1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

How are high-standard website themes created?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by forevervivienne, May 27, 2015.

  1. #1
    I've been battling with this same question. website themes like the ones on themeforest have very complex codes. Do people actually code this from scratch or they use a software like dreamweaver? how exactly do they make their themes so sleek?
     
    Solved! View solution.
    forevervivienne, May 27, 2015 IP
  2. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #2
    Uhm, yes, people code this "from scratch" - using Dreamweaver wouldn't do anything but make the code crap (not that most of themes aren't crap already, but Dreamweaver doesn't help).
    I have no idea what themes you're talking about, but proper use of markup, css, and probably some scripting is what makes the themes do what they're supposed to do.

    And really, if you think a theme has "complex codes" that's probably either because you're an amateur, or because the theme-code is crap - there's no need for the code for a theme to be particularly complex as long as the creator knows what s/he is doing.
     
    PoPSiCLe, May 27, 2015 IP
  3. Doctor Tech

    Doctor Tech Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    45
    #3
    I think many designers create the layout on photoshop, and code it to HTML and whatever code you need.

    There is automated software that can do this, but not exactly the way you might expect it to be. Check out Site Grinder ;)
     
    Doctor Tech, May 27, 2015 IP
  4. #4
    Yeah, no - they design it properly using Photoshop and Illustrator (mostly), and then code it together by hand. This is right now the only way to make a proper, responsive design. Tools such as Dreamweaver or the likes would not be able to produce quality code, and with responsiveness being such a key factor today, it's just not an option.
     
    MightWeb, May 28, 2015 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #5
    Methinks we have a different definition of "high standards" -- most of the halfwit mouthbreathing idiotic dumbass CRAP from the template whorehouses like TemplateMonster and ThemeForest are inaccessible bloated slow broken train wreck laundry lists of how NOT to build a website; they only exist to prey on the ignorance of people more impressed by something flashy and shiny than they are actual substance, and on the whole are a blight upon the Internet as bad if not worse than the crap people were vomiting up with WYSIWYG's a decade ago.

    ANYONE "designing" using a goofy **** paint program has no damned business building websites. It's a buggy back-assward approach to development and anyone advocating said approach needs a quadruple helping of sierra tango foxtrot uniform. Starting around dicking with appearance before you even have semantic markup of the content or a reasonable facsimile of future content results in inept inaccessible rubbish as the result -- no matter how good the underlying coding is.

    Take your content or a facsimile of future content and put it into a flat text editor in a logical order as if HTML doesn't even exist; then you markup that content semantically -- aka using the tags to say what things ARE, NOT what they are going to look like. Then and only then do you create the layoutS with CSS, only adding semantically neutral tags like DIV and span once you've expended what can be done with the semantic ones... and yes, LAYOUTS in plural since your for screen layouts should be elastic (adjusting to the default font size since not everyone wants the same default), semi-fluid (having a max width so that long lines aren't hard to follow) AND responsive.

    Then and ONLY then do you bring in the art faygelah to do their stupid paintover -- and thanks to CSS3 you might not even need that.

    Content should dictate layout, not the other way around -- which is why off the shelf templates are probably the DUMBEST thing on the Internet; and why most of the people crapping them out are either ignorant halfwits or outright scam artists. (probably why they also have raging chodo's for halfwit nonsense like "frameworks" and endless scriptard bullshit that makes the web harder to use!)
     
    deathshadow, May 28, 2015 IP
  6. MightWeb

    MightWeb Active Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #6
    That's just not true even for a second - even though I would assume that's how you do it. Design is design, semantics are semantics. Forming a layout (which in my book includes the semantics) before you design is obviously key - but that's implied. A professional designer typically gets a picture of what content the website will feature, what is important to highlight, and then builds a basic line layout. Once that's done, the actual design process starts. None of this excludes semantics - but saying that making a design prior to markup is bad practice, well - that's just a load of bull.

    This is what you do once you actually know what the design should look like. That's why you design it first, and code it later. You may have a vastly different understanding of the word "design" than the rest of all web developers.

    Content should indeed dictate layout. On that, I fully agree. That's why planning is done before you start designing.

    As for whether or not templates are dumb, I'd say that isn't black and white. Whilst I don't appreciate the use of them, the point is to allow someone with a tight budget and lacking skillset to still get an online presence. These designs are typically made for a purpose, and so the content of a page is typically adjusted to fit the layout in these scenarios. Whilst not at all optimal, they do serve a purpose for a lot of people - and calling those people outright idiots only diminishes your own credibility, and shows your apparent tunnel vision.

    Frameworks are debatable - but I don't see anything wrong with using a framework to make responsiveness easier, which is what they do in their essentials. Anything that allows people to more easily make responsive pages is a good thing.
     
    MightWeb, May 29, 2015 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #7
    A response I expect when people say "a design" instead of "designs" -- the plural being an important part.

    Websites are about MORE than just what it happens to look like on the magical combination of screen size, resolution and quality of vision of the person creating it. Non-sighted users, alternative user-agents, responsiveness based on screen space -- these are things you do NOT get dicking around in Photoshop unless you either waste time drawing hundreds of images to do the job of 2k of CSS...

    Worse said approach most always results in things that have no damned business on websites in the first place -- like perfect width images, full screen size images, massive backgrounds, non-semantic markup, fixed positioning, endless scripttard bloat to try and make artsy-fartsy crap the artist did actually happen; In my experience I've not seen a site where someone started out with "design" (aka drawing goofy pictures in Photoshop or sleazing out cookie cutter DIV) BEFORE they have completed their semantic markup that weren't an utter and complete bloated, slow, inaccessible train wreck.

    Progressive enhancement, graceful degradation, separation of presentation from content, "search engines don't have eyeballs" -- any of these things sound familiar?

    In other words, a scam to take advantage of those lacking the knowledge, experience or willpower to be allowed to even have their own website in the first place; a sleazy shortcut that's good for little more than the template seller to make a buck and the person DUMB ENOUGH to throw money away on it to be deluded into THINKING they can have a website; slapping the rose coloured glasses on their head and leading them down the garden path to failure.

    These designs are typically made for a purpose, and so the content of a page is typically adjusted to fit the layout in these scenarios. Whilst not at all optimal, they do serve a purpose for a lot of people - and calling those people outright idiots only diminishes your own credibility, and shows your apparent tunnel vision.

    I could agree with that if ANY of them actually made it easier -- I fail to see how writing twice as much markup to write basically the same amount of CSS or at BEST save maybe 1k is worth 100k of BS you still have to learn to use ON TOP of learning HTML and CSS. They're not easier, they're certainly not faster, so where is this alleged advantage other than again, preying on the ignorance of people who probably shouldn't be making sites in the first damned place?

    It's LAUGHABLY PATHETIC when you see the average turdpress jockey throwing endless pointless DIV and classes into their markup resulting in 50-80k of HTML doing 5-15k's job just so they can bloat out the page with 100k of some garbage CSS library, several dozen k of scripttardery, all to save them writing maybe 2k of extra CSS. That's not smaller (even ignoring the library size in the total), it's not easier, so how the **** is ANYONE DUMB ENOUGH to use that mouth breathing idiotic bull by choice?!?

    Or as I keep saying if you don't know what's wrong with this:
    <footer id="main-footer">
          <div class="site-width">
            <div class="g-r">
              <div class="col-6">
                <!-- Payment Methods -->
                <ul class="g-l-4" id="payment-methods">
    Code (markup):
    Back the *** away from the keyboard and don't come back until you do.

    Aka the type of crap I'd expect from some artsy fartsy re-re who doesn't know enough about emissive colourspace to realize that dark gray on dark gray or dark sky blue on dark grey or sky blue on light grey is illegible to >50% of the population or that using px metric fonts is inaccessible crap.

    But sure, let's just go ahead and ignore 17 years of accessibility norms and good advice from things like the WCAG and just piss out designs any old way. Why not, seems to be what HTML 5 is about; dragging things back to the worst of 1997 development practices.
     
    deathshadow, May 29, 2015 IP
    malky66 likes this.
  8. MightWeb

    MightWeb Active Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #8
    Here's a typical design process for you:
    1) Draft an elementary layout to use as more of a grid than anything, that details the basic semantics, placements, highlights and so on.

    2) Create an actual design (whether or not you choose to pluralize the word makes no difference). You don't do this to then make cuts which you place out - you do it much for the same reason that many architects make a 3D model of a house - because it takes a whole lot less effort to finalize a design in Photoshop, than it does to finalize it in markup. Before you know you're doing what your client wants, why do all the extra work?

    3) Now, when you've got your draft approved - you do the actual markup. Often times, you won't use much (if any) of the Photoshop generated material, especially now with CSS being so powerful. You will however likely look at it for reference.


    I can't speak for what you've seen (obviously), but it sounds like your experience is vastly different from mine - and it sounds like whoever you worked with had vastly different techniques than most professional web designers.
    As for visually impaired users, bots or the likes - that's in no way something that's excluded by you not making your markup first.

    No, that's not a scam, and that you'd even suggest such a thing only further strengthens your elitist attitude which does not belong here one bit. Many smaller businesses simply can not afford proper web development. This caters to those people. There's a need, and there's a market - there's nothing wrong with that. Get web designers to drop their prices to $30 per page, and I'm sure you'll kill that market. Good luck with that though.

    You don't dictate who's allowed to have an online presence, and you certainly don't dictate what should be required to have one. An online presence is important, but doing it perfectly is expensive. I can agree that your average online business should invest in web development - but to ask small retailers to do the same thing is just bizarre.

    But they do make it easier. They avoid having to write your own framework (which would be the second best option if you develop a lot of web designs).
    Taking the below quoted code as an example - the price I pay for using a grid-based system (which if done semantically correct is about 3 extra lines) is way less than the price I'd pay for the pure stylesheet of creating the individual divs alone. Go ahead and argue that - but if you do, please do provide an example where you create the below behaviour - then watch me laugh at you as you've written styling to do what the framework has already done for me.
    I will agree however that the framework can slow things down. Thankfully, most come with an option to exclude things you don't want or need. I typically select the grid as the only component. This specific framework was customized for our needs - but looking at other examples.

    You pull a lot of numbers here - but they're just numbers. I'd once again love to see you back these numbers up with actual tangible evidence. Just FYI, our average HTML pagesize is 11k. We use a framework. Sure, our CSS files are larger than what they would be if they only contained the absolute barebones for each page (hey, whilst we're at it, we could just have separate stylesheets for every type of page). Does that make the entire concept bad? I wouldn't think so - but your opinion differs, I'm sure.

    Please do explain what's wrong with that. Try doing it without asking me to back away from the computer - as you've still not proven any actual expertise or tangible knowledge. All you've done is throw anger tantrums and generic comments with no factual evidence, which I don't really appreciate.

    Oh sure, let's just ignore all of the vast improvements HTML 5 brings to the table both in regards to semantics, and in regards to usability. We should probably hate on HTTP/2 as well, as it allows for data to be transferred faster, which in turn would allow for pages using large frameworks to load faster, which is bad for the internet. Right?
     
    MightWeb, May 29, 2015 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #9
    ... and there's ANOTHER word that trips my BS alarm. "grid" -- you probably don't actually mean "grids" in the sense most people do, but just using that word shows presentational NOT semantic thinking.

    Sadly my experience with "designers" in terms of dicking around in photoshop is NOT akin to an architect, since they will at least (you hope) know about things like material tolerances and accessibility... It's more like holding a contest for artists to draw a picture of a skyscraper with zero practical engineering knowledge, then wondering why 14 years later you've had to cancel opening 5 times due to safety issues with cost overruns running into the billions. Can't imagine what structure I'm referring to...

    The lack of knowledge of accessibility miniums and limitations of the medium shown by most of the people calling themselves "designers" is mind-blowing, and is why I can only chalk it up to ignorance, or willing partition in being a scammer! I've been watching 20 years of this ***, and it's worn extremely thin seeing nube after nube being scammed or at the very least misled by this crap.

    Whereas I don't see it as extra work compared to dicking with layers just becuase they want to re-arrange the placement of things on the layout; takes more than a few minutes in the code you've coded it wrong. What's easier when they ask "could you double the padding"? Trying to drag and drop layers blindly hoping you land it right or get it to "snap" where they want it and then still having to code it, or simply changing "0.5em" to "1em"?

    ASSUMING said photoshop generated material was designed in a manner that has any business even BEING a website; sadly there are a LOT of things the PSD jockeys vomit up that have no damned business on a website in the first place. Like massive backgrounds, full width fixed images, and other bits of bloat and "accessibility, what's that?" garbage.

    Or you just don't know enough about HTML, CSS, emissive colourspace, progressive enhancement, graceful degradation, or accessibility to recognize garbage when you see it; you might just have that magical combination of "the perfect target audience" that isn't alienated from websites by the crap that makes many websites utterly and completely USELESS to users like myself.

    So exploiting their ignorance to let them shoot themselves in the foot and throwing money away on nothing of value is the magic answer? ... and you don't call that a scam?

    ... and we wonder why we're in another tech bubble filled with "Sophisticated internet investors, will give money for vague promises"

    It isn't when the result is effectively throwing money away and basically asking them to LOSE money in the process; admittedly ALL websites should be seen as an expense NOT an investment (kind of like a car) but starting out ruining your reputation and alienating potential users is NOT a sound plan.

    ... and it shouldn't be any more expensive to do it right, it's just the glitzy bullshit is easier to dupe the ignorant with.


    No, since content dictates layout a 'framework' is bloated halfwit bullshit. If you don't see it that way you don't know enough HTML or CSS to be offering an opinion on the subject! Though honestly most of what you are saying led me to that conclusion two posts ago!

    You mean apart from three DIV for nothing, HTML 5's idiotic (and redundant) footer tag, and class use that shows an ignorance of how to use selectors?

    <div id="footer">
      <hr>
      <ul>
    Code (markup):
    or something along those lines...

    Probably don't even need the second id if there are no other ul in the footer. What you had is called "presentational use of classes" at which point you might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2!!! COMPLETELY missing the point of HTML, CSS, and separation of presentation from content.

    NOT that I consider the site said code came from (I'm sure you recognized it) a viable web design from an accessibility or usability standpoint; much less a marketing standpoint -- if that were in the review section I'd be telling you to toss that mess and start over from scratch as there's little I'd try to salvage from it -- from the massive empty header pushing content below the fold, pathetically broken lack of responsive design, massive pointless images making finding actual CONTENT a chore, illegible color contrasts, inaccessible font sizes, and all the other "I can haz intarnets" design elements.

    Hence why -- just talking the homepage -- said unmentioned unnamed website has 16.6k of HTML, 542k of JS in 9 files, 66k of CSS in 4 files (when you don't even have MEDIA targets), resulting in a megabyte monstrosity in 39 files taking around 20 seconds to load here (mostly due to handshaking, damn ping to your server sucks from here) doing the job of MAYBE a dozen files and MAYBE 200k total...

    If you don't know what's wrong with 17k of markup for 3.5k of plaintext and a dozen (possibly less) content images, you don't know enough about HTML or CSS to be offering an opinion on the subject! Here's a tip, it's probably just under 10k's job. The entire SITE probably doesn't need more than 32k of CSS given it's simplicity and that's in ONE stylesheet since there aren't even media targets... (whereas I'd be targeting "screen,projection,tv") -- while as to scripting, maybe 20k's job if that, though honestly I'd axe the scripttardery as a waste of bandwidth and time, particularly when you could just move that stuff up to where the user would see it sooner instead of having it so far below the fold NOBODY will ever even get to it... more so on mobile where that scripttardery just falls apart miserably AND chews on visitors batteries for nothing (which is why script blocking is increasing in popularity in the mobile space!)

    I mean hell, it doesn't even have a valid keywords META.

    Said unmentioned sites markup, code bloat, relative lack of and broken semantics, and host of other problems reeking of EXACTLY what I expect from someone advocating the methods you are and arguing with what I'm saying. In fact, I was where you are right now a decade ago.

    PM inbound -- rather than continuing to hijack this thread I'm thinking maybe a new one to dissect said site so I can explain it PROPERLY and do a rewrite to show exactly what I mean, but I'd like permission before I take it that far. From what I'm seeing YOU'VE been duped/deluded by the same nonsense I'm talking about here, and I'd like to be able to explain WHY I say that to you properly.

    Improvements? WHAT IMPROVEMENTS?!? Allegedly semantic tags that are redunant to numbered headings and rules? Pointless redundancies that are exactly the things STRICT was trying to get rid of? Tags that shouldn't even exist since they're scripting only functionality? Pissing all over logical document structure with more tags NOBODY seems to be able to bother following the rules of using?

    Kind of like Adams in 1776, "Benefits? What Benefits? Crippling taxes? Cruel repressions? Abolished rights?"

    HEADER, FOOTER, NAV, ASIDE, SECTION -- redundant to H1..H6 and HR from a semantics standpoint.

    ASIDE -- everyone is abusing it to be as presentational as CENTER was.

    NAV -- only meaning is "UA can skip this" -- I thought that's what heading navigation was for; too bad only Opera ever got off their ass and actually implemented that and now we're supposed to magically expect everyone else to implement this properly? Hell even Opera dropped it since they went full-on chrometard telling their users to go plow themselves!

    VIDEO, AUDIO -- there's a REASON APPLET and the proprietary BGSOUND and EMBED were either deprecated or rejected in STRICT, they're redundant to OBJECT. Even IMG was supposed to be restrained under the axeman, but rather than ride Microshaft about their failure to implement OBJECT properly, now EMBED is magically acceptable and they create two new tags instead of adding the existing functionality?

    Oh what's that? It's to fight the "vendor lock-in" of flash? By dictating to us what formats we can and cannot support ENTIRELY on the whim of what the browser makers just happen to FEEL like implementing? Isn't that the vendor lock-in OBJECT was created to fight by NOT leaving us at the whims of the browser makers and what put an END to the media format wars of WMP vs. AVI vs. Realplayer? Oh wait, aren't the big advocates of the VIDEO tag the same people who LOST that war? Coincidence?

    CANVAS -- I love it... as scripting. What the bloody blue hell business does this have being in the MARKUP specification?!?

    Much less the loosening of the structural rules to the point of "go ahead and piss it out any old way, who gives a ***!" -- as if the W3C shrugged it's shoulders and just walked away from the problem. OF course, they did exactly that by adopting the WhatWG's BS which was created more to document how people were making sites, and not to say how they SHOULD be made or offer any real-world improvements in methodology.

    About the only good thing I can say about HTML 5 is the smaller / simplified heading structure, but that's usually pissed all over by halfwits adding crap like the pointless X-UA garbage or worse, the outright dumbass rubbish Paul Irish came up with of wrapping the HTML tag in a half dozen IE CC's. There's a reason you'll find a LOT of developers saying "write as HTML 4 Strict or XHTML 1.0 Strict, and then deploy as 5 for the two or three things being shoved down our throats!"

    It's why when people call HTML 5 "the future" I go "really, looks like the worst of 1997 to me!" -- CSS3 and the new scripting stuff? BLOODY BRILLIANT, that's why universally when people say HTML 5 they are usually referring to those and not the actual markup specification. (and there's nothing stopping you from using those actually useful bits in older specs) -- HTML 5 seems carefully crafted to meet the needs of developers who spent the past decade and a half sleazing out HTML 3.2 and the vendor specific crap that followed and slapped 4 tranny on it. Now they wrap 5 lip-service around the same halfwit buggy broken nonsense so they can pat each-other on the back over how "modern" they are... net improvement zero.

    It sure as shine-ola isn't for anyone who embraced the concepts of STRICT, separation of presentation from content, progressive enhancement or device neutrality.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
    deathshadow, May 29, 2015 IP
    malky66 likes this.
  10. MightWeb

    MightWeb Active Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    #10
    A layout is logical semantics, and in its purest form, a layout is very much a grid. I still don't get how you draw these bizarre conclusions - but I'm sorry I hit your BS alarm! ;)

    Well, it would appear you and I have had vastly different experience with web designers (as mentioned before). In my book, the Photoshop-part of a web design is more than anything about showing your idea to a client, or actually putting it on paper for yourself, prior to writing markup. You do this to actually have a ruling guide as you do create the markup, and to ensure that you don't spend the time that a markup can take on something your client does not want.

    I'm by no means a Photoshop expert, but you make it sound like it's a matter of changing 0.5 to 1 - except that's not including the actual writing of said markup beforehand.
    For the sake of it, I'd urge you to think through the process of making a sample website in markup (let's use DigitalPoints design as an example, which is very simple). Try to think of how much time it would take, HTML and CSS combined. Now think of how long it would take to make in Photoshop, assuming the same skillset in Photoshop. Which takes longer?

    Am I misunderstanding you, or are you blatantly saying that a design made in Photoshop never has any business being a website, and always constitutes usage of bad standards such as massive backgrounds?

    That would be easier for you to assume, I get that. I won't fall into your cesspit of elitist, nonsensical drivel, aimed at diminishing the debating parties experience rather than promoting your own.

    Explain how it's wasting their money. Explain how, for a small business that really only needs to have a basic website with a few images and contact information, which a pre-made template for $10 covers - explain how that's wasting their money.
    It's not a scam. I get that you don't like them - and I can admit there are multiple uses of templates that I do not condone either - but they do serve a purpose, whether you see it, or choose to ignore it.

    They're not throwing their money away. They're getting exactly what they need - that small landing page so that when people Google their local business, they can see the opening hours without needing to call the shop.

    Could it be better if they threw that money on a web developer? Duh. Yes. Can they afford doing that? Hell no. Does that exclude them from the list you have on people who are allowed to have a website?
    Shouldn't be more expensive - are you kidding me? Do you think any half-decent web developer/designer would take on a $10 job? Hah.

    No, since content dictates layout, a framework is used to create said layout. A framework inevitably contains things any website will not need - but it's aimed at containing everything they might need. That does increase the size of said website, but also saves the developers time, and allows for much easier continued development.
    It's a tradeoff, and if you seriously don't see the benefits of using one (albeit I agree there are negative sides to using one as well), then we're just wildly different.

    You just showed markup, without any actual styling. That footer, including the altering of styling, took way less time to create, than what you'd need to duplicate it without a framework.
    Does that create a few additional lines of markup? Yes. Does it add to the weight of a stylesheet, which with loadtimes of the entire site still being less than a second is perfectly okay? Yes.
    Does it allow for easier continued development of said site? Yes.

    Yeah - it does get larger. That's the one backside of using a framework of any kind, whether that's a customized one or not. Once again, with loading times of said site being less than 1 second for its target demographic, it does not matter. Whether you think so or not, it does not matter.
    For reference, if you're into programming - I assume you think all applications should be created in Assembly, rather than higher level languages such as C++? Get real.

    Out of curiosity - where are you from? I'd be very curious to investigate a 20 second loadtime.



    HTML5 brings improvements to a subject you seem keen on (accessability). These tags that you hate so much (header, footer, nav, etcetera) actually fill the purpose of allowing content to be placed in named elements, rather than in often misnamed divs. ARIA is in the end all accessability.

    The video and audio support used to be a nightmare. Now it's easier than ever and more accessible than ever - and more wildely accepted than ever.

    Markup is cleaner and more readable, much due to the new tag naming which you seem to hate.

    I'd urge you to read up on Canvas to know why it's in the markup. But one example usage I can think of right off the top of my head is drag & drop, or game development.

    Responsive improvements, such as viewport?

    The list goes on - but if you really don't see the improvements it brings, then, to quote youself - "you don't have any business speaking on the subject."



    I'll shoot you a response to your PM, but after that, I'm done. This discussion had led absolutely nowhere yet, and with your inability to make a point without diminishing other peoples experience, rather than backing your arguments up with tangible material, it won't lead anywhere in the future either.
    You seem to be experienced on the subject of web development & design. I'd love to pick your brain a bit more and see if we could come to senses - so it's a shame that you're incapable of having such a discussion without resorting to insults.
     
    MightWeb, May 30, 2015 IP
  11. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #11
    @MightWeb you yourself should take a moment to look at the site stats for different members. @deathshadow is rude and at times (more often than not) annoying as fuck, but he has repeatedly shown practical examples (you can find his rewrites in lots of threads) showing how a simplified structure and layout (HTML & CSS) can achieve the exact same look.

    It's bad forum etiquette to bash on well-known members when you yourself have contributed next to nothing valueable to the site. Not that I don't think you can, it's just that so far it's been little but "blowing smoke" to quote another participant.

    As for the "frameworks makes it easier" argument, that is a misnomer. It makes it easier if you don't know what you're doing. If you know what you're doing, belting out a design with HTML and CSS takes about the same amount of time as doing the basic layout in Photoshop. The benefit of doing it in code is that it's very easily manipulated if the client / whomever is looking at it wants to change something.

    Given that @deathshadow repeatedly (although rudely) have pointed out why you don't NEED the HTML 5 new tags, because what they do is already covered in the existing HTML standard, as long as you use it properly, it's a bit strange that you yourself fail to acknowledge his points of view - as he does yours. Frankly, his points are better, albeit a bit narrow minded - I disagree with him a lot, but when it comes to proper markup and good use of CSS, there isn't that many people on the forum who's in the same ballpark.

    You're talking about time spent - I've seen him rewrite, publish and write about 5-6 pages worth of text explaining what he's done and why he's done it in a few hours - granted, you could slap together a Photoshop-layout in probably about an hour or two, but again, the difference in time used is almost negligible.

    As for using Photoshop to visualize ideas for yourself, as a designer, maybe get a client to look at 5-10 different proposals sent over by email and pick maybe one or two, yes, that can be a useful addition. Using Photoshop for anything (except maybe minor image retouching or logo drawing - although, Illustrator would be better for that) is usually not worth it.
     
    PoPSiCLe, May 30, 2015 IP
    deathshadow and malky66 like this.
  12. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #12
    I actually disagree with this, you think someone's full of shit you say they're full of shit; even me. Just be prepared to back it up. I might come across as hostile and foul mouthed, but he wants to try to step to me, bring it on.

    That's how we make things BETTER! It's the namby pamby limp-wristed "if you can't say anything nice" jacktards who are the real problem.

    But then I consider Gordon Ramsey, Simon Cowell and Charlie Fratelli to be personal heroes of mine, YMMV.

    This I agree with entirely, it's what I've been saying. Quite often the development cycle is faster if you start out with the CONTENT, then mark it up with ZERO concern for what it looks like on screen, and ONLY then start dealing with styling it. How the hell can you style something when you don't know what's going on the page? How can you adjust that style for the responsive designs without knowing what it actually does when you resize the layout? How does one plan for elasticity in a system DESIGNED to shove pixels around?

    Dicking around in photoshop before you have a base semantic markup (not counting the DIV, SPAN, image sandbags and other presentational crap) is NOT good "design", it's drawing pretty pictures of what a website MIGHT look like and typically involves a bunch of crap that has no business ON a website. (like perfect width, full width elements, perfect matching height elements, elements that cannot be made elastic or semi-fluid...)

    Jason has never been rude; Wanna bet?
    But his posts have been just a bit crude. No ****!
    I tread a fine line between crude and divine...
    and if you don't like it get...

    ...right up out of that chair, go for a walk, have something to eat.

    Usually the semantic markup is five minutes, base layout + semantic neutral markup is another ten. Colouring and fancy bits maybe another five minutes; then 20 minutes apiece for the writeups breaking down the HTML and CSS. Sometimes I take a bit longer because I go "ooh, this might be better this way" as doing rewrites for people pro-bono is a good way to up your game. It's good practice.

    Which is the laugh, it takes longer to explain it than to do it; which is how it should be.

    Case in point, I sent @MightWeb a rewrite of his home via PM, and there's maybe 30 minutes actual work involved in it apart from my wasting time playing with his images to make it all one single sprite sheet, and spending an equal amount of time actually explaining it... and I did that mostly during mealtimes since it was a very busy weekend.

    Naturally said rewrite takes a 804k website built from 33 files and turns it into 50k in 4 files... which I don't think you could find a clearer example of why I say the things I do. Takes it from 5 to 25 seconds of handshaking to "handshaking? What handshaking?"
     
    deathshadow, May 31, 2015 IP
  13. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #13
    Layout has jack *** to do with semantics; since semantics is about saying what things are so the user-agent can best determine how to convey that. Layout is a visual concept and as such presentation -- and presentation (at least saying what that presentation is) has NO business in the markup! That's why for example on your site NONE of your images from my understanding of HTML have any business in the markup in IMG tags. Layout is PRESENTATION... HTML is the opposite of that. You use HTML at least at the start to say what things would be in a professionally written document. If you're going to have layout and semantics on the same page, again you might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 or the garbage that came between it and 4 STRICT.

    That you even said that means you don't know what semantic markup is, what it's for, or why it should be used!

    No worries, we're different people with different backgrounds coming from different societal norms; isn't the Internet grand?

    Though I do often wonder when we went from "squeaky wheel gets the grease" to "squeaky wheel gets hung from a tree".

    Which I can't see how you could do in a meaningful manner until you have the content, or a reasonable facsimile of future content. I can't see how one picture will convey the responsive design, I can't see how dicking around drawing the goofy picture would take less time than just coding the bloody thing... just as I can't see how screwing around with layers is easier than screwing around with the CSS.

    As opposed to drawing the entire layout beforehand? Not seeing a big difference there apart from already having 90%+ of the work already completed.

    You mean the buggy broken inaccessible mess I'm overriding with user.css and blocking the crap on just to try and use? Seriously, it gets worse and worse every time there's an update to this site, but at least I can speak my mind here without fear of repercussion unlike some places where don't you DARE disagree with the scam artists trying to hock their books through the site.

    Considering you would either way have to have the content or a placeholder for the content in place? I would think the artist would still be screwing around moving layers by the time I had a working desktop layout. Might take a little longer to go responsive but that's something the PSD jockey wouldn't even have, or take just as long to create.

    I have yet to see one that wasn't an absolute accessibility MESS. Typically the PSD jockeys with the giant set of brass to call themselves "designers" don't know enough about HTML, CSS, or most importantly accessibility to be designing a blasted thing. It would be like hiring a high school art teacher to design a multi-billion dollar tower in a disgustingly oil-rich nation instead of bringing in an architect. Someone driving a Prius when what you need is a Saab owner.

    WORSE, many of them ARE outright scam artists; see pretty much EVERYONE selling off the shelf templates to unsuspecting nubes; it's quite clear simply by looking at their code that they have NO business making a blasted thing for anyone else, much less themselves which is why the end result is usually either a money-pit

    I've watched some fifteen years of precisely that -- as I've said a few times it's almost like the old "paid by the K-LoC" mainframe developer scam artists from the late '70's and early '80's have ressurected in a new form. I've been at this since 1977, I know the scam artists when I see them; they use the same speech, same mannerisms, and repeatedly spout the same lame excuses.

    Costing more to host if they get real traffic, costing them conversions or outright alienating potential clients -- I know several small business owners who have had that situatio of this crap putting the saddle on them and taking them for a ride.

    In a lot of ways it's just the same scam as credit; or more specifically moneylending. Pay more later for something you can't afford now. A bad site can ruin your reputation and be such an expense you'd be better off just having a crappy facebook page.

    Assuming it shows up in Google, assuming that information isn't buried on the page, is in a legible colour format, is presented in an accessible manner... Which are all things you rarely see in some bloated slow off the shelf template or a design pissed out by a PSD jockey. I've seen a great number of cases where businesses would be better off without a website if that $10 job is all they can afford.

    Of course if all they can afford is $10, how legitimate a business can they be?

    That doesn't even make sense... unless you are pissing away the entire reason HTML exists and undoing some 17 years of development progress by slapping in classes in a presentational manner. There's a reason:

    <div class="red center bigFont">

    Is mouth-breathing dumbass halfwit bull; no matter how many OOCSS and framework jacktards claim otherwise; COMPLETELY misses the point of HTML and CSS even EXISTING.

    QUITE different as I don't see these alleged benefits, and if there actually were any the negatives are simply too much to ever be outweighed.

    Considering everything just looked slapped in there? But again I ONLY said that was the starting point, a concept you seem lost on since you seem to think that the visual layout is the entire shebang, instead of a small part of a MUCH larger puzzle.

    ... and that last part we differ on greatly. More markup so as to save a few lines of CSS is the same amount of work at best; and again outweighed by the ridiculous code bloat.

    Until you hit 30+ files and first-load that's 5 to 25 seconds of handshaking REGARDLESS of connection speed or filesizes. Until all the scripttardery and bloated CSS rules take more time to render and start chewing CPU time -- which on mobile means sucking the battery dry for NOTHING.

    But there's another of those warning signs, the "target demographic" Lame excuse.

    Depends on if you need speed or portability; I'm a right tool for the right job kind of guy. I wouldn't try to write a blitter for a 8088 game in C++; likewise I wouldn't try to interface to openGL from x86 machine language.

    Keene, NH. I'm in this wonderful spot where I get faster ping times to Europe than I do Boston, MA some 60 miles away all because of the infamous 'backbone divide'. I get faster times to Florida than Chicago.

    But that's really irrelevant, it's all about the math. Have you ever heard of the 200ms average handshake? It's basically the notion that if you are trying to predict the average access speed of users you assume that for every file past the first 8 being transferred, it takes an average of a fifth of a second, and worst case can take a second or more. That's why right now to your server I'm getting slightly better load times... Ah, screw it. <henghist>threadjack, THREADJACK, THREADJACK, MWHAHAHA, You're all gonna die... die...</henghist>

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/mightWeb/info/profileOriginalSite.png

    Yesterday I was seeing 1 second+ for each file response, today as you can see it's more around 300ms. It's why techniques like CSS sprites exists, why linking multiple stylesheets separately is rubbish, and why the endless pointless dozen plus files of scripttardery can very quickly piss away your speed.

    Hence why amongst my ideal page target sizes I have a file count limit; 12 being the ideal, 20 being my upper limit. I REALLY try not to go past that... just as for a 'normal' non-gallery page not counting social plugins (since they operate a little different since they are much more likely to be cached) I have an ideal page size of 72k for HMTL+CSS+IMAGES+SCRIPTS not counting content, and a upper limit I try to stay under of double that. For most pages if you can't bring it in under those numbers, you are likely alienating potential users!

    Except that what they do is as I keep saying redundant to existing tags; and DIV aren't placed for semantics -- and what do you mean "misnamed"? If you mean the classes or ID's it's not like classes or ID's provide ANY semantics, that's WHY you use them. Again, semantically nuetral containers as hooks for style without 1) saying what that style is, or 2) screwing up the meaning of your existing semantic tags.

    In that sense, they're pointless redundancies in a specification that already had too many redundancies; again, undoing everything 4 STRICT was trying to create and dragging us back to the WORST of HTML 3.2 style thinking.

    ARIA is just the microformat junkies latest jaunt at trying to dupe people into over-labelling crap so that "scrapers" -- or as I like to call them "content theives" -- have an easier job of it. Sooner or later you have to let the content and existing semantic tags do their job; 90%+ of ARIA roles are redundant to the meaning of the tags or to the content itself. It reeks of taking something simple and pissing all over it to the point that I'm waiting for them to introduce tags like <verb>, <noun> and <adjective>... as quite literally that's how stupid that crap is getting. IT's the SAME bull we saw with "microformats" a decade ago with little if any legitimate purpose apart from making HTML larger and slower for no good reason.

    If nothing else, isn't this the same type of garbage that left XHTML 1.1 stillborn in a public toilet?

    Becuause maintaining four different codec/container combinations and using twice the markup is somehow "easier?", just because Apple are pricks that want to shove their favorite pet down your throat and the flosstards rage against the man? Pulllease...

    It's more markup for nothing at BEST, it's over-complicating it at worst. Cleaner? MORE RELIABLE? BULL!

    I have, I still don't get why it has a tag. It does NOTHING without scripting, so it should be a scripting targetable node... just like CDATA or comment nodes, or all the other nodeTypes on the DOM people seem so ignorant of. (hence why so many halfwits seem to dive for jquery for the simplest of things).

    ... and your examples? No reason you can't attach events to a node. AT BEST it's redundant to NOSCRIPT, at worst? Just another tag for nothing.

    Viewport? We're talking HTML 5 right, not "vendor specific bullshit we have to use anyways" as in the META? Or are you talking CSS3 @viewport- which there is NOTHING preventing you from using them in older doctypes since that's CSS, NOT markup. Even FF hasn't bothered trying to implement since it's listed as working draft, I wouldn't go that far...

    There's a LOT of really cool stuff people CALL HTML 5 that has jack to do with it as a markup specification. They lump things like the new scripting and CSS3 under that banner because without it, the Emperor is standing there bare for the world to see.

    That you seem to think it has anythign to do with HTML, well... kind of like everything else you seem to think has something to do with HTML or semantics, makes me question if you know what they are!

    I don't see a list of improvements, I see a list of redundancies and crap we were told to STOP doing 17 years ago!

    except maybe MANIFEST, and that's really only useful for making web crapplets -- and I hate web crapplets too so...

    In the words of a great man, "suck it up princess" -- I find it laughable you find my posts insulting; but I figure you're what, mid 20's, probably from the west coast? Seattle area maybe? Just guessing from your reactions and mannerisms.

    If I'm insulting, it's because I'm sick to death of seeing the same mistakes repeated time and time and time again, and people basically plowing themselves for it! I'm even sicker of seeing people taken advantage of REPEATEDLY by the very things you are advocating since again, I've seen that time and time again as well. I'm not saying you're a scam artist, but I do have to put serious doubts on your knowledge of ANY of these topics given the things you've said.

    Like a great many others out there, I suspect you've been led astray by the people who just try to slap the rose coloured glasses on everyone's head and lead them down the garden path to epic fail.

    Of course if people would just man the **** up and show a little testicular fortitude, maybe we could all learn something and work towards fixing things; but no, the "sleazy by on as little effort as possible" mated to the "credit mentality" is just pissing on everything from orbit... JUST like during the browser wars, format wars, and every other time sick buzzwords and marketspeak has taken over an industry.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
    deathshadow, May 31, 2015 IP
    malky66 likes this.
  14. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #14
    Of course - I tried pointing out that unless you yourself has something tangible to contribute, and prove your point with actual examples, links, tests, something - you shouldn't go bashing on people with more actual knowledge - of course you can disagree, but at least you need to make a case for yourself - hey, I disagree with you on a weekly basis, doesn't mean I don't understand you POV, or reasoning.
     
    PoPSiCLe, May 31, 2015 IP