What is Digg?152 Comments
- hadiz, on 04/27/2008, -2/+163"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." - Einstein
- trashcat, on 04/27/2008, -21/+95Awful. Fixed position and large images where text would do the job should be avoided at all costs. I would highly recommend learning the proper ways to do things from the very start. E.g. dynamic layouts and accessibility.
I get the feeling this will get dug because it looks nice (a fancy background and images will do that) but a fixed layout will infuriate users other that those with the exact same setup as the author, and waiting 5 secs for a background to load may not sound like a lot... - p0tent1al, on 04/27/2008, -4/+53I disagree. Obviously text would do the job for this situation, but the purpose of the tutorial is to show you all the techniques used to create a good looking site. Once you have the tools, then you can go and take what you need from the tutorial, and implement it right along side a lean XHTML/CSS setup.
Anyone could as easily mock the tutorial for not dynamically building the Recent Work section from a database, which would be (once again) outside the scope of the tutorial, and moreover, plain silly.
The site is called PSDTuts, not PSD + XHTML/CSS + PHP/MySQL Tuts. Let them concentrate on what they do best, teaching Photoshop. - fcrow, on 04/27/2008, -7/+52It's ok but not worth digging. Also I would never use text in an image on a website, best thing is to separate content and design.
- element4l, on 04/27/2008, -4/+43As a designer myself (no, I don't just claim I am), I can honestly say this is not a bad tutorial if you're looking to get into this kind of stuff. It teaches some of the fundamentals on colour matching and typography, and also to keep things simple.
But I really do hate fixed backgrounds. Those have to go. - sloonark, on 04/27/2008, -0/+23There are several studies suggesting that black backgrounds are not as bad as we've been led to believe. In fact, they may be preferable.
Personally, I find staring at white backgrounds a little hard on my eyes. Who was it who said it was like staring at a light bulb? - limezor2, on 04/27/2008, -1/+22Frontpage is so '99.
- santaliqueur, on 04/27/2008, -0/+18Only time I'd use text in an image is for an email address, to make it harder for the dumber spambots.
- estvir, on 04/27/2008, -1/+18scottcc, I'm not one of those 'W3C nuts' but to call CSS bloated and prefer tables is possibly one of the most stupid things I have read on Digg.
Also, fixed layouts are fine and liquid ones come with problems of their own. Just choose what's best for the site you're designing/coding. - XBSHX, on 04/27/2008, -2/+19lol scottcc you're such a moron. Calling yourself a "professional web designer" and yet using tables for layout purposes? Thats gotta be the funniest thing I've heard all day. Tables were created to hold tabular data, not to be used as a substitute for layout divs. It's not our fault that you're either too stupid or too lazy to spend some time learning CSS. Let me guess, you're one of the people that will go on craigslist and throw up some posts about being able to create a professional website for like $100. You know nothing about web design.
- toxicityj, on 04/27/2008, -2/+19as someone who does primarily PSD to XHTML/CSS work, I thank you for that. I wish more designers would do that so when they see the finished product they don't give me that "Well why does the font look different?" crap.
- tiberone, on 04/27/2008, -0/+16Maddox.
- solidus636, on 04/27/2008, -2/+18If you look closely, there is a link to their new site where it shows how to code the layout. Here is the link:
http://nettuts.com/site-builds/build-a-sleek-portf ... - nicolaport, on 04/27/2008, -16/+32They make it seam so easy! Great tutorial, as usual in psdtuts.com
- estvir, on 04/27/2008, -1/+17Frontpage? You should fire him, now.
- Nextrix, on 04/27/2008, -1/+15WTF are you guys talking about more time to develop a website in CSS compared to tables?! Since I have learned CSS a couple years back I been able to make website designs and convert them to CSS/XHTML in less time it took me just to cut out all the image for my tables back in the day (2001). I am not saying tables are not useful as they are still great for you know... displaying data in tables AKA spreadsheets. And the benefits of CSS in the long run are worth taking the time to learn it now. I think if you don't like change, then you are in the wrong industry as this field changes all the time. As for the companies, well they are starting to learn about efficient websites and some are not willing to accept the older methods when creating a website, well except for smaller business like a local shop or the lady down the road. What quicker, going through a tabled design website and making a new design for it, or having a XHTML DIVs elements website where I can just make some small changes and apply a new design CSS on top of the page. In the end it makes it better for all of us, not just the consumer.
If you are not willing to learn CSS, you can't call yourself a professional web designer!! Its like saying I am a professional developer that is only willing to code in BASIC. - DNABeast, on 04/27/2008, -0/+13You've been making sites since 1997? Is that why all your sites look like they were made in 1997?
- inactive, on 04/27/2008, -3/+16Just to let you guys know, they have the coding portion of the tutorial on Nettuts.com .
- fr34k5h0w, on 04/27/2008, -1/+13Uhm... no. If your website is all about the design then you have a pretty website with no use. Your content MUST be king or your website will just be another bland 2.0. "Web 1.0" as some would call it was all about the final product, not the steps to get there. Today's websites should focus on good, lean code that promotes content that is universally accessible.
- dariusperkins, on 04/27/2008, -0/+12It'd have been more creative if you didn't credit it to Einstein.
- tomi, on 04/27/2008, -0/+11You'd be rather surprised then, scottcc. People will pay big money for a website. We're not talking about amateurs here.
- tomi, on 04/27/2008, -0/+10scottcc, I suggest you look into studying more about CSS. I definitely don't see how CSS is more bloated than tables at all.
- Protonz, on 04/27/2008, -1/+10They do mention this in the article. But it is a matter of style. If you aren't worried about SEO or load times, then why not? You can't do a radial gradient on standard text, gotta use an image for that.
There can be value in not doing what everyone else does. - nhayes, on 04/27/2008, -1/+9awesome!, I've always wanted to know how to make a web site that looked totally sweet, yet totally useless
- juke1, on 04/27/2008, -0/+7LOL
- palmerized, on 04/27/2008, -1/+8I think people are forgetting the purpose of the tutorial. It's not "how to create an accessible, code-perfect website from scratch". This site is all about creating gorgeous eye-candy in Photoshop. Taking that in to consideration, I think it looks great. I'm a web creative director, and not *all* websites need to be fully scalable, perfect CSS, etc. Sometimes you need to create a site that shows a little more visual impact. However, there's nothing in that design that couldn't really be done via CSS...
- SSUK, on 04/27/2008, -0/+7Yeah, ***** creativity. Let's just do what everyone else is doing.
Get some backbone and be creative. - maximumsteve1, on 04/27/2008, -1/+8I know! seams sort of like spelling!
- MtheoryX, on 04/27/2008, -0/+7Well, I guess you're ***** out of luck then. That would be my guess.
You can't please everyone. - CrimsonBlur, on 04/27/2008, -9/+15This is actually a pretty good tutorial... except I hate black backgrounds with a passion. If there is going to be blocks of readable text anywhere on a Website, do not put a black background behind it! I can't believe designers, good designers, are still doing this. Other than that I like the design.
Sure there are better ways to do things as trashcat points out above, but it's just a basic beginner's tutorial so who cares? - p0tent1al, on 04/27/2008, -1/+7Frontpage = no
Table Layout = double no
As for cost... depends on how good you want it to look, how many pages you need, and exactly what you are going to need the design for, I would estimate between 100-300 dollars. - ventralnet, on 04/27/2008, -0/+6thats a lot of absolute positioning
- p0tent1al, on 04/27/2008, -0/+6The tutorial on Nettuts incorporates a bitmap of text, the extra tutorial on Nettuts does not change this.
http://nettuts.s3.amazonaws.com/002_WebBuild/site/ ... - hpfreak26, on 04/27/2008, -0/+6What, do you think he's going to sue?
- winmywii, on 04/27/2008, -1/+7I usually charge $700-$1500. It's been working out pretty well. If people want cheaper sites I will sell them a template for $300-$500.
- tconley79, on 04/27/2008, -2/+7Great guide for developing a concept...however actually making this into a usable website might take some work.
- bpapa, on 04/27/2008, -1/+6If you're really getting paid to write HTML in 2008 with this kind of attitude I'm glad you're not working for me. What the person sees on the top is more important than the source code? Yeah, forget about things like accessibility or SEO, that stuff CLEARLY isn't as important as aesthetics.
- HolyChimp, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5alt tag?
- tomi, on 04/27/2008, -0/+5Yawn? I'm glad to see something not politics or lifestyle related on Digg for once. Bring back the technology on Digg!
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4I guess that defeats the purpose of an image that bots can't read.
- MtheoryX, on 04/27/2008, -0/+4i said... THE CAPS LOCK IS TO THE LEFT
- jggube, on 04/27/2008, -7/+11Great tutorial, as we can only expect from psdtuts. It's very thorough. Though, I'd like to add that when mocking-up the content text (lorem ipsum's I call them), I prefer setting the text with no smoothing/anti-aliasing to simulate how it would look in a web browser (without ClearType or similar installed).
- bamafun, on 04/27/2008, -2/+6great beginners guide - easy to follow and understand =)
- tommyvercetti, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Where do I find more stuff like this? I have been searching for a book that guides a person through web design (not an intro to HTML or CSS).
- estvir, on 04/27/2008, -1/+4NEVER? It's good to have as little as possibly but some specific text as an image is fine, it just depends what text it is.
- brownspank, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3I come from a Fireworks background, but I'm sure that the code that Photoshop churns out with the slices isn't ideal (I would guess it's table-based layout), and any designer who's pro-standards / pro-semantics would selectively slice parts of the mockup that are important, and code the layout by hand.
- daizaru, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3Even though I hate misquotes, that was a hilarious response.
- solid12345, on 04/27/2008, -1/+4"do not adhere to w3c standards"
Tables have been used since the dawn of the internet and now suddenly the W3C wants to say they are not compliant?
Seems to me web programmers are bending over backwards to make sites compliant for a minority of people who view the internet on their cell phones or PDA. Most people still use computers (gasp!) to surf the web and thus they should be the target market, not a bunch of sweater wearing yuppies at Starbucks surfing with their Iphone. - pk7677, on 04/27/2008, -1/+4Bookmarked.
- TheUserFactor, on 04/27/2008, -0/+3"What the person sees on the top is more important than the source code." Be careful. That's misleading at best. What a person DOES is more important than anything else. If your site looks breathtaking but doesn't convert traffic to sales or some other important purpose to your ends, then you're just standing around with your thumb up your ass. By the way, 100% platform compatibility is a myth. Web sites are written in markup language which does enjoy uniform standards compliance from one browser maker to another. Get your website running clean through the venerated WC3 validator, and you'll STILL probably find platforms on which the SAME "valid" markup blows chunks.
Big picture, people, big picture. Zoom out. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is