Hi, I have done PSD slicing in the past but since then I have designed sites by simply just coding them so I have a general layout and then adding the images (backgrounds etc) like on my website in my signature. A LOT of designers nowadays seem to think that when you design a website nowadays it has to be in PSD and some customers have just assumed I will be using a PSD file and slicing it and seemed shocked when I say I would not do it this way? Is this the way things are going? Nick
I think it's the past. First, why limit yourself only to PS? Vector programmes and free software are always at the bottom of clients' lists, for no good reason. Second, I've only found one type of instance where slicing an image up was the best thing (Eric Meyer's page where he slices an image into different divs in order to put a curve and have the text curve around it at well-- see [url="http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/curvelicious/demo.html]Curvalicious[/url]). Not that this means there aren't other good reasons, maybe even filesize reduction tho I doubt it and you're loading more files altogether... Now, if the client wants to see a proposed design on PS, fine. Make it in whatever you like and rename it .psd : ) unless it's vectored, then import to PS and rename. Do you have to tell your customers how you're going to be sticking those images on the page? Didn't think most cared, so long as it works and looks nice. Also: Slicing is probably used by every designer using Dreambeaver/Wordpress/etc with ImageReady or something because that's the meaning for those types of programmes.
Only when hell freezes over,as far as I'm concered. Slicing a psd image to create a website may appear to be a quick and efficient way to get a final result, but it ignores all the principles of accessability, semantic markup, and the ability for a site to be displayed across a multitude of different devices. A sliced PSD is fixed in its dimensions, therefore is completely inflexible in its approach to handling different screen sizes, resolutions, devices. While designing in photoshop up front is fine, translating that image into a workable website is where the hard work comes in, and in my opinion simply slicing up the image and fitting it onto a screen is not the correct approach.
I totally agree with what you have both said. I would actually find it harder and more time consuming to do it with divs and use background images and add images to code rather than adding code to images. I used to also ALWAYS design in Photoshop because I found Illustrator complicated and was too used to PS. Since getting into Illustrator I only really have a need for Photoshop for certain little things. I just wanted to check if I was going to have to start learning how to "slice" websites ha!
As far as im concerned slicing an image always makes it load really badly. Maybe it's just me that would rather a whole image loads slowly then lots of smaller images load a bit faster (then if a few images don't load you can't see it properly). I remember seeing a site which it wouldn't load the image properly once it was sliced, it loaded the chest and crotch of a person, but not the rest of their body (I found it amusing at the time...)
I normally start from a design in Photoshop. This allows me to see exactly what needs to be done. After seeing exactly what the design entails, i would reproduce that design in Dreamweaver from scratch using as few images and HTML/CSS mark-up as possible. Just slicing up the PSD would produce a very inefficient webpage.
OK.... are we talking about the naff auto slicing of PSDs or "proper" slicing? It is not so much the future as it is the past. When the web took off you had a lot of people who came from a traditional design background who had been using PS (and other packages) for many years and therefore it was easier for them to create designs using the tools they were used to when the web came along and everyone wanted a site. Personally I think it is quicker to create a design in PS than it is to create a css/ HTML format and when most clients want 3-4 ideas initially this time differences is amplified. The other issue of cause is clients running off with the design and not paying for the rest of the project. With HTML you either have to send them a jpg of the site which would have been as easily created from the PSD or send them the HTML/ CSS itself in which case they can easily take the template and run. Likewise with option 2 you have to ensure that all 4 designs are fully compliant with all browsers etc just in case the client happens to use Opera 5 still where as with an image their is no issue for this. At the end of the day it comes down to personal tastes but I would strongly suspect that most are quicker using PSD and the code is cleaner when going from PSD to xHTML (manually coded) than straight from blank sheet of paper to xHTML. Dont think I have ever come across any pro that uses PS's automated HTML generation etc as it simply isnt as efficient as it could be and as pointed out before, the system cannot know the intention of how each element will stretch/ be fixed size etc
Personally I feel 'slicing' is something that should be forgotten. Whenever I have a PSD to work from i'll export certain segments separately (such as page background, menu bar background, etc) and then build the overall design up, using correct markup. There really is no replacement for hand-coded design.
I use PNGs not PSDs but that's beside the point. I still think that slicing an original image is the way to go. There's less to do now though because more graphical effects are acheieved by css. But in terms of designing a site the way I want it to look, I think you end up with a better design by doing it purely in a gfx program first, you can also save time using library of web widgets like buttons, and browser template to speed things up.
I agree 100%. I never understood why PSD's where the cat's pajamas or whatever. Also, so many people use image based navigation when it is better to have a navigation with anchor text - So CSS applied to navigation would be much better in terms of SEO and most navigation can be recreated using mostly CSS anyways. Plus, with slicing, there are so many compatibility issues - a pixel here, a pixel there... However, I think PSD could be useful for the conceptual phase of a project.
I know what you're saying! As a designer and front end coder, I have never used a PSD for a guide to how my websites should look, I create a CSS layout and add what I want as a see fit, to me this gives me more flexibility and control! The only time I slice PSD to xHTML is when my clients have their own designs and ask for it, which of course is fine as i'm able to do that for them. But for my personal sites which I build, it's never with a PSD guide!
It is certainly different when you are doing your own as you can tweak as you go along, handle browser issues as and when they come up etc where as with clients you really need it as close to perfect when creating the drafts but you dont know their settings/ risk of theft etc
true...it depends on the designer and the type of site as well...sometimes i do the design in PS and just cut out the graphic elements i need and code the rest....it works for me Eg...if the client wasnts a flash site...i would do it up in PS and then pull in the elements into FLash.....a corporate site i would code with css and html first and probably use PS to do the graphics PS is just one the the tools i use when doing my sites.......
In the past designers just created there pages in PS and there was an option that sliced it an wrote the markup for you (mind you it was ugly and bloated). I think this trend is partly from these old school designers that are being forced, by their clients, into tableless layouts but cannot write the markup themselves. IMO, outsourcing is another factor in this trend. There are lots of companies out there that provide web design/development but do 0% of the work. They outsource the design to designers then hire a coder/programmer to write the markup and scripting.
I always do the design first in PS, to see how it looks like, so I got a template to go after, then I cut out all nessesary images and start coding by hand. I never slice it. Slicing is probably the fastest way to get a "design" into HTML (clean or not). But then after that there's so many issues, so it's not worth it. imo
As with many of the others who posted here, I design in PSD first, and then code from scratch, taking the necessary graphics from the design as and when needed - under no circumstances should anyone who considers themselves a good coder use the scrappy autoslicing feature - the resultant code is a mess, doesn't validate, is inflexible and is a dinosaur of a lazy past.