I am an intermediate level web designer & web developer. I built 5 official websites for hotels and not only, until now(2 years experience). But I have an uncertainty.
Should I use an already coded template like this for building the next websites? I already did 1 website with that great template and it saved me a good amount of time. My fear is that without that template, I don't have excellent skill for coding components like navbar, footer, making a page element to stay on the page in the position I want, etc.
I'm almost always copying code snippets from the net, let's say not coding from scratch.
My thought is: hey, you're using a template, you're not a real web designer/developer. I was thinking to only use bootstrap + wordpress, but if I use that CANVAS template( it already has lots of bootstrap components coded, css and javascript for almost any situation ) it would save me even more time.
What do you say, guys, what should I do ? Thank you !
Whatever it takes to achieve your objective in the fast manner and have quality output should be your way forward. I would not worry about purism of solutions used as the objective. When you need it, you will know it - as the time will come when you know this template is not enough, then you can go back to custom solutions. Ultimately no one can handle every aspect of the development, using open source, libraries and frameworks is nowadays a skill in itself. Reapplying easy modules will help you to focus on other crucial elements of your app ( move to mobile, speed, additional functionality etc.)
Related
Context: Ok so I am building a website for a friend. Hes a designer with a high need to daily include his projects (images and text).
Problem:
Ok so I know pretty much how to code in html/css/javascript a front end responsive website, that is the easy part for me, the hard one is the content page. I've never done it so I don't know the best way.
A page that he goes daily put a new project, new images, formatted text (A like a blog). But since he doesn't know anything about coding and front end, it has to be simple enough for him to understand.
Resources: I made several searches and found some websites that allow custom templates with content, one of them standing is wordPress (haven't used it for years). I am currently abusing tumblr for that matter, but their support is quite bad. Should I use one, should I buy a host like bluehost and create my self one, what you guys recommend? I tried google it but perhaps I am not doing it the right way since I am not finding any answer to my problem.
Look, you've come to a programming website, so the most common suggestion you'll get here, and the option I myself recommend is:
MAKE IT YOURSELF!
It really is a fun and very educational experience.
There are many, many ways to do this. In general you'll want to have a front end that communicates with a back end API.
For the front end, there are a lot of options. From templating engines like Jekyll, to MVC frameworks like Laravel, to full fledged high level abstractions like Angular and React, which are admitedly harder to learn but so, so robust, and useful once you've figured them out.
The selection of tools you can use to make the API that supports the website is just as rich. There is ASP.NET for C# (which some people use for the front end as well but I wouldn't), there is Node.JS for JavaScript, with a myriad of libraries and packages to get you started. Flask is a popular option for Python. The list goes on and on.
Oh and dont forget about Ruby on Rails.
As for the interface which your friend will use to add their work, turning all that complicated back end into a simple, easy to use interface is a fundamental part of UX design and, IMHO, quite satisfying once you get it right. Make it sleek and, most of all, intuitive. One shouldn't have to be taught how to use it. It should be apparent from the first time they open the page. You should always ask for their feedback as you are developing it. Some even opt to create mock ups of the interface, in order to get feedback on both its aesthetics and its intuitiveness before a single line of code has been written.
Now, regarding how you'll actually do it, the answer really depends on the tools you opt to use. In general, you'll want to read up on things like the MVC pattern, or React's component architecture. The former is something you'll come across on a wide variety of platforms. The latter is mostly React specific, but in my opinion, understanding how to properly build a website using component architecture means you're in the right mindset, something that will help you no matter how you choose to build it.
All that being said...
Web development is complicated. Creating dynamic websites is a much larger undertaking that designing a static page, or even making an SPA. Though I do wholeheartedly recommend you do it at some point, starting with your friend's website might not be the best idea. Or, you may simply not have the time to sift through all your options, figure out which is best for you, begin the learning process etc.
In that case, there are plenty of publishing frameworks and tool sets to choose from. Wordpress has become very popular in the recent years, and templates and plugins for it are abundant. Alternatives like Medium and Ghost have also gained some traction.
There are plenty of commercial CMS type frameworks. One I have heard good things about is ExpressionEngine. However, I cannot speak for it with certainty.
If you are looking for a website builder, there are also plenty of options out there such as Weebly, Wix, as well as Squarespace. Google sites is a relative newcomer in that department, but seems promising.
So, in summary,
I wholeheartedly recommend building it from scratch. There are many, many languages, frameworks, and tools out there you can choose from, each with its own patterns, best practices and idiosyncrasies. If you lack the time, or simply don't feel like going through that process of building a dynamic website from scratch, you can use one of many tools available. However, that wouldn't be nearly as much fun, and would likely produce an inferior result.
To convert from a good design (PSD files) to a good looking web site, it seems an effective approach is to use a PSD to HTML service.
For a Django site (which mine is), you typically need a bunch of templates to dynamically define many parts of the web pages.
It seems to me that converting PSD to HTML is a different skill to coding up Django templates, which are closely linked to the rest of the Django application. And while there may be developers who are very skilled in both skills, the number is probably small. But there are many quality PSD to HTML services, and a reasonable number of Django contract developers.
My question: For best results, should I split the tasks, and get the PSD to HTML done first, and then pass the HTML files to the Django developer?
Or is that likely to be a waste of time & money? Should I just pass the PSD files to the Django developer and hope he/she has the necessary HTML/CSS skills?
(ps. Have looked thru Django & Django-templates + HTML. Question not found.)
Honestly - get someone to do it manually. Those automatic psd to html generators either works based on tables (create aLOT of code and alot of hard to read code) or based on divs, which means ALOT of absolutely positioned elements. Thats what my experience tells anyway. Neither of those cases really produces quality, fluid, reusable code.
You need someone who does not necessarily know django (cause backend framework is irrelevenat to psd to html/css skills), but rather someone who is (very) good with html(5) and css(3).
Also - converting PSD to HTML/CSS is not a simple task, unless your PSD design features all necessary elements. I mean all - like link in content area may be with one design, link in some other area usually has different design, do links in lists have different design compared to links in (other) content? Does your design feature all possible form elements design? Does your psd feature all necessary/possible elements in most areas? If yes, then converting your design to css/html is pretty easy task. If not, then you probably need to keep tab open and use your html wizards services any time you find out that design for element X is missing because your django form.as_ul or form.as_table prints out form in a way that your html guy did not think of.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to get in the habit of designing the interfaces to my websites at the very beginning before I do any actual coding. I've read "Getting Real" by 37 signals and they recommend doing the interface first, before any actual code is produced.
What exactly is meant by that? Does that mean use pure HTML and CSS to design the site and add php, js logic to page afterwards, or is it okay to sprinkle in the php, js from the beginning?
What if your using a framework, should I set up empty controllers that simply call the views, or should the early stages be solely html, css?
Also, what do you guys think about design first vs later?
EDIT I'm talking about AFTER I have sketched everything with pen and paper.. I'm taslking solely about the html mockups. And I'm not too sure about using extra tools that I would need to learn to do this
I think that the majority of the benefit of designing the interface first has been achieved after you are done your paper sketches. Basically, you are just ensuring that you have a design in your head and that your coding process is somewhat end-user driven. You are also trying not to waste time on needless documentation.
Getting the HTML in place (or the skeletons of the Views in an MVC app) makes some sense and this is the main thrust of what 37signals says. I would certainly not do anything beyond this that is just going to be thrown away.
I think if you have a proper design, it is immaterial if you next move on to writing the back-end code after the HTML or if you do the CSS and JavaScript. The CSS and the code should not even need to be aware of each other.
Do whatever gets you excited and motivated. Do whatever gets you thinking more deeply about how the app will actually work so you can catch any flaws in your original thinking. I like to code before CSS but that is just me. You might find it important to get the CSS further along before the app takes shape in your head.
Joel Spolsky likes Balsamiq as a mocking tool. I think that 37signals uses Draft (an iPhone app). I use a Sharpie. The key is not getting too detailed though.
Opinions vary, but I believe that JavaScript should come last. I believe most sites should be designed so that they work 100% without JavaScript and then have JavaScript added for polish.
Learn more about Unobtrusive JavaScript
So (for me):
Quick and dirty sketches of views
Get some HTML in place
Maybe some basic CSS for layout (or more if I need to impress somebody early)
Write the core logic
Add support for web services and AJAx calls
Pretty it all up with snazzy CSS
Write some JavaScript to add the sizzle
Let me ask you this. Do you paint a car before or after you have made the working parts? Maybe you have chosen which paint but ultimately it cannot go on until the car is finished. Maybe you don't agree with this analogy but I think coding will bring out issues that cannot be understood before a site is designed. Code first, design second.
Get a pad of paper. Each page represents one page of your site.
Sketch the interface. What controls go on each page? What controls are the same on each page? What forms are there and on which pages? What happens when user clicks on item x? Item y?
This will help you solidify your plan of both the content and behaviour of your site.
If you just start blindly coding you will end up with burnt spaghetti.
The user interface is what the users of the website will see. Before coding you probably start with some very basic sketches of the site that are not code, to identify page navigation, general placement of content and interaction with the site.
But the earlier you can show and discuss a working UI, the easier it is for the users/client to get an idea of the final product. So quickly move to the HTML, CSS, JavaScript and things like images, to identify:
The data presented on the page (HTML)
The representation of the data (CSS)
The interaction with the data (JavaScript)
Doing so helps to gradually develop an actual working UI that you can discuss with the client. This keeps them involved from early in the project. It forces them to think about the site, and make decisions about content, look and interaction.
Getting such feedback early in the project reduces the risk of building a product that needs to be changed later on. And making changes early in the project is easier/cheaper, then later in the project.
While the UI is being developed you can already start looking into data structures, software components and integrations with other systems to drive the site. But that's not what users/clients are interested in, they want to see and use the product.
I'm learning web dev and I am already stucked at some point..
How do I convert a PSD template to a html/css website ?
I've cropped all part of the image and saved them in .gif separately, but then ? Do I have to manually place them in a dreamweaver empty template ? I thought there was an automated way to do so..
Also, I've tried "Save for web and devices.." but when saving, it creates a .html file and a single image which contains every element ?! I expected several images so that I could rearrange them in dreamweaver.
While certain applications advertise/provide automation of the "conversion" process from composite graphic to web layout you want to avoid using those features. They will cause you more trouble than they are worth. Especially if you are going to use CSS for layout (which I strongly encourage). Thats not to say those features dont have some limited valid usages (more on this in point 2) it just that they arent going to magically generate your site from a graphic.
In order to use "Save for Web..." you need to use the Slice tool to slice down the image into the different images you need for layout. Then when you do save for web and deices with html it will export the html/css and the images. Again this isnt magic and chances are youre going to have to completely redo most of what its done for you - making it useless for anything more than slicing a certain area of the layout (say a single menu).
There isnt a fully automated way to do this, generally speaking because depending on what you need the layout to do you have to go about laying things out in different ways and while its theoretcially possible to account for all the possible potential requirements in a nice little export GUI its not really feasible.
The bottom line is to do this you have to learn HTML/CSS. And the more you learn the more you will hate Dreamweaver (at least in "layout view"). Garaunteed.
Yea, web design doesn't work by magic. The proper way to do is to manually write the actual code that positions the elements, not just smack them in place in Dreamweaver. There's plenty of good tutorials out there, check these out for example:
http://net.tutsplus.com/videos/screencasts/how-to-convert-a-psd-to-xhtml/
http://www.devwebpro.com/creating-css-layouts-the-best-tutorials-on-converting-psd-to-xhtml/
Welcome to reality.
You'll have to slice and dice yourself (well, slice and dice the image yourself, but don't slice yourself no matter how much you want to), and then place each individual part in your HTML or template.
There are a number of automated services that convert PSDs for you:
http://converxy.com
http://psd2htmlconverter.com/en/
http://www.psdtoweb.de/
http://csshat.com/
However, you might also want to consider a service-based approach as well. There is a thriving community of professional slicers out there (just google "psd to html" and you'll see what I mean).
You might also try to redesign from a program or framework such as:
http://html.adobe.com/edge/reflow/
https://webflow.com/
http://www.ekomobi.com/en/home.html
http://macaw.co/
http://foundation.zurb.com/
http://getbootstrap.com/
http://www.awwwards.com/what-are-frameworks-22-best-responsive-css-frameworks-for-web-design.html
It really depends on your budget, your timelines and your skillset.
I'm a big proponent of understanding something really well before trying to automate it. So, like the other posters have said, slicing by scratch (handcoding) is very valuable, especially if you don't already understand it well. However, you might just not care to invest the time needed to achieve a good understanding of the subject. And, that's perfectly okay too.
I think that ad the end of the day, there is no "correct" solution. Different people have different requirements which will change the choice.
This may help you, it walks you through the process.
Although I've done programming, I'm not a programmer. I've recently agreed to coordinate getting a Website up for a club. The resources are--me, who has done Web content maintenance (putting content into HTML and ColdFusion templates via a gatekeeper to the site itself; doing simple HTML and XML coding); a serious Web developer who does database programming, ColdFusion, etc., and talks way over the heads of the rest of us; two designers who use Dreamweaver; the guy who created the original (and now badly broken) site in Front Page and wants to use Expression Web; and assorted other club members who are even less technically inclined.
What we need up first is some text and graphics (a gorgeous design has been created in Dreamweaver), some links (including to existing PDF newsletters for download), and maybe hooking up an existing Blogspot blog. Later (or earlier if it's not hard), we may add mouseover menus to the links, a gallery, a calendar, a few Mapquest hotlinks, and so on.
My question--First, is there any real problem with sticking with HTML and jpegs for the initial site? Second, for the "later" part of the site development, what's the simplest we can go with? Third, are there costs in doing this the simple way that will make us regret it down the road? Also, is there a good site/resource where I can learn more about this from a newbie perspective?
If you don't require any dynamic content, heck, if you don't plan on editing the content more than once a week, I'd say stick to basic HTML.
Later, you'd probably want a basic, no-fuss and easily installable CMS. The brand really depends on the platform (most likely PHP/Rails/ASP), but most of them can be found by typing " CMS" into Google. Try prefixing it with "free" or "open source" if you want.
I'm pretty sure you can do all this for absolutely free. Most PHP and Ruby CMS's are free and web hosting is free/extremely cheap if you're not demanding.
And last/best tip: Find someone who has done this before, preferably more than once. He'll probably set you up so you never have to look at anything more complicated than a WYSIWYG editor.
Plain old HTML is fine, just as long as you don't use tags like blink and marquee.
I personally love tools like CityDesk.
And I'm not just plugging Joel. (There are others out there in this class I'm sure.) The point is they make making a static website very easy:
The structure is just a filesystem structure
pages have templates to consolidate formatting
all resources are contained in one file
easy and fast Preview and Publish functions
For a dynamic collaborative site, I would just install one of many open source CMSs available on shared hosting sites.
If you're familiar with html/javascript basics I'd look into a CMS - wordpress, drupal, joomla, nuke, etc. All of these are free. Very often your web hosting company will install one of these by default which takes all of the hard part out of your hands. Next is just learning to customize the system and there's tons of docs out there for any of those systems.
All that being said there is noting wrong with good old fashioned html.
In addition to some of the great content management systems already mentioned, consider cms made simple.
It makes it very easy to turn a static site into a content managed site (which sounds like exactly what you might need to do in the future), and the admin area is very easy to use. Our clients have found it much simpler to use than the likes of Joomla.
It's also free and open source.
Good luck!
There's no reason to not go with plain old HTML and JPGs if you don't know any server side scripting languages. Also, once you want to get more advanced, most cheap hosting services have tools that can be installed with one click, and provide things like blogs, photo galleries, bulletin boards (PHPBB), and even content management tools like Joomla.
I had the same problem myself, I was just looking for something really easy to smash together a website quickly. First I went with just plain old HTML, but then I realised a simple CMS would be better.
I went for Wordpress. Wordpress is mostly known as a blogging platform, but in my opinion it is really great as a deadly simple CMS as well.
why not simply use Google pages?
Here is an example of a website I did, takes about 2 hours, easy to maintain (not that I do (-: ) and FREE.
I think that suggesting you mess with HTML for what you need is crazy!
Plain HTML is great, gives you the most control. If you want to make updating a bit easier though, you could use SSI. Most servers have this enabled. It basically let's you attach one file to many pages.
For example, you could have your menu in navigation.html and every page would include this file. That way you wouldn't have to update this one file on every page each time you need to update.
<!--#include virtual="navigation.html" -->
I agree with the other commenters that a CMS might be useful to you, however as I see it, probably a solution like Webby might do it for you. It generates plain HTML pages based on Templates. Think about it as a "webpage preprocessor" which outputs plain HTML files. It has most of the advantages of using a server-based CMS, but without a lot of load on the server, and making it easy for you to change stuff on any of the templates you might use.
It's fine
Rails (or purchase / use a CMS)
Not unless you start becoming crazy-popular
It really depends on what you go with for 2. Rails has a plethora of tutorials on the net and any product you go with will have its own community etc.
To be perfectly honest though, if the dynamic part is someone elses blog and you move the gallery out into flikr you may find that you can actually live with large parts of it being static HTML for a very long time.
If a to Implement a website With User Profiles/Logins, Extensions, Gallery's etc s a Newbi then a CMS like Joomla, Etc are good , but Else if you presently have only Static Content then Its good to go with Good Old HTML, About JPEG , I though Presently Its better to use PNG or GIF as its Less Bulky.
Also About you Query About Shifting to Server Scripts , When you have Database Driven Material or When you have Other Things that Require Advanced Prog Languages , Just use PHP Scripts inside PHP , and Rename teh File as a PHP, Thats IT, No Loss to you HTML Data.....
Do Go Ahead and Launch you Site ......
Dude, you're talking about HTML, obviously you'll be styling your content with CSS. Wait till you run into IE issues and god forbid your client wants ie6 compatibility.
Go with the HTML for now, I'm sure you guys will hack it through. Our prayers are with you.
Personally, I'd never use JPEG images on a website, mainly because of three reasons:
JPEGs often contains artifacts.
Quality is often proportional
with filesize.
Does not support
alpha transparency.
That said, I'd recommend you to use PNGs for images since it's lossless and a 24-bit palette (meaning full colors + alpha transparency). The only quirk is that IE6 and below does not support native alpha for PNGs, however this could be resolved by running a javascript which would fix this issue.
As for designing a website, there's both pros and cons for this. I suggest you read through:
37 Signal's Why We Skip Photoshop
Jeff Croft's Why We Don't Skip Photoshop
As for newbie resources, I'd recommend you flip through the pages at W3 Schools.