Does anyone know any good free sites for learning some basic photoshop skills for those just starting out?

[chequita guevara]

https://www.adobe.com

They have quite a few lessons there.

[DaShi]

Ah well, that's simple. Thanks.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
UR, I can code far faster in Dreamweaver than in emacs. Autofinishing code rocks! All emacs can do faster is cut the end of a line. Meh.

I must have forgotten to put in a smilie somewhere.

emacs isn't all that hot to do Web stuff, though there are a few that are quite good. On GNU/Linux I use Bluefish, which has snytax highlighting, auto-tag, etc.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
www.csszengarden.com shows how much more powerful CSS is for web design, and you really need to code by hand to do that.

As for IE, try going to www.positioniseverything.net and then tell me how great IE is.

Both are great sites for Web designers and developers.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Now, as far as IE7 goes, I'm very happy with that, but it's not out yet, except in beta, and it isn't supporting CSS3.

The thing is that, now your code needs to support both IE7 and IE6, even if you ignore IE5.x all together

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Snoopy, there is no decent standards compliant WYSWIG editor. All of them generate table based designs, which are very, very bad. The Code bloat is horrendous...

I got jinxed. I had to deal with a FrontPage generated webpage today, and that pile of thing is bad enough to induce vomitting. The code is obscene, there's no other way to describe it. And it doesn't even end the <li> tag. What's this? HTML 2.0?

[FrostyBoy]

You shouldn't be touching FrontPage, it is way way outdated!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Snoopy, there is no decent standards compliant WYSWIG editor. All of them generate table based designs, which are very, very bad. The Code bloat is horrendous...

imageready can produces css layouts (which i dont use, css layouts are still not precise enough or free of browser-specific-troubles for me)

[chequita guevara]

Then you don't know what you're doing, Markos. CSS has pixel-precision in the hands of those who understand it. As for browser issues, yes, I fully agree. But table-based layouts are a major pain in the arse for any kind of maintenance, or if one friggan cell is outta place somewhere and you have to wade through half a dozen tables, rows, and cells to find the one cell screwing everything up. And then there's the size of the pages.

In any event, I'd never use an image program for creating a webpage, only designing it and laying it out.

Also, standards based coding is far more accessible to more types of devices. Table layouts won't work on cell phones, and they are just evil for people who use screen readers. As far as robustness goes, ESPN uses a CSS only design for its sites. At a certain point, you need to think about the future and stop supporting ten year old software.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Then you don't know what you're doing, Markos. CSS has pixel-precision in the hands of those who understand it.

not when you have varying possibilites on the content
this has been me experience anyway....

But table-based layouts are a major pain in the arse for any kind of maintenance, or if one friggan cell is outta place somewhere and you have to wade through half a dozen tables, rows, and cells to find the one cell screwing everything up.

not if your code is written properly and separated in parts...

Also, standards based coding is far more accessible to more types of devices.

all the sites i do have a cms behind them. if i want to do a pda-version of the site, it's easy...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MarkG
not when you have varying possibilites on the content
this has been me experience anyway....

As I said, you don't know what you're doing then.

not if your code is written properly and separated in parts...

Right, cause everyone always writes their code correctly the first time.

all the sites i do have a cms behind them. if i want to do a pda-version of the site, it's easy...

I only have to change one file. It doesn't get any easier than that. I can even have a completely different version for printing.

There's a bit of a learning curve, but there was with tables also. Trust me, once you make the switch, you'll wonder why you resisted so long.

But if you want to keep making websites the 1998 way, be my guest.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sn00py
You shouldn't be touching FrontPage, it is way way outdated!

Somebody else did. I got stuck with cleaning up the mess.

[MarkG]

Right, cause everyone always writes their code correctly the first time.

if you properly write code, you're not lost in it...

I only have to change one file. It doesn't get any easier than that. I can even have a completely different version for printing.

and i just have to change a single template in my cms. same thing...

But if you want to keep making websites the 1998 way, be my guest.

i'm using the most efficient tools to achieve my goal (same result in all browsers with no hacks, speedy development, etc) , i dont have any "this is 1998" taboos

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MarkG
not when you have varying possibilites on the content
this has been me experience anyway....

Check out the examples on Glish, PIE, etc.

Originally posted by MarkG
not if your code is written properly and separated in parts...

Well, I would have to say that table-based layouts are just plain evil. You can get it messed up so easily by one simple typo, and it would be hell to catch that.

Originally posted by MarkG
all the sites i do have a cms behind them. if i want to do a pda-version of the site, it's easy...

CMS does not exclude CSS. Drupal, for example, uses CSS extensively.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MarkG
if you properly write code, you're not lost in it...

And you do that every single time.

I only have to change one file. It doesn't get any easier than that. I can even have a completely different version for printing.

and i just have to change a single template in my cms. same thing...

And it works on all cell phones and pdas? Yeah right. I know for a fact that's BS.

But if you want to keep making websites the 1998 way, be my guest.

i'm using the most efficient tools to achieve my goal (same result in all browsers with no hacks, speedy development, etc) , i dont have any "this is 1998" taboos

I have taboos against using bloated code, that takes forever to download, is a pain in the ass to maintain, and isn't accessible to all users. It's totally inefficient. It just seems efficient to you because you don't know how to do things better.

[FrostyBoy]

chegitz, calm down man, we all have our own ways of building websites.

Anyway, I just had a look at Fireworks and I see they have made major changes and additions, the last time I tried Fireworks, it reminded me of Photoshop 2.0, I honestly couldn't understand where MM was going with Fireworks, it seemed like a little kids painting application.
Well, now I see it integrates well with Dreamweaver and Flash, which is great because Flash has terrible drawing tools, yet I can't help but think MM are a bunch of bastards. If I recall correctly, Fireworks came out long after Dreamweaver, Flash and Freehand, which means instead of incorporating the tools Fireworks has into Flash and/or Freehand, they instead sold us all an entirely new application, for the extra $$$. Oh well.

I'm going to use Fireworks to do one of my Flash jobs which I have to get done today, I was frustrated with Flash for not being able to offer simple drawing options which I need, but it seems Fireworks offers the solution.