Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I always read "web designer", "web developer", and "web programmer", but don't understand the difference between them.
What is the difference? An example would be appreciated.
The way I always looked at it:
Web Designers make it look good.
Web Developers/Programmers make it work.
In my experience people use the designer label when they are talking about people who do front-end design -- graphics, user interface, etc and programmer/developer when talking about people who do back-end coding and, perhaps, front-end work as well. Other than the wording I don't consider there to be much difference between developer and programmer, though some may argue that a developer takes a role in more than just writing code. I would argue that all developer/programmers do this, but just to a greater or lesser extent.
FWIW -- I call myself a software developer who specialize in web applications. I usually do the whole gamut from UI design to backend implementation and testing.
Web designer: Someone who designs the look and feel of the web pages
Web developer: Someone who writes backing code for pages (ie HTML, CSS, etc)
Web programmer: Someone who uses backend server languages, like ASP, PHP, Ruby, etc, to write the logic for a web application.
I like to use an analogy
Web Designer: Interior Decorator/Designer
Web Developer/Programmer: Carpenter/Electrician/Plumber
(As I always see these as interchangeable roles in web dev)
DannySmurf's definitions are straight forward and can be used as the defacto heuristic, but I would have to say that the term Web Developer can be synonymous with both Web Designer and Web Programmer depending on the context.
Sometimes, the person who creates the visual layout of a site is also capable of handling the HTML and CSS bits. Other times, the person who is developing the HTML and CSS bits is also well versed in JavaScript and handles the Model, View, Controller portions of the website programming (PHP, ASP, Ruby, etc.).
The system logic that may reside behind the scenes would then be coded by other programmers who may refer to themselves as Web Programmers because the end product that they build is an application accessed via the web.
Personally, I drop out the term Web Programmer, and simply use:
Web Designers: persons responsible for the creative invention of the look & feel of the website from a graphical layout perspective.
Web Developers: persons responsible for the execution of pages designed by Web Designers, including the HTML, CSS, JavaScript and server-side components such as PHP, ASP, Ruby, etc.
Web designer is someone who designs Web pages. They, along with the client, choose a colour palette, position things, and make it visually appealing. They are concerned with the usability and design. It's usually all done in Photoshop, at which point they pass it off to the Web developer.
A Web developer creates the Web site - write the HTML, CSS and, if the page has any dynamic content, will develop that as well.
A Web programmer, to my knowledge, is basically the same thing as a Web developer. They are only concerned with the technical aspects of a Web page.
Web Application = Form + Function
Web Developer = Designer + Programmer
However, in real world things are not as straightforward. It goes like this:
Designer = Pretender (I can develop your website)
Programmer = Fixer (I fixed your beautiful but none-functioning website)
Developer = Unemployed! (you should have given me the job in the first place)
Something needs to be done to fix this mess. Long live developer.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently started learning coding I actually didn’t know where to start after doing some researching I decided learning the javascript language as a first step . After finishing the courses on freecodecamp I didnt know what to do next I heard so many things to the point that I feel like I dont know anything . I would like someone to actually help me understand basics before languages, html css ...
Here are my questions :
Are libraries essential to build a website or create games ?
What ui and ux ? ( I heard that its for webpages designing though I also heard that css is also for web designing )
What’s a framework ?
Does all languages have libraries ?
Can you develop apps without libraries or frame work just using css html and javascript(example)
Are libraries essential to build a website or create games?
Yes. Any code you write will fundamentally become your library.
What ui and ux?
UI is the user interface of any tool that requires input. UX is the user experience of a given interface. For example, an airplane pilot is given an interface to control the aircraft, and the controllers are meaningfully arranged to give the pilot the ability to fly safely. The result of the user experience is determined by the pilot's ability to accomplish a task.
What’s a framework?
A framework is the foundation for deploying multiple functionalities for specific tasks. For example, an airport specifically manages how passengers arrive and depart to a new location by air travel. Similarly, a boating dock specifically manages how passengers travel over water. Here is a list of a few web frameworks out there: Github Frameworks
Do all languages have libraries?
Most languages include built-in libraries. For example, Javascript includes basic math functions.
Can you develop apps without libraries or frame work just using css html and javascript(example)
Yes and no. HTML is a markup language, and CSS is used to style your information. Fundamentally, you can write a static web app with html, hide or reveal information with css, and link out to other pages. If you intend to write an app with functionality that manipulates the HTML or CSS, you will need a programming language such as Javascript.
Are libraries essential to build a website or create games? In a way no, but they will make your life much easier if you use them properly.
What is UI and UX? User Experience and User Interface. The first one (UX) is in charge of researching the user and it's context to plan and design the basic structure and flow of any platform, app, etc... The later (UI), using the UX outcome, manages the final design, the look-n-feel of it, as well as all the interactions.
What’s a framework? A library of a coding lenguage. They are very useful when you are developing, helps cut time if you can settle for somewhat generic functions-styles. Personally, I still customize the looks as some of them they can look a bit too generic
Does all languages have libraries? Most of them, yeah. All web development languages I know do.
Can you develop apps without libraries or frame work just using css html and javascript(example)? Yes, but for these lenguages it sounds like a waste of time not to use them. The basics to start on those 3 would be Bootstrap, jQuery and their
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
my son would like to get into web designing, but i'm a backend guy so i can't help him with any artistic or design matters.
there are alot of tutorials and many ways to do it.
can someone point us in the right direction to develop great looking web 2.0 type sites.
from what i gather i think most people do the graphics in photoshop then they slice it to make it html friendly, am i correct? im looking for the mainstream way of doing it so he can easily find a job and help along the way.
we just need the design aspect of it, when it comes to jquery stuff i can help whim out.
thanks,
glenn.
"can someone point us in the right direction to develop great looking web 2.0 type sites."
Pretty much the same path you took to learn the back-end stuff. Typically years of schooling and/or training and work experience.
For those that want careers being web designers, you typically want a degree in graphic design or human factors of some sorts. Graphic Design will lean a bit more towards art and visual design, while a human factors or library sciences degree will lean a bit more towards the interaction design and information architecture. With some experience, people can become adept at both.
Mix in with that an understanding of front end development, and then you have a pretty well rounded web designer.
But I'm not entirely sure that was what you were asking.
If you were asking about 'workflow', yes, in the past, a graphic designer (not necessarily with any skills or understanding of web design) would make a pretty photoshop file, then some poor front end developer would have to try and slice that up into some HTML.
Fortunately, that's not how it's done much anymore.
These days you want to have a web designer that's as adept at Photoshop as they are at writing a bit of HTML. Barring that, you want a team that has both roles who work collaboratively.
The design of a succesful web site requires a wide variety of roles to help shape the complete user experience. In the past, and still today in less succesful models, this was done like an assembly line:
marketing/graphic designer make cool looking PSD file
front end developer slices and dices and pieces together a bloated front end
back end team wires it all up
And then someone finally gets the copy written and the client realizes they are making a web site and start thinking about interactions finally, and then things fall apart because the waterfall model doesn't accomodate the iterative design process required for web design.
These days, fortunately, things are getting a bit smoother. A decent process will involve these roles and they will work collaboratively each step of the way:
product manager (client rep)
business analyst
information architect
interaction designer/front end dev
graphic designer/marketing
copywriter
and input from the development team, legal, etc.
Now you don't need 20 people to do this, but all aspects need to be accounted for to get that magic 'web 2.0' site up and running.
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.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My website will be basically selling services; will my SEO ranking still be affected if I embed the Flash site in a blank html page? I am at that critical point where I am ready to upload the site but I am just having second thoughts about the ease of doing business with Flash.
Ignoring the SEO implications of an all-Flash site, unless you're building games, or I have an extremely strong desire to buy what you're selling, I will turn back immediately if I find a website built entirely out of Flash.
Nothing against your programming skill; I just have rarely seen such a site give me what I want. The name is often apropos.
Search engine crawlers can't crawl flash sites, so your SEO rankings will be based off the non-flash part (the blank html page). Personally, I also don't really like the user experience of a flash-only site.
Google and Yahoo! have added flash crawling functionality to their engines recently.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/swf_searchability.html
From a SEO perspective you're fine on that front. Still..your page will need a DOC TYPE, Page Title, etc to remain SEO compliant.
IF your target market is users browsing your site from a laptop or desktop you should be fine. You may want to include a flash-free option for users accessing your site on a mobile phone or with javascript/flash disabled.
For example, You can run a browser sniffer to redirect any user agents accessing the page on Safari via an iPhone OS.
Other than that Flash does offer some nice flair to a site. If you can give alternatives to users that don't like the application then I say do it.
It can certainly be done well. I've seen some pretty cool Flash-powered stuff being run by some pretty big-name companies, do a search for HP's Photosmart page for instance.
Look: there's a lot of information out there about Flash and SEO, and much of it is out of date. Google rolled out "official" flash support about a year ago, and they've been refining it ever since. Google will index your Flash site, but exactly what gets indexed is a bit of a black box so it always helps to have HTML alt-copy.
Never, ever build a full-flash website without using SWFObject for embeds and always try to use SWFAddress to enable Flash Deep-linking. There are ways to make this work and work well - a lot of people don't know that and have a deep-seated hatred of all things Flash because they were irritated by Splash pages in 2002. There's nothing to be done about them.
But if you want to use Flash, go for it - just do a lot of homework and test your work.
Whether or not it's business suicide depends on how much of your revenue is dependent on getting referrals from search engines. Your search engine ranking will certainly be affected if you have an HTML page in which you simply embed some flash.
Could you implement an alternative more static site, by scraping the main content from your flash?
all web applications should be made from the point of view of accessibility, no matter what the scripting language used at the time. If you use a nice script like SWFObject then you can populate your page with "alternative content" to the flash page which the search engines will crawl. this will also allow any browser that doesnt have flash to have a look at the website, even if you dont make the whole thing as "pretty" in HTML.
two birds as they say.
I don't know whether you've considered this or not, or whether it applies to your circumstances, but you might lose out on business from the visually impaired. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think there are any screen readers that operate on Flash.
I think it depends on what kind of business we are talking about.
For most, I would say don't do it!
But there are ome kinds of sites where I think it is appropriate, if done very well. For example if you are in the business of art or design, or are showcasing a product/service where art or design is key.
As an example:
Volkswagon's GTI Project (a large part of what cars are about is design)
Flash has fallen out of favour the last few years with a lot of people. Initially it was because search engines didn't crawl it but these days it's mainly because 'flashy' effects can be done with javascript engines like jquery, scriptaculous or mootools.
Having said that I can tell you that nearly every business customer I go to still wants flash on their site and most casual web users don't give two hoots what a site is built like as long as it works, is fast (something kinda tricky to do with flash) and is what they want to look at.
I say go for it and see how the site does! I'm sure if you use analytics for a few weeks you will know whether your site is doing well or not.
Best of luck with it :)
For some reason Motorola made their new Droid site all in Flash.
This is a good article about how dreadful it is, and the drawbacks:
newmedia article
There are a ton of good reasons to use Flash sparingly. It's good for what it does well and dreadful for entire sites.
Ok so first of all, perspective, my primary domain is Flash and system architecture, I and the company that I work for at present are all about creating online 'digital experiences', engaging online content.
This is NOT applicable to selling services, e-commerce, and general information based sites, as much as it pains me to say that. There is current a massive backlash against flash due to the arrival of javascript effects and the canvas tag, I'm going to be bold here and say that anyone who thinks they can replace x years of plugin development and and media experience by giving html/javascript devs a div they can draw into are simply misguided (and you can show me all the chrome experiments you want but its still not going to be pixel bender or native 3D support).
So with that said, in this climate you've got to play to each formats strengths, you want slick, stylised SEO'd content that is accessible and concise, html with progressively enhanced javascript is a no brainer. You want a web app that people can use easily, search and build a micro-community around then googles GWT (other js frameworks are available) is the way to go. For everything in-between and beyond theres Flash.
I'm not giving Flash a kicking (it's my lively-hood after all), far from it, in fact I'm actively encouraging people to use Flash only for the kind a digital master-pieces it was made for, if you can do it in HTML, why would you do it in Flash? Sure in most cases it actually works out lighter than JS, and it's cross-browser compatible, but these are small issues that will only be ironed out in time, HTML was designed for the web, Flash was designed as a plugin.
In coming years we will see Flash on a multitude of devices with the open-screen project and the iphone-flash cross compiling, it is becoming a platform for multimedia development in general, where-as the web is becoming more service orientated platform, web apps running off searchable indexed content in the cloud. If your website is intended for the web, then make it for the web.
(Just realised that this was a bit of a rant, apologies)
If you created a web site with Flash, user will not be able to use basic browser functions and extensions such as searching, spell checking, sharing a particular page via Twitter, etc.... (And cannot access from iPhone.)
Depends on the site in question. If its just displaying marketing collateral or case-studies then a "flashy display" would be fine. Have seen couple of such websites in the past and the better ones have impressed me.
You should also consider how frequently content would change and how it impacts your design in Flash vs say design in html. The search engine ranking aspect also will matter.
You won't get any business from me.
Nothing says 'amateur' on the web like pointless Flash.