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.

Which tool is better one?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by eric_wahlberg, Oct 24, 2016.

  1. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    163
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #21
    Apparently you see sitechop differently than I do. EVERYTHING is above the fold when I look at that site. I just need to scroll some EIGHT pages to the right to see all of the content. What so-called site "designer" in his right mind would force visitors to scroll to the right to see ALL content when people NORMALLY expect to scroll DOWN to see additional content? I wonder what his BOUNCE RATE is. Probably pretty high since there is almost NO content above the fold, and NONE below the fold.SEMrush
     
    mmerlinn, Nov 19, 2016 IP
    SEMrush
  2. anthony scoble

    anthony scoble Greenhorn

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    13
    #22
    I am a professional web designer in Toronto-based web design company , I personally use photoshop more than CSS styles but program in HTML and CSS. You get your own custom design from photoshop along with your custom layout in HTML + CSS styling to make your web page look even better!.With experience , you will come to know which tool exactly match up with your skills and needs.
     
    anthony scoble, Nov 19, 2016 IP
  3. CyborgVillager

    CyborgVillager Greenhorn

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    #23
    In my experience on 9 months on self training, I have never used Photoshop or Dreamweaver. I used CSS not only because its easier to make a website design, but also time effective as well. If I were you I would use CSS.

    So yeah, until I learn a bit more on this topic, I would be still using CSS.
     
    CyborgVillager, Nov 19, 2016 IP
  4. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    420
    #24
    I don't really get the whole blasting of sitechop... looks quite okay on my screen: Skjermbilde 2016-11-19 kl. 20.01.53.jpg
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 19, 2016 IP
  5. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Likes Received:
    339
    Best Answers:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #25
    Not on mine. It require horizontal scrolling through several pages and then a link to continue with another set of silly links that scroll horizontally. The page is not well constructed at all.

    gary
     
    kk5st, Nov 19, 2016 IP
  6. badger_

    badger_ Greenhorn

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    20
    #26
    Same here. I see the horizontal scroll in Firefox 45.2.0... I thought it was due to Noscript, but even allowing javascript I see it.

    I don't get the benefits of wasting the most valuable space and pushing the content down making the visitor waste time seeing a pretty photo. It may be good for stationery, but definitely not for the web. I fully agree with deathshadow... listen to this guy, he knows what he talks about.
     
    badger_, Nov 19, 2016 IP
  7. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    420
    #27
    I don't really argue that the site isn't well constructed, but I'm a bit uncertain why it shows up that different - escpecially since I was also viewing it on Firefox (granted, ver. 50), but also Chrome and Safari. Looks mostly the same.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 20, 2016 IP
  8. krozo

    krozo Greenhorn

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    #28
    Affinity designer is a good one (actually for Windows)
     
    krozo, Nov 21, 2016 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,447
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #29
    Remember, I'm a 8514/125%/120dpi/Large Font/Win7+ Medium Font/PickAHonkingNameAlready user, who also runs portrait tabs so...

    http://www.deathshadow.com/images/sitechop_vivaldi.jpg

    If you're wondering about the 1842x1080 size, I also run my taskbar in portrait on the left, leaving as much height free as possible for, you know, CONTENT.

    Is what I'm seeing on that site until I zoom out, then the first... three lines of each sub-item barely shows up. When I scroll down, I can only get three items of MAYBE twenty vague words EACH? 60 or so words on a 1920x1080 screen is NOT good design unless you're one of those TLDR mouth-breathers; generally NOT what I'd consider the target audience for a web development site.

    NOT exactly made of /win/ on a 17" laptop, 28" desktop display, or 52" TV screen. If anything it's a giant middle finger saying at best "We're trying to sweep our lack of content under the rug" and at worst "we give a flying **** about content".
     
    deathshadow, Nov 23, 2016 IP
  10. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    420
    #30
    But, @deathshadow, while I agree completely that the site in question isn't really anything to holler about, how many of their potential customers/users do you think have a blown-up general size-boost in Windows? If the amount of the users experiencing the solution as "bad" is say 3-4%, the amount of the users experiencing it as "okay" is say 70%, and the rest see it just fine, no issues, and goes "sure, why the hell not" - fixing such issues are a non-priority. People want flash, WITH content, by all means, but first and foremost, the flash is what gets them to stay on the page to actually look at the content. Again, the site in question is a rather bland example of that, since there isn't that much flash to begin with, but the point still stands. Since I haven't seen pictures of the other issues mentioned, I can't say anything about that, but it seems perhaps that the "bad"-category for this particular site is a bit higher, and they should maybe redo some bits. First item: get rid of that overblown header-bit.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 23, 2016 IP
  11. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,447
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #31
    ... and how many of these little percentages do you need to accept as collateral damage before it alienates everybody? People who want dynamic fonts are x%, people browsing on large displays is x%, people not seeing the visual layout is only x%, people using ___fill_in__the_blank__ browser are x%...

    Until there's so much overlap, there's nobody left.

    "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out..."

    No, "flashy" does NOT get people to stay on a page, the only people it impresses are the developers who circle-jerked themselves into slopping it onto the page in the first place, and the site owners who don't know any better. CONTENT is what people come to a page FOR, so anything that gets in the way of that is bad usability.

    These "every ****ing bootcrap ever" style sites where five words and an image is all you get on first-load are the exact same bullshit as "splash pages' -- something we've been told for two decades not to do. It's just pointless bandwidth wasting crap that gets in the way of doing what the user came to the page to do -- GET TO THE CONTENT -- so bloody well get to it!

    There's a reason I hold up certain sites -- even when they have accessibility failings -- as examples of places that got it RIGHT. Amazon, E-Bay, Slashdot, Google... as I always joke you want to make a "designer's" peeper shoot in so far it sticks out their pooper, CRAIGSLIST!

    Whilst again many of them are poorly coded and have accessibility woes, they also don't waste time shoving flashy bullshit in your face and instead put what it is you actually came to the site to do front-and-center!

    Goofy full page images and zero content might look pretty ONCE, it becomes annoying half-assed halfwit bullshit the second time, and if there's content good enough to keep you coming back, that idiocy is just going to make you not want to come back tomorrow, the day after, or the day after that to try and hunt to find what little content is actually present!

    Look at the train wreck of developer ineptitude that is paypal's homepage right now. Giant space wasting image, illegible white text over an image too light to have white (or black) text, goofy poorly rendering webfont, zero graceful degradation or accessibility in the markup -- THAT is what happens when you let some artsty fartsy type piss all over a website. THAT is what happens when some gormless fool is allowed to take a dump on it with OOCSS style mentality.

    As if they didn't have enough trust issues.

    But you know what I say, if you don't know what's wrong with code like this:

    
    <body class="">
    
            
            
    <div id="body" class="">
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    <header class="table-row pp-header" role="banner">
        <div>
            <div class="containerCentered ">
    
                
    
                    <a href="#Menu" id="menu-button" role="button">Menu</a>
    
    
                <a data-pa-click="header|paypal-logo" href="https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/home" class="paypal-img-logo">PayPal</a>
    
                
    
                    <nav id="main-menu" class="main-menu" role="navigation">
        <ul>
          <li><a href="https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/home" id="header-personal" rel="menuitem" aria-controls="submenu-personal" data-pa-click="header|personal">Personal</a><div class="menu-wrapper" id="submenu-personal" aria-labelledby="header-personal"><ul id="header-personal-menu" class="subnav list"><li><a href="https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/getting-started/get-account/overview" data-pa-click="sub|personal" data-highlight="header-personal">
    
    Code (markup):
    Do the world a favor, back the **** away from the keyboard, and take up something a bit less detail oriented like macramé. That a mainstream developer for a major company would even be ALLOWED to vomit up that level of ineptitude is a significant sign of everything WRONG with this industry right now! Talk about putting the herp into that derp...

    Even bigger laugh is the scripttard frame blocking that wouldn't be needed NOR would it even run if they instituted the CSP!

    The only real tools are the people who make sites that way.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 24, 2016 IP
  12. Middleman

    Middleman Peon

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #32
    I have worked for many years building websites for clients and always get my designer to create layered PSD’s that my coder then uses. Best way !!!!
     
    Middleman, Dec 4, 2017 IP
  13. dimitarang

    dimitarang Active Member

    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #33
    Dreamweaver..man you get me far back in the day :). No one uses it anymore I think. When it comes to photoshop, yeah I use it for designs but photoshop does not create websites neither dreamweaver or microsoft front page :)
     
    dimitarang, Dec 4, 2017 IP
  14. Omnitec1018

    Omnitec1018 Member

    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #34
    Both of the them are good, what matters is how flexible one feels while working with these tools.
     
    Omnitec1018, Dec 7, 2017 IP