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 9 years ago.
At work I see one colleague designing a site in Photoshop/Fireworks, I see another taking this data, slicing it up and using Dreamweaver to rebuild the same from scratch.
It seems like too much mucking around!
I know that Photoshop can output a tables based HTML, and Fireworks will create divs with absolute positioning; neither appear to be very helpful.
Admittedly, I haven't tried much of (DW/FW) (CS4/CS3) since becoming a programmer, so I don't know if new versions are addressing this work flow issue, but are we still double handling things?
Can we attach some sort of layout metadata (this is a rollover button, this will be a SWF, this will be text, this logo will hide "xyz" <h1> text etc) to slices to aid in layout generation? are there some secret tools which assist in this conversion process? Or are we still restricted to doing things by hand?
The frustration continues when said hand built page needs to be reworked again to fit Smarty Templates/Wordpress/generic CMS.
I acknowledge that designers need to be free of systems to be able to do whatever, but most conventional sites have:
a header with navigation
a sidebar with more links
the main content part
maybe another sidebar
a footer
Given the similarity of a lot of components, shouldn't there be a more systematic approach to going from sliced designs to functional HTML?
Or am I over-simplifying things?
-edit-
Mmmmm.... I suppose I will accept an answer, but they weren't really what I was looking for.
It just seems like designing the DOM is a bit of holy grail ("It's only a model!"), and maybe with all the "groovy" things you can do with HTML and Javascript, it would be mighty hard work, but with a set of constraints (that 960 stuff looks interesting), some well designed reset style sheets and a bit of... fairy dust? we should be able to improve the work flow.
Photoshop's tables by themselves are pretty much useless, I agree, but surely we can take this data, and then select a group of cells and say "right, this is a text div, overflow:auto" or "these cells are an image block, style it with the same height/width as the selected area". Admittedly here at work there are other elephants in the room that need to make their formal introductions to management, but some parts of the design>page workflow seem... uneducated at best.
To me, doing it by hand is an advantage. You only have to get it right once, and if you're going specifically for visual appeal, you've likely got a lot of work ahead of you making it cross-browser friendly...
Would love to hear other answers. This is just my take on it as I make more data-driven than visually appealing sites.
Skip Photoshop entirely and just get your designers mocking up straight in the view HTML. Not only will you remove the complicated, awkward-feeling process you're feeling, but you'll get better, more resilient designs, because 100% of it will be based on what's possible in HTML/CSS, not what's possible in Photoshop.
More reading:
Why We Skip Photoshop
(37signals)
Walls Come Tumbling Down (Andy
Clarke) (via Jason Berry's
answer)
Web Designers Should Do Their Own
HTML/CSS (37signals) (via Paul
Souders' answer)
A number of people nowadays are designing straight into the browser using (X)HTML/CSS because of that exact problem - all of the mucking around with Photoshop and then going to code after getting the client to sign-off on a static design.
A good read is Andy Clarke's Walls Come Tumbling Down presentation.
Omega touched on it, but I think the biggest problem is cross-browser compatibility. If all those browser quirks didn't exist (coughInternetExplorercough), what you suggested would be much simpler. However, it often takes a lot of hand-coding to make it look pixel-perfect in every browser.
Another thing is fine-grained control. Sure, you can just pop your PSD template into Dreamweaver or whatnot and have a working website, but it's going to use hacks and ugly things like tables to make it work. And even then, it probably won't work entirely like you want it to. You have to remember things like accessibility and SEO, too, and Dreamweaver just can't give you that.
My opinion is that HTML/CSS is sufficiently simple that a competent web designer should be moderately fluent in it. Photoshop has its place for quick look-and-feel experiments, but I think this misses an important step: user experience design.
Personally, I've been designing and prototyping directly in HTML for some time now. This is where the clean separation of content and layout provided by CSS really shines. I organize pages into regions using unstyled divs, which allows me to organize the page conceptually (i.e. keep related items near each other in the code) and postpone thinking about appearance. This has the side effect of making a pretty thorough site inventory.
Next I'll use CSS to lay out the divs, which happily also produces wireframes (useful for reviews and paper prototyping.)
The last step is applying visual elements: color, text styles, graphics. I'll use whatever graphic program I need to cook up the pretty.
Note the orthogonality inherent in this method: develop concepts, then layout, then look and feel. This puts the hard thinking (conceptual models) up front, and the most volatile thinking (colors/styles) at the end. So when the art director changes the color palette, you only have to edit one CSS file. And if you need to change your conceptual model, much of the layout and look/feel may be reusable.
If you need traction in this method you can use a standard css grid like 960 (http://960.gs/). It handles a lot of the arithmetic and floaty business that makes layout such a chore.
In addition to Rahul's link above I also recommend: http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1066-web-designers-should-do-their-own-htmlcss
It's a nice pie-in-the-sky sorta dream, but I think as long as websites are written in (X)HTML/CSS, at the end of the day, you'll always have to do some, most or all of the work manually.
There's just a fundamental rift between static pixels in some 'shopping software and dynamic, changing, expanding, content-focused, text-based sites. The best tool to bridge that gap is still... the human professional.
Tools like iWeb (completely WYSIWYG) or DW/Fireworks (somewhere in the middle) only get you so far or have serious limitations. You get only pre-fabbed templates in case of iWeb, often sub-optimal code in case of DW/Fireworks. You'll have to decide which limitations you can live with and when it's best to do it manually.
There are several tools such as Sitegrinder that do just that.
Adobe themselves has a project in Labs called Catalyst that does what you describe and more for Flash:
It takes the slices from Photoshop, allows you to change their properties and export it to a working Flash file. (Right click box, add text property, it becomes a text field...)
If you watch their video (which you should - its amazing), you will see that they are deluded into thinking that websites will soon be built this way.
Before Zimbra was bought by Yahoo, it looked like they were heading towards such a tool that outputted cross-platform HTML similar to what catalyst does for flash. No more. But with the shake-ups at Yahoo, such software may still rise from the Zimbra ashes.
In my opinion, a site should be mocked up in Photoshop if necessary, with parts being cut out for use in the actual site, but to design the site completely in Photoshop, then want to make it work on the web is just going about it backwards. Really the two should be done in parallel.
In short, graphic designers design the look of a website, but you need a programmer to program it.
What you probably should go for is train the designers to work within a well established grid system for their site designs. If they can understand the layout as a grid/block system a lot of interesting design can be accomplished within those constraints. But it isn't going to be straight conversion from PSD to HTML because they are two completely different ways of representing visual data.
There are lots of frameworks that make the css work easier. One is Blueprint CSS
http://www.blueprintcss.org/
There are lots of templates out there for representing the grid system within photoshop.
http://konigi.com/tools/photoshop-template-blueprint-css-comps
Think of the grid as a visual constraints layer, then the design can be mapped between a photoshop comp and specific HTML/CSS implementation. Visual elements have to be bounded within clean grid boxes. SOme elements or units within the grid can be mapped to background images. Others solid colors or white space with div containers holding content.
With a well understood and grid framework you can get pretty close to pixel perfect layouts.
Also, good designers will understand how to use white space effectively in a design mockup. If there is lots weird intersecting lines and crossover elements in the visual design then that presents a real challenge for implementation. Just because you can visually imagine it doesn't mean it is easy to implement in a browser without making certain kinds of trade offs for the way HTML and CSS work. Think of the grid system as the constraints and an effective way to judge layout requirements.
Personally, I design it in html/css first using borders and background colors. I then take the PSD and insert the images as background images or html images. It's pretty fast, the code is yours so you know what each css rule mean which speed up the dev process (as opposed to to PS's awkward sliced image names and css selectors names)
Related
I've recently been going over some HTML and CSS stuff to get more into web development, I have been designing sites on and off for a while now and I would love to start actually developing some.
I've seen Bootstrap mentioned so many times all over the internet and I was wondering if someone could help me out and point me in the right direction... I've been learning the fundamentals of HTML/CSS and as I understand it, Bootstrap is a html/css UI framework?
I have my own UI designs in a PSD file, how would I get them to work within Bootstrap?
Is it a matter of slicing up my images and adding custom CSS into Bootstrap?
I know that I am a long way off from this, but this is the type of stuff I want to be doing:
http://heyflat.com/themes/todo/index.html
If you can point me towards the type of stuff I should be learning in order to get there I would much appreciate it, so far I will continue with my html/css stuff but I would love to start using Bootstrap and customizing it seems essential to me for what I would like to be able to achieve...
Thank you for reading :)
Updated
Overall, my process has not changed much except for how I think about converting PSDs to HTML and CSS. I look forward to the day I discover a tool as flexible and comfortable as Photoshop that can output directly to good HTML and CSS. That day has yet to come to me. Here's the process I follow, utilizing Photoshop and Bootstrap.
I find that Photoshop is a great way to imagine, share and iterate over a visual design because it frees me to experiment in ways that are currently either impossible or too time consuming to realize just with HTML and CSS.
Once a design is agreed upon, I begin planning how the target design will be realized with HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
I consider the browsers of my target audience. For example, IE8-, does not support rounded borders. If IE8- users are a large portion of my audience and those rounded borders are critical to the design I may take the time to slice out images and add extra HTML and CSS.
I decide if I am going to use a framework like bootstrap. Browser support must also be considered when deciding on a framework. If a framework has examples like bootstrap then I can checkout those examples in various browsers. If using a framework then I commit to doing it their way. That is, I use their grid system, html and class names for everything. I only add my own when the framework cannot meet a specific need. I do augment their classes as needed using a separate stylesheet but always in appropriate, low risk ways, bootstrap encourages this. I will probably never augment the grid system except perhaps through their customizer, but I have never needed to do that.
Next I implement the design. I may find that some elements need to be sliced out of the PSD, but most, like drop shadows, rounded borders and gradients, can be rendered using CSS. Some aspects of the PSD may need to be tweaked to accommodate responsive behavior or to make implementation simpler. As has always been the case, I target standards compliant browsers first and adjust for the others later. One of the nice parts about a good framework is that there is usually very little that needs tweaked.
I review the document at various resolutions in browsers my target audience use, and consider and implement additional tradeoffs as needed. For example, if it is not critical that those rounded corners show up in IE8- then I will keep it simple, render them using CSS, and let IE8- alone. I still verify that it looks acceptable in IE8 and IE7.
Steps 4 and 5 are generally not sequential but steps I bounce back and forth on. Also, make sure your client is on board or you can get them on board with how you are supporting various (not-so-modern) browsers and your reasons for doing so (shorter load times, less development time, easier maintenance, and so on).
Bootstrap 2 examples: http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/getting-started.html#examples
Bootstrap 3 examples: http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/#examples
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 a Web developer and in my projects I have noticed that my weakest point is not being good at the front-end design. Relying on other designers can be annoying if they are not able to produce as quickly as I want.
My perspective on HTML/CSS is that it is basically a big hack that amazingly works. There are too many CSS and browser specific bugs/quirks to learn and remember them all without spending extreme amounts of time trying to untangle everything. Is there a fast track route to getting CSS into my brain? I have looked at some CSS books, but to me they really read as long lists of how to render things correctly in IE6 and how to make corners rounded. (Seriously why does it require so many tricks to make a sharp corner round? On any platform but the Web this would be called a major oversight.)
Does there exist something that does the analogous to CSS that jQuery does for JavaScript? Using jQuery you don't need to know JavaScript well to make things that work.
I am not interested in learning why IE6 does things in weird ways because I don't care about supporting it at all. I am more interested in a method of learning how to use CSS to do what I want without spending hours and hours reading obscure blogs.
Pencil and paper to sketch out your ideas (think in boxes, not triangles or hexagons), then just break down all the little parts and learn how to do each one. No problem is too big that it can't be broken down. And, like always, TMTOWTDI!
Find examples and learn from it—at least that's how I started learning. Study the styles used and play around with them. When you find something that does what you like, create a mock-up and play around with it. Then test it for cross-browser compatibility.
If you get frustrated because something works in Firefox and Chrome, but not in IE (this will happen a lot), don't give up. I find cursing Bill Gates' name and all he stands for is a great stress reliever. :-)
A great tool I like to use is Firebug, a plugin for Firefox that allows you to, among a great many other things, edit CSS rules in-browser and see the results as soon as you do it.
I agree that CSS was kind of an afterthought in the web design world, but it's one hell of an invention and makes things so much easier and quicker to develop.
Yes, there are CSS frameworks that are the 'jQuery of CSS'. Some of the more popular ones include 960 and Blueprint. I personally use 960 and have found it takes a lot of the guesswork out of layout.
As others have said CSS is hard to learn by reading. It ends up being one of those things you just need to develop an instinct for through lots of experience (which typically means lots of trial, error, and frustration). It is, as you've highlighted, not an ideal situation, but it is what it is.
Another difficulty is that the methodologies or workflow that is employed can really differ between individuals. Some people do a mock-up in Photoshop first, then produce an exact pixel-by-pixel "rendering" with HTML/CSS. Others use Photoshop, Illustrator, or another tool to simply sketch out and idea, and then re-create it from scratch in HTML/CSS. And still others prefer to start directly with HTML/CSS and just a few thumbnail sketches. Figuring out which of these methods fits you best is anthoer important piece of the puzzle.
It pretty much takes time and practice. But you can save yourself a lot of trouble if you keep your html clean and straightforward. Here are a few rules I can think of that have helped me:
Use DOCTYPE in your html pages, start with transitional since it has the most lax rules, and validate your html. If you keep your page in standards mode rather than quirks mode, you will have significantly fewer problems across the board.
Pick what browsers you will support early on and support them in a logical order. For me, I develop in firefox, then make sure that things are solid on chrome / safari. IE can use a special kind of comment that lets you insert html visible only to IE. Use that to add on stylesheets for IE7, then IE6 to override styles and fix any display issues in those browsers. You should generally start with the best browser first and work your way backward.
Be careful with padding. That is one of the most problematic properties I've dealt with. When you can, opt for using a little sub-container element with a margin in place of padding. It's more markup but margin is handled much better across all browsers.
Absolute-positioned elements inside of relative-positioned elements. This solves a LOT. When you relative position an element, it stays in it's normal flow. When you absolute position elements inside of a parent that is relative, the absolute items work in reference to the location of the parent.
In this case I don't think books will help much. CSS is extremely easy to learn, and extremely difficult to master.
All I can suggest is learn as you go.. You need a lot of experience!
Or, you can drop support for IE7 and especially IE6. If you do that you'll find very very few and very very rare quirks :)
Take some classes in graphic design. No programming language will make you an artist, and artistry is required for good user-interface design.
[or you could find better graphic designers to work with]
Subscribe to css-discuss, play with the common problems and talk with other people about your progress. The wiki is a very useful resource too.
I'm trying to compile a guide for students used to publishing in print who are learning web design.
Some obvious things which web developers know but they don't:
You can't rotate graphics in HTML
All objects have to be rectangular, you can't have a circular DIV
Many typographical effects in their repertoire can't be achieved
Some things which are tricky are:
Can they have variable opacity? Well, yes and no.
Can they have rounded corners? Maybe.
Some things which aren't technical difficulties, but which are problems:
Image file sizes: I have a student who wants to have a different large graphic header on every page of their site; that's not technically a problem, but it will mean a visitor has to wait for a new graphic to load every time they navigate
Accessibility: "why not just make everything a graphic, to overcome the limitations of HTML?"
Please help me fill out my list and add any hints or tips for people making this transition.
web is not print
Layouts can be fluid.
elements don't have to be absolutely positioned
web pages need to be checked in several browsers for compatibility
avoid divitis; from experience people coming from print into this field do everything by brute force instead of trying to think of elegant solutions for optimization and semantics purposes
print is consumed visually - the web is consumed by people with visual impairments as well. Don't forget lynx users no matter how small the market share is :)
semantics is important, learn about them
thats all i can think of right now...
Coming from someone who has done both print design and web design (and done a decent job at both, I think), it seems like you're off to a good start. Other thoughts:
Darko Z mentioned this but I think it's worth stressing that browser incompatbilities must be recognized and dealt with. In the print industry there are standard formats like PDF which guarantee that things will come out in print the way they look in design; besides, many publishers will directly accept the native file formats of the most popular design programs, like Adobe InDesign, Quark XPress, even MS Word (for the cheapskates ;-P). The point being that print designers are used to a "set it and forget it" approach where they assume that once they design something a certain way, it will stay designed. The fact that there are different web browsers which render the same web pages slightly differently is likely going to be a major pain in the butt for people used to the print world.
Addendum to the above: fonts. You can't use (or at least can't rely on) uncommon fonts in web design, for obvious reasons.
Screen real estate has to be used effectively because there's a limited amount of it. And I mean really limited - no matter how hard you try, you can't write HTML that will make someone's monitor expand 5 inches or put another screen on the back ;-) It's not like in print where people can peek back and forth between different pages of a book. Reading web pages is kind of like looking at parchment through binoculars; you have to design the pages with that limited field of view in mind.
Web page designs are dynamic and transient; they stay up for a while, they get boring, they get recycled/replaced with new designs. So you're not stuck with mistakes. But it also means you need to design with future changes in mind, e.g. by using CSS so you can change the look of whole classes of elements easily. There is some use of styles in print design but nowhere near as much as online.
Fonts and Text
You are limited to a small subset of
fonts
Fonts are viewed at different sizes
There is a readability limit for how
wide paragraphs should stretch (in a
fluid layout)
Write for readers of all types - Some
will skim, others will read in detail
Images
Sites are viewed at different
resolutions and screen sizes - Design accordingly
To achieve transparent backgrounds in
IE6, use PNG8 with alpha (IE6 doesn't
support varying levels of
transparency, it's either 100%
transparent or it's opaque)
Use CSS sprites
Images should not be used in place most of text
The img tag should be used for images
with semantic value and all layout
images should be CSS images
Every img tag needs to have the alt
attribute to validate
(X)HTML and CSS
Browser rendering varies greatly
Validate CSS and (X)HTML for a
greater probability that the design
will be cross-browser friendly
Don't use CSS hacks
Use the proper semantic markup
Pages should be able to work without
JavaScript enabled
Read Yahoo's guide for
performance and use YSlow
Dreamweaver's design mode doesn't
reflect how a page will appear in
real browsers
General Design
Simpler is often better in terms of
usability, accessibility, design, and
download size
Lists of greater than five or six
items should be broken up visually
Consistency is important - Don't
change your navigation, etc without
an extremely good reason
When choosing colors, keep those with
color-blindness in mind. This will
affect how you choose to convey
meaning by color.
Place the most important information
above the fold (the part of the
screen that shows without scrolling)
The web is interactive. This
drastically affects how you consume
and display information. You can hide and subsequently display information using tabs, accordion, and similar methods.
Think in terms of primary and
secondary calls of action. What do
you want the user to do? Where do you
want them to go next?
Some broad points:
1. Print is static, the web is interactive.
The essence of a print project is a fixed point in time, an idea captured on paper or some other substrate. Web projects are moving, changing experiences that represent both the ideas of their creators and their users.
2. Everything is uncertain.
You mention typography in your answer, it's probably worth broadening that to cover all aspects of appearance. The variety of operating systems and hardware available mean that its hard to determine how all your audience will experience your final design. Whilst some things must be compatible across all browsers, sometimes it is not worth the time and effort needed to make something pixel perfect in all systems.
3. Learn about programming.
Unless you've an aptitude for it, you don't need to learn how to program for the web. But it would still be a big help to gain some familiarity with web programming, as if you can't code, you'll need to work closely with someone who can and you need to be able to communicate effectively with them.
4. Create working prototypes
When something is static, it can be designed using a static format. To design something interactive like a website, you should be making use of moving prototypes that represent the kind of behaviour the final design will have. You can use paper to do this, or more sophisticated mockups using xhtml, css and javascript, or a dedicated prototyping program.
The user controls how they want to see content on the web, not you. Your design will not look the same to all people because some people may make it different on purpose.
Screens can be arbitrarily large or small
The web is interactive: usability trumps pretty-lookingness
Your page will be read by machines: make sure the data is easy to get at by scripts that can't read images / large blobs of text (aka "be semantic")
Remember to save your jpg files in RGB format not CMYK format. I regularly get sent jpgs that won't display on a web-site and every time it's because it's been saved in the wrong format from Photoshop.
This will become less of a problem as browsers support more image formats, but considering that 20%+ of users are still on IE6 for the sites we develop this will take a while to go away.
A lot of these are good rules of thumb for print designers who want to learn how to actually markup HTML and write CSS. But as a Web developer in the past, I'd frequently just take a designer's template and write the HTML and CSS for them. Whether or not that task was simple or difficult depended on the designer's awareness of the capabilities of CSS.
There was one pain point in particular that kept coming up. So for print designers moving to the web, the absolute number one rule to remember is:
Don't design any element to have an explicit, pixel-perfect height. You can restrict the width all you want, but changing fonts, preferred font sizes, and different text strings being pulled from the database on different pages means that text needs to be able to flow vertically without generating hideous, hard-to-use overflow scrollbars.
Designers who remember this can usually conjure up designs that are easy to cut up and integrate in a mostly semantic manner. Designers who forget this sometimes end up creating designs that have to be shoehorned into a 3 inch by 3 inch box, and that's when I reach for the vodka.
A given color or font will render differently in different browsers.
Especially when one browser is on Windows and the other is on Mac or Linux, etc.
I wrote a blog post about this a while ago - http://aloestudios.com/2008/08/dear-print-designer-doing-web-design/
So did my friend Mark - http://www.visual28.com/articles/tips-for-better-web-design
Jeffery Zeldman's book Taking Your Talent to the Web is specifically targeted to the question you have asked. It's been out for a few years...not sure if there's a 2nd or 3rd edition. Check it out.
My main advise is that you need to recognize that while you have dot precision in print applications, most of the time in web design your focus is to design and code a site that will accomplish your content and layout goals for any number of platforms, resolutions and color depths. Color depth has become less important than it was in the past.
I am tasked with updating a family of web sites that promote scientific conferences that cater to a niche scientific field. The sites are currently written with some modest CSS layout for the shared common page template structure, but the details of each page are a mishmash of <p>, <br>, and to position the content. This makes it tough to update the content, since the spacings are always changing, and the page ends up ugly at the slightest mod.
So, I'd like to change this stuff into a more CSS-happy state. There are lots of sites that offer tips for specific CSS design goals, but I'm a developer without a lot of web site artistry capabilities and don't have a structure already in mind. Are there any good sites that teach CSS in the context of some relatively mundane -- but effectively presented -- business content? Stuff like the CSS zen garden is way cool, but I'm looking more for something that will both give me some simple text-heavy business data positioning ideas and present those ideas as a CSS learning opportunity.
Does any such site exist?
Sadly, if you don't have much control over the HTML, it's hard to get a solid, consistent presentation out of CSS. This is especially true if you're not able to add special classes/IDs to your elements. And <br/> tags, incosistently used, will wreak havoc with any attempt to standardize the layout.
If you're only limited to the HTML you've been provided, you're primary goal should be to make it as readable as possible. Make sure the font size is large enough that people can comfortably read it leaning back in a chair. Or standing over someone's shoulder. It doesn't need to be too big, but if it's text heavy like you claim, traditional 12pt might feel too small for a lot of reading.
Which font to use is another consideration. Verdana is wider than Arial, so it takes up more horizontal space, but tends to be easier on the eyes. Others tend to prefer a serifed font like Georgia, which can hold up well at larger sizes.
Vertical spacing is important. Make sure to include plenty of visual break-age between areas of the page. You can achieve this with an obvious and consistent subheading style. Also make sure that the line-height between each line is wide enough - people don't like to read 'bricks' of text.
And don't forget horizontal space. A general rule of thumb is that a column of text probably shouldn't span more than 60-70 character per line, or it becomes more difficult read.
Remember that people are coming to your site for information, and the quicker they can access and get that information the happier they'll be. Visual eye candy is nice, but your first priority should always be make the site as easy to use and legible as possible.
As for inspiration, I'm a pretty big fan of the text design over at Information Architects. You may also want to have a look at Subtraction.com. Blogs will probably be a good source of inspiration, as they're typically very text heavy.
Good luck.
I'd say A List Apart is a good place to start.
You can choose from a very broad (and structured) range of topics and then follow the related links from a subject that you find interesting.
I had a similar situation and learnt a lot by downloading and studying some of the designs at http://www.openwebdesign.org/ . There are a ton of designs and the forums are full of people willing to help.
Eric Meyer is always a good CSS resource.
First things first. Use simple and semantic XHTML. If applicable, ditch those <br>s for <p></p>s. Use <h1>,<h2>,<h3>, etc consistently. You know you're on the right track if your page looks clean and readable without a reference to the CSS file. David Shea has a great markup guide.
David Shea's Markup Guide
As for style guidelines... I like Ben Hunt's Web Design From Scratch even though he pimps his eBooks incessantly. The content is good.
Web Design From Scratch: Style Guide
Web Design From Scratch: Current Styles
If you are looking for sample ASP.net sites with a bent towards proper CSS check out Microsoft's free templates.
ASP.net Design Starter Kits
Finally, and this is a real gem here, if you need to style tabular data, Smashing Magazine has the goods. These table designs are off the charts. Sample code included. Actually, you could spend hours on the Smashing Mag site. So many great examples and free stuff.
Smashing Magazine: Top 10 CSS Table Designs
Smashing Magazine: All CSS Articles
peace|dewde
Battle of the CSS Frameworks is another good resource to start with. You might be able to cut your CSS development time down by adopting a good, simplifying framework.