Web design | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 495 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614114
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Web design
 

offline Gwely Mernans from 23rd century entertainment (Canada) on 2004-07-08 16:32 [#01270580]
Points: 9856 Status: Lurker



whats a good program?


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 16:38 [#01270586]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Dreamweaver.


 

offline staplemouth on 2004-07-08 16:52 [#01270595]
Points: 556 Status: Lurker



yeah macromedia dreamweaver is really good for beginners,
and even advanced users.

its pretty much the standard here, its what they teach at
uni and a lot of design firms use it.


 

offline spatchcock from United Kingdom on 2004-07-08 16:52 [#01270596]
Points: 115 Status: Lurker



Notepad!


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 16:55 [#01270598]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to spatchcock: #01270596 | Show recordbag



Don't type shit. That's like someone starting a topic
asking for the make of a good car and you chip in with "a
secondhand Lada" as your suggestion just because it can do
the same job.


 

offline spatchcock from United Kingdom on 2004-07-08 16:57 [#01270604]
Points: 115 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01270598



Buh?

Seriously, if you know the code, you can do a lot with a bit
of notepad. Anyway, when it comes to web design, some of the
more complex sites that use the big packages have a tendency
to be complex and hard to navigate. Simplicity is the key,
plus the code is easily to learn.


 

offline spatchcock from United Kingdom on 2004-07-08 16:58 [#01270608]
Points: 115 Status: Lurker | Followup to spatchcock: #01270604



Man I type like a spaz.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 16:59 [#01270610]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to spatchcock: #01270604 | Show recordbag



Yes. But dreamweaver is still much better than notepad if
you want to handcode your site, especially since the
integration of homesite. Only a complete twat would
recommend Notepad.



 

offline hyakusen from 8=============> on 2004-07-08 17:01 [#01270616]
Points: 7021 Status: Addict



macromedia deramweaver MX, to be mor eprecize, you can work
as a designer/html dotist ( i prefer first one ).
for advanced flash and onther interactive gadgets -
macromedia flash MX, from MX series. reccomended.


 

offline staplemouth on 2004-07-08 17:03 [#01270618]
Points: 556 Status: Lurker



notepad is fine, but you can straight code in dreamweaver
too, and for beginners its good because it also gives a
visual of how the site will (hopefully) look.

I use dreamweaver myself, but i do a lot of coding but i
like to have the visual representation as well.

and again, for beginners, they can have the code window open
while doing things the easy way and learn coding as they go
along. and if they want to just do things the easy way, that
is fine too.

iamsohappy!


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 17:04 [#01270621]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Macromedia Studio MX 2004 can be 'purchased' from 'selected
sites' with ' massive discounts'. Well worth getting
because Fireworks is a joy to use as well.


 

offline spatchcock from United Kingdom on 2004-07-08 17:05 [#01270624]
Points: 115 Status: Lurker



I learnt everything I know here here.

But seriously, I agree that to make a proper website, you
need to use something like dreamweaver, but it is also
important to good at the code itself, otherwise you can get
bogged down in the 'extras'.


 

offline staplemouth on 2004-07-08 17:07 [#01270629]
Points: 556 Status: Lurker



oh and if you are very design orientated you can use adobe
photoshop to make your site and split the images up and make
your html file for you, and then work on that html file.

and as hyakusen said, flash is a very powerful tool. If you
have patience and skill it can be used very effectively (and
also not effectively too). bit of a learning curve with
flash however, but a recommended one.


 

offline AphexTwin11 from OOOOOO (United States) on 2004-07-08 17:23 [#01270649]
Points: 905 Status: Lurker



if you have a pc use microsoft Frontpage, Mac -
Dreamweaver...


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 17:25 [#01270652]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to AphexTwin11: #01270649 | Show recordbag



Frontpage isn't better than Dreamweaver so why would you
recommend it?


 

offline 010101 from Vancouver (Canada) on 2004-07-08 17:29 [#01270664]
Points: 7669 Status: Regular



Going off topic a little.....

When I started doing web design ther were some really cool
design concepts. It doesn't seemed to moved on designwize in
the last five years or so. The reason for this I think is
because it has become a less specialized art due to the
simplicity of web creation programs. When I first started
doing Flash stuff I was getting paid twice as much as I do
now. The aestetic quality of sites is of a lot lower
standard today because everyone and their dog is
"designing".


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 17:30 [#01270667]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to 010101: #01270664 | Show recordbag



It's more because a lot of companies got stung with fancy
designed sites that couldn't do shit other than look pretty.


 

offline 010101 from Vancouver (Canada) on 2004-07-08 17:30 [#01270668]
Points: 7669 Status: Regular



As for programs...

Dreamweaver is the best but it tends to write a little bit
too much code


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-08 17:32 [#01270670]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to 010101: #01270668 | Show recordbag



Any WYSIWYG generally produces too much code. But then
again some people manage to generate too much code even when
they hand code (take a look at the source for this site).


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-08 20:42 [#01270885]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker



yeah, dreamweaver is great for a beginner wh doesn't know
how to hand code. and it's color coding is excellent even
for someone who does. dw can write code for you, which
isn't exactly the most elegant or easy to manipulate HTML in
the world.. but, if you do it all by hand using only the
code view dw pretty much leaves your stuff alone. i rarely
ever use dreamweaver's design view, but it can be really
nice when you're just making small changes to a complex
page.

i use HTML-kit at home, and it's awesome. but,
there's no wysisyg.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2004-07-08 21:25 [#01270908]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker



I use dreamweaver on my site. Love it to death. Lets you
split the site into a design pane and a coding pane, which
is just ace. Best of both worlds. Macromedia bought out
homesite which was the best coding html program and
incorporated the bulk of its features into Dreamweavers
WYSIWYG interface. Fucking beautiful program


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2004-07-08 21:26 [#01270911]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01270885



Uhhh you're wrong man. The coding features of dreamweaver
anally rapes all of its competitors. There is a button
called "code view". You might want to try and click it
sometime.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2004-07-08 21:27 [#01270912]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to epohs: #01270885



I only read the first five words of your post and flamed
you. Im sorry man, I'm just violently drunk now. Sorry, I
didnt mean to be rude at all. I agree with your assessment
of dreamweaver.

No more posts for me tonight, I'm being an asshole :)


 

offline thecurbcreeper from United States on 2004-07-08 21:31 [#01270916]
Points: 6045 Status: Lurker



i wish more websites would go back to a simple html design
without as much flash.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2004-07-08 21:33 [#01270917]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to thecurbcreeper: #01270916



Flash is goot if used in moderation. It can do alot for a
site. I still prefer html navigation though


 

offline Joyrex from watmm.com (United States) on 2004-07-08 22:08 [#01270951]
Points: 1389 Status: Lurker



I'm a longtime Dreamweaver user and fan, but recently I've
moved to TopStyle Pro - a CSS/XHTML editor which displays
more accurately than DWMX and is cheap - 80 USD and has more
features than you can shake a stick at.


 

offline mashnote from mol (Belgium) on 2004-07-09 00:16 [#01271008]
Points: 1098 Status: Lurker



i've always used homesite together with topstyle, and i
still do.

oh, and i think it's better to use adobe golive than just
photoshop/imageready to let you generate html files from
slices

i agree that flash is overrated. it's fancy and pretty
etc... but i just can't bring up the patience anymore to let
it load (not that we have a slow connection ) and just see
some things moving. of course there are still some things
which are awesome.


 

offline brokephones from Londontario on 2004-07-09 00:18 [#01271009]
Points: 6113 Status: Lurker | Followup to Joyrex: #01270951



Your avatar is very fucked up. Me likey


 

offline Matvey from Kiev (Ukraine) on 2004-07-09 00:49 [#01271036]
Points: 6851 Status: Regular



I use notepad, PhotoShop, Illustrator, and sometimes Flash
for vector objects, not a long time ago discovered TopStyle,
and some free 'enhanced notepads' with highlighting of HTML,
CSS, JS, PHP, and Java and bla bla bla.


 

offline horsefactory from 💠 (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-09 02:26 [#01271102]
Points: 14867 Status: Regular



macromedia deramweaver MX, to be mor eprecize, you can work
as a designer/html dotist


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-07-09 02:28 [#01271105]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker



I use spiders!!! beat that!! haha


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 02:43 [#01271130]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker



Use BBEdit in combination with DreamWeaver! Mostly BBEdit!


 

offline sneakattack on 2004-07-09 02:45 [#01271131]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to Schika: #01271130



Spiders can output organic compounds and still
achieve maximum throughput. Fuck your pre-Turing software.


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 03:09 [#01271145]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker | Followup to sneakattack: #01271131



Do you know BBEdit ???
I don´t think so!


 

offline Paco from Gothenburg (Sweden) on 2004-07-09 03:36 [#01271156]
Points: 2659 Status: Lurker



I think webcoding slipped out of my hands years ago. Look at
the URL for this topic for example. Bah, I say. BAH!



 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2004-07-09 04:48 [#01271193]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to AphexTwin11: #01270649



No, that's very wrong. Frontpage is horrid, HORRID I SAY!


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 05:27 [#01271217]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker



Frontpage is the worst app you can use!


 

offline Matvey from Kiev (Ukraine) on 2004-07-09 06:05 [#01271232]
Points: 6851 Status: Regular



Frontpage is awful, but is it worse than MS Word for making
HTML?


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-09 06:08 [#01271236]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Frontpage isn't all that bad and it is far from the worst.
Word isn't really designed to be a web design package so you
can't really criticise it. It serves it's purpose for
people who just want to knock up a quick page for the
internet.


 

offline Matvey from Kiev (Ukraine) on 2004-07-09 06:28 [#01271248]
Points: 6851 Status: Regular | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01271236



yes you are right.
Word can be criticized for this: the HTML-output from Word,
which is Times New Roman text line saying 'A quick page' is
1678 bytes long, when manually typed HTML is 90 bytes long,
including <html>, <head>, <title> tags.


 

offline Joyrex from watmm.com (United States) on 2004-07-09 07:57 [#01271349]
Points: 1389 Status: Lurker



Frontpage is horrible; it does not write valid XHTML, and
uses MS's own flavour of CSS to retain backwards-formatting
abilities with their products. I've been spending days just
cleaning up templates generated by an outside agency because
they used FrontPage.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-09 08:32 [#01271405]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to Joyrex: #01271349 | Show recordbag



why would Microsoft be bothered about valid XHTML? They
designed FrontPage for use with IIS and Internet Explorer,
they don't give a fuck about standards and at the moment
they don't need to.


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 08:38 [#01271416]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker



Frontpage does not produce valid HTML code !
Build a site in Frontpage and check it out with the w3c
services ( http://www.w3c.org/ ) - then take a look what you
get!


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 08:40 [#01271418]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01271405



The topic is Web Design!
You can´t realise this with any MicroSoft product.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2004-07-09 08:47 [#01271424]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to Schika: #01271418 | Show recordbag



um...as 96% of the world uses IE, and as Microsoft packages
produce content suitable for IE, then yes you can.


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 11:18 [#01271597]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker | Followup to ecnadniarb: #01271424



Check out your web logs!
May be 96% of InternetExplorer usage is dream of Mr. Gates -
nothing more.


 

offline 010101 from Vancouver (Canada) on 2004-07-09 11:19 [#01271600]
Points: 7669 Status: Regular



And excluding 4% of your market is madness anyway


 

offline epohs from )C: on 2004-07-09 11:22 [#01271604]
Points: 17620 Status: Lurker | Followup to brokephones: #01270912



:D


 

offline Schika from Heidelberg (Germany) on 2004-07-09 11:27 [#01271610]
Points: 458 Status: Lurker | Followup to 010101: #01271600



This could be true ;)


 


Messageboard index