General consensus on using templates

[NewComputer]

I have just signed up for a boxedart.com account have been looking at some of their stuff. Fairly decent. Just wondering your thoughts on using a template site like that for a quick design. Is the code usually clean on those type of sites?

[Razvan Pop]

Maybe it is, but i doubt it.

A template means something done fast, so the code might pe written in Dreamweaver. We all know that dreamweaver writes crap.

I code all my sites by hand in Editplus.

Usually when i visit a site and see those big and fancy buttons, i close it.

[arestia]

editplus is the only way to code

-dan

[ViciousSummer]

My site was built using a template. I've had my frustrations with Dreamweaver, but it was a major timesaver and totally worth it. You can check it out if you'd like: http://www.hustlerpanties.com :D

[john_loch]

My site was built using a template. I've had my frustrations with Dreamweaver, but it was a major timesaver and totally worth it. You can check it out if you'd like: http://www.hustlerpanties.com :D

Agreed.

You'll find Macromedia products are typically an industry standard. Of course a little cleaning up never hurt.

As for templated layouts, well that's another matter - many of them are rather scary, but then, some are quite good. It depends on where you get them, and what they are. (and I'm gonna barf if someone posts a **oody link to templatemonster) :)

Umm ViciousSummer, I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but perhaps your site could use a little more appeal.. it actually looks templated.. and a rather cheap one at that. Of course the products are quite appealing.. well, the models wearing (http://www.hustlerpanties.com/) them, and I must say, they certainly are engaging.. perhaps that's the point :)

Either way, it's as good an example of what can be achieved with Dreamweaver as any :)

[dkalweit]

I like to "template" sites a more manual way, using server-side includes. I create 2 pages-- a top.asp and bottom.asp. Then, in all my pages, I do an SSI for "top.asp", then put my content in the middle, and then another SSI for "bottom.asp" at the end. This way, I can easily change the code for the top banner(if I have any), titles, menus, etc., and then in bottom.asp I can use standard footers, etc. I don't think my sites look 'templated'-- just consistent:

http://www.sensiblesoftware.com/
http://www.lilaccity.org/
http://www.nesfiles.com/

[spidermonkey]

We all know that dreamweaver writes crap.

I code all my sites by hand in Editplus.

Usually when i visit a site and see those big and fancy buttons, i close it.

Like your subtle response Razvan! ;)

Personnally I like AceHTML Pro (I've used it for years and am used to the interface)

Mike

[Old Welsh Guy]

We all know that dreamweaver writes crap.


Have to disagree here old chap, dreamawever mx 2004 writes some pretty clean code. Hardly any corrections need to be done.

I work with it on split screen, and watch it write the code on everything I do. Rarely now do I have to get in there and slap it about.

[Razvan Pop]

My bad.

I stopped working with DW about 4 years ago. My boss didn't want to buy it and didn't want me to use cracked versions or something like that. I discovered Editplus. Been using it since.

Anyway, i don't like the idea of using some sort of button to insert tables, images, etc.

[spidermonkey]

The WYSIWYG vs by hand arguement is the only arguement that has run longer than black hat vs white hat! :p

Lets go!

Mike

[Such Great Heights]

I have just signed up for a boxedart.com account have been looking at some of their stuff. Fairly decent. Just wondering your thoughts on using a template site like that for a quick design. Is the code usually clean on those type of sites?
I've used pre made templates before and from the few that I've used it varied with by the person who did it and how much we had to pay.

The cheaper one came with PSD's, but the layer's weren't orginized/labeled very well if at all, some of the coding was off, but it worked out in the end. It definitely took less time than actually making it ourselves.

The more expensive one came with PSD's had good orginization, and good control over colors used and shadowing and what have you. Plus the code was much more clean. But it cost more.

So I guess, with my little experience at least, you get what you pay for.
It certainly does same time, and time is money.

But then you can't actually call it your own can you? :p

[dazzlindonna]

I agree - it really all depends on who wrote the template. Sometimes templates coding vary even if they all come from the same site. I've seen a couple of places that actually boast about their clean css code (sorry, dont remember where i saw that), but you might want to try to find one of those. Usually, however, even poorly coded templates can be cleaned up fairly quickly, if you are proficient with html.

[ViciousSummer]

Umm ViciousSummer, I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but perhaps your site could use a little more appeal.. it actually looks templated.. and a rather cheap one at that. Of course the products are quite appealing.. well, the models wearing (http://www.hustlerpanties.com/) them, and I must say, they certainly are engaging.. perhaps that's the point :)

Don't worry, I'm un-offendable and I appreciate your honesty. I know that it looks like a template to web designers, BUT web designers arn't my target market :D. My goal is really just to have a clean, easily navigatable website. Plus, I am (obviously) not a programmer. I learned HTML from a book called "HTML for Dummies" and that is the extent of my "training", so that can be limiting :rolleyes: . I paid $100 for my template (I could of paid $45 for the cheaper version, but I paid extra for all the extra admin/shopping cart stuff), and to me (a non-programmer) it was worth every time-saving penny.

Do you have any examples of a templated site that doesn't look templated? I'm just curious to see one.

[john_loch]

.. BUT web designers arn't my target market :D. My goal is really just to have a clean, easily navigated website..

..Do you have any examples of a templated site that doesn't look templated? I'm just curious to see one.

In that case it serves it's purpose. Only you know whether you're moving product, and i suspect you know what behaviours/preconceptions your audience brings with them, so - what works, works !

As for templated sites, well, I never use html templates in the traditional sense. All I'm ever after is the graphic. When ever I use a template, it's got to be an exclusive, and a high quality psd (Photoshop doc, typically a very complex layout) - suitable for web & print, and it's always reworked by a pro GD to suit the clients preferences. At the end of the day, I also only ever use open source CMS, and typically map the finished layouts to suit the CMS I'm using.

So, if you want to see static templates, there's heaps of sites around with some nice templates for sale and perusal.. in fact, that's the one thing you can be sure of.. multiple sites using the same template, that's what happens unless you buy them exclusively.

If you want to see templated CMS', I'll help you there. My favourite (basic) CMS is Mambo (http://www.mamboserver.com/). A tidy range of Mambo Templates can be found at MamboHut (http://www.mambohut.com/). On the left of the home page, simply select the template you want to see, and it'll reload accordingly. It's all (from memory) open source, so you can help yourself to whatever you like.

If you'd like to see a wide variety of CMS, (and tweak them from an admin perspective) then consider visiting Open Source CMS (http://www.opensourcecms.com/) - it's one of my favourite resources :)

PS: I've mentioned Mambo for good reason. You don't need to be a graphic designer or coder for web to fully deploy and utilize this attractive CMS. It's also *slightly* SEO friendly, supporting rewrites, titles, tags, etc via the admin gui, and includes easily read docs, and a step-thru installer. It's default install is actually quite impressive (from both a graphic design and coding standpoint).

Thanks for receiving my criticism graciously BTW :)