PING: Mad Hatter-San
Connie Pierce
seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
questions . . .
1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
design and THEN clean/write code??
That has me stumped considering ALL the coding that seems necessary . .
. I'd like to learn the RIGHT way to do as opposed to quick n' easy or
roundabout way.
2) Do you code in CSS? I know you use Flash alot . . . mainly, I'm
curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should people
just kind of focus on Flash. Also, how much better is CSS compared to
plain ol' HTML?
St00pid questions, I know. But rather than Google for peoples' opinions
(people that I don't know), I'd rather get YOUR take instead. ( :
And finally . . .
3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
Now, watch, instead of using DW, you'll probably say you code directly
in some other app (the kind without a forgiving GUI. You're
complicated, but I can only assume that you're complicated for a
*reason*.
Anyway, thanks for listening (and hopefully answering - esp without
flaming) . . . I'm not trying to "leech" off your hard-earned
experience, but I figured that there's no harm in asking. If I've got
to ask anyone, you're the best one TO ask. ( :
Hope you're having a great (and busy) weekend!
--
C Pierce
lime
> seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
>
> If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> questions . . .
Sheesh Connie, there's *alot* of tiptoeing going on in your post!
--
Helen, lime, et al.
Connie Pierce
<nut...@here.com> wrote:
> > *Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
> > seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
> >
> > If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> > questions . . .
>
>
> Sheesh Connie, there's *alot* of tiptoeing going on in your post!
Just being playful . . . Hat'll get my point - we've talked about
martial arts before in other posts. ( ;
Honestly, I'm stumped on these questions . . . and Hat's the most
technically-gifted person that I know of. Learning Illy, InDesign, etc
took me only hours, but my brain can't seem to wrap around the whole
CSS thing (even after several days of obsessive reading/trying). I get
the HTML coding, but CSS? Nope. Not a bit . . .
Besides, as the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than
vinegar! ( ; Can you tell I'm southern?
--
C Pierce
fsds...@gmail.com
Connie Pierce wrote:
>
> If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> questions . . .
>
Obviously, I'm not Hatter, but I'll try to provide some additional
insight, because multiple perspectives are almost always valuable.
> 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> design and THEN clean/write code??
>
Ultimately, you are far better off learning the code first, then using
shortcuts later. By that, I mean that there are some tools out there
that can help you out and do the mundane stuff, but if you can learn to
actually write HTML/CSS/Action Scripting/etc., from scratch, you will
be *far* better off when it comes to troubleshooting.
Furthermore, once you learn how to actually write the code, you will
gain a far better understanding for how and why certain things work the
way they do. You might even come to realize that *some* shortcuts are
next to worthless and it's still faster to hand code it.
>
> 2) Do you code in CSS? I know you use Flash alot . . . mainly, I'm
> curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should people
> just kind of focus on Flash. Also, how much better is CSS compared to
> plain ol' HTML?
>
Building a site in Flash is one approach. Building it in HTML/CSS is
another. There really is no general "right" or "wrong." There are
some people who feel more comfortable in one environment versus
another.
Personally, I wouldn't learn Flash at the expense of building strong
HTML/CSS knowledge.
>Also, how much better is CSS compared to
> plain ol' HTML?
That's sort of like asking how much better chocolate syrup is over just
plain ol' vanilla ice cream. ; )
Really, though, CSS isn't so much "better" than HTML as it is essential
to it. With each new browser release, more and more HTML code that
controls "presentation" is being depreciated. That doesn't mean that
this code won't work (yet), but that it won't work if you're coding to
"strict" standards. However, there are no guarantees that anything on
the depreciated chopping block right now will still be supported a
browser release or two down the road.
Furthermore, if you want any hope at all of creating an HTML-based web
page that is accessible to many types of display devices (computer
screen, mobile device, etc.), then you absolutely require CSS in order
to control the different appearances for those devices.
>
> 3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
> but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
>
Dreamweaver has never been really reliable when it comes to handling
CSS. The most recent version is probably the best yet, but even so,
it's still a little clumsy. I use DW for the content management (I
like being able to drag and drop files or rename them and have all of
the links/code site-wide automatically update), but I don't rely on it
*at all* for coding my CSS or most of the HTML -- I do that by hand in
Code View -- nor for viewing it.
If you insist on an application to hold your hand through your CSS
coding, then probably a better choice than DW would be Top Style Pro
(http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/).
A lot of people will tell you that you don't need anything other than
Notepad. True enough, but then again, Notepad doesn't have content
management. If DW is what you're comfortable with using, then stick
with it, but *still* learn the code on your own and don't trust it to
do it for you.
Basically, what it boils down to is your level of seriousness about
your career. You would put the time and effort into learning about
traps, bleeds, color management, kerning, CMYK vs. RGB, etc., for your
print work, right?
If all you want to do is make some personal web sites, then it really
doesn't matter what you do, but if you intend to add web site design to
your professional skill set, then you should do your clients the
service of really knowing what you're doing. Using shortcuts is fine
if it's to save time, but not if you have to rely on them.
Think of it this way: If your clients want something that really isn't
feasible, and you don't know the code, then you either can't give them
a credible answer for why it won't work the way they're asking, or
because you don't know any better, you'll stumble along trying to get
DW's shortcuts to figure it out before you have to give up in
frustration and go back and explain it to the client. Neither is a
good option. On the other hand, if you know the code and how it works,
when they suggest something that isn't possible or is overly
complicated, you'll be in a position to suggest something that will
work within the spirit of what they want to do.
-- Robert
Onideus Mad Hatter
<cmpi...@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote:
>*Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
>seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
>
>If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
>questions . . .
Fire away, Grasshopper.
>1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
>design and THEN clean/write code??
I straight code, in notepad. It's easy breezy, you keep a copy of the
html file open in notepad while having the file simultaneously open in
say Internet Explorer. So then if you make a change and you want to
preview you just hit Ctrl+S, then Alt+Tab to IE, then hit F5 to
refresh.
>That has me stumped considering ALL the coding that seems necessary . .
>. I'd like to learn the RIGHT way to do as opposed to quick n' easy or
>roundabout way.
Well the quick way (or rather the sloppy way) would be using something
like Dreamweaver. Now, there ARE some semi-graphical HTML proggies
out there that make certain things easier, like they'll automatically
close tags and have a build in preview mode...but personally I like to
have as few nonessential programs installed on my system as possible,
so I don't use that sorta stuff...plus I don't think they really offer
a whole lot more in the way of convenience over my current
methodology.
>2) Do you code in CSS?
Yup.
>I know you use Flash alot . . .
I do now.
>mainly, I'm curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should people
>just kind of focus on Flash.
I would learn Flash. Knowing CSS is good, but then you don't need to
REALLY know it. I mean, don't take the time to memorize every last
CSS property, that's why God invented reference manuals. The CSS tags
yer gonna use most often are as follows:
position:absolute;
left:100px;
top:100px;
z-index:1;
Really, that's it. That'll let you position a layer to where you want
it and the z-index will let you stack layers on top of each other
(lowest number is on bottom). You just use division layers like nyah:
<div></div>
Add in the CSS like nyah:
<div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px"></div>
Now then, whatever you stick in between the division tags with be
positioned 100 pixels from the top and 100 pixels from the left.
See, that's what makes CSS so simple. Think of it as splitting the
page apart into layers, like in a graphics programs. Everything in a
<div></div> is in its own layer and you can give that layer any number
of different attributes. Just use a reference guide like nyah:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp
And if you want to see what one does, try it out, stick it in the
style="" part and see what happens.
Now, there's some other stuff you can do with CSS, like you can make
an external CSS file with a set number of attributes and then use a
class="" tag to apply those attributes to whole bunch of different
division layers at once (different pages can even share the same
external CSS file)...but really yer probably not going to need to do
that so don't bother with it. In theory it cuts down on the overall
amount of redundant code and is supposed to save you time if you're
too stupid to figure out how to copy and paste or makes it easier to
change a whole bunch of stuff at once...but those benefits are pretty
lacking unless you're talking about like 4 or 5 THOUSAND pages or
something.
Really CSS isn't all that complicated at all, it's very simple in fact
once you understand how it works. The neat part comes when you use
CSS in conjunction with Javascript. Basically you give each division
layer a name, like nyah:
<div id="namey"></div>
And then once you give it a name you can use Javascript to alter any
CSS property in that division layer at any time. Like on some of my
non-flash sites you see animated stuff...that's just Javascript
continually altering the top and left CSS properties.
If you really want to LEARN, learn something I'd go with JavaScript or
ActionScript, once you learn one really well you can pretty much code
in any type of scripting language (from PHP to Perl), they're all
pretty similar, just the syntax is a lil different. ActionScript is
what you use with Flash, Javascript is what you use with HTML/CSS and
PHP is what you use for database connectivity (as well as some other
things if you want them done server side instead of client side).
>Also, how much better is CSS compared to plain ol' HTML?
Well you can't really use CSS without HTML, CSS merely compliments
HTML.
>3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
>but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
No, no, no...just Notepad. Again, you don't need any sort of silly
hoo-ha program to code CSS, Javascript, HTML, PHP or pretty much
anything else for that matter. Dreamweaver is just like training
wheels for people who are too afraid to know what the code looks like.
>Now, watch, instead of using DW, you'll probably say you code directly
>in some other app (the kind without a forgiving GUI. You're
>complicated, but I can only assume that you're complicated for a
>*reason*.
*shakes head*
You've got it backwards. It's programs like Dreamweaver that are
complicating it. Coding in Notepad is simple...because the whole
thing *IS* simple. I mean, if you've gotten this far into my
post...you already know how to code in CSS, it's THAT simple.
>Anyway, thanks for listening (and hopefully answering - esp without
>flaming) . . . I'm not trying to "leech" off your hard-earned
>experience, but I figured that there's no harm in asking. If I've got
>to ask anyone, you're the best one TO ask. ( :
You might also want to check out this post:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.2600/msg/dc582b7a21b9f0e1
It's basically a "how to" guide on CSS. Goes a lil more in depth than
this post and has some examples you can try out on your own.
Whatever you do, DO NOT waste your money buying a book on CSS...CSS
doesn't need a book, it needs Notepad and an online reference guide,
that's it.
>Hope you're having a great (and busy) weekend!
Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
thousand...*shudder*...
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
>Building a site in Flash is one approach. Building it in HTML/CSS is
>another. There really is no general "right" or "wrong." There are
>some people who feel more comfortable in one environment versus
>another.
I have to disagree, at this point as far as achieving the MAXIMUM
cross platform and cross browser compatibility Flash is king...and
probably always will be. I'd say with a lot of coding stuff I find
HTML/CSS/Javascript to be a bit faster development wise than using
Actionscript...although part of that is probably because I'm not as
used to coding with the later. But if you want to achieve the maximum
level of cross compatibility, then the "right" answer is Flash, there
is no question, nor debate.
>Personally, I wouldn't learn Flash at the expense of building strong
>HTML/CSS knowledge.
HTML/CSS doesn't really require any building though. You just need to
develop a basic understanding of the syntax and terminology (tags,
properties and so forth). Once you know HOW it works you just need a
good online reference guide, no point in memorizing dozens and dozens
of different tags).
>Dreamweaver has never been really reliable when it comes to handling
>CSS. The most recent version is probably the best yet, but even so,
>it's still a little clumsy. I use DW for the content management (I
>like being able to drag and drop files or rename them and have all of
>the links/code site-wide automatically update), but I don't rely on it
>*at all* for coding my CSS or most of the HTML -- I do that by hand in
>Code View -- nor for viewing it.
You do realize that if you actually understood web coding on the next
level you would NEED Dreamweaver at all. The trick is to use
Javascript and PHP to actually build your HTML and CSS on the fly,
creating dynamic pages. Like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/
The entire "site" is only one single page that is "rewritten" on the
fly when you click on the navigation arrows. No need to bother with
drag and drop anything or file renaming when you only have ONE file
that does it all.
Although personally, even without creating dynamic pages I always
found it much better to manage all my own files and such rather than
leaving it in the hands of Dreamweaver. Usually results in cleaner
directories amongst other benefits. I've done a lot of site redesigns
myself, so I'm all too familiar with cleaning up after Dreamweaver and
it's sloppy dribblings.
>A lot of people will tell you that you don't need anything other than
>Notepad. True enough, but then again, Notepad doesn't have content
>management.
Unless you're dealing with something like 4,000 different pages,
content management should ALWAYS be done by yourself in my opinion,
there's just no reason not to outside of laziness and a want for
sloppy directories.
>If all you want to do is make some personal web sites, then it really
>doesn't matter what you do, but if you intend to add web site design to
>your professional skill set, then you should do your clients the
>service of really knowing what you're doing.
Yup, if you just want to make a personal homepage or something
Dreamweaver is fine, I mean, that's what it's really for...hobbyists.
Now does that mean that some "professionals" aren't gonna still use
it? Of course not, hell there are people in the movie industry doing
their editing in Final Cut Pro fer fuck sake. It's a hobbyist program
too...but that doesn't stop ignorance from using it. If you're a
"professional" the point is what level you want to take your work to,
yes, you can use Dreamweaver...but I know a fuck of a lot of stuff
that you CAN'T do using Dreamweaver that you CAN do manually. Just
like with Final Cut Pro, there's a LOT of stuff that you simply can't
do unless you're takin it to the extreme and doing frame level editing
in a graphics program.
Some "professionals" don't much like people such as myself. I once
had this one video editor d00d who made some comment about how I
thought all video editing was amateurish unless you were making sweet,
sweet love to every single frame of video...which, to an extent, is
true. Cause any idiot can use Final Cut Pro, slap in some footage and
make some generic cuts with some generic transition effects...but to
break it on down to frame level editing...well now that requires not
only skill, but incredible patience as well.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
As with any good education process, I'd recommend you seek a variety of
opinions about the issues you raise and decide which outlook seems to fit
your experiece, objectives, resources and needs. Good luck.
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>As with any good education process, I'd recommend you seek a variety of
>opinions<snip>
Well if you want variety I'm the guy to ask. Unlike most people in my
fields of expertise I didn't acquire any of my knowledge via book
learning, which gives me a rather unique perspective on many issues,
since most people tend to simply regurgitate the recycled knowledge
and experience that they slurped up out of some deficient text book
that was WRITTEN by some other dribbler whose only knowledge and
experience was slurped up out of some other deficient text book.
It's a vicious cycle and in most cases produces ignorant fuckwits who
don't even comprehend the true nature behind WHY they're doing what
they're doing...like that stupid fucking moron who was in here the
other day who was raving on about XML...but then when it came down to
ACTUALLY explaining what I could with XML that I couldn't do without
it...yeah, suddenly he's at a loss for words and just starts hurling
insults without any purpose or direction.
Best to research, study and experiment on your own, that's the BEST
way to learn, because you truly are learning, not simply being a
walking encyclopedia of SOMEONE ELSE'S knowledge and understanding.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
B
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
> blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
> for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
> thousand...*shudder*...
>
Really, you're the one doing that, eh? Don't mind if I inform them of
that? It's funny, cause, DQ is a family business and we have access to
all the info on where any promotional material is made. It would
probably be very interesting to them to hear that your making
promotional material for them - especially to the design firm that's
currently working on it. I'll pass this on to the head office.
fsds...@gmail.com
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:.
>
> I have to disagree, at this point as far as achieving the MAXIMUM
> cross platform and cross browser compatibility Flash is king...and
> probably always will be.
HTML by itself is 100% cross browser compatible. So is most CSS.
Where most problems arise are with CSS-based layouts that rely on
certain positioning and spacing constraints that aren't consistent
across browsers.
As far as client work is concerned, I'd say that it's far more likely
to run into a situation where Flash isn't a workable solution than
where an HTML site would be the problem. Specific example: I had to
develop a site for a company for use internally. Individual computers
were not allowed outside Internet access, and what was and wasn't
allowed on the systems was strictly controlled. On any given computer,
browsers have whatever was installed with the OS and that's it. They
specifically wanted and needed a simple HTML-based site. Granted,
that's an extreme case, but still, it's far more likely that a client
will be in a position to not have access to Flash than not have access
to a browser capable of handling HTML.
> HTML/CSS doesn't really require any building though. You just need to
> develop a basic understanding of the syntax and terminology (tags,
> properties and so forth). Once you know HOW it works you just need a
> good online reference guide, no point in memorizing dozens and dozens
> of different tags).
>
To a certain extent, I agree. However, from a development standpoint,
it's much better to understand and memorize the basics. When writing,
for example, it isn't necessary to know how to spell any and all words
you might someday need, but on the other hand, if you had to consult a
dictionary for spelling everything, it'd take you an hour to type a
small paragraph. Same with HTML/CSS -- knowing how to "spell" (so to
speak) the basic language will make development that much faster.
Plus, it will make understanding of the more complicated stuff easier
when you do have to look it up.
>
> Although personally, even without creating dynamic pages I always
> found it much better to manage all my own files and such rather than
> leaving it in the hands of Dreamweaver. Usually results in cleaner
> directories amongst other benefits. I've done a lot of site redesigns
> myself, so I'm all too familiar with cleaning up after Dreamweaver and
> it's sloppy dribblings.
>
It depends on whether or not you allow Dreamweaver to rewrite all of
the code or not. Left to its own devices, DW can do some pretty screwy
things.
>
> Unless you're dealing with something like 4,000 different pages,
> content management should ALWAYS be done by yourself in my opinion,
> there's just no reason not to outside of laziness and a want for
> sloppy directories.
>
I'm not sure how it is that anyone would get sloppy directories out of
DW. I still have to create the files and tell DW where I want them
saved, so in that sense, I maintain full control over what goes where.
The time saver I'm talking about is within the actual files. For
example: if, for whatever reason, I decide that I need to rename an
image, I would have to go in and manually change the name in every file
that referenced that image (easy for a one-off graphic, a little more
complicated if that image happens to be a replacement for the bullet in
lists or something). Or, in DW, I can simply rename the image file
from within the site manager. DW will automatically update that image
name in every single file using it -- it won't rewrite any other code,
or add anything else, it will simply change that image name.
Maybe that could be considered lazy, but I don't have a problem with
that. Lazy is only crippling when it leads to inaction. Otherwise, if
you want something done quickly and effeciently, give it to a lazy
person. ; ) I consider it simply a matter of saving time. I *could*
open up every single file any time I make a change or adjustment and
edit or copy and paste the change, but frankly, there are other ways
I'd prefer to spend my time.
>If you're a
> "professional" the point is what level you want to take your work to,
> yes, you can use Dreamweaver...but I know a fuck of a lot of stuff
> that you CAN'T do using Dreamweaver that you CAN do manually.
Exactly. Thus my point about knowing the code (or at least how to work
with it). Using the shortcuts of DW's Design View will only get a
person so far. The only way to move beyond that is to go into the code.
For me, I don't ever "build" anything in the Design View -- I may use
it for editing text or whatnot, but anything to do with the code I
handle in Code View.
>
> Some "professionals" don't much like people such as myself. I once
> had this one video editor d00d who made some comment about how I
> thought all video editing was amateurish unless you were making sweet,
> sweet love to every single frame of video...which, to an extent, is
> true. Cause any idiot can use Final Cut Pro, slap in some footage and
> make some generic cuts with some generic transition effects...but to
> break it on down to frame level editing...well now that requires not
> only skill, but incredible patience as well.
>
I think it depends on the context. For example, I've done some 3D
modeling and animation work. There are times when it's necessary to
fret over every polygon, and other times when "close enough" is
perfectly fine -- for example, if something is going to be moving
quickly across the frame, or at considerable distance, then there's no
reason to take the render time hit for a highly detailed model.
I think that most experienced professionals understand the value of
nitpicking the details, especially when it will produce a better end
product. It happens all the time in the special effects industry where
they will labor frame-by-frame over important shots, but there will be
other shots that don't require that level of intensity.
-- Robert
Connie Pierce
<fsds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> >
> > If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> > questions . . .
> >
>
> Obviously, I'm not Hatter, but I'll try to provide some additional
> insight, because multiple perspectives are almost always valuable.
Really, thank you . . . I figured Hat would respond and to be honest,
I really respect him and his range of talents (no flaming please). I
don't think that he went to school for his knowledge - I think it's all
hard-earned, struggled for, and brought about by trial-and-error,
experimentation, etc. And TBH, that really increases the respect ratio.
Considering that *I'm* trying to teach myself, his approach to getting
the knowledge and results, I think, is so similar to what *I'm* trying
to do, that it made perfect sense to ask him these questions. But that
being said, if *anyone* like to offer insight, tips, and MORE, I will
be a huge pair o' ears attached to a brain stem! ( :
>
>
> > 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> > design and THEN clean/write code??
> >
>
> Ultimately, you are far better off learning the code first, then using
> shortcuts later. By that, I mean that there are some tools out there
> that can help you out and do the mundane stuff, but if you can learn to
> actually write HTML/CSS/Action Scripting/etc., from scratch, you will
> be *far* better off when it comes to troubleshooting.
I've been obsessively studying/practicing HTML coding (and when I say
obsessively, I mean OBSESSIVELY) but CSS has been stumping me something
awful. So that's why I was wondering about whether or not I NEEDED to
learn it or if that wasn't the most efficient workflow. I often spend
too much time obsessively trying to learn the little things to the
point of losing sight/energy/time for the big important things. I
didn't want to do that . . .
>
> Furthermore, once you learn how to actually write the code, you will
> gain a far better understanding for how and why certain things work the
> way they do. You might even come to realize that *some* shortcuts are
> next to worthless and it's still faster to hand code it.
Well, I think HAt has a def point about using a manual for the actual
use of the CSS selectors/codes. But my problem is that I can't quite
seem to wrap my brain about what they mean and WHY they are what they
are. I know that sounds goofy - I can't quite explain it.
Like Hat solved my problem understanding the whole "div" thing
(something all those online tutorials and books I bought wasn't able to
do, BTW). But the stuff about "span(s)," coding for graphics/images,
etc. That still really stumps me. I think that HTML was MUCH easier to
get the hang of and I'm feeling a bit disillusioned because the CONCEPT
of CSS isn't coming as easy.
Yeesh . . . did THAT make sense??
> >
> > 2) Do you code in CSS? I know you use Flash alot . . . mainly, I'm
> > curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should people
> > just kind of focus on Flash. Also, how much better is CSS compared to
> > plain ol' HTML?
> >
>
> Building a site in Flash is one approach. Building it in HTML/CSS is
> another. There really is no general "right" or "wrong." There are
> some people who feel more comfortable in one environment versus
> another.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't learn Flash at the expense of building strong
> HTML/CSS knowledge.
Well, at this point, Flash is MUCH harder to wrap my brain around than
CSS. Also, I think that if I can get the hang of CSS, I can eventually
figure out the concepts behind Flash. That's what I'm hoping for, at
least.
>
>
> >Also, how much better is CSS compared to
> > plain ol' HTML?
>
> That's sort of like asking how much better chocolate syrup is over just
> plain ol' vanilla ice cream. ; )
>
> Really, though, CSS isn't so much "better" than HTML as it is essential
> to it. With each new browser release, more and more HTML code that
> controls "presentation" is being depreciated. That doesn't mean that
> this code won't work (yet), but that it won't work if you're coding to
> "strict" standards. However, there are no guarantees that anything on
> the depreciated chopping block right now will still be supported a
> browser release or two down the road.
>
> Furthermore, if you want any hope at all of creating an HTML-based web
> page that is accessible to many types of display devices (computer
> screen, mobile device, etc.), then you absolutely require CSS in order
> to control the different appearances for those devices.
>
>
> >
> > 3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
> > but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
> >
>
> Dreamweaver has never been really reliable when it comes to handling
> CSS. The most recent version is probably the best yet, but even so,
> it's still a little clumsy. I use DW for the content management (I
> like being able to drag and drop files or rename them and have all of
> the links/code site-wide automatically update), but I don't rely on it
> *at all* for coding my CSS or most of the HTML -- I do that by hand in
> Code View -- nor for viewing it.
TBH, I'd rather use GoLive (I'm more comfy in there than in any other
app) but I've been told that it's coding lite. That its just not as
good at the coding as the others that are out there. But I don't want
to have my hand held so much as I want a quick and easy interface so I
can TRY the code and then take a looksee at it.
Hat suggested NotePad (I guess TextEdit in my case), but I think he's
TOO technical in that case, for my learning curve. I think that if I
tried using a text app, I'd just get too overwhelmed (at this point)
and I don't want ANY exucse not to follow through with this. I'll try
that kind of technical whiz-kid stuff AFTER I have had my hand held a
wee bit.
I don't want to be an armchair coder eventually. I want to learn at my
own level/pace, but eventually, I want to be as badass as Hat (not
saying that I'll ever GET there, but then again, it's the journey that
counts not the destination so much).
>
> If you insist on an application to hold your hand through your CSS
> coding, then probably a better choice than DW would be Top Style Pro
> (http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/).
I will check that out . . . hopefully, it comes on Mac platform! ( ;
>
> A lot of people will tell you that you don't need anything other than
> Notepad. True enough, but then again, Notepad doesn't have content
> management. If DW is what you're comfortable with using, then stick
> with it, but *still* learn the code on your own and don't trust it to
> do it for you.
>
> Basically, what it boils down to is your level of seriousness about
> your career. You would put the time and effort into learning about
> traps, bleeds, color management, kerning, CMYK vs. RGB, etc., for your
> print work, right?
>
> If all you want to do is make some personal web sites, then it really
> doesn't matter what you do, but if you intend to add web site design to
> your professional skill set, then you should do your clients the
> service of really knowing what you're doing. Using shortcuts is fine
> if it's to save time, but not if you have to rely on them.
>
> Think of it this way: If your clients want something that really isn't
> feasible, and you don't know the code, then you either can't give them
> a credible answer for why it won't work the way they're asking, or
> because you don't know any better, you'll stumble along trying to get
> DW's shortcuts to figure it out before you have to give up in
> frustration and go back and explain it to the client. Neither is a
> good option. On the other hand, if you know the code and how it works,
> when they suggest something that isn't possible or is overly
> complicated, you'll be in a position to suggest something that will
> work within the spirit of what they want to do.
I've always prized my abilities/knowledge when it comes to print design
and production (I may not be the best, but I DO my best). And I
certainly don't want to shortchange clients. So if I AM to offer this
as a skill set (which I don't right now), I will HAVE to be as
knowledgeable as you say. The trick is getting there! ( ;
Again, thank you VERY much, Robert! You really have been a big help!!
>
>
> -- Robert
>
--
C Pierce
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:08:48 -0600, Connie Pierce
> <cmpi...@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote:
>
> >*Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
> >seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
> >
> >If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> >questions . . .
>
> Fire away, Grasshopper.
You've opened the flood gates - hope you're wearing high-waters! ( :
Too cold for shorts where you are, I think . . . ( : Supposed to get
to the 80s here, later this week! ( ;
>
> >1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> >design and THEN clean/write code??
>
> I straight code, in notepad. It's easy breezy, you keep a copy of the
> html file open in notepad while having the file simultaneously open in
> say Internet Explorer. So then if you make a change and you want to
> preview you just hit Ctrl+S, then Alt+Tab to IE, then hit F5 to
> refresh.
That's too complicated for me now. I think I need a little bit of
handholding at this stage - maybe pull/drag items in and then see what
it does? I really don't have the brain for this. I tried 3D imaging
software a while back and the whole x, y, z axis stuff just REALLY
knocked me out of the ball park.
If you HAD to use a GUI, what would you use?? Or think of it this way -
your 10 y o niece wants to learn how to make a personal web page for
herself and she has DW or GoLive to choose from . . .
>
> >That has me stumped considering ALL the coding that seems necessary . .
> >. I'd like to learn the RIGHT way to do as opposed to quick n' easy or
> >roundabout way.
>
> Well the quick way (or rather the sloppy way) would be using something
> like Dreamweaver. Now, there ARE some semi-graphical HTML proggies
> out there that make certain things easier, like they'll automatically
> close tags and have a build in preview mode...but personally I like to
> have as few nonessential programs installed on my system as possible,
> so I don't use that sorta stuff...plus I don't think they really offer
> a whole lot more in the way of convenience over my current
> methodology.
Yes, but again, you're choosing your methodology based, I think, on
your comfort level and skill. Two things that *I* don't have. I need
the one that will hold my hand as necessary and TELL me when I'm being
stupid (which will probably be 90% of the time). But again, it's like
you, a rocket scientist, say, telling me to use one of those fancy
calculators (the engineering or scientific kind) when I can barely get
a $2 calculator from the grocerty store to work.
Which leads me . . . what app did you FIRST use when you were
learning? Or did you start in NotePad (not surprised if you did). Your
way just sounds too technical and too . . . well, intelligent comes to
mind. I need something that is 75% technical and say 25% GUI. Like what
a designer cum web designer would use versus what a coder cum web
designer would use.
>
> >2) Do you code in CSS?
>
> Yup.
>
> >I know you use Flash alot . . .
>
> I do now.
>
> >mainly, I'm curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should
> >people
> >just kind of focus on Flash.
>
> I would learn Flash. Knowing CSS is good, but then you don't need to
> REALLY know it. I mean, don't take the time to memorize every last
> CSS property, that's why God invented reference manuals. The CSS tags
> yer gonna use most often are as follows:
>
> position:absolute;
> left:100px;
> top:100px;
> z-index:1;
What about fonts? colors? ids? stuffing an image in there? I think
that's what's getting me. I get the whole HTML thing, but once you
start talking about style sheets (which I PERFECTLY understand in
InDesign - but then, there's no coding there), spans (still have no
idea what that is), ids, selectors, labels, etc. That's where I scratch
me head and say "WTF?"
>
> Really, that's it. That'll let you position a layer to where you want
> it and the z-index will let you stack layers on top of each other
> (lowest number is on bottom). You just use division layers like nyah:
BTW, I thought I should mention that your explanation of Div layers is
the best (and easiest to understand) that I've come across. I have
about 3-4 (?) books on CSS, countless tutorials, mag articles, etc. And
not a single frigging one explained it as well as you just did.
When are you going to stop *talking* about it and *write* a frigging
book?? I can't believe that I'm the only one who needs this kind of
direction - if you're not going to think about the moolah, think about
the number of designers cum web designers out there suffering
needlessly! Even if you don't feel like dealing with publishers, you
could do an e-Book and sell it on your web site . . . just a thought.
>
> <div></div>
>
> Add in the CSS like nyah:
>
> <div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px"></div>
>
> Now then, whatever you stick in between the division tags with be
> positioned 100 pixels from the top and 100 pixels from the left.
>
> See, that's what makes CSS so simple. Think of it as splitting the
> page apart into layers, like in a graphics programs. Everything in a
> <div></div> is in its own layer and you can give that layer any number
> of different attributes. Just use a reference guide like nyah:
> http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp
>
> And if you want to see what one does, try it out, stick it in the
> style="" part and see what happens.
>
> Now, there's some other stuff you can do with CSS, like you can make
> an external CSS file with a set number of attributes and then use a
> class="" tag to apply those attributes to whole bunch of different
> division layers at once (different pages can even share the same
> external CSS file)...but really yer probably not going to need to do
> that so don't bother with it. In theory it cuts down on the overall
> amount of redundant code and is supposed to save you time if you're
> too stupid to figure out how to copy and paste or makes it easier to
> change a whole bunch of stuff at once...but those benefits are pretty
> lacking unless you're talking about like 4 or 5 THOUSAND pages or
> something.
Okay, once again, you've reverted to uber-technical-frigging-genuis
speak and left me in the dust.
External CSS file - are you talking about the "Main.CSS" that I keep
reading about?? Or the @ import CSS file?? Or am I just too stupid or
too old to figure this out??
Sorry for the ravings/rantings, but I am just REALLY confused and
feeling at ses, here. And not in a pleasant LSD kinda way - more like
the uber st00pid, abandoned in the department store, kinda way.
>
> Really CSS isn't all that complicated at all, it's very simple in fact
> once you understand how it works. The neat part comes when you use
> CSS in conjunction with Javascript. Basically you give each division
> layer a name, like nyah:
> <div id="namey"></div>
Again, there's th "id" thing . . .
> And then once you give it a name you can use Javascript to alter any
> CSS property in that division layer at any time. Like on some of my
> non-flash sites you see animated stuff...that's just Javascript
> continually altering the top and left CSS properties.
>
> If you really want to LEARN, learn something I'd go with JavaScript or
> ActionScript, once you learn one really well you can pretty much code
> in any type of scripting language (from PHP to Perl), they're all
> pretty similar, just the syntax is a lil different. ActionScript is
> what you use with Flash, Javascript is what you use with HTML/CSS and
> PHP is what you use for database connectivity (as well as some other
> things if you want them done server side instead of client side).
I'd like to learn those, too. But I think (from just overall skimming)
that CSS will be easier to learn and will function as a "stepping
stone" to that kind of mindset and knowledge. I'm not trying to start
out on a 2 yo level, but not at the uber technical either. Mainly
because I know I'll get disillusioned and disgusted with myself. Sounds
wussy, I know. But I've had books and the desire to learn Flash and CSS
for over three years now and they're getting dusty and stinky. Gotta
use'em now before the Silverfish set in and Alzheimers starts kicking
my ass.
Too, I REALLY want to.
>
> >Also, how much better is CSS compared to plain ol' HTML?
>
> Well you can't really use CSS without HTML, CSS merely compliments
> HTML.
But in your opinion, is it WORTH knowing CSS? Or is it kind of like the
icing on the cake?? It's nice and makes it taste better, but if the
cake is any good it's not the end-all-be-all to the
experience/quality??
>
> >3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
> >but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
>
> No, no, no...just Notepad. Again, you don't need any sort of silly
> hoo-ha program to code CSS, Javascript, HTML, PHP or pretty much
> anything else for that matter. Dreamweaver is just like training
> wheels for people who are too afraid to know what the code looks like.
I'm not afraid of what the code will look like, but I think I def need
training wheels.
>
> >Now, watch, instead of using DW, you'll probably say you code directly
> >in some other app (the kind without a forgiving GUI. You're
> >complicated, but I can only assume that you're complicated for a
> >*reason*.
>
> *shakes head*
>
> You've got it backwards. It's programs like Dreamweaver that are
> complicating it. Coding in Notepad is simple...because the whole
> thing *IS* simple. I mean, if you've gotten this far into my
> post...you already know how to code in CSS, it's THAT simple.
No, I STILL don't. You explained WAY more than the books, tutorials,
etc have, but you've still talked to me like I have some sort of basic
knowledge of CSS. You've talked to me like an entry level WD, not a
senior designer looking to enter the world of WD.
Have you thought that perhaps, because you're so comfy with CSs that
it's THAT easy? Your mind seems to have NO problem getting in to the
CSS, php, Java thing . . . mine does. It's kind of like a brain
surgeon explaining how to perform a lobotomy to a bricklayer. You have
knowledge that to YOU is BASIC, but to me, is fantastic and oh, SO
complicated. Not trying to be whiny, bitchy or a pain in your ass . . .
just being honest (okay, AND whining for help).
>
> >Anyway, thanks for listening (and hopefully answering - esp without
> >flaming) . . . I'm not trying to "leech" off your hard-earned
> >experience, but I figured that there's no harm in asking. If I've got
> >to ask anyone, you're the best one TO ask. ( :
>
> You might also want to check out this post:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.2600/msg/dc582b7a21b9f0e1
>
> It's basically a "how to" guide on CSS. Goes a lil more in depth than
> this post and has some examples you can try out on your own.
All I'm seeing is Div layers - what about all that id, span, selector,
etc, mumbo jumbo? It DID explain Div layers (as I said earlier) better
than any $40 frigging book.
>
> Whatever you do, DO NOT waste your money buying a book on CSS...CSS
> doesn't need a book, it needs Notepad and an online reference guide,
> that's it.
Too late - I bought SEVERAL. I am THAT desperate to try to learn this.
They just all seem to speak to a higer level of knowledge than I
possess. ) :
>
> >Hope you're having a great (and busy) weekend!
>
> Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
> blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
> for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
> thousand...*shudder*...
Yes, true, but the money ain't bad is it? And think of it this way, it
could be worse - you could be sleeping with Larry's mother for $$!!
(Sorry - haven't insulted Lar in quite some time now and I NEEDED
that!!)
Really, Hat, I appreciate you writing me back and helping this poor
n00b j0b. I hope you'll write some more and possibly get off yer ass
and write a frigging book! ( :
>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ą x ą
--
C Pierce
Connie Pierce
<b000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> >
> > Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
> > blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
> > for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
> > thousand...*shudder*...
> >
>
> Really, you're the one doing that, eh? Don't mind if I inform them of
> that? It's funny, cause, DQ is a family business and we have access to
> all the info on where any promotional material is made.
Who's "we?" Sounds a bit "Big Brother" ish to me . . . ( ;
> It would
> probably be very interesting to them to hear that your making
> promotional material for them - especially to the design firm that's
> currently working on it. I'll pass this on to the head office.
LOL, a lot of companies go out-of-house nowadays. Especially for
promotional items. Many companies (family owned or otherwise) use their
in-house profs for *in-house* needs (AKA, memos, annual reports,
charts, presentations, etc). One of my clients is a BIG company and
that's all their in-house group does. For marketing. campaigns, ads,
etc, they go out-of-house.
And as to a possible out-of-house firm handling that sort of thing, I
know that I often outsource projects like that. I had 525 badges for a
big conference (not so big on size, but BIG on publicity) that I
outsourced. It's not my specialty (whereas the ads, courtesy folder,
etc were), so why should I do something myself that someone else can do
*BETTER*? Not very good business, if you ask me. You should never gyp
the client on quality just to keep a few (or more) extra bucks.
--
C Pierce
fsds...@gmail.com
Connie Pierce wrote:
>
> Like Hat solved my problem understanding the whole "div" thing
> (something all those online tutorials and books I bought wasn't able to
> do, BTW). But the stuff about "span(s)," coding for graphics/images,
> etc. That still really stumps me. I think that HTML was MUCH easier to
> get the hang of and I'm feeling a bit disillusioned because the CONCEPT
> of CSS isn't coming as easy.
Connie, here is a very quick and dirty tutorial that will hopefully
explain some of it:
Really, CSS isn't hard. It's just different. I've taught some classes
on both HTML and CSS and in my experience, the one thing that trips
people up the most about CSS is the syntax. It appears scarier than it
really is. People see something like:
p {text-align:center;}
and they freak out. Really, though, that CSS rule isn't all that much
different from HTML. That is just CSS's way of saying:
<p><center></center></p>
The difference is that the CSS applies the centering globally to every
instance of the Paragraph tag.
Also, in HTML, you always have to remember to open and close your tags.
Same in CSS. Essentially, that's what the { and } are in CSS --
openers and closers.
The second thing people have trouble with is the "selector" that goes
before the {
You're either going to use CSS to make a rule for an existing HTML tag,
or you're going to make up something (kind of like creating your own
tags in a way). Any HTML tag is fair game to be modified by CSS.
When you make your own, you can (almost) call them anything you want
and there are two different types of custom selectors you can create:
Classes and IDs. The difference between the two are that IDs are
unique - you can only reference them once per page. Classes are
generic -- you can reference them as many times as you want. (For an
easy way to remember, think of ID as, well, an ID: I might IDentify
you as "Connie," but I might CLASSify you as a "woman" -- there are
many women, but only one Connie.)
IDs and Classes are differentiated in CSS by the "#" and "." symbols.
ID = #connie
Class = .woman
The trickier part is knowing when to use which. The ID selector is
necessary for certain Javascript functions. If you don't intend to
incorporate Javascripting into your web sites, then you can probably
get by without ever using IDs (in fact, it might be better if you don't
when you're starting out -- you can easily accidentally use an ID twice
on one page, which you can't do). There are also some more advanced
ways to use IDs and Classes (such as applying both to one HTML tag),
but that gets you started on understanding the differences.
When you make your own CSS rules, in order to use them, you have to
apply them to an HTML tag. So something like:
<p class="woman"></p>
is basically just saying, "for everyhing in *this* Paragraph (but no
other Paragraphs), style it according to the "woman" class."
CSS rules are also cummulative, thus the "cascading." So, for example,
way up at the top I defined that Paragraph tag to align text to the
center. I could create another style specific to changing the color of
the text:
.textRed {color:#FF0000;}
(There are some names you can't use -- you can look them up. For the
most part, it's recommended that you pick names that will help you
identify what it is you're doing -- thus, "textRed")
Then I might have the following HTML:
<p>text</p>
<p class="red">text</p>
<p>text</p>
In that, all of the text would be aligned to the center, because all of
it is within Paragraph tags. However, the text in the Paragraph with
the class "red" would be centered AND red (FF0000 is the hex code for a
red color).
This is useful because I might have certain attributes that I'll want
to apply to all instances of a specific HTML tag, but I also want to
ability to give some of them different attributes. Maybe I want all of
my Paragraphs to use a certain font and to be a certain size. I can
define a CSS rule for the <p> tag to control that so that I don't have
to define those attributes for every <p> tag. Then, I can create
separate classes so that some Paragraphs can be a different color, or
maybe aligned differently, and so forth.
Finally, because style sheets cascade, they also gain more importance
the closer they are to the HTML tag they are modifying. So, let's
change it up a little and style a DIV. Here are the styles:
div {text-align:center; color:#000000}
(this defines all text within a DIV to be aligned to the center).
.textBlue {color:#0000FF;}
(this defines any text with this class to be colored blue)
Then in the HTML, we'll code it like:
<div>
<p>text</p>
<p class="textBlue">This is some text with some of it colored <span
style="color:#FF0000;">red</span>.</p>
</div>
So, what's happening here is that the DIV sets the base attributes of
centered, black text. The first Paragraph has these attributes since
it's within the DIV and has no other styles applied to it.
The Class of "textBlue" defines the color of text to be blue. Since
this class is directly applied to the second Paragraph, it overrules
the DIV tag and colors the text Blue (but the text is still centered,
since the "textBlue" text didn't tell it to change that).
Finally, we added a style directly into the HTML in the <span> tag.
Since this is even closer yet, it overrules both the DIV and the Class
and colors the text Red (again, the text remains centered, because we
didn't tell it to change that).
That's all pretty basic stuff, but hopefully it helps you to better
wrap your head around what's going on with CSS.
-- Robert
James Douglas
> *Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
> seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
>
> If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> questions . . .
>
> 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> design and THEN clean/write code??
I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
to be few are far between.
You also need to find some type of tool to help with the coding of
the stuff as only super macho men are using notepad today, and they
will tell you so all day long. There are a ton of editors, quite a few
that are free that will help you create better code faster than using a
simple text editor. CoffeeCup Software has a free tool that you can
start with to see what's available and they also have a good book on
HTML/CSS, etc. to start with.
Connie Pierce
Douglas <james....@genesis-software.com> wrote:
If YOU had to choose, would you use Adobe GoLive or Dreamweaver?
>
>
--
C Pierce
fsds...@gmail.com
Connie Pierce wrote:
>
> If YOU had to choose, would you use Adobe GoLive or Dreamweaver?
> >
It's worth noting that Adobe purchased Macromedia and now owns both
Dreamweaver and GoLive. Dreamweaver is generally considered to be the
better product and is far more widely used than GoLive, and Adobe has
no need for two competing web editors in their stable of products.
Long story short, if I were to bet on it, I'd say that GoLive is going
to be phased out.
-- Robert
Onideus Mad Hatter
>
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:.
>>
>> I have to disagree, at this point as far as achieving the MAXIMUM
>> cross platform and cross browser compatibility Flash is king...and
>> probably always will be.
>HTML by itself is 100% cross browser compatible.
WRONG! First off, WHAT HTML specifically are you referring to? I
mean, even if yer talkin about restricting yourself to 2.0 there are
STILL differences between browsers and operating systems as far as
object placement, text size, text kerning, etc, etc, etc.
The bottom line is that with HTML...anything. There is NEVER an
absolute certainty about what it's going to look like on a client
system...especially if your client is retarded and did this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/uramoron.gif
With Flash, there is ABSOLUTE certainty about what your stuff is going
to look like...on ANY system.
>So is most CSS.
WAY, WAY WRONG!
I mean, that is *SO* wrong at this point I have to wonder if you've
ever even used CSS. I've been in quite literarily DOZENS upon DOZENS
of threads pertaining to cross compatibility issues regarding
CSS...and I'm not even talking about CSS2 issues.
>Where most problems arise are with CSS-based layouts that rely on
>certain positioning and spacing constraints that aren't consistent
>across browsers.
Actually I would say that most CSS problems are related to browser in
dependant properties, like some of the cursor options, or scroll bar
color alterations, chit like that.
>As far as client work is concerned, I'd say that it's far more likely
>to run into a situation where Flash isn't a workable solution than
>where an HTML site would be the problem.
...how could Flash EVER not be a workable solution? I mean, maybe if
you didn't know what you were doing.
> Specific example: I had to
>develop a site for a company for use internally. Individual computers
>were not allowed outside Internet access, and what was and wasn't
>allowed on the systems was strictly controlled. On any given computer,
>browsers have whatever was installed with the OS and that's it. They
>specifically wanted and needed a simple HTML-based site.
Well you're confusing what's possible with what a client wants...two
entirely different things. I mean if a client wanted fuckin MIDIs on
their site I'm sure not gonna tell em no...might suggest otherwise,
but if that's what they want. I decided some time ago that most
companies simply are not worth edifying, so like if they want a site
connected to some sort of database and they want me to use some
outdated, unpatched version of Coldfusion...hey, if they THINK they
know what's best, who am I to tell them otherwise? I make it a point
to establish that right away with a client, whether they want to trust
in my experience and expertise or whether they want to pretend that
they know what they're doing. If it's teh later, they get what they
want, I put zero concern into it...even if I know I'm just creating a
giant open target for anyone to come along and smash to hell.
>Granted,
>that's an extreme case, but still, it's far more likely that a client
>will be in a position to not have access to Flash than not have access
>to a browser capable of handling HTML.
I disagree, some version of Flash comes preinstalled on just about
everything these days, it would be HIGHLY unusual for a system not to
have SOME version on it. Even with your "extreme" case, 10 to 1 says
every machine they've got has at least Flash 5 installed on it.
*shrugs*
>> HTML/CSS doesn't really require any building though. You just need to
>> develop a basic understanding of the syntax and terminology (tags,
>> properties and so forth). Once you know HOW it works you just need a
>> good online reference guide, no point in memorizing dozens and dozens
>> of different tags).
>To a certain extent, I agree. However, from a development standpoint,
>it's much better to understand and memorize the basics. When writing,
>for example, it isn't necessary to know how to spell any and all words
>you might someday need, but on the other hand, if you had to consult a
>dictionary for spelling everything, it'd take you an hour to type a
>small paragraph. Same with HTML/CSS -- knowing how to "spell" (so to
>speak) the basic language will make development that much faster.
>Plus, it will make understanding of the more complicated stuff easier
>when you do have to look it up.
Uh...isn't that what I said?
"You just need to develop a basic understanding of the syntax and
terminology"
To me syntax is like spelling and punctuation.
>> Although personally, even without creating dynamic pages I always
>> found it much better to manage all my own files and such rather than
>> leaving it in the hands of Dreamweaver. Usually results in cleaner
>> directories amongst other benefits. I've done a lot of site redesigns
>> myself, so I'm all too familiar with cleaning up after Dreamweaver and
>> it's sloppy dribblings.
>It depends on whether or not you allow Dreamweaver to rewrite all of
>the code or not. Left to its own devices, DW can do some pretty screwy
>things.
I've never actually used the program myself, I've only spent time
cleaning up its messes.
>> Unless you're dealing with something like 4,000 different pages,
>> content management should ALWAYS be done by yourself in my opinion,
>> there's just no reason not to outside of laziness and a want for
>> sloppy directories.
>I'm not sure how it is that anyone would get sloppy directories out of
>DW.
Beats me, I'm assuming it's the interface. Like I said, I've cleaned
up after the program and I've seen some pretty messed up directory
structures...although maybe that was just the clients fault and not
the programs.
>I still have to create the files and tell DW where I want them
>saved, so in that sense, I maintain full control over what goes where.
But what is the interface like with that? Is it clear to the user
what they're doing? I find a lot of times most people using computers
have an EXTREMELY poor grasp of directories, files, formats and the
nature of how they're organized and controlled. If the interface
isn't setup like File Manager/Explorer I find that it usually leads to
messes.
>The time saver I'm talking about is within the actual files. For
>example: if, for whatever reason, I decide that I need to rename an
>image, I would have to go in and manually change the name in every file
>that referenced that image (easy for a one-off graphic, a little more
>complicated if that image happens to be a replacement for the bullet in
>lists or something). Or, in DW, I can simply rename the image file
>from within the site manager. DW will automatically update that image
>name in every single file using it -- it won't rewrite any other code,
>or add anything else, it will simply change that image name.
I see you haven't discovered this yet:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Replace.png
It's amazing really, that sometimes the simplest solution (in this
case Notepad) actually has just as much functionality as the bloatware
alternatives. *shrugs*
>Maybe that could be considered lazy, but I don't have a problem with
>that.
Some might argue that you should have named your files correctly in
the first place...which to an extent I have to agree with...I also
don't understand WHY you would suddenly want to start changing names
around after the fact. I don't think that's laziness so much as
pointlessness.
>> Some "professionals" don't much like people such as myself. I once
>> had this one video editor d00d who made some comment about how I
>> thought all video editing was amateurish unless you were making sweet,
>> sweet love to every single frame of video...which, to an extent, is
>> true. Cause any idiot can use Final Cut Pro, slap in some footage and
>> make some generic cuts with some generic transition effects...but to
>> break it on down to frame level editing...well now that requires not
>> only skill, but incredible patience as well.
>I think it depends on the context. For example, I've done some 3D
>modeling and animation work. There are times when it's necessary to
>fret over every polygon, and other times when "close enough" is
>perfectly fine -- for example, if something is going to be moving
>quickly across the frame, or at considerable distance, then there's no
>reason to take the render time hit for a highly detailed model.
In that case it might actually be better to fret over every lil
polygon, but then only animate every other frame and then use a frame
blending technique to build the transition frames, it'll produce
smoother/clearer movement, it'll encode better with a smaller file
size and on a Hi-Def display it'll look much better.
...I find most peeps don't take the time to consider that, what their
work will look like on a Hi-Def display. It's sorta like when I was
doing a lot of graphic work on an older system with 16 bit color...and
then teh first time I looked at the stuff on a 32 bit color system it
was like...EYAAAH!
>I think that most experienced professionals understand the value of
>nitpicking the details, especially when it will produce a better end
>product. It happens all the time in the special effects industry where
>they will labor frame-by-frame over important shots, but there will be
>other shots that don't require that level of intensity.
Or where they simply don't think anyone will notice...like in Narnia
for example...boy they spent a LOT of time on that great big fuzzy
lion...but they sure skimped on processing power in a lot of other
shots (especially a lot of the foresty background stuff).
Onideus Mad Hatter
...uh, Connie...why are you arguing with this fruit loop? I mean, if
he wants to go and play pretend and email DQ and start whining about
me he can go right on ahead, it ain't any of my concern if he wants to
make an idiot of himself. *shrugs*
Coincidentally Dairy Queen outsources quite a LOT of stuff, like with
their employee catalogs, as far as I know it's ALL licensed
merchandise, Dairy Queen doesn't make any of it. Of course, that's a
normal practice with most major corporations since 9 times out of 10
it saves them a TON of money.
mug...@hotmail.com
> Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
> blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
> for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
> thousand...*shudder*...
>Really, you're the one doing that, eh? Don't mind if I inform them of
>that? It's funny, cause, DQ is a family business and we have access to
>all the info on where any promotional material is made. It would
>probably be very interesting to them to hear that your making
>promotional material for them - especially to the design firm that's
>currently working on it. I'll pass this on to the head office.
you never answered that?
>I disagree, some version of Flash comes preinstalled on just about
>everything these days, it would be HIGHLY unusual for a system not to
>have SOME version on it. Even with your "extreme" case, 10 to 1 says
>every machine they've got has at least Flash 5 installed on it.
>*shrugs*
Whatever. How do i get to punch you in your face?
Onideus Mad Hatter
>>Really, you're the one doing that, eh? Don't mind if I inform them of
>>that? It's funny, cause, DQ is a family business and we have access to
>>all the info on where any promotional material is made. It would
>>probably be very interesting to them to hear that your making
>>promotional material for them - especially to the design firm that's
>>currently working on it. I'll pass this on to the head office.
>you never answered that?
...why would I? I mean, the guy is an even bigger fruit loop than you
Muggzy. I mean, at least you're actually attempting to sell something
(albeit stolen), this guy thinks he's some kind of a high end web
developer despite the blatantly obvious fact that he barely posses the
knowledge and understanding of a first year computer science major.
He can email DQ all he likes and whine and piss his pants about how
much I hurt his lil Usenet feelings...they're not gonna give a fuck,
so why should I?
>>I disagree, some version of Flash comes preinstalled on just about
>>everything these days, it would be HIGHLY unusual for a system not to
>>have SOME version on it. Even with your "extreme" case, 10 to 1 says
>>every machine they've got has at least Flash 5 installed on it.
>>*shrugs*
>Whatever. How do i get to punch you in your face?
Cupcake, you can't even contend against me on teh verbal battle field,
so what in the frosty fuck makes your DUMBASS think you would fair any
better on teh physical side of things?
By the by, are you STILL trying to give your STOLEN work away for
FREE...LOL...and you STILL can't get any clients. ^_^
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
mug...@hotmail.com
>FREE...LOL...and you STILL can't get any clients. ^_^
Hmmm my salary in my real job makes up for that, hey what you doing for
work? using that genius talent you got in a proper job i hope?
Onideus Mad Hatter
>>By the by, are you STILL trying to give your STOLEN work away for
>>FREE...LOL...and you STILL can't get any clients. ^_^
>Hmmm my salary in my real job makes up for that,
Yeah well I wouldn't quit your day job (pizza boi) any time soon,
cause the money you wasted on trying to be a pretend web developer is
simply gone. Cut your loses, move on and try and learn something from
your failure.
>hey what you doing for work?
Uh, I'm a student, Chuckles, I don't need to do anything for work at
the moment.
>using that genius talent you got in a proper job i hope?
I take on a few clients every month, mostly off the wall production
and graphic chit (like the name tags for the new DQ stores).
Oh, btw, I'm not a genius. Saying I'm a genius would imply that I was
simply born with the knowledge and talent, however that is not the
case. I spend a rather incredible amount of time learning,
experimenting, testing, practicing and developing methodology. That's
something you seem to have a hard time with. For you, it seems like
you think there are only two kinds of people...those who simply know
it by default...and those who buy it up from someone and then resell
it as if its theirs. You need to wisen the fuck up though and learn
that it's HARD WORK that produces results, not "genius" or any silly
hoo ha shit like that.
Your whole failing attempt at creating a business is a testament to
this deficiency or yours, where you think it's all just easy and
doesn't take any effort. Like you can just obsess over some stranger
on fuckin Usenet and somehow THAT is gonna start rollin in the
customers.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
mug...@hotmail.com
>cause the money you wasted on trying to be a pretend web developer is
>simply gone. Cut your loses, move on and try and learn something from
>your failure.
Funny that, pizza boys dont normally get there own desk and a pc with
internet. think about it.
>Uh, I'm a student, Chuckles, I don't need to do anything for work at
>the moment.
What at 26? what you doing? architecture ?
>those who simply know
>it by default...and those who buy it up from someone and then resell
>it as if its theirs. You need to wisen the fuck up though and learn
>that it's HARD WORK that produces results, not "genius" or any silly
>hoo ha shit like that.
Blah blah been to uni done flash, animation, html, video etc etc and
yep, i am lazy, i dont really wanna put too much hard work into my
shitty online shop because im not too bothered, i just putting stuff
together when im bored.
I just want to know what you think your flash company page offers that
html doesnt? its not like your pushing any boundaries in navigation or
design.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<james....@genesis-software.com> wrote:
>I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
>flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out.
*shakes head*
You uh...you don't read much, huh?
Hey, where's Spacey, she might like to take a crack at ya. LOL
>I realize some folks think it's
>still the best but they are in the minority and always have been,
Actually with the advent of Flash8 there simply is no longer a reason
to bother with HTML/Javascript/CSS etc. Especially since you can use
quite a bit of HTML directly IN Flash anyway. It's very slick when
you think about it. I mean Flash has basically been eating the
browser wars from the inside out. Rather than attempting to directly
compete they postured their stuff as a plugin, which is amusing since
you don't even technically NEED a web browser to view a cohesive Flash
site. And Flash is the best coding option since it offers the maximum
level of cross compatibility (amongst a whole fucking slew of other
things).
The bottom line is this...if you're not coding in Flash...it's because
you don't know how, it has NOTHING to do with preferences or any sort
of technical points. Unless you simply didn't know how to use Flash,
were specifically told by a moronic client to use something else, or
only knew how to do extremely basic things in flash, you would be a
fool for not using it.
>but still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
D00d, where on the web are you going to? There's so much Flash
content these days it's not even funny...granted it's integrated a lot
better and isn't always as "Flashy" as it was once done (except in the
form of ads), so maybe you just don't realize what you're looking at.
For example, take nyah:
http://www.scifi.com/
Like, half the freakin site is in Flash!
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
I was just trying to take the high road and let him know what it's like
in the REAL world of business. 'Sides, even if you don't care that he
ends up looking foolish, he's wasting the HO's time. And I'm sure
*they* don't have that kind of time to waste.
>
> Coincidentally Dairy Queen outsources quite a LOT of stuff, like with
> their employee catalogs, as far as I know it's ALL licensed
> merchandise, Dairy Queen doesn't make any of it. Of course, that's a
> normal practice with most major corporations since 9 times out of 10
> it saves them a TON of money.\
--
C Pierce
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 07:20:20 -0800, fsds...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:.
> >>
> >> I have to disagree, at this point as far as achieving the MAXIMUM
> >> cross platform and cross browser compatibility Flash is king...and
> >> probably always will be.
>
> >HTML by itself is 100% cross browser compatible.
>
> WRONG! First off, WHAT HTML specifically are you referring to? I
> mean, even if yer talkin about restricting yourself to 2.0 there are
> STILL differences between browsers and operating systems as far as
> object placement, text size, text kerning, etc, etc, etc.
>
> The bottom line is that with HTML...anything. There is NEVER an
> absolute certainty about what it's going to look like on a client
> system...especially if your client is retarded and did this:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/uramoron.gif
>
> With Flash, there is ABSOLUTE certainty about what your stuff is going
> to look like...on ANY system.
>
Well I can think of a few big down sides to this. As of IE7, Flash wont
work without JavaScript being turned on (because ActiveX is hobbled to
get around the fact that ActiveX breaches a patent, and MS lost in
court twice - Flash movies that are not embedded real-time via JS
simply appear as a white box until the user clicks it.
> >So is most CSS.
>
> WAY, WAY WRONG!
>
> I mean, that is *SO* wrong at this point I have to wonder if you've
> ever even used CSS. I've been in quite literarily DOZENS upon DOZENS
> of threads pertaining to cross compatibility issues regarding
> CSS...and I'm not even talking about CSS2 issues.
>
True, but only if your CSS is static. You can generate HTML and CSS
that is appropriet for the platform viewing it at the server. You
cannot do this with Flash - it's an all or nothing thing.
Another downside with Flash is that you cannot develop in it for free.
Whichever IDE you choose, it costs money. HTML and CSS cost nothing to
develop.
While Flash is a fab solution of RIA (rich internet apps), it has
limits.
SpaceGirl
James Douglas wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> > *Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
> > seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
> >
> > If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> > questions . . .
> >
> > 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> > design and THEN clean/write code??
>
> I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
> flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
> still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
> still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
> There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
> to be few are far between.
You couldn't be further from the truth. There are more and more Flash
sites all the time. Take a look at www.thefwa.com if you want to see
where these sites are hiding!
There are also two Flash platforms, one open source and one by Adobe
that bring Flash into the server-generated realm that you expect most
dynamic sites to be built on. If anything Flash will continue to
accelerate as a medium.
> You also need to find some type of tool to help with the coding of
> the stuff as only super macho men are using notepad today, and they
> will tell you so all day long. There are a ton of editors, quite a few
If you are developing server side, you can effectively create Flash in
any text editor.. or any IDE (DreamWeaver or Eclipse for example). You
create your Flash sites through XML documents and Java, NOT a
complicated front end like the Flash IDE. RIA (Rich Internet Apps) are
the future, so much so that the technology is build INTO the next
version of Windows (Vista) - microsoft are backing this technology.
> that are free that will help you create better code faster than using a
> simple text editor. CoffeeCup Software has a free tool that you can
> start with to see what's available and they also have a good book on
> HTML/CSS, etc. to start with.
There are down sides to Flash, there are downsides to HTML. But neither
is better than the other for all sites. You pick the technology best
for your clients needs.
fsds...@gmail.com
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> WRONG! First off, WHAT HTML specifically are you referring to? I
> mean, even if yer talkin about restricting yourself to 2.0 there are
> STILL differences between browsers and operating systems as far as
> object placement, text size, text kerning, etc, etc, etc.
>
HTML was never developed as a *layout* solution. It was developed as a
means to present data online. It is us designers that have been, for
years, trying to force it into doing something it wasn't intended to
do. Straight HTML has no browser issues whatsoever. A IMG is an IMG,
a P is a P, etc. Where compatibility issues always come up is in the
area of designing layouts.
Furthermore, HTML was never intended to be a format controlled by the
designer. Some control was meant to be left to the end user (resizing
text, etc.). This is another area where issues crop up: Designers
forcing layouts on end users. I'm not saying it's flat-out wrong for a
designers to want it to look a certain way on *all* browsers, but that
was not the intent of HTML.
If I write:
<img src="whatever.jpg" height="100 width="100" alt="something" />
<p>Some text to go here.</p>
It will look the same on virtually every browser on the planet. I say
"virtually" because there may be differences in the spacing of the
paragraph, etc., but there are no compatibility issues whatsever in the
sense that all of the information *will* display, and how it will
display will be predictable (the image will be above the text).
> The bottom line is that with HTML...anything. There is NEVER an
> absolute certainty about what it's going to look like on a client
> system.
That's because HTML isn't meant for layout. When it comes to pixel
perfect precision, you are correct -- that isn't 100% possible with
HTML, nor was it ever meant to be. However, it isn't always necessary
to create layouts that depend on the absolute positioning of every
pixel. That still isn't a compatibility issue. HTML, by itself, is
compatible across browsers -- it's the layouts that may not be.
There's a difference.
>
> With Flash, there is ABSOLUTE certainty about what your stuff is going
> to look like...on ANY system.
>
I never disputed that. But again, you're talking layout design.
> >So is most CSS.
>
> WAY, WAY WRONG!
>
> I mean, that is *SO* wrong at this point I have to wonder if you've
> ever even used CSS. I've been in quite literarily DOZENS upon DOZENS
> of threads pertaining to cross compatibility issues regarding
> CSS...and I'm not even talking about CSS2 issues.
>
I said "most" did I not? What isn't compatible about the "color"
property? What isn't compatible about "width:100px"? What isn't
compatible about the "font-family" property? The answer is nothing.
You're taking the few layout issues that do arise and blowing them out
of proportion to encompass all of HTML/CSS. The fact is, that *most*
CSS *is* cross-browser compatible.
>
> Actually I would say that most CSS problems are related to browser in
> dependant properties, like some of the cursor options, or scroll bar
> color alterations, chit like that.
>
Those still aren't *most* CSS properties.
> >As far as client work is concerned, I'd say that it's far more likely
> >to run into a situation where Flash isn't a workable solution than
> >where an HTML site would be the problem.
>
> ...how could Flash EVER not be a workable solution? I mean, maybe if
> you didn't know what you were doing.
>
Or if you couldn't control what the end user was capable of using,
which still translates into an unworkable solution.
>
> Well you're confusing what's possible with what a client wants...two
> entirely different things.
Doesn't matter. It still translates into an unworkable solution --
Flash is not an option.
If a client wants a web site, their *minimum* option begins with HTML,
not with Flash.
>
> I disagree, some version of Flash comes preinstalled on just about
> everything these days, it would be HIGHLY unusual for a system not to
> have SOME version on it. Even with your "extreme" case, 10 to 1 says
> every machine they've got has at least Flash 5 installed on it.
> *shrugs*
>
In the specific case I was referring to, you'd be wrong. The company
in question were extremely paranoid about their employees. Every
computer was as stripped down as possible. OS's were installed with
the bare minimum to allow them to run, and any necessary program (such
as a browser), was either installed with no plug-ins, or plug-ins were
uninstalled or disabled. Hell, they had some machines running Windows
95 still.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it was what the client wanted/needed
or whether it was technologically possible, it was still a circumstance
where Flash was an unworkable solution.
As I said, anything web-based will start at the *minimum* of HTML.
> Uh...isn't that what I said?
>
> "You just need to develop a basic understanding of the syntax and
> terminology"
>
> To me syntax is like spelling and punctuation.
>
I was going by your comment that there was no point in memorizing
dozens of different tags. In that, I don't entirely agree. Sure, no
one can memorize *all* tags, but the more tags you do memorize, the
faster your workflow will be.
>
> Beats me, I'm assuming it's the interface. Like I said, I've cleaned
> up after the program and I've seen some pretty messed up directory
> structures...although maybe that was just the clients fault and not
> the programs.
>
If someone runs DW default out of the box and expects it to take care
of everything for them, then yes, it can create problems. But really
wouldn't recommend running any program like that, so it's never been an
issue for me.
> But what is the interface like with that? Is it clear to the user
> what they're doing?
It's clear to me, and to me, that's all that matters. ; )
> I find a lot of times most people using computers
> have an EXTREMELY poor grasp of directories, files, formats and the
> nature of how they're organized and controlled. If the interface
> isn't setup like File Manager/Explorer I find that it usually leads to
> messes.
The "Files" viewer in Dreamweaver is essentially a tree hierarchy --
folder, sub-folders, sub-files, etc. There are some other "views" you
can enter into (such as a "map view" that shows you how each file is
related in terms of what links to what), but frankly I don't ever
really find it necessary to use those.
>
> I see you haven't discovered this yet:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Replace.png
But that still won't open up an HTML file and make the change. I have
to open the file first because I can use the find and replace.
Dreamweaver will do it site-wide, automatically, without having to open
anything. Simply rewrite the name of the file I want to change and
presto.
More than that, I can globably make a change to a line of code in the
same manner. DW has a site-wide find and replace.
> Some might argue that you should have named your files correctly in
> the first place...which to an extent I have to agree with...I also
> don't understand WHY you would suddenly want to start changing names
> around after the fact. I don't think that's laziness so much as
> pointlessness.
>
In some cases, they *are* named correctly to begin with. For instance,
I had one project that required updating a certain graphic every year.
The dimensions and file format never changed, but a year referenced in
the image did, and occasionally the people in the image changed
year-to-year. Both the client and I kept local copies of the images in
case we needed to reference a previous year's file (which happened
every once in awhile). For ease of organization, it worked best of
both myself and my client to give them names related to the year:
"image01, image02, etc."
Using that, say this year I need to swap out to the new image -- last
year's was "image05." One option would be to save "image06" into the
site's image directory and then run a find and replace to change all
"image05" to "image06." Another option would be to overwrite the
"image05" file with the new 06 image (since I have a local copy and I
don't need to keep previous year's images in the web directory) and
then rename it "image06" -- letting DW update any and all links to the
image automatically. Doing it the second way saves me a step, because
then there is no need to go back in and delete the old "05" image.
>
> Or where they simply don't think anyone will notice...like in Narnia
> for example...boy they spent a LOT of time on that great big fuzzy
> lion...but they sure skimped on processing power in a lot of other
> shots (especially a lot of the foresty background stuff).
>
Some of that is a matter of time and budget. Unfortunately, most
special effects crews are not given the time they need. : \
-- Robert
Onideus Mad Hatter
<cmpi...@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote:
>> Fire away, Grasshopper.
>You've opened the flood gates - hope you're wearing high-waters! ( :
>Too cold for shorts where you are, I think . . . ( : Supposed to get
>to the 80s here, later this week! ( ;
I actually wear shorts quite often...even in the dead of winter...I'm
kinda crazy like that.
>> I straight code, in notepad. It's easy breezy, you keep a copy of the
>> html file open in notepad while having the file simultaneously open in
>> say Internet Explorer. So then if you make a change and you want to
>> preview you just hit Ctrl+S, then Alt+Tab to IE, then hit F5 to
>> refresh.
>That's too complicated for me now. I think I need a little bit of
>handholding at this stage - maybe pull/drag items in and then see what
>it does? I really don't have the brain for this. I tried 3D imaging
>software a while back and the whole x, y, z axis stuff just REALLY
>knocked me out of the ball park.
...um, well I think the "helper" programs are just gonna make it MORE
complicated for you. The trick is to learn HTML on a very basic
level...then move on to more advanced stuff, then move on to basic
CSS, then move on to more advanced stuff, but don't use any of those
"helper" programs, cause all they're gonna do is make it seem
complicated and then you'll probably just get frustrated and give up
ever trying to REALLY learn it.
>If you HAD to use a GUI, what would you use?? Or think of it this way -
>your 10 y o niece wants to learn how to make a personal web page for
>herself and she has DW or GoLive to choose from . . .
Neither, I would personally teach her. I mean for a personal website
the only tags a 10 yo needs to know is:
<html></html>
<body background=""> or <body bgcolor="">
<img="">
<br>
<h1></h1>
<hr>
<font color=""></font>
And it just build from there. Obviously with a 10 yo you probably
want to keep it down to just a few new tags each week, but after
awhile they'll be able to learn it on their own using a simple
tutorial site like this one:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
>Yes, but again, you're choosing your methodology based, I think, on
>your comfort level and skill. Two things that *I* don't have. I need
>the one that will hold my hand as necessary and TELL me when I'm being
>stupid (which will probably be 90% of the time). But again, it's like
>you, a rocket scientist, say, telling me to use one of those fancy
>calculators (the engineering or scientific kind) when I can barely get
>a $2 calculator from the grocerty store to work.
>
>Which leads me . . . what app did you FIRST use when you were
>learning? Or did you start in NotePad (not surprised if you did). Your
>way just sounds too technical and too . . . well, intelligent comes to
>mind. I need something that is 75% technical and say 25% GUI. Like what
>a designer cum web designer would use versus what a coder cum web
>designer would use.
You need to understand that when I first started learning how to make
web pages there WAS NO programs for it. I mean, you used Notepad
because that was it. It was until later, when someone said, "Hey, I
can make a crappy WYSIWYG editor and make web design out like it's
some incredibly complicated thing and get people to buy my crappy
software for tons of money!"
In all reality there has NEVER BEEN a reason for coding outside of
Notepad because it IS NOT complicated. Crap like Dreamweaver MAKES IT
LOOK complicated.
>> I would learn Flash. Knowing CSS is good, but then you don't need to
>> REALLY know it. I mean, don't take the time to memorize every last
>> CSS property, that's why God invented reference manuals. The CSS tags
>> yer gonna use most often are as follows:
>>
>> position:absolute;
>> left:100px;
>> top:100px;
>> z-index:1;
>What about fonts?
Try the link I gave in the last post:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp
Look at yer options:
Background
Border
Classification
Dimension
Font
Generated Content
List and Marker
Margin
Outlines
Padding
Positioning
Table
Text
Pseudo-classes
Pseudo-elements
Now, here's the part where you need to get over thinking it's
complicated. Thinking it's hard is what is preventing you from being
able to use common sense and elementary level logic.
Obviously, the sections you want are "Font" and "Text". I mean,
doesn't that make sense?
Now click on say text and look at what you've got:
color
direction
letter-spacing
text-align
text-decoration
text-indent
text-shadow
text-transform
unicode-bidi
white-space
word-spacing
>colors?
Hrmmm, boy that's a tough one, huh? ^_^
Probably the one you want to click on is "color":
http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_text_color.asp
color:red;
I mean, it's THAT simple!
>ids?
You mean the name of the font you want? Scroll back up to the top and
try the "Font" section this time:
font-family:Arial;
I mean, it's THAT simple!
>stuffing an image in there?
That's what the layers are for.
Watch:
:<div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px; width:100px; color:red; font-family:Courier New">
:This text appears 100 pixles from the top and 100 pixels from the left. All this text is red and in Courier New and will be wrapped at 100 pixles.
:</div>
:
:<div style="position:absolute; left:200px; top:100px">
:<img src="myimage.png">
:</div>
That makes this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/test1.html
Now here's what you need to do...play with it! Try changing those
numbers around and see what happens. Try out some other options on
that link. Try this one:
cursor:crosshair;
Try this one:
border-style:dashed;
or this one:
background-color:black;
I mean, don't you see how easy this is? They're just lil tags, you
just throw them into that:
<div style="">
and they do whatever you want.
To LEARN though you have to get over this FEAR that it's difficult and
you have to actually play with it, experiment, try out those tags, see
what they do, etc, etc.
>I think
>that's what's getting me. I get the whole HTML thing, but once you
>start talking about style sheets (which I PERFECTLY understand in
>InDesign - but then, there's no coding there), spans (still have no
>idea what that is), ids, selectors, labels, etc. That's where I scratch
>me head and say "WTF?"
Okay, look, that's just over complicating it. Don't bother with all
that hoo ha or trying to apply CSS properties to specific objects just
yet. You're just learning this stuff, so until you get familiar with
it just use the division layers, ignore all that other crap, you don't
need it right now.
>> Really, that's it. That'll let you position a layer to where you want
>> it and the z-index will let you stack layers on top of each other
>> (lowest number is on bottom). You just use division layers like nyah:
>BTW, I thought I should mention that your explanation of Div layers is
>the best (and easiest to understand) that I've come across. I have
>about 3-4 (?) books on CSS, countless tutorials, mag articles, etc. And
>not a single frigging one explained it as well as you just did.
Part of the problem is that they try to explain everything all at
once. You need to use it in a simple sense for awhile to get used to
the syntax and how it all works, then LATER you can start getting into
the more "complex" stuff...and here's the thing...most of it is
redundant.
Think of it like this. Let's say you're using Windows and I tell you
to turn off the computer...well you could click Start > Turn Off
Computer
...of course you could also just yank the plug.
...of course you could also push the power button.
...of course you could also use Ctrl+Alt+Del
...of course you could also bash it with a hammer
See that's the thing, with most of this stuff it's not that it's
complicated so much as REDUNDANT. That's why it's important to simply
learn ONE way when you start out, once you learn that way, the other
ways will come much easier, almost intuitively.
>When are you going to stop *talking* about it and *write* a frigging
>book?? I can't believe that I'm the only one who needs this kind of
>direction - if you're not going to think about the moolah, think about
>the number of designers cum web designers out there suffering
>needlessly! Even if you don't feel like dealing with publishers, you
>could do an e-Book and sell it on your web site . . . just a thought.
I've actually got a couple books I'm working on...but you need to
understand, most web developers HATE my methods. Because to a certain
extent they're "wrong". I mean, what I showed you earlier, there's
actually a much more complicated way of doing that...it does the same
thing, it's just...more complicated. In theory in certain situations
it can "save time" doing it the more complicated way, but to learn it
the complicated way first...yeah, to me that just doesn't make much
sense. And like I said, once you learn it the easy way, the more
complicated way will come almost intuitively.
>> Now, there's some other stuff you can do with CSS, like you can make
>> an external CSS file with a set number of attributes and then use a
>> class="" tag to apply those attributes to whole bunch of different
>> division layers at once (different pages can even share the same
>> external CSS file)...but really yer probably not going to need to do
>> that so don't bother with it. In theory it cuts down on the overall
>> amount of redundant code and is supposed to save you time if you're
>> too stupid to figure out how to copy and paste or makes it easier to
>> change a whole bunch of stuff at once...but those benefits are pretty
>> lacking unless you're talking about like 4 or 5 THOUSAND pages or
>> something.
>Okay, once again, you've reverted to uber-technical-frigging-genuis
>speak and left me in the dust.
>
>External CSS file - are you talking about the "Main.CSS" that I keep
>reading about?? Or the @ import CSS file?? Or am I just too stupid or
>too old to figure this out??
No, that's simply the more complicated way I was telling you about.
Think of it like this...you can have multiple html files, right? Like
say:
pictures.html
stories.html
Well an external CSS file is just like that. It's just like
hooha.css
It doesn't need to be called "Main", it can be called anything you
like. In that file you make it look like this:
: .foofpants { position:absolute; font-family:Verdana; left:100px; top:100px; width:100px; }
You don't need anything other than that, it's not like HTML where you
need to have all those <head>, <body> and other such tags.
So then instead of using this:
: <div style="position:absolute; font-family:Verdana; left:100px; top:100px; width:100px;"></div>
You use this:
: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="hooha.css"> (put that in the head section of your HTML)
: <div class="foofpants"></div>
So you see, it does the same thing, it's just...more complicated. In
theory it's "better" because then you can cut down on the code. Like,
let's say that every division layer you're using has position:absolute
in it. Well you might try doing this:
1. create a file called whatever.css
2. put this in it: .p { position:absolute; }
3. add this to the head section of your HTML file:
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="whatever.css">
4. make your divisions layers like this:
<div class="p" style="">
See that way you're typing:
class="p"
instead of:
position:absolute;
...congratulations, you save about 10 keystrokes every time you use
it.
o_O
>> Really CSS isn't all that complicated at all, it's very simple in fact
>> once you understand how it works. The neat part comes when you use
>> CSS in conjunction with Javascript. Basically you give each division
>> layer a name, like nyah:
>> <div id="namey"></div>
>Again, there's th "id" thing . . .
Yeah well until you learn Javascript just forget that, I mean, don't
even bother with it. All that's doing is giving that division layer a
name. It's like, if you name it, then you can tell it what to do
using Javascript. You can give anything a name. Like an image tag.
You know how to include an image, it's just:
<img src="boom.jpg">
Well if you want to give that image tag a name just do this:
<img src="boom.jpg" id="dahoodahey">
Like I said though, until you get into using Javascript you don't need
to bother with it.
>> >Also, how much better is CSS compared to plain ol' HTML?
>> Well you can't really use CSS without HTML, CSS merely compliments
>> HTML.
>But in your opinion, is it WORTH knowing CSS? Or is it kind of like the
>icing on the cake?? It's nice and makes it taste better, but if the
>cake is any good it's not the end-all-be-all to the
>experience/quality??
Well it depends, I mean there are some things you can do with CSS that
you can't do without it.
For simple stuff though, like say changing the font color, well you
could just use HTML:
<font color=blue></font>
Look at these:
:<div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px; color:blue;>
:Blue Text
:</div>
:<div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px;>
:<font color="blue">Blue Text</font>
:</div>
See, they do the same thing. The first one is using CSS to change the
text color, the second one is changing the color using HTML. Overall,
I would say it's usually simpler to just use CSS at this point.
>> >3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
>> >but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?
>> No, no, no...just Notepad. Again, you don't need any sort of silly
>> hoo-ha program to code CSS, Javascript, HTML, PHP or pretty much
>> anything else for that matter. Dreamweaver is just like training
>> wheels for people who are too afraid to know what the code looks like.
>I'm not afraid of what the code will look like, but I think I def need
>training wheels.
Okay, let me rephrase, learning the simple stuff first and practicing
with it and becoming familiar with it is the training
wheels...Dreamweaver is a tricycle, you are not going to learn how to
ride a bike on a tricycle, it simply is not going to happen.
>No, I STILL don't. You explained WAY more than the books, tutorials,
>etc have, but you've still talked to me like I have some sort of basic
>knowledge of CSS. You've talked to me like an entry level WD, not a
>senior designer looking to enter the world of WD.
>
>Have you thought that perhaps, because you're so comfy with CSs that
>it's THAT easy? Your mind seems to have NO problem getting in to the
>CSS, php, Java thing . . . mine does. It's kind of like a brain
>surgeon explaining how to perform a lobotomy to a bricklayer. You have
>knowledge that to YOU is BASIC, but to me, is fantastic and oh, SO
>complicated. Not trying to be whiny, bitchy or a pain in your ass . . .
>just being honest (okay, AND whining for help).
Oh trust me, I understand. Like I said, I learned it on my own, so I
remember how frustrating it was seeing so much code that I couldn't
make any sense of...but I became familiar with it, I played with it, I
cut parts out of the code to see what would happen and thus learned
what those parts did, I looked at the code on other people's sites,
copied and pasted snippets, used them and reedited them until I
understood how they worked...it's learning, it takes time, practice
and experience.
But that's how you have to do it. Simply reading through some book is
not going to help you, experience CANNOT be taught. Even the stuff
that I talked about in this post, you are NOT going to REALLY
understand it until you copy and paste those code examples into an
HTML file and start playing around with it YOURSELF.
>> >Anyway, thanks for listening (and hopefully answering - esp without
>> >flaming) . . . I'm not trying to "leech" off your hard-earned
>> >experience, but I figured that there's no harm in asking. If I've got
>> >to ask anyone, you're the best one TO ask. ( :
>>
>> You might also want to check out this post:
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.2600/msg/dc582b7a21b9f0e1
>>
>> It's basically a "how to" guide on CSS. Goes a lil more in depth than
>> this post and has some examples you can try out on your own.
>All I'm seeing is Div layers - what about all that id, span, selector,
>etc, mumbo jumbo? It DID explain Div layers (as I said earlier) better
>than any $40 frigging book.
ID is just to give a tag a name, nothing more than that.
Selector...uh...selector...*shrugs*...
*Hatter goes and looks it up.*
Oh, that's just using class="" with an external CSS file. LOL, see,
half the time I don't even know all the precise definitions of
things...cause they aren't needed. It's sort of like you go drive
down the gas station, fill up the tank and then you go to the grocery
store...and then some fuckin retard comes along and decides to "give
it a name", let's say he calls it "going farfoos"...like going to the
store and getting gas needed a name. "Oh hey, I'm going farfoos,
wanna come?"
As far as SPAN...forget it. SPAN and DIV are both just "dummy tags",
just use DIV...and everyone else who thinks they're an expert in HTML
or whatever SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH...see Connie, this is invariably
going to be the problem, I'm telling you what you NEED to know, yes,
technically speaking there is a MUCH more complicated way of
explaining SPAN and DIV, but there simply IS NO POINT, it's white
noise, superfluous, it's like knowing the history behind why rest area
signs are blue and why road direction signs are in green...knowing the
history has NO IMPACT on knowing that blue means rest area and green
means directions.
>> Whatever you do, DO NOT waste your money buying a book on CSS...CSS
>> doesn't need a book, it needs Notepad and an online reference guide,
>> that's it.
>Too late - I bought SEVERAL. I am THAT desperate to try to learn this.
>They just all seem to speak to a higer level of knowledge than I
>possess. ) :
...I'd try and get your money back.
>> >Hope you're having a great (and busy) weekend!
>> Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
>> blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
>> for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
>> thousand...*shudder*...
>Yes, true, but the money ain't bad is it? And think of it this way, it
>could be worse - you could be sleeping with Larry's mother for $$!!
>(Sorry - haven't insulted Lar in quite some time now and I NEEDED
>that!!)
>
>Really, Hat, I appreciate you writing me back and helping this poor
>n00b j0b. I hope you'll write some more and possibly get off yer ass
>and write a frigging book! ( :
If I wrote a book I'd have all the "experts" screaming about how
"wrong" I am cause I didn't bother to go into a 7 paragraph
explanation about SPAN and DIV.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Brian Mays
> Long story short, if I were to bet on it, I'd say that GoLive is going
> to be phased out.
My money's been on the same since the day they made the purchase.
Notice Freehand's kinda disappearing too?
Brian Mays
> I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
> flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
> still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
> still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
> There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
> to be few are far between.
What is/was the "flash from flash"?
Brian Mays
>>With Flash, there is ABSOLUTE certainty about what your stuff is going
>>to look like...on ANY system.
>>
>
>
> Well I can think of a few big down sides to this. As of IE7, Flash wont
> work without JavaScript being turned on (because ActiveX is hobbled to
> get around the fact that ActiveX breaches a patent, and MS lost in
> court twice - Flash movies that are not embedded real-time via JS
> simply appear as a white box until the user clicks it.
We have been known to have some minor discrepancies when it comes to
dynamic text in Flash on different platforms...nothing more than a pixel
or two size difference, but enough to reflow text (most noticeable
culprit I've seen is the Flash slide show on MLB.com's home page).
Onideus Mad Hatter
That is not a problem with Flash, it's a problem with the person who
made it and what font type they used (vector, pixel, device, etc) and
what form of Flash was used (versions before 7 had some problems with
pixel alignment)...oh and it also depends on whether you've used some
form of font smoothing as well.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
Yeah, I think that's a big part of my problem, unfortunaely . . . I
kind of want to jump in and just get'er done. So I AM looking for the
"easy way" of doing it. I know I'm putting the cart before the horse -
I have a site and I want to get it done and I want to do it the RIGHT
way. I've gotten too many comments on how tanked the code is on my
current site (not to mention that I had to change my domain and company
name along with it - so right now it says "PierceDesign" and I'm
Creative Veritas now - so this is a damned good time to just take care
of the whole frigging thing). Not that I understand the whole tanked
up code thing, but I figure if I don't learn, I'll NEVER know.
But let me ask this . . . isn't is EASIER layout wise to use an GUI? I
mean, with that, you can drag and move items/images on the fly. Do you
sketch out the site beforehand on some sort of grid or "cheat sheet?" I
think that's part of the problem I'm having - I have the site "planned"
out, but I don't instinctively measure in pxs - I'm using a visual
realtionship on the page (sketched it in Illy - cause it's easier for
me), i.e., this element is centered against this other one, and this
element is flush with this one, etc.
So, do you just experiment on the fly? I mean, HOW do you use an
existing sketch? Or is that an el dumbo question??
>
> >If you HAD to use a GUI, what would you use?? Or think of it this way -
> >your 10 y o niece wants to learn how to make a personal web page for
> >herself and she has DW or GoLive to choose from . . .
>
> Neither, I would personally teach her. I mean for a personal website
> the only tags a 10 yo needs to know is:
> <html></html>
> <body background=""> or <body bgcolor="">
> <img="">
> <br>
> <h1></h1>
> <hr>
> <font color=""></font>
>
> And it just build from there. Obviously with a 10 yo you probably
> want to keep it down to just a few new tags each week, but after
> awhile they'll be able to learn it on their own using a simple
> tutorial site like this one:
> http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
LOL, that's pretty much the level I'm on - a 10 yo's level (and
probably not a very smart one, either). I know more than I did last
week (AKA nothing), but I still have a long way to go. Every other
piece of code makes sense to me . . . the rest just passes me by.
Okay, I think I get it . . . sorta. I think I'll get it after I spend
MANY days, weeks, months, years, practicing and experimenting like you
said.
>
> >stuffing an image in there?
>
> That's what the layers are for.
Okay, but when you say "layers" you don't mean layers like in
Photoshop, right? I mean, as in overlayable, right? I can't have
object A on one layer and have object B on another layer overlap,
right? Or can I?
That's a toughie for me to understand. I'm so used to graphics apps
where I have that ability. You say "logic" in all of this and to me,
this isn't logical (yet). I think, because I'm so used to the graphics
apps that I've been using for nigh unto 12-13 years.
And that's one of the things that gets me . . . I was able to learn
the basics of CorelDraw (our first graphics app) in only a few hours.
After just a few hours of playing with the nodes/anchor points, I was
able to have a feel for the "motions." This HTML stuff requires more
basic intelligence rather than intuition and finessing. HTML requires
more intelligence, period.
But EVERYONE'S talking up CSS . . . I can't open a frigging magazine
or book or what have you without it being praised to the heavens. Are
you telling me it's bullshit??
CSS is being billed as the ONLY way to get an absolute positioning of
images. See, one of the things I'm going to have on my site is a BIG.
full screen illustration of several people "illustrating" the links. I
need to "slice it" into chunks and then position them on the page so it
looks seamless. I have all these magazines telling me that the ONLY way
to do it is to use CSS. WTF?? Is that the truth or are they just using
parroting the latest trends or just trying to sell issues???
So? Fuck'em. Your way of explaining all this is WAY easier to
understand and visualize. I'm sure the big car companies hated Tucker.
And to that extent, I'm sure DW and GL would hate your guts, too. So
what? Write the eBook and it'll sell. People like me (and I know I
ain't the only one) will buy it, use it, and word-of-mouth it.
> Because to a certain
> extent they're "wrong". I mean, what I showed you earlier, there's
> actually a much more complicated way of doing that...it does the same
> thing, it's just...more complicated. In theory in certain situations
> it can "save time" doing it the more complicated way, but to learn it
> the complicated way first...yeah, to me that just doesn't make much
> sense. And like I said, once you learn it the easy way, the more
> complicated way will come almost intuitively.
It's still easier to understand it the way you put it out there. Again,
I say, "Fuck'em" - could it be that they're afraid that you make them
look bad?? <hint, hint>
It doesn't make sense to me either, to learn the complicated way first.
How many people do you think are getting discouraged every day?? I know
I've tried learning all this before and gotten horribly discouraged.
Personally, I'm shocked that I', frigging trying it AGAIN. And I
would've quit yesterday (for like, the 12th time??) if you hadn't have
given me guidance on what's what. Your description of a Div was the
best and easiest to understand on the ENTIRE web.
Personally, I've thought several times that the authors of those books
are kinda trying to make web designing a bit too elite. Making it look
really hard to discourage others. But that's MHO.
Okay, how much harder is it to learn Javascript?? It kinda feels like
I'm learning how to buckle my seat belt on a plane and you're talking
about actually FLYING the plane.
Um . . . yet again, fuck'em. Write it and I'll buy the first copy. AND
I'll tell all my friends to get it too (everyone nowadays wants to
learn HTML, CSS, Flash, etc - but it's too fucking discouraging as is
with the books currently on the market).
As I've said for the umpteenth time, YOU explained it more concisely,
intelligently and easily than ANY frigging book I've EVER bought.
Really, Hat, I'm not kissing your ass (and my nose ain't up there,
either - before anyone flames me) . . . you've explained all this
technical mumbo jumbo better than the "experts" who're writing the
books I have on my shelves. You'v made it so I don't feel lost. You've
made it so I feel I can actually take a decent stab at this (which is
saying ALOT). And I don't feel like pulling out every single hair on
my head now (again, SAYING A LOT). And tell ya the truth, I wouldn't
mind seeing your name on the bestseller list! ( :
Again, seriously, think about it. You'd be doing a LOT of people a
favor. You have no idea how many times I've talked to other people
trying to learn this stuff and had them say the same frigging thing -
it's too complicated. You have to be uber geeky to even sort of get it.
You have to be a frigging brain surgeon, etc. You're using terminology
that WORKS for the non-geeky. All the other boooks seem so elitist in
their terminology . . . and you're not. You'd help ALOT of people,
Hat. You've already helped me ALOT.
Now, is there anything I can do in return??
--
C Pierce
fsds...@gmail.com
>
> Yeah, I think that's a big part of my problem, unfortunaely . . . I
> kind of want to jump in and just get'er done.
Understandable. I think we're all a little like that when it comes to
learning something new.
> So I AM looking for the
> "easy way" of doing it.
The thing is, though, HTML and CSS *are* easy once you learn them --
but that's the catch. Like I said in a previous post to you, there
really isn't anything more complicated about CSS than HTML, it's just
different. So if you can pick up HTML, you can pick up CSS.
However, if you try to jump in with both feet and tackle a layout that
is really beyond your understanding, you're going to get overwhelmed
pretty quickly. Start small. Learn what does what. Experiment with
changing parameters to see what kind of effect it has. And so on...
> But let me ask this . . . isn't is EASIER layout wise to use an GUI?
That really depends. I've been using Dreamweaver almost every day
since about 1999 or so. The only time that I've ever actually "built"
a layout using Dreamweaver's Design view is when teaching a class,
where the curriculum dictated it -- and even then, I've backed up from
the lesson and explained to students how much more power and control
the students would have over those elements by coding them by hand.
> I mean, with that, you can drag and move items/images on the fly. Do you
> sketch out the site beforehand on some sort of grid or "cheat sheet?" I
> think that's part of the problem I'm having - I have the site "planned"
> out, but I don't instinctively measure in pxs - I'm using a visual
> realtionship on the page (sketched it in Illy - cause it's easier for
> me), i.e., this element is centered against this other one, and this
> element is flush with this one, etc.
When "designing" for an HTML-based web site, the danger is in thinking
in the absolutes of print -- this element goes "precisely" here, and so
forth. HTML is, obviously, different from print, but many print
designers have a hard time grasping that. This is why so many get
frustrated -- they try to force HTML and CSS to do things that were
never intended, and this causes layout problems.
HTML and CSS just don't work that way. If you design within their
limitations, you'll be able to do some very nice, effective layouts
(even things that look more complicated than they really are).
Flash, on the other hand (as Hatter has said), does provide you with
more precision over the positioning of elements.
Think of it like the differences between Photoshop and Illustrator.
Photoshop has some vector tools, but it was never designed to be a
vector program. Illustrator has some raster effects, but it was never
designed to be a raster program. If you work within the limits of the
design of either program, you can do some amazing things. It's only
when you rely on them for things they weren't designed for that you get
into trouble. HTML was not designed for pixel-perfect layouts.
>
> LOL, that's pretty much the level I'm on - a 10 yo's level (and
> probably not a very smart one, either). I know more than I did last
> week (AKA nothing), but I still have a long way to go. Every other
> piece of code makes sense to me . . . the rest just passes me by.
>
Pick one piece of code that doesn't make sense and focus on that,
rather than looking at the whole. You mentioned before that you were
unclear about "ID's." In a previous post I tried to explain it
(hopefully it made sense). Once you've added an understanding of one
to your list, move on to the next.
>
> Okay, but when you say "layers" you don't mean layers like in
> Photoshop, right? I mean, as in overlayable, right? I can't have
> object A on one layer and have object B on another layer overlap,
> right? Or can I?
>
Yes, you can make them overlay one another. With CSS, you can position
elements relative to the height and width of the browser window (for
example, you can set a DIV to be 100 pixels from the top and 100pixels
from the left) AND you can position them according to their "z" index.
For example, if you had:
#bottom {top:100px; left:100px; z-index:1;}
#top (top:100px; left:100px; z-index:2;}
<div id="bottom"></div>
<div id="top"></div>
Then the DIV with the ID of "bottom" would actually be stacked under
the DIV with the Id of "top" -- they would overlap.
>
> CSS is being billed as the ONLY way to get an absolute positioning of
> images.
Clarification: It's the only way to absolutely position elements on a
page using HTML -- but even then, occasional quirks get in the way.
-- Robert
Davide Montellanico
effort, believe me.
Your conversation is totally useless. You are trying to argue that Flash is
better than html/css.
IMO it looks like you are struggling to compare apples with pears.
--
Davide
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:3jai225lc19ulp8g0...@4ax.com...
> mhm น x น
Connie Pierce
<fsds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Connie Pierce wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I think that's a big part of my problem, unfortunaely . . . I
> > kind of want to jump in and just get'er done.
>
> Understandable. I think we're all a little like that when it comes to
> learning something new.
>
> > So I AM looking for the
> > "easy way" of doing it.
>
> The thing is, though, HTML and CSS *are* easy once you learn them --
> but that's the catch. Like I said in a previous post to you, there
> really isn't anything more complicated about CSS than HTML, it's just
> different. So if you can pick up HTML, you can pick up CSS.
But it seems like an "extra step" - meaning, in order to use it, you
have to have a basic site coded in HTML, and then do MORE coding . . .
is it worth it? I mean, I really have no plans to redo my site once
it's done, so I'd have no "need" to be able to go back and change
things on the fly (that I can see NOW).
With the positioning and slicing of my image, will CSS be necessary to
get it right? Or would straight HTML do the trick?
>
> However, if you try to jump in with both feet and tackle a layout that
> is really beyond your understanding, you're going to get overwhelmed
> pretty quickly. Start small. Learn what does what. Experiment with
> changing parameters to see what kind of effect it has. And so on...
>
>
>
> > But let me ask this . . . isn't is EASIER layout wise to use an GUI?
>
> That really depends. I've been using Dreamweaver almost every day
> since about 1999 or so. The only time that I've ever actually "built"
> a layout using Dreamweaver's Design view is when teaching a class,
> where the curriculum dictated it -- and even then, I've backed up from
> the lesson and explained to students how much more power and control
> the students would have over those elements by coding them by hand.
Okay, so let's say that you've gone and designed using the design view
- how would you go and clean up the useless/junk codes? Or are you able
to do that BECAUSE you know HTML and KNOW what to look for? That's
probably a REALLY stupid question, though . . .
>
>
>
> > I mean, with that, you can drag and move items/images on the fly. Do you
> > sketch out the site beforehand on some sort of grid or "cheat sheet?" I
> > think that's part of the problem I'm having - I have the site "planned"
> > out, but I don't instinctively measure in pxs - I'm using a visual
> > realtionship on the page (sketched it in Illy - cause it's easier for
> > me), i.e., this element is centered against this other one, and this
> > element is flush with this one, etc.
>
> When "designing" for an HTML-based web site, the danger is in thinking
> in the absolutes of print -- this element goes "precisely" here, and so
> forth. HTML is, obviously, different from print, but many print
> designers have a hard time grasping that. This is why so many get
> frustrated -- they try to force HTML and CSS to do things that were
> never intended, and this causes layout problems.
But HOW do you get the positioning values if you haven't dragged
something to where you want it? I guess that's what's really getting me
. . . Do you just type in a value and see where the image lands? Or
see how big it is on the page? And then trial and error it from there?
That just seems to be an awful time-waster - which is why I've been
bugging you and Hat about using a GUI app as opposed to NotePad (would
TextEdit be Mac's equivalent to NP in this case??). I'd like to be able
to move and groove in TE/NP eventually, but it just seems that it would
be harder layout-wise to just guess "where" the images would land on
the page . . .
Ugh . . . you can probably tell that this is really frustrating me. I
feel like (to use a skewed visual) I'm trying to shove my 7/8 butt into
a pair of 6X (little girl's) pants. Each time I "get this part" in, a
seam busts. When I try to cram this part in there, another seeam rips .
. . I am just honestly at my wits' ends. It seems that NONE of the
books that I've bought (for beginners) are able to bridge the gap
between thinking as a designer (who uses a GUI, dragging and dropping)
and naked coding.
Is CSS necessary to get objects to align correctly? As I mentioned to
Hat, I've got an image to "slice" and I need it to align correctly so
it looks seamless (AKA not skewed and choppy). That's probably my
biggest objective. And I'd like to learn what I need to to get that
effect. I don't want to learn HTML/CSS for that alone, but I figured
it's a good start. Certainly a "first step" in learning all the fancy
stuff ya'll do.
But really, I'm sure you can see that I'm frustrated and being an ass
about it - though I really don't mean to!!
>
> HTML and CSS just don't work that way. If you design within their
> limitations, you'll be able to do some very nice, effective layouts
> (even things that look more complicated than they really are).
>
> Flash, on the other hand (as Hatter has said), does provide you with
> more precision over the positioning of elements.
>
> Think of it like the differences between Photoshop and Illustrator.
> Photoshop has some vector tools, but it was never designed to be a
> vector program. Illustrator has some raster effects, but it was never
> designed to be a raster program. If you work within the limits of the
> design of either program, you can do some amazing things. It's only
> when you rely on them for things they weren't designed for that you get
> into trouble. HTML was not designed for pixel-perfect layouts.
>
>
>
> >
> > LOL, that's pretty much the level I'm on - a 10 yo's level (and
> > probably not a very smart one, either). I know more than I did last
> > week (AKA nothing), but I still have a long way to go. Every other
> > piece of code makes sense to me . . . the rest just passes me by.
> >
>
> Pick one piece of code that doesn't make sense and focus on that,
> rather than looking at the whole. You mentioned before that you were
> unclear about "ID's." In a previous post I tried to explain it
> (hopefully it made sense). Once you've added an understanding of one
> to your list, move on to the next.
Yes, what you wrote made perfect sense, but it's still beyond my grasp
at this point (again, feeling like the dumb kid in class). I can see
the organization aspect (I crave order and organization), and I can
appreciate having everything sorted, organized, etc in terms of
content, but the organizational . . . hierarchy, if you will, still
confuses the heck out of me.
May I ask how YOU learned all this? Did you take classes, read books or
are you self-taught? Despite your and Hat's help, I'm beginning to
think that a class is the way to go - at least in learning the basics.
I think that once I understand the concepts and ideaology behind it, I
can move on into learning the hard stuff. Unfortunately, no colleges
nearby offer classes on this subject (at least none that I've found -
art classes around here are centered on appreciation and history).
> > Okay, but when you say "layers" you don't mean layers like in
> > Photoshop, right? I mean, as in overlayable, right? I can't have
> > object A on one layer and have object B on another layer overlap,
> > right? Or can I?
> >
>
> Yes, you can make them overlay one another. With CSS, you can position
> elements relative to the height and width of the browser window (for
> example, you can set a DIV to be 100 pixels from the top and 100pixels
> from the left) AND you can position them according to their "z" index.
>
> For example, if you had:
>
> #bottom {top:100px; left:100px; z-index:1;}
>
> #top (top:100px; left:100px; z-index:2;}
>
> <div id="bottom"></div>
> <div id="top"></div>
>
> Then the DIV with the ID of "bottom" would actually be stacked under
> the DIV with the Id of "top" -- they would overlap.
And WHERE they would overlap would be determined by the positioning,
right?
But I thought that you could only have one ID per page? Or am I missing
something?? Or is it one ID per Div??
Yet again, I'm confused out of my wits. You're probably wondering how
I've managed to learn how to use a computer, much less apps like Illy
and InDesign!! Or possibly, just how I managed to learn how to tie my
own shoes!
> >
> > CSS is being billed as the ONLY way to get an absolute positioning of
> > images.
>
> Clarification: It's the only way to absolutely position elements on a
> page using HTML -- but even then, occasional quirks get in the way.
I have NO problem with quirks in display/function . . . I figure that
goes with the territory. It's getting to the point where I actually
have ANYTHING to show for it that's killing me!! ( :
> -- Robert
Again, Robert, thanks!! I know I've gotten snotty, hysterical, and
overall in general looney-tunes on this topic and I humbly ask for
everyone's forgiveness. I am just so disgusted with my apparent (steep)
learning curve that it just ain't funny. But honestly, I REALLY
appreciate your taking the time and explaining this to me - please
accept this virtual apple for a great teacher! ( :
HUGE kudos to Hat and Robert for answering so many (stupid) questions
and for being so patient . . . if ya'll ever need ANYTHING, PLEASE
just holler!!
--
C Pierce
fsds...@gmail.com
Connie Pierce wrote:
>
> But it seems like an "extra step" - meaning, in order to use it, you
> have to have a basic site coded in HTML, and then do MORE coding . . .
> is it worth it? I mean, I really have no plans to redo my site once
> it's done, so I'd have no "need" to be able to go back and change
> things on the fly (that I can see NOW).
>
It's not really an extra step in the sense of being something
unnecessary. Think of the HTML as being a "naked" page. The CSS is
the "clothes" you put on the page.
Generally, it's much, much easier to figure out how everything is going
to go together if you start with a blank HTML page and work from there.
Trying to adapt a style sheet to an existing page is just begging for
tons of confusion for you.
> Okay, so let's say that you've gone and designed using the design view
> - how would you go and clean up the useless/junk codes? Or are you able
> to do that BECAUSE you know HTML and KNOW what to look for? That's
> probably a REALLY stupid question, though . . .
> >
Well, I really *don't* use Design view for much of anything. As for
how to clean things up or what would even need to be cleaned up, that
kind of depends on which version of DW you're using. Each has gotten
successively better as far as building correct code.
But yeah, you kind of answered your own question -- I would know what
needs fixing because, well, I know what needs fixing. ; )
This is where a general knowledge of the correct syntax for formatting
the code will help you. It's also useful to look up what code is
"depreciated" (not guaranteed to work in newer browsers). For
instance, older versions of Dreamweaver were notorious for using the
FONT tag. Well, the FONT tag is depreciated -- it's recommended that
you define your fonts through CSS.
>
> But HOW do you get the positioning values if you haven't dragged
> something to where you want it? I guess that's what's really getting me
> . . . Do you just type in a value and see where the image lands? Or
> see how big it is on the page? And then trial and error it from there?
> That just seems to be an awful time-waster - which is why I've been
> bugging you and Hat about using a GUI app as opposed to NotePad (would
> TextEdit be Mac's equivalent to NP in this case??).
The process I usually go through is to first define the site
architecture on paper. This is basically making a note of what pages
of content I need, and what needs to link to what. At this stage, I'll
also sketch out some basic ideas for layout. Then, I'll go into
Illustrator or Photoshop (sometimes both, it just depends on what I
think the graphical requirements of the site will be - even though
everything eventually winds up as raster images, sometimes certain
graphics (logos) are better kept in vector form where they can easily
be resized) and block out the page. You can set the ruler to pixels,
allowing you to determine positioning.
This will give me a rough idea of where I want things to go before I
ever even write a line of code. This cuts down on the trial and error.
Plus, it's much easier to "redesign" at this stage, than when the HTML
and CSS are already defined.
> I'd like to be able
> to move and groove in TE/NP eventually, but it just seems that it would
> be harder layout-wise to just guess "where" the images would land on
> the page . . .
You're only guessing if you try to make it up as you go. If you make a
plan/layout ahead of time, you cut down significantly on your guess
work.
Plus, some of your content will help decide certain positioning for
you. For example, if you have a logo that you intend to go into the
upper left corner, and you know that the logo image is 150pixels wide,
then you know any content you want to appear to the right of the logo
will have to be positioned at least 150 pixels from the left.
> . . I am just honestly at my wits' ends. It seems that NONE of the
> books that I've bought (for beginners) are able to bridge the gap
> between thinking as a designer (who uses a GUI, dragging and dropping)
> and naked coding.
>
I felt the same way when I first tried to wrap my head around CSS.
What did it for me was to start tearing apart existing layouts and
looking at their CSS. I would open up their style sheets and just
start playing around to see what did what. Also, I found some online
tutorials to be helpful. Project Seven has some good ones:
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/index.htm
Most of their CSS tutorials are meant to solve specific problems,
rather than offer general CSS instruction, but I still found them very
useful for explaining why some things work the way they do.
> Is CSS necessary to get objects to align correctly? As I mentioned to
> Hat, I've got an image to "slice" and I need it to align correctly so
> it looks seamless (AKA not skewed and choppy).
Without knowing what the image is and what you intend for it, it would
be hard to say. Generally speaking, though, HTML alone will not allow
you to specifically define it's position (unless, perhaps, you rely on
some kind of complex table structure).
>
> May I ask how YOU learned all this? Did you take classes, read books or
> are you self-taught? Despite your and Hat's help, I'm beginning to
> think that a class is the way to go - at least in learning the basics.
> I think that once I understand the concepts and ideaology behind it, I
> can move on into learning the hard stuff. Unfortunately, no colleges
> nearby offer classes on this subject (at least none that I've found -
> art classes around here are centered on appreciation and history).
>
Like I said above, I learned most of what I know by just tearing into
it and experimenting. That approach may not work for everyone, though.
Some people learn better in a class environment, some learn better
from a book, and some just by doing. None of those options is any
better or worse than another -- except that whichever one works the
best *for you* is, obviously, your best choice.
>
> And WHERE they would overlap would be determined by the positioning,
> right?
Right. In the example I gave, I positioned them one perfectly on top
of the other. But I could easily offset one of those images. Let's
say I give the "top" DIV a background color of red and the "bottom" DIV
a background color of black. Then, I give the "bottom" DIV a position
of "top:105px; left105px" -- just 5 pixels of the "bottom" DIV would
peek out from under the right and bottom of the "top" DIV, creating
something of a non-blurred drop shadow effect.
However, I do need to clarify something if you're going to try playing
around with that example, because I left some essential stuff out just
to keep the example clear.
1. Using positioning as I described requires that you define a value
for the "position" selector in the CSS -- in this case, it needs to be
"absolute."
2. DIV's, by default, are essentially empty -- they need content. So
in order to actually "see" this example, you'll need to either add
content to the DIV, or use CSS to define a size for it.
So your actual complete CSS for that example would look like:
#top {position:absolute; top:100px; left:100px; z-index:2;
background-color:#FF0000; width:100px; height:100px}
#bottom {position: absolute; top:105px; left:105px; z-index:1;
background-color:#000000; width:100px; height:100px}
And your HTML would look like:
<div id="top"></div>
<div id="bottom"></div>
>
> But I thought that you could only have one ID per page? Or am I missing
> something?? Or is it one ID per Div??
>
No, you can define as many ID's as you want, but you can only use each
ID once per page. So, to borrow from that first explanation of ID's I
gave you, I could define an ID for Connie (#connie) and an ID for
Robert (#robert) and a class for People (.people).
On my page, I could only use the "#connie" ID once, and the "#robert"
ID once, but I could use the ".people" class as many times as I want.
But all that is just so you understand the difference between ID's and
Classes. Because it's confusing, you can just define things as Classes
and not use ID's at all -- your code won't know the difference unless
you need to use javascript for anything.
-- Robert
Davémon
> James Douglas wrote:
>> Connie Pierce wrote:
>>> *Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
>>> seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
>>>
>>> If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
>>> questions . . .
>>>
>>> 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
>>> design and THEN clean/write code??
>>
>> I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
>> flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
>> still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
>> still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
>> There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
>> to be few are far between.
>
> You couldn't be further from the truth. There are more and more Flash
> sites all the time. Take a look at www.thefwa.com if you want to see
> where these sites are hiding!
>
...because you won't find them at google, or msn, or anywhere else their
clients are looking for services ;-)
>
> If you are developing server side, you can effectively create Flash in
> any text editor.. or any IDE (DreamWeaver or Eclipse for example). You
> create your Flash sites through XML documents and Java, NOT a
> complicated front end like the Flash IDE.
Might as well hand-code SVGs and PDFs rather than use InDesign or Illy
whilst your at it.
> RIA (Rich Internet Apps) are
> the future, so much so that the technology is build INTO the next
> version of Windows (Vista) - microsoft are backing this technology.
>
They're just playing catch-up to Apples MacOs Widgets. microsoft can't even
support Flash without using javascript, so I'm dubious about their ability
to move the entire internet from a document model to an application one.
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
You know...I almost started replying to your post...but then it
occurred to me that you are an idiot of unprecedented scale. I mean,
everything you've said is just so unbelievably fucking retarded that
I'm amazed you can even figure out how to turn your computer on, let
alone make posts to Usenet with it. It really is a shame that when
your God was passing out brains he didn't see fit to distribute
equally to all.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
SpaceGirl
Davémon wrote:
> SpaceGirl arranged shapes to form:
>
> > James Douglas wrote:
> >> Connie Pierce wrote:
> >>> *Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
> >>> seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*
> >>>
> >>> If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
> >>> questions . . .
> >>>
> >>> 1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
> >>> design and THEN clean/write code??
> >>
> >> I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
> >> flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
> >> still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
> >> still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
> >> There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
> >> to be few are far between.
> >
> > You couldn't be further from the truth. There are more and more Flash
> > sites all the time. Take a look at www.thefwa.com if you want to see
> > where these sites are hiding!
> >
>
> ...because you won't find them at google, or msn, or anywhere else their
> clients are looking for services ;-)
The bad ones, yes!
> >
> > If you are developing server side, you can effectively create Flash in
> > any text editor.. or any IDE (DreamWeaver or Eclipse for example). You
> > create your Flash sites through XML documents and Java, NOT a
> > complicated front end like the Flash IDE.
>
> Might as well hand-code SVGs and PDFs rather than use InDesign or Illy
> whilst your at it.
Not the same thing at all. Java and .net are the most widly used web
languages (bar PHP) - you can generate Flash on the fly from within
them if you have a Adobe Flex server. This and ActionScript 3 have the
potencial to change the way some people view the net in a huge way. I'm
unsure about SVG. Personally I think it's a dead format. Two of the
biggest SVG backers are Adobe and MS. Now Adobe has Flash, and
Microsoft has Metro - both of which are far smaller, faster to generate
and more flexible - why continue to support SVG? Interestingly tho, the
Flash player does support some form of SVG-T.
>
> > RIA (Rich Internet Apps) are
> > the future, so much so that the technology is build INTO the next
> > version of Windows (Vista) - microsoft are backing this technology.
> >
>
> They're just playing catch-up to Apples MacOs Widgets. microsoft can't even
> support Flash without using javascript, so I'm dubious about their ability
> to move the entire internet from a document model to an application one.
Not at all. MS has "widgets" 10 years before Apple, in the form of
Active Desktops (scripted mini pages that ran on your desktop). MS
dropped them for a while because not enough broadband users and their
own shortsightedness. They're back in Vista. But Apple copied the idea
and made it a lot better in Tiger. Anyway we're not talking the same
thing really. XAML is like MXML on acid, but totally untried so who
knows. I'm not use the former is applicable to the web tho.
James Douglas
flock too and before you know it your boss is asking how come we are
not using "InsertNameOfProductHere" in your company. Flash, XML, .NET,
Java (Which is hard to use and moreover slower than a turtle)
Flash, lots of industry talk about how it's going to change everything
and make software development easier, faster, cheaper and with fewer
bugs, but just like a camera's flash it quickly goes from bright to
nothing fairly quickly.
Flash=Buzz
I monitor technologies using various means one which is quite easy to
do, setup a custom job on Monster and other big job sites to send you
the recent job listings. Setup numerous jobs for various cities around
the world and watch how new technologies drive the job market, some
are maintained at a high level over time, others somehow just go away.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Does anyone else get the impression that James doesn't actually know
ANYTHING about technology outside of laymen speculation, presumptions
and "common ignorance"?
I swear, listening to him yammer on is like listening to some doofball
claiming that there are no software apps available on the Mac or that
Bill Gates is some evil, rich bastard personally out to get them, or
that <insert video codec/format of choice> is better quality wise than
<insert another video codec/format of choice> (that one gets even
funnier when they start mixing up codecs with formats and containers).
I love the justification too for shit like that. It's like, "I once
watched an 'Xvid' and the quality was REALLY good! And then I once
watched a 'QuickTime' and the quality was REALLY bad! Therefore
laymen, ignorant logic dictates that ALL video encoded in Xvid will
automatically be REALLY good and ALL video encoded in QuickTime will
be REALLY bad!"
Sadly, that seems to be the way James arrives at false conclusions.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
SpaceGirl
James Douglas wrote:
> Brian Mays wrote:
> > James Douglas wrote:
> >
> >> I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
> >> flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
> >> still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
> >> still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
> >> There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
> >> to be few are far between.
> >
> > What is/was the "flash from flash"?
> Every few years there is new and exciting technology which some folks
> flock too and before you know it your boss is asking how come we are
> not using "InsertNameOfProductHere" in your company. Flash, XML, .NET,
> Java (Which is hard to use and moreover slower than a turtle)
Are you suggesting all of those are flash in the pan too? because if
you are then you have to include EVERY web technology in your lists and
give up work right now. BTW, XML is used in everything, and is
effectively part of the Internet now so I'm quite startled by your
comment.
> Flash, lots of industry talk about how it's going to change everything
> and make software development easier, faster, cheaper and with fewer
> bugs, but just like a camera's flash it quickly goes from bright to
> nothing fairly quickly.
>
> Flash=Buzz
Flash has been around longer than PHP, or .net or XHTML, or CSS2. Does
that mean all those are just "flash in the pan" technologies to?
> I monitor technologies using various means one which is quite easy to
> do, setup a custom job on Monster and other big job sites to send you
> the recent job listings. Setup numerous jobs for various cities around
> the world and watch how new technologies drive the job market, some
> are maintained at a high level over time, others somehow just go away.
I think you should re-evaluate your monitoring "means" then, because
clearly they are critically flawed. Take a quick look at the demand for
.NET jobs right now and you'll see what I mean.
You have to be open minded and actually look at not just what copies
are hiring designers and programmers to work with, but how people are
USING the internet. User Experience is a Big Thing, and whatever
technology (it actually doesn't matter) is used to achieve that works.
You have to look to what's next, as well as what is "now".
Take a look at specific markets - for example the music or film
industry. The vast MAJORITY of the commerical sites are Flash based -
because it's partly what users want, and partly because it's the best
technology for providing "media rich" content when the content you have
to share is multimedia. Take another market - search engine. You wont
find any big search engines using Flash, because it's not a Rich Media
market.
The future may or may not be Flash/MXML/AS3 or XAML/Metro - but it WILL
be rich and multimedia. Server Side technology will adapt to allow the
easier delivery of these Rich eXPerience (XP!) - which in turn will
lead to languages such as Ruby on Rails or Flex/ActionScript becoming
more important (or a competing technology, it doesn't matter!). So pick
your technology.
fsds...@gmail.com
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> Does anyone else get the impression that James doesn't actually know
> ANYTHING about technology outside of laymen speculation, presumptions
> and "common ignorance"?
>
I think I understand what he's trying to get at, though -- which is
that often new technologies are embraced just because they are new.
This, I have seen: clients requesting a site to be developed in Flash,
not because Flash is the superior solution to what they want to achieve
with their site, but because "everyone else is doing it" and because
Flash is, well, flashy.
In that sense, I agree. Often, there is a buzz surrounding these kinds
of things. In the design world, it's the same mentality that allowed
every other logo on the planet to have a "millennium swoosh."
However, I don't think the buzz automatically invalidates Flash as
viable and useful tool. I think it's been around long enough to prove
its value, and that's important to recognize before dismissing Flash as
a "flash in the pan."
-- Robert
James Douglas
ever know son! Keep working with your flash stuff it's great
technology but also keep in mind there are more and more new
technologies coming down the road.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Hey James, spit in one hand, dream in the other, tell us whatcha got
more of.
Brian Mays
> >>RIA (Rich Internet Apps) are
>>the future, so much so that the technology is build INTO the next
>>version of Windows (Vista) - microsoft are backing this technology.
>>
>
>
> They're just playing catch-up to Apples MacOs Widgets. microsoft can't even
> support Flash without using javascript, so I'm dubious about their ability
> to move the entire internet from a document model to an application one.
Do some searching for Microsoft Sparkle. I saw this demo'd months back,
and it has some old-school Flashers working on it...Samuel Wan and
Manuel Clement. Saw them both at Flash Forward in 2000 and remember
both of them from the late 90's on Flash message boards. Sparkle has
more 3-D support, something Manuel Clement pioneered using Flash,
all-nighters, and Coke after Coke after Coke (his words) around 1998-99.
There was an hour-plus long video that had Wan and Clement talking about
their work on the project (and I was moaning in my mind how they had
gone over to the dark side haha). Can't locate it now, but it's out
there...
Brian Mays
Davide Montellanico
"SpaceGirl" <nothespac...@subhuman.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1143637500....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
<cut>
> Flash has been around longer than PHP, or .net or XHTML, or CSS2. Does
> that mean all those are just "flash in the pan" technologies to?
Sorry, but it's not correct! PHP was created by Rasmus Lerdorf in 1995
*PHP/FI*. Flash ver 1.0 was officially released not before 1996 when
Jonathan Gay sold Future Splash Animator to Macromedia.
<cut>
> Take a look at specific markets - for example the music or film
> industry. The vast MAJORITY of the commerical sites are Flash based -
> because it's partly what users want, and partly because it's the best
> technology for providing "media rich" content when the content you have
> to share is multimedia. Take another market - search engine. You wont
> find any big search engines using Flash, because it's not a Rich Media
> market.
I agree! Flash is unbeatable if you want to deliver a great user experience.
Nothing can be compared to Flash if your goal is to design/develope content
for the entertainment industry.
> The future may or may not be Flash/MXML/AS3 or XAML/Metro - but it WILL
> be rich and multimedia. Server Side technology will adapt to allow the
> easier delivery of these Rich eXPerience (XP!) - which in turn will
> lead to languages such as Ruby on Rails or Flex/ActionScript becoming
> more important (or a competing technology, it doesn't matter!). So pick
> your technology.
XAML/Swift 3D could be the next big thing! Who knows? :-)
--
Davide