Related
A graphic designer created a web page design and I have it in PSD now.
What are the tools or techniques used to easily convert this image into HTML.
to get the best result you need to code up the html yourself integrating the relevant graphics when needed. if you are unable to do this yourself there are quite a number of companies that will take a PSD and code it into HTML for you. One example being www.psd2html.com - do a search on google for more examples.
check http://www.bolducpress.com/tutorials/from-photoshop-to-html/ for a great tutorial about "slicing" which is one technique to "convert" a psd-file to a webpage.
Use the Slice Tool to slice up the psd file into chunks of graphics that can be layed out on a web page. Then choose Save for web... to save these chunks into individual jpeg, gif or png files.
Have it sliced if you must, but better build carefully planned HTML by hand, or have it done for you.
There are slicing tools that others will be able to tell more about. I personally think there is no better way really than creating the basic HTML and CSS by hand. Because what you build now is the foundation for your entire web site, and any future extensions to it, it is really worth the effort.
If you go this route, you would pick a normal HTML editing program or platform and sketch out the basic structure according to the layout you have.
If you have little experience with HTML and need to get the job done, try out a slicer. If you have time and/or money, work it out by hand, use a high quality template as a basis, or have it done professionally.
Whilst I would agree with all of the comments above, if you want to do this yourself or don't have the knowledge/funds, you can do it with the likes of Dreamweaver/Fireworks, but as everyone has said, you won't get good HTML and unless you use it properly you'll have problems if you ever make changes to your page as changing sizes will break your layout.
Well, I know a little HTML, and I'm just interested in playing around with it. I was wondering, though, do people usually write websites from scratch, or do they use templates, or do they use WYSIWYG editors?
To me, it seems like writing from scratch is unnecessary, nowadays, with the editors and templates we have, but maybe I'd be better off to try write something from scratch from learning purposes?
So, if I want to learn HTML better than I do, what is the best way to go about it (I have access to a free server) and how do professional website creators do it? Maybe this is an obvious answer but I'm quite new to it. Thanks!
If from scratch means hand-writing the markup, yes, that's the correct way to do it.
WYSIWYG, fully-bloated editors, are not good alternatives if you are serious about writing a web-site -- as most drag-and-drop-and-run systems out there. They might serve their purposes, but they are not general professional solution.
Hand-written markup (HTML, XHTML) and CSS will always provide better cross-browser compatibility, will be much more optimized and easier to maintain.
I really like Aptana Studio. It is an IDE that enables you to easily write the markup (HTML, XHTML), the formatting (CSS), the client-side code (ie, animations, etc, through JavaScript, and it is really well integrated with common JavaScript frameworks) as well as server-side code in a very professional way (PHP, Ruby, and many others). Oh, and it's free.
Aptana is better than, say, Notepad clones, because it is adapted to Web Development: all the time you have context menus popping up containing hints about compatibility, it displays errors on the markup, etc. It understands your code better than most notepad clones do.
I definitely recommend writing from scratch when you are learning. Using a wysiwyg editor can create a lot of extra code that you have no idea how to deal with when something strange happens and you have to edit the HTML itself. Using something like Notepad++ that supports code highlighting can help a lot.
the secret of html is: not writing it. means: keep it as tiny and semantically as possible and thats where all WYSIWYG editors fail. they let you create 403 nested dom elements whit 2 mouseclicks and if you are a beginner you don't even realize how wrong that is.
I agree with others that learning HTML makes sense. But at the same time, you can use WYSIWYG as a learning tool if necessary. I know that when I first started creating websites, margins and padding always seemed hard to properly format (due in part to inconsistencies across various browsers), and using a visual editor did help me figure out how changing certain values affected the view.
My favorite WYSIWYG editor is probably Nvu just because it is free and less bloated than software like Frontpage. But as others have noted, just practice with HTML. Check out w3schools for a nice intro and reference pieces.
Depends on the budget and software adquisition posibilities (yes, the budget).
Assuming you are talking about research, design, development, scripts, flash and everything you need the best option is Adobe Creative Suite for Web Designers.
There´s no powerfull editor in the world than Dreamweaver and that´s a fact.
You should use Notepad, Notepad++, jEdit and whatever you want but if you want to be productive a serious IDE is the best choice and Adobe win by far.
My opinion!
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
For design websites is it better to do it your self by learning HTML/CSS or using web design programs? and why?
I've bounced back and forth between hand coding and Dreamweaver in my history as a web developer.
I originally started out hand coding HTML. This was back in the day when table layout was king, and editing nested tables became a real headache. Couple this with a lack of good tools for visualizing hidden elements and this quickly became a nightmare.
I started using Dreamweaver primarily to speed up my table design workflow. Soon, however, Dreamweaver's templating system became a godsent when I started producing static websites that had no server backend. Being able to update one template and have it propagate across the entire static site cut down my cross-page inconsistencies to nearly zero.
More recently, the whole web 2.0 push has got me, and almost everyone else, back into the hand coding game. I found Dreamweaver wasn't really suitable for the compliant designs, since it was heavily table-centric. I find that most of the HTML I write these days is so straightforward and simple there's little need for an editor. Additionally, all my development is now dynamic once again, so there's no need for a static html generating template system anymore.
Learn for yourself so you can figure out how to do things exactly how you want them to be done, and not have to rely on some sort of program to figure it out for you.
Like anything else in technology, learn the core concepts first, and then use a tool to automate the things you have mastered. By doing so, you will gain a better understanding of how everything works together, and you be able to easily tell when something goes wrong. In this way you will not be bound to any one design tool, and can use whatever works best because you understand the core concepts.
In the words of Richard Feynman,
"That which I cannot create, I do not
understand."
They really serve two purposes, and either one is "better" for it's purpose.
If you learn to do it by hand, you will:
Have more control over exactly what is happening
Have less extraneous code
Be able to maintain your code more easily
If you use a program, you will:
Be able to design visually
Possibly be able to design more quickly
Not have to learn to write CSS by hand
It really depends on what your goal is.
I prefer HTML/CSS by hand because you have the most control over the code. Most design programs will add additional markup that is not required. Even simple WYSIWYG JavaScript editors add extra markup. Although, not a huge difference in file size, the additional markup will add up over time. I would also argue that its easier to maintain code when you know what went into its creation.
Additionally, you'll learn a lot more by taking the time to do it by hand.
Personally, I always edit my HTML/CSS by hand using editors with auto-completion if I can, because that always makes life easier. You should definitely always learn a language as much as you can before you start relying on any program to generate code for you, because most of the time you end up fixing what they gave you.
I tend to do it all by hand.
Doesn't matter what IDE or
server-side language I'm using.
Mark up is markup. Being able to do
it rapidly by hand is valuable.
More often then not, you'll have to
edit some markup manually. By
writing it from scratch, you're
already very familiar with the structure of the markup.
You don't have to spend any time
orienting yourself to the
designer-generated markup.
Although not necessarily a rule,
those who live in the designer I've
found to be less sharp in their
markup and code craftsmanship.
I prefer the by hand approach. That way you know exactly what you're getting. Plus I haven't found an editor that produces HTML/CSS that doesn't need some tweaking especially if you are targeting multiple browsers.
Doing it by hand. Using design programs tends to insert a lot of extra markup you don't really need, which will just complicate your ability to learn.
If you do it by hand you at least know what was inserted where, and why. Plus there are a lot of good websites out there that can walk you through the basics.
IMO you will still learn using web design programs like Dreamweaver, since you have to look at the source and make it fit your exact desires,and its quicker. But doing it by hand will give you the more you write the more you learn type of thing that I agree with 100%
This is a bit vague.
I think that "better" (qualitatively) depends greatly on (1) the competency of the designer, and (2) the sophistication of the application.
Regarding "better" (as in "advisable"): using an application can be a crutch that may fail to save you in all cases. Knowing how to "raw code" html and css is valuable in understanding the limitations of the application and working around those limitations. For that reason alone I suggest knowing how to do it by hand and then keep a sharp eye on the output generated by the application, should you choose to use one.
The absolute best is when you understand what you are doing - you can only do this by coding by hand.
If you don't know HTML or CSS and you use a WYSIWYG editor then how can you be sure everything is right? You can't!
If you have a good understanding of HTML and CSS why would you use a WYSIWYG editor? They make things harder because you can't see the code and extra tags and rules get inserted without you knowing.
Coding by hand is always the best.
Why should you know about xhtml/css ?
Here is some reasons:
Respect semantics meaning
DOM compliant (you know the javascript mess)
Easier to maintain
Search Engine Optimization
You still think it takes a longer time to design/integrate a website ?
Think of use vi, eclipse, quanta, and probably some others...
By hand is the obvious answer, because your website/application will be, well, better. (And also because, if you use JavaScript, it's good to traverse through the DOM of a document you've written yourself, versus a generated one that you have to examine beforehand.) But that's mostly only because the visual tools that exist today really suck (I'm thinking of Dreamweaver). It's definitely possible to create a good visual editing (WYSIWYG) program that actually generates good HTML/CSS/JavaScript, but nothing even close has come up yet, so right now hand-coding is much, much better.
I'm not going to read the responses, so its quite possible someone has already said this, but oh well.
First and foremost, you should always write out your HTML / CSS by hand. The reason for this is that no matter how advanced an HTML editor is, it will never be as good as it could / should be. For "good" html / css, you will actually end up writing your page in a different order than what you see.
For example, a page that is displayed like:
________________
|logo |
|----menu------|
|..............|
|...content....|
|..............|
|....footer....|
----------------
"should" actually flow as follows:
<h1>title of site</h1>
<div id="content">.....</div>
<ul id="menu">....</ul>
<div id="footer">...</div>
which an HTML editor would simply throw a hissy fit if you did it through the nice pretty gui. What may be advantageous is to use Web Expression 2 or Visual Studio for its intellisense. It may help speed up (or maybe slow down) your learning curb.
I really recommend Transcending CSS Design if you are already familiar with HTML / CSS. Otherwise grab a CSS book first even over an HTML book. Styling through CSS will teach you proper semantic HTML (or should,anyway).
I like to code by hand because i can keep my code clean and tidy that way. HTML is not very hard anyway.
If you decide to code by hand you will need an editor that supports syntax highlight, and you will need to validate your code as often as possible to avoid errors (this is good practice anyway). This extension for Firefox will ease your work a lot: users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/
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.
What are the pros and cons of using a WYSIWYG editor for web page development vs hand coding?
With the exception of just not knowing how to create something by hand coding is there any reasons to use WYSIWYG?
I handcode, but I prefer to work with a wysiwyg editor in tow, and for that reason I'm still using Dreamweaver as an editor. What I'm doing 95% of the time is handcoding inside the Source editor and viewing the results in the preview. Occasionally I'll drop into the wysiwyg editor to move blocks around directly though and when I do I find it invaluable. I never use any of Dreamweavers wizards or generated code and I clean up the html manually too.
I see nothing wrong with this approach, it strikes me as the HTML design equivalent of an IDE prompting to complete functions etc. (intellisense or whatever your IDE may call it)
I also always use a templating system of one form or another so my scripting code is totally separate from html.
The combination with Dreamweaver of the occasional wysiwyg edit (invaluable I find when laying things out or making 'macro' layout changes) and the one click preview has kept me with it despite looking at better tools - Aptana, NetBeans etc. Indeed I would dearly like to move to another system - see this question - preferably something that runs on Ubuntu and strips out the crud in Dreamweaver leaving just the wysiwyg features and possibly an intelligent Javascript editor, but I'm yet to find anything. KompoZer is starting to look promising though.
There are a variety of reasons to use a WYSIWYG editor when creating HTML.
Allows for quick prototyping
Allows designer-y people to be actively involved in front end development
Some WYSIWYG tools will set you up with a clean base to be modified (Dreamweaver's CSS layouts are actually pretty good)
I think the important thing to remember is that after you get it into approximate shape, you should dig into the code and make sure there's nothing weird going on. Nested spans, odd absolute positioning, and (lord almighty) table based layouts count as weird things. Even if you use a WYSIWYG to start with, you should always check that the code is valid and looks the way you would expect it to.
WYSIWYG can be handy if you don't know HTML or just want to whip something together extremely fast. You're not going to get clean code, though. Most WSYIWIG editors still throw out a bunch of unneeded dirty HTML instead of clean solid markup.
Anyone familiar with HTML can usually whip up something just as fast by hand in an HTML editor. And it will be clean, xhtml compliant semantic markup instead of thrown together templates with extraneous crud.
If you set up the template and css properly, you can probably be faster with hand coding than a WSYIWYG editor, as those work against you when you're trying to create properly abstracted css with degradable semantic markup.
If the design isn't terribly important and you're just throwing a website together there's nothing wrong with using a WYSIWYG. Or if you're trying to create a marginally functional mock up for a client it's a good way to get something built quickly.
I develop in ASP.net most of the time, so I'm in VS2008 most of the time; however whenever possible (which is most of the time) I still-hand code....but I do it in VS2008's source mode. When working with ASP.net, theres always somewhat bloated code which you just sort of have to accept (to a point).
However, in my free time, I also do php development, and like hell will I ever not hand-code with php. Plus, its not like VS with the drag and drop stuff.
If you want to be really good at what you do, as in Guru like good, drop the WYSIWYG stuff and start hand coding. The learning curve is steeper, but it makes you better at what you do in a meaningful way.
It comes down to maintainability and changeability. It is usually much easier to change a GUI layout in a GUI editor than by hand.
"Oh you want to move that JTable from this position to this other completely unrelated position". If you have handcoded it, it basically turns out to be a programming job (which for non-trivial layouts might actually be HARD), but if it is in a good GUI editor, it is probably just a matter of point-click-move-release.
People who handcode probably never have had to do that kind of changes :)
The advantages of using a WYSIWYG editor for web development are pretty obvious. Development is much simpler and faster even if you know how to code web since web development requires to know many different languages and can get messy when trying to get them to work together as planned. Real WYSIWYG designers should be able to solve those complexities by allowing you to visually develop on one form in one layer.
The disadvantages of this kind of development paradigms can be that it sometimes limits you, meaning that you are usually constrained within a predefined framework.
Therefore it is important to find a framework that on top of its WYSIWYG development experience is open to extension and customization. Take a look at http://www.visualwebgui.com/.
This is the same type of thing as Glade versus hand coding your Gtk code. I think that you add a level of obfuscation and things that might break when you hand edit your code. However, as Spencer said, if you need to do it and it needs to work; usualy WYSI wil work pretty well and reliably. If you're doing something that you're going to be keeping up to date and be managing for years to come; you should know every piece of code that is in that application/web page.
Really it comes down to your job function. If you're primarily a designer, WYSIWYG editors can be very handy for creating mock-ups for clients, or prototypes that can be handed to developers to code against.
If you're a developer, you'll probably prefer to hand-code.
Most WYSIWYG editors offer a code view and design view which enables you to switch back and forth pretty easily.
My suggestion is to try and learn how to hand-code your site. After years of web development, I find that hand-coding is faster for me than attempting to use a designer. Moreover, as you gain a better understanding of how HTML and CSS work together you'll find that there's very little that can't be done gracefully.
It can be frustrating to learn, but you'll find that you're better for it in the long run.