Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Web Design Advice
- Thread starter cwesty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Look at many commercial websites, and start getting an eye for what looks good and what doesn't. Then screw around in Photoshop and Dreamweaver as much as possible, making new page designs even if you don't plan to use them. In my experience, good design comes from developing and eye and practice, practice, practice.
My advice would be to design your layout on paper and don't go near the computer until you've got a good idea what you want it to look like. By all means look at other sites to see what can be done and collect some ideas, but don't actually try to design your layout in dreamweaver, it'll limit your ideas. Sort your layout on paper and then use dreamweaver to realise it.
have a look at http://www.aardman.com
not to everyone's taste but it's a thoroughly unique site and you can't deny the sheer amount of work and attention to detail in it.
Also, don't forget Flash. You can do amazing things in flash and although it's generally frowned upon to do an entire page in it (for various reasons, mostly because flash content is pretty much invisible to search engines) you will save yourself a lot of heartache trying to do simple animation and layouts that would normally involve reams of css and javascript.
have a look at http://www.aardman.com
not to everyone's taste but it's a thoroughly unique site and you can't deny the sheer amount of work and attention to detail in it.
Also, don't forget Flash. You can do amazing things in flash and although it's generally frowned upon to do an entire page in it (for various reasons, mostly because flash content is pretty much invisible to search engines) you will save yourself a lot of heartache trying to do simple animation and layouts that would normally involve reams of css and javascript.
If you are serious about web design, and are just starting out, I'd say avoid using dreamweaver at all costs. Dreamweaver can be a great tool, but it can also be a crutch that you end up relying on. I know so many so called "professional web designers" that would have no clue what to do if someone needed help debugging code without the aid of dreamweaver.
I know because I was one of them. I started my web design "career" when the first dreamweaver was released and I relied on it heavily. Without it, I pretty much was useless as a web designer. Pretty sad. I also made so many mistakes because I didn't bother keeping the code clean. I did all my work in the visual editor because it was so fast. In the end, you'll end up regretting not being able to hand-code without any aids.
I appreciate and love web development so much more now that I can handcode everything without any aids.
If you are just trying to get a website up really quick, then dreamweaver will work perfectly.
That was sort of off-topic, but I just wanted to add that in.
I know because I was one of them. I started my web design "career" when the first dreamweaver was released and I relied on it heavily. Without it, I pretty much was useless as a web designer. Pretty sad. I also made so many mistakes because I didn't bother keeping the code clean. I did all my work in the visual editor because it was so fast. In the end, you'll end up regretting not being able to hand-code without any aids.
I appreciate and love web development so much more now that I can handcode everything without any aids.
If you are just trying to get a website up really quick, then dreamweaver will work perfectly.
That was sort of off-topic, but I just wanted to add that in.
gekko513 said:Wow! aardman.com wins the award for least useable web site in my book.
It's only unusable if you're unadventurous
I've heard many people say the same thing but I've heard more people say they love it. At the end of the day it's a a showcase for their work and the entire site is part of that showcase- everything about it is classic aardman humour and attention to detail. Ok, it would be rubbish if you had to book train tickets through it or something, but you don't.
My point really was that it stands out.
here's another site that still stands out and is a bit easier to use:
http://www.gorgeous.co.uk
Also, a great book on web design is this one: The Complete Reference; HTML & XHTML Fourth Edition, Thomas Powell, Mc Graw Hill Publishers. Get it on Amazon. Contrary to the title it isn't just about HTML, it covers the planning, design, programming and publishing of a site from start to finish, and is loaded with advice on good design and coding practices, how to improve your search engine listing etc. A wonderful book.
So what does the site do? It shows me a blinking kitten that says "hallo gorgeous" if I mouse over it, and it shows a link to get flash if the kitten doesn't blink and a second link to an external site.londonweb said:
If I click the kitten, nothing happens except some sort of reload that leaves the kitten not functioning properly.
radiantmark said:
I'm, in your words, a so called "professional web designers" and not only do I rely on Dreamweaver, I also teach a college course which is a combination of CSS, XHTML, using DW. Its a great tool, but you have to know the basics of HTML to understand the full complexities of DW. I don't think to say to avoid it fair because its a great tool. You do on the other hand have to understand HTML, because guess what, DW is buggy as all hell and the only way you can fix minor issues is through code view and understanding HTML.
That is why in my class I teach them simultaneously . I teach HTML and CSS syntax, then show them how to do it in DW.
ChicoWeb said:I'm, in your words, a so called "professional web designers" and not only do I rely on Dreamweaver, I also teach a college course which is a combination of CSS, XHTML, using DW. Its a great tool, but you have to know the basics of HTML to understand the full complexities of DW. I don't think to say to avoid it fair because its a great tool. You do on the other hand have to understand HTML, because guess what, DW is buggy as all hell and the only way you can fix minor issues is through code view and understanding HTML.
That is why in my class I teach them simultaneously . I teach HTML and CSS syntax, then show them how to do it in DW.
No doubt Dreamweaver is a great tool (however also very slow for a supposed text editor). At the same time it does a lot of hand-holding for you which might save time for the professional, but also act as a wheelchair for beginners. What happens to a person who would rely on a wheel chair his whole life? And then what would happen if someone took that wheelchair away?
I used dreamweaver for the first 6-7 years of building websites. I knew that app like the back of my hand. I've been hand coding for the past year and I can say I would never want to go back to using it. You can also look at some of todays CSS-based design leaders and see what they are using. Practically none of them are using dreamweaver. That's not to say that it isn't a good tool. Some just find it inefficient. Part of the reason also might be because the mac version of dreamweaver sucks. Dreamweaver is definitely a windows app ported to the mac. You can tell by the way the UI is. Very clunky on the mac.
radiantmark said:
I agree. DW 8 is a 10 steps above MX, or MX2004 when it comes to css and the gui has made some steps of improvement for OSX. When I'm doing all css layouts, I stick to bbedit, but when I'm making layouts w/ tables... I can take my photoshop PSD and turn it into a website in an hour w/ DW and tables.
ChicoWeb said:
Oh yea for sure. Table-based layouts definitely benefit from a WYSIWYG editor. If CSS wasn't where it's at right now, I'd probably still be using dreamweaver. Fortunately, CSS has freed me completely from it.
gekko513 said:
Hmmm...works fine for me (mozilla, not checked it in safari). It should load the site into a new smaller window. It belongs to a film production company- I just thought it was quite amusing and a welcome break from the norm. Their TV showreel is also really good.
londonweb said:
I'll go ahead and suggest to actually forget Flash entirely (unless you need to do animation - you didn't say what kind of content the website was about).
If you have to use Flash, be sure to make it optionnal (the website, content and navigation shouldn't be in Flash).
CSSZenGarden.com is also a good suggestion (for the most part). Structure your content and then style it, not the other way around.
Make sure your codes (HTML/XHTML and CSS) are standards-compliant (validator.w3.org), and test in all possible browsers (because even if your code is compliant, most browsers aren't).
It's a lot of work, but if you want a website, it's to be seen. And you can't be seen if your website doesn't work in people's browsers (and "be seen" doesn't mean "being able to see your design", i.e. it's ok if someone with Netscape 4 sees a really bland "text-only + photos" design).
Yvan256 said:
I'd love to know quite what it is that people think is such a problem with Flash. It's the easiest, most versatile and most powerful format in which to produce web content, and unless you expect your users to be completely computer-illiterate and running archaic web browsers, there's absolutely no reason not to use it, aside from the fact that that your site won't show up well on search engine listings (and that's a massively overrated virtue anyway).
CSS is great, but it's fiddly and can get extremely complex, and the fact that none of the browsers seem to be able to agree on a standard means that unless you're prepared to write extensive cross-browser support into your pages, your site's probably going to render differently under each browser. HTML is incredibly limiting, and again you've got the whole standards issue to think about. Javascript is versatile, but you can't achieve half the things you can with Flash and Actionscript and there is still a massive amount of confusion regarding which standards to use, and again if you don't use cross-browser coding you'll often find that your site simply won't work at all under certain browsers.
All the recent browsers include Flash player as standard, and because it's the same plug-in you don't get any discrepancies between systems and browsers, provided you're careful about what version you publish your movies to. Even if the user doesn't have the plug-in, you can add a few lines of code to your page to instigate a download which takes about 10 seconds on anything other than dial-up (dreamweaver adds the code automaticallu upon import). Contrary to popular belief, if you're sensible about your content and don't include too many bitmap graphics, there's no reason why it should take any longer than a text-only page to download, because it's vector-based. In fact, for bitmap-heavy pages it actually offers much faster downloads than doing it in HTML and CSS.
As I've said, the only real problem is the issue of search spiders finding your site, but there are countless ways around this, plus they are currently working on ways of making Flash text visible to spiders.
So, really, what's the big problem?
L
littlejim
Guest
littlejim said:
You cheeky b*gger!!
Ok, fair enough. I do love to play the devil's advocate...
Seriously though, I've spent far less time tearing my hair out with Flash than I have with Javascript...
londonweb said:
Flash is an amazing technology, howver there are many problems with using it. First of all it requires a plugin. Second, 95% of users abuse it. All the sequence animations just slow the user down from getting the information they need. Search engine optimization and accessibility takes a lot more work. And another issue is bookmarking.
Now all of the things I mentioned can be overcome and it's possible for some very nice flash sites. But 95% of the flash sites out there have all those issues. Especially beginners just starting out. Of course flash does have it place. Video game sites, Movie sites, A flash developer's portfolio, etc. Using flash as a multimedia tool is great. Build your whole site in it just for the sake of using flash is not.
radiantmark said:
I would agree entirely- When used properly it's great, but a lot of people get carried away with needlessly dressing things up, just because they can. I'm not a champion for Flash just because of the possibility for embellishments, I just think it's a really useful format and enables people with a print design background like myself to make an easy transition into web design and not have their layouts limited by their lack of knowledge in the early stages. I learnt Flash first, HTML second, then CSS and Java script. I often combine all four formats in my sites which are generally reliable and easy to use, because I'm able to employ the best features of each format together on the same page.
My 2 cents
I too try to use everything available, depending on the type of site I am working on. I use Dreamweaver, BB Edit, Flash, PS2, and any other "thing" I need to get the job done including some hand coding when I have to.
A couple of weeks ago I put a Video on a clients site. I compressed a 100 meg video into a few megs fast start flash video file. I was very proud of my work. The movie looks great to me and plays on my broadband connection without hesitation.
I had warned the client that people with slower connections would not be able to view the movie and we both agreed to use it anyway because she felt that her clients, the people visiting her site, are mostly corporate and had fast connections AND are computer literate.
I should say I had warned the client about using Flash at all (something I always do) because it requires a plug-In and from my experience, there is no such animal as a "literate" computer user, myself included.
It's not that I have anything against Flash, but it is what it is.
So to finish the Flash story, which really does have a point I swear...
Next day I went to the clients, popped Safari open, on her less than a year old Mac laptop (running Jaguar) and....got the no Flash plug-In message.
So much for impressing my client. (No, she didn't have 10 minutes or even 5 to wait for a plug-In to download, she had to pack to leave for Ireland the next morning, to deliver a propsal for a sculpture installation. She is one of 5 finalist from around the world for this commision.
So much for literate computer users.
Which brings me to the point of my post, I tell ALL my clients ALL the options. I tell them" if you go with an HTML site, it may not be as slick as Flash but all your clients WILL be able to buy whatever it is you are selling. If you go with Flash, It should only be used for non critical parts of the site....like the above mentioned movie. The last thing you want, I tell them, is to loose business once you've FINALLY got them to your site.
I do the same warning speech if somone wants to use a canned PHP shopping cart, javascript, etc... I say I'll do it but....here are the pro's and cons, and I let them decide.
In my opinion this approach does two things, first it takes me off the hook. If the client wants a total Flash site and I build it...and people can not see it, it's not like I didn't warn the client before hand.
Secondly, going over the pros and cons of each format (browser differences included) educates the client so they can make an educated marketing decission about their business, which is the way it should be.
I just think it is best to do what is in the clients best interest. In some cases that may mean a very slick drop dead georgous site, sometimes not...because then you have cost and time factors involved in the process...which is another subject and leaves me at a good place to stop this post.
I too try to use everything available, depending on the type of site I am working on. I use Dreamweaver, BB Edit, Flash, PS2, and any other "thing" I need to get the job done including some hand coding when I have to.
A couple of weeks ago I put a Video on a clients site. I compressed a 100 meg video into a few megs fast start flash video file. I was very proud of my work. The movie looks great to me and plays on my broadband connection without hesitation.
I had warned the client that people with slower connections would not be able to view the movie and we both agreed to use it anyway because she felt that her clients, the people visiting her site, are mostly corporate and had fast connections AND are computer literate.
I should say I had warned the client about using Flash at all (something I always do) because it requires a plug-In and from my experience, there is no such animal as a "literate" computer user, myself included.
It's not that I have anything against Flash, but it is what it is.
So to finish the Flash story, which really does have a point I swear...
Next day I went to the clients, popped Safari open, on her less than a year old Mac laptop (running Jaguar) and....got the no Flash plug-In message.
So much for impressing my client. (No, she didn't have 10 minutes or even 5 to wait for a plug-In to download, she had to pack to leave for Ireland the next morning, to deliver a propsal for a sculpture installation. She is one of 5 finalist from around the world for this commision.
So much for literate computer users.
Which brings me to the point of my post, I tell ALL my clients ALL the options. I tell them" if you go with an HTML site, it may not be as slick as Flash but all your clients WILL be able to buy whatever it is you are selling. If you go with Flash, It should only be used for non critical parts of the site....like the above mentioned movie. The last thing you want, I tell them, is to loose business once you've FINALLY got them to your site.
I do the same warning speech if somone wants to use a canned PHP shopping cart, javascript, etc... I say I'll do it but....here are the pro's and cons, and I let them decide.
In my opinion this approach does two things, first it takes me off the hook. If the client wants a total Flash site and I build it...and people can not see it, it's not like I didn't warn the client before hand.
Secondly, going over the pros and cons of each format (browser differences included) educates the client so they can make an educated marketing decission about their business, which is the way it should be.
I just think it is best to do what is in the clients best interest. In some cases that may mean a very slick drop dead georgous site, sometimes not...because then you have cost and time factors involved in the process...which is another subject and leaves me at a good place to stop this post.