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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
It's well-known among teachers that some people can program and some can't. They just don't have mindset for that. In a nut-shell, I want to ask if the same is true about web-design.
I have a friend who is a good designer in general and can produce reasonably good-looking sites with WYSIWYG editor like Dreamweaver. But, since we're starting a common project, I'd like someone who can 'get hands dirty': work with html and css code directly. For many reasons, I'm sure you understand.
Now I'm thinking to incite him to learn, but not sure what're the chances of success.
So, do you also need some 'programming abilities' to profess css and html, or it's just a matter of training for regular designer?
I would especially like to hear particular experience from web designers.
PS I intentionally leave out JavaScript, let's keep it simple
The best web designers I have worked with know a small amount of html but don't use it when they are designing the sites. They do their work in PhotoShop (a minority will use GIMP). The reality is that I would rather they concentrate on laying out eye catching websites instead of trying to code it and lay the site out on the fly.
A web designer is absolutely not the same person as a front end web developer. That person has a skillset aimed towards converting the designers work into a set of working html/css templates.
Let me be clear that I am not saying that there is no cross-over between the two skillsets, but rather that very few people will be excellent at both design and development. If you are willing to settle for less than stellar results, at least be sure you go into the project with your eyes open.
Not at all. HTML is not a programming language, it's a markup language.
It shouldn't take you long to figure it out; I did it when I was 12. I personally think you need to be a better, how do I put it... artist to design websites than a programmer.
Of course websites nowadays are a lot more interactive, and for that you'll need some sort of server scripting (PHP, ASP, etc) and Javascript - and these are real programming languages.
A web designer who can't hand code HTML/CSS is not a web designer. The lack of such skills shows more of an aptitude problem(wanting to improve one's self). the graphic designer + front end developer combo doesn't always work well, because chances are the developer doesn't have the eye for the details in the design, such as margin, line-height, text kerning etc etc. Also it's hard to convert the interactive elements as well.
edit: this topic has been debated within the web design community on and off for a while now. You may find some interesting links in the blog post I wrote regarding this issue.
you are much better to know how to code a website HTML / CSS / Javascript before you go saying your amazing with a WYSIWYG editor. Sure you can use software to create a nice looking site but when it comes down to it how do you solve cross browser issues? How do you add dynamic content (even without server side) a WYSIWYG editor is just like designing a website in powerpoint or word but a lot more smarts. Though without the backing knowledge you are not going to go far.
As for learning plain HTML / CSS is fairly simple its an easy markup to get the understanding of. But then with that comes more, learning how to SEO plain HTML for example. There is always more to a site than HTML / CSS for it to be successfull.
This seems like a life question; I suspect it is true about almost anything. I think it can be hard to guage someone's aptitude for programming without seeing them actually try to program for awhile, however. Many people need to struggle with it for awhile before an "AHA!" moment is reached.
Nevertheless, I don't think design skills and abaility to work with CSS and HTML necessarily correlate to an aptitude for programming, per se. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive,
It is not important for the designer to be able to program/markup/code in HTML or CSS. However, it is important for the designer to be aware of the current constraints imposed by HTML/CSS. With things becoming more dynamic, it is also important for the designer to understand how things are going to interact with each other. For example, you cannot become a real architect, without being aware of the constraints imposed by civil engineering.
But that's it. It is not important for a good designer to even know Dreamweaver or Photoshop or some other software :)
I am a university teacher, and I have also written both computer programs and HTML. Although I teach math, I understand the point about teaching computer programming. Although it might seem like there is no gray area between being able to program and not, I would say that writing in a markup language is one. You shouldn't divide the world into "cans" and "can'ts" with a question like this.
If he's a generally bright guy, yes you should encourage him to learn HTML and CSS. I wouldn't propagandize it as the thing that real men do or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Rather my argument would be to have a more complete perspective of what, after all, he's already been doing. Just as a racecar driver shouldn't necessarily need to pick up a wrench, but knowing what to do with one is useful for a deeper understanding. If you offer your friend a positive sell, the worst that can happen is that he'll say no and not take your advice. And who knows, he might even like it.
A lot of people either can't program or just wouldn't enjoy it, but don't mind writing in markup all that much. Most research mathematicians these days write their papers directly in a markup language, TeX/LaTeX, that in some ways looks a lot like HTML. Some mathematicians also like to write computer programs, but most of them don't. If they did like it, there is a good chance that they would have ended up in Silicon Valley. In fact in my profession, the whole question of can or can't write markup, or can or can't write programs, is stale. We're long used to a continuous range of abilities.
In my opinion, you can't have enough knowledge about this sort of stuff when doing any type of computer design or software implementation.
The more you know about the underlying technology, the better you will be at working with the high-level frameworks and constraints you live in.
Even if you work only in Photoshop in order to design a website, having the knowledge about what works and what will be more difficult in HTML/CSS/Whatever will give you an edge when designing that website over someone who doesn't know those details.
Of course, with knowledge comes constraints, which might be bad in and of themselves. Some of the best new technologies out there was built by people who didn't know that almost everyone else thought that what they tried to do was impossible.
But I still hold that more knowledge = Good Thing™
Web site creation especially a commercial website involves a LOT of different skill sets.
Back-end requires:
System Administration, Database Administration,
Web Applications development (anytime a website becomes interactive) requires server side programming skills and knowing various tools like (PHP, Java, ASP, Perl, C, C#, pick-flavour-of-the-month-server-side-language) and client side programming requires knowledge of browser behaviours mark-up languages and browser-side layout systems (HTML, javascript, CSS...)
Web Design requires artistic visual skills and related tools (Graphics programs)
Web Content requires language skills (Knowing how to proof read, translate, etc.).
Site Optimization requires knowledge of how to make sites appeal to various readers and audiences (both human and robotic)
A professional website involves several folks working in-tandem to bring all of the above together in various quantities.
If you are going to pursue something as a career, you need to know a bit about all aspects of that space and then follow in on what really excites you. So if someone is good at creating visually appealing content they should simply plan the content, and collaborate with someone to "program" their vision into the site.
Learning tools, and knowing about various components, is good as it tells you the boundaries and the playing field scope, but you don't need to know all of it to achieve professional competence in one specialization.
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.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I'm a developer, and I find that I have a hard time dealing with graphic and visual design. It's as though the part of my brain devoted to abstract reasoning swallowed up the visual part.
There are a pile of awesome introductions to various programming languages that assume a certain level of sophistication with programming. Are there any such tutorials for HTML and CSS? As in tutorials that approach HTML and CSS in a similar way?
Failing that, what good web design tutorials might you guys recommend?
HTML and CSS are just means to an end. 20 years from now we may have something different, but design fundamentals stay the same. From your question, I think you want to develop a sense of what is visually pleasing and usable and have the understanding to implement such designs.
Along those lines, look at magazine layouts; look at professional advertising; look at logo design and try to pick out the things which make them distinctive. Look at websites which are popular, easy to browse, easy to read.
Take the things you see and like and try to incorporate a little of that into each design you build. Some of the tools (like Photoshop) can be daunting at first, so don't try to conquer the world. Just make each design better than the last.
Here's a real, doable example that starts with only minimal knowledge:
Read some tabular data from a database; as a programmer, I'm sure you know how to do that.
Read a tutorial anywhere on HTML tables. Their structure involves only 3 major tags and a handful of supporting ones. [See footnote #1]
Put the data in the table with no styling. Looks terrible, right? Now identify why it looks terrible. What is not pleasing to the eye? Compare it to a clean layout on another site that you like.
Examine small details like padding and margins and learn the basic CSS rules to implement those things. In doing so, you will begin to develop a sense of fundamental usability and aesthetic guidelines (such as the importance of well-placed whitespace).
Now take one of those "daunting" tools like Photoshop and accomplish a really simple task. Maybe it will be something as simple as cropping an icon or creating a simple gradient for your table heading. Pick a task, and find a tutorial if you need to.
This all sounds extremely simple, but you would be surprised how many developers never bother to even try.
Another Example
Fonts make a huge difference in the aesthetics and usability of a visual design. Start by perusing a few major sites and looking at commonly used fonts. Do a little reading on what fonts are commonly used in print, and why.
Now take a technical approach. What fonts can we safely use on the web? What tools are available to us as developers to embed custom fonts?
Armed with this knowledge, create a plain page and try styling a small news article (cut and paste the raw text from somewhere; it doesn't matter).
Choosing a good font will improve the design. But what about headings? Special styles like drop-caps? It's all there in HTML and CSS; start reading best practices on semantically structuring documents and how to implement different styles.
At the end of this exercise, will you be an expert? Of course not. But you will have discovered a whole set of new technical avenues that you should pursue further like semantic structures, the HTML document model, and CSS text-styling directives.
You may even come across multi-device/accessibility topics, such as how to accommodate screen readers.
As a designer, you will begin to understand the level of effort which goes into something as "simple" as styling text and you will start to develop that intangible sense of what "feels" right. The better you get, the more your audience will share that feeling.
My Opinion
It's a common misconception that developers can't/shouldn't be visual designers. I disagree; engineers should understand end user experience, heuristics, and aesthetics. Not everyone can be a great visual designer, but I have taught many people the basics and their designs are always a cut above the rest (even if they aren't perfect). I have also built my career upon being comfortable with the most technical and the most user-facing aspects and frankly, it's a lot of fun. Nothing is off-limits.
Links
A List Apart - Code Articles - Great articles on specific technologies, but make sure to not miss out on other general design articles.
Color Theory
Color Palettes
Printed Text Guidelines - Extremely applicable for certain types of websites.
CSS Basics - straight from the W3.
[Footnote #1] - to any HTML/CSS developers: I am not suggesting that the OP build table-based layouts; just suggesting that they take a familiar data structure and get a sense for the tasks involved in styling it.
Graphic design and HTML/CSS are almost completely different domains. What is it that you're looking to get better at? Graphic design using programs such as Photoshop or Gimp? Are you looking to get a better technical understanding of how CSS and HTML work? Or are you looking to understand good UX (User eXperience) design and how to incorporate that into HTML/CSS layouts?
I think you need a better understanding of what it is that you're looking for first. Maybe take a look at W3C specs as a starting point. Having a technical background, reading these specs should be relatively trivial (for the most part) and will help you understand what it is that you want to understand.
I think the best way to become a good web designer and developer at the same time is to learn web development tutorials at thenewboston.com, they make learning easy and fun at the same time.
After learning CSS, HTML, Javascript, etc, you can download source code of various website templates and learn how from them.
I am starting server side programming with RoR. I am noticing that it's tightly coupled with css/html web design. (Maybe I am just perceiving it that way since this is my first time doing server side stuff).
I just want to know, are server side programmers usually well knowledgeable in css/html layout stuff? I understand the ruby part, but css is giving me a headache. Debugging with different browsers/testing/ a lot of trial and error and still buggy. Finally you get it to work with Firefox and I.E doesn't work anymore...
How do server-side programmers out there usually tackle the "looks"/UI? Do they get someone else to do the css stuff and worry mostly about the functionality?
Thanks.
I answered a similar question here.
Most of the times from something basic, like twitter-bootstrap is now fantastic to get something up and running quickly.
What happens next is up to you: either you have some interest and learn some design skills. Or you get in touch with a designer to do the designing for you. I seriously think you will need to have some HTML/CSS skills yourself, but that is not the same as designing.
It depends on the development shop your working for I suppose. Larger companies tend to have some people focus on the backend, and some on the front end to best suit peoples talents.
I would highly recommend becoming familiar with the front end UI as well for your own benefit though. Most small web development shops are seeking full stack developers that can manage all aspects of the web app from server configuration, backend logic, and UI. You'll be much more well rounded in solving your own challenges, and become a more valuable employee with a diverse skill set.
Since your using RoR I would recommend becoming familiar with SASS and Coffescript since they can save a lot of development time. Also sass provides excellent mixin features to help solve your CSS cross browser issues, which you can find several prepackaged ones in Thoughtbots bourbon gem. https://github.com/thoughtbot/bourbon
The question is impossible to answer.
Many server-side devs are well-versed in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, at least up to the "Oh that's the IE7 off-by-one bounding rectangle absolute-div positioning bug" point.
However, I think some groups of server-side devs are generally more adept than others: server-side environments like RoR, PHP, and so on tend to push more HTML/CSS onto the devs than, say, Java.
For me, the trick has been to keep the HTML and CSS relatively clean (sass/scss helps a lot), not obsess about pixel-perfect cross-browser appearances, and have layouts that you don't have to mess with much. There are HTML/CSS frameworks that help in this regard.
Conversely, a lot of designers don't know enough JavaScript to be useful--I think it is important for site developers to know enough JavaScript to provide the necessary functionality. Here again, the frameworks tend to breed different levels of JavaScript awareness, although that's changed somewhat as more sites get more interactive.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
We are in the process of starting a new company website and the question was brought to use or not a Content Management Solution. What will be the factors to consider to be able to debate between this two options.
Both of them have pros/cons, but I am sure that there has to be a few people out there that will have an external point of view to this situation. i will appreciate your opinion.
Thanks.
First lets consider the options:
No CMS - No Tools: you have a very good developer with a strong HTML background, some server side expertise and plenty of time on his/her hands.
No CMS but a light weight tool: You have a person or two who are comfortable with the basics of HTML, you site is mostly static and it is already built, but you need to update - you can consider any number of tools from (yes it is true) DreamWeaver, Aptana, Visual Studio WebExpres)
You have a small to medium web team and you have a medium for large site that is mostly content. I have found this to be the bulk of all projects that I have every seen. May times thes types of engagements end up with a large enterprise system becasue they incorrectly understood the two or three of the main factors that should drive an Enterprise CMS (read costs more that $250 and way more than free). Open source blogging engines like WordPress are very powerful and extensible. Add in a free editorial tool like LiveWriter and you have a lot if distributed editorial power, cheap, and it takes care of lots of things like Standards and SEO because it is just build solidliy in that respect. Plus there are a lot of people who can help you out. And it is very extensible.
Enterprise CMS:
Three factors should guide your decisions regarding CMS:
Large distributed editorial team that requires rigorous (usually complex) editorial workflows.
The site design and operation has been deemed secondary to some other functioanlity provided byt the CMS (simple SarBox Compliance, easy support for localizing the site to many languages)
In house experience with the product that has been positive and has proven ROI - but be clear, having purchased licenses is no reason to deploy. I have seen far too many cases where a large scale CMS was purchased (licensed) only to find it would not suit the true needs of the project. In some cases the clients were wise and moved on. In others they stuck to their purchase and to this day live in a world of hurt.
Start simple and grow - The average website had a half-life of 3 years. Make a series of small mistakes that you can easily correct through fast itteration. Only go for the big stuff when you are sure.
Instant smell that you are buying more than you need - you can't find out the price of the product until a sales person visits you and you can't get demo bits of the system untl you attend their traning session. By the time you get done with that, you could have an awsome site up and be buying everyone at your firm some nice libations.
For a company website, if you write your own, you're probably going to be reinventing a lot of what a CMS already gives you. The content on your site will most likely change frequently, and the company will probably want non-developers to maintain the content. With your own implementation, you'll have to provide management pages for non-devs to upload new content (text, images, docs, etc.), so it might make sense to just look at existing CMS frameworks.
The downside of a CMS is that you might have to work around styling issues to give the site the exact look-and-feel you're going for. Usually a good HTML/CSS developer can style any page in any way you want, so this isn't too big of a concern.
I think differently. A company website should be unique, personal, I thus I would avoid using a CMS.
Maybe you want a huge enterprise website, in this case a CMS will be better for you, but I'd rather write my simple content management than using a bloated, new hardware dependent website.
Oh, and the users will notice the difference in speed surfing through your hand-written website.
There are 3 points I think are important:
Personalization. CMSs can be
customized, but it's much worse to
style some pre-made html than
styling a pre-styled (since you
thought how you'd like it to be)
html.
Speed.
Web Standards - Accessibility - Unobtrusive JavaScript
Most CMS's are very extensible. You have a framework to start with, and from there you can add whatever you want. Also since practically all CMS's have modules/components/plugins from their community, you can immediately add to the core with even more features for exactly what you need.
Andy's right, too. You can layer the design on top of the the CMS, and it's very easy to extend the front end even more with all the great JS libraries out there - which will be largely CMS & language agnostic, so if you ever migrate from one CMS to another you can still keep a large portion of that code, too.
In short, modern CMS's are mature, easy to set up, highly extensible and customizeable so ... Don't reinvent the wheel unless you have some very strong, specific, compelling reason to do so.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a development process question.
Background: I work for a modest sized website where, historically, the designers created mockups/screenshots of what they wanted pages and components to look like, and the engineering team (myself included) turned them into html/css.
This works relatively well from a code cleanliness perspective, and helps significantly when it comes to writing javascript. It has fails, however, in helping to maintain consistency from one page/component to another. On one page, a header font might be 12px and on another 11px, largely because its a complicated site with lots to keep track of (and we've cycled through 4 designers.) We have only a few truly universal styles, and they only get used when the engineers recognizes the style - not when the designer tells them to.
Our most recent designer is a relatively capable HTML/CSS coder. We thought we might have him create mockups in HTML/CSS and hand us off the code for quick integration. Our hope was that the designer would be better at being consistent in his style and that it might save us some development time up front.
What we've discovered is that our designer is not quite as good as CSS as we had hoped and that his code is often slightly bloated and incompatible with what we need to do. Also, his style of coding is fundamentally different from the rest of the engineering team and isn't jiving terribly well with our established coding practices.
Question: How do you do the hand off from design to engineering? I know I've heard of companies that let their design team do all of the template coding, but I'm curious how that works. Does the design team actually incorporate members of the engineering team in those scenarios?
As we're structured right now, there's not a chance in hell we'd let our designer write the final templates and check them into SVN, even if he was a proficient HTML wiz. There's too much in the templates that requires knowledge of our codebase and of potential performance issues.
How do we get this process working? Is it a pipe dream?
Specifically - personally - since I come from a web-dev, small-shop background I do the CSS work and slicing the PSD (typically) myself. But then I like to think I'm well rounded like that :)
Generally, the best experience I've had of this was a largish company with very defined groups of developers including the design team who produced the gfx, the apps team who did the vast bulk of server-side coding and app architecture, and the UE (user experience) team who sewed the two together, producing XSLT/JSP/HTML markup in general, and the CSS and JS for the client-side.
There was a very structured process of:
userstory ->
"wireframe" (documents) ->
design (PSD) ->
"flat" markup (DHTML only) ->
integrated markup (with web-app)
Where "wireframe" would be close to a spec for UE, produced with UML or maybe visio. I have heard the term applied to step 4 which I think fits better, but this is what it was referred to as there.
Whilst this works well for the question at hand, I found it had other problems built in. It was very hard to work across teams, and because of the timescales the design team rarely involved UE in decision making (which put UE in some awkward positions), the apps team and design could be working at cross-purposes, and there wasn't a lot of scope to learn in these boxed in teams.
My suspicion (and I think ideal scenario) is that the developers on a project would each be capable of working with, say, 80% of the technology involved (be it CSS, SQL, whatever) to spread the decision control and risk, but each domain would have one (more?) "czar" who could act as authority and oversight within the domain. Actually producing those designs is to my mind a strange and magical skill in it's own right so I see no real overlap with developers there, but I think a pool of artists and project teams of cross-skilled programmers would be very powerful.
Apols for the long-windedness. I could go on at considerable length on this, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
btw, it seems like you could do with some serious web-devs there, (no offence). Having problems to "maintain consistency from one page/component to another" screams failure to grok CSS
In my experience, unless you limit your design severely, you need real coding skills to build a web page with interaction. Let me elaborate some. If you have built your pages very modular (think of GUI toolkit widgets) you can give your designer a handful of them, he can build the basic structure like playing toy blocks with a nice finishing paint.
Often, modularization alone is not enough for desired interactivity. So, some blocks needs their interactions to be designed carefully as well (like animation, fluid layout to accommodate indeterminate content, customized behaviour via extra javascript, caching to eliminate redundant requests and speeding up things) or ability to accommodate minor presentation variations, which brings us to the realm of programming, where you calculate dimensions, enable/disable parts, keep track of time, preload stuff, invalidate preloaded stuff and so on.
Enter HTML/CSS/JS. They are more of a product of evolution than intelligent design. You cannot always declare your intent and be done with it. You need attributes declared in your html, stupid hacks in CSS combined with extra markup, ridiculous amounts of js to smooth rough edges, duplicate rendering code on the server side. These tool were never meant to build applications.
I don't think one can achieve a complete separation of design and application development in these tools at hand. The effort required is too high to justify the marginal returns.
If you end up heavily modifying designer's code (which is othen the case if he is not one of the developers also), there is no point in making him suffer trying to express his intent using the wrong tools, nor developers breaking the design while modifying it and consequently fixing it. I don't even mention user experience.
In my opinion, no small internet businesses who want to ship a product in a reasonable time should spend their scarce resources to go against the grain. Let people do what they do best in collaboration if necessary. If you can't divide design process at an arbitrary satisfying point, you may as well not bother to separate at all. Pipelining works well for machines whose goal is determined to the last detail and not changing. I can't say the same for humans building and designing things be it software or hardware.
Where I work it's basically the same. Designers create mock-ups and specifications of the UI design, right down to the pixel, and the developer creates HTML/CSS/code out of that.
The reason I say code, is that we use UI frameworks (namely, GWT), and as much as we would want to, code and CSS styles are still very coupled. I do not believe there exists one UI framework in which code can be completely decoupled from the UI design.
So I guess for now it's still entirely the developers job. Though I would like to hear about organization which are able to hand off some of the work to designers.
The problem with handoffs is that the idea and implementation of one group is not going to match the abilities and implementation of the next group. Just by their nature handoffs are going to be wrought with problems. So what is an alternative to the ubiquitous handoff scenario? I think that integrating the user experience (UX) into an agile and iterative development process makes sure that what is really important occurs:
The customer's needs are researched then validated.
Early and continuous collaborating between usability experts, designers and programmers.
The actual process works by having everyone collaborate with the customer up-front on their needs. Then the design is researched and prototyped in the iteration before coding begins. Thus when coding is occurring, the next set of designs are being worked on. Programmers should be looking forward at what designers are doing and the designers look back to be sure programmers are on target. Once a design is coded, it goes to the customer for acceptance, by that time the programmers are working on the next set of interfaces.
Jeff Patton did a podcast on Agile UX recently that goes into some of the implementation concepts and common problems.
There is a whole group on Yahoo dedicated to agile usability (which mostly involves interface design).
For the CSS inconsistencies... I'd just suggest making a style guide then trying to stick to it. Have someone be in charge of "design consistency" that way the can spank anyone inventing yet another way to display the user.
At my company, my ideal work flow doesn't work very often, but sometimes it does. I löve when this happens: The engineers write the webapp and output semantic html with only minimal CSS. then you have the designers do the CSS.
I like it when it goes this way, because:
It is easy for me to write semantic
HTML.
I am not very good at coming up
with a good design for my semantic
html.
It is entirely possible to do
the CSS without asking me questions.
The markup just speaks for itself.
However, this rarely works. Because:
The CSS has to be modified whenever the HTML changes and the designers' time is sparse.
Moreover, our designers don't enjoy styling my markup, and fighting for their time is not pleasant.
Our designers often want to change the markup. Mostly because they believe some layouts cannot be done without changing the markup or because they believe that it's the only way to make IE obey. They are technically not able to change the markup, though.
I have my doubts about many of their cases. Many times they claim IE incompatibility, I strongly doubt they really know IE that well. There are neat CSS hacks to make IE obey without resorting to
<br clear="all">
So, sadly, usually this ideal is a little off for me.
A separate designer - developer workflow is the best way to go. Designing a website and coding it are altogether different jobs. There are issues of cross browser compatability, CSS, XHTML, apart from coding standards to deal with.
You could also opt for outsourcing your HTML to a specialized PSD to HTML conversion expert like us (ButterflyHTML). It may work out cost effective in the long run