What is Digg?78 Comments
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3grrr
web snobs...
I code by hand too (and im a graphic designer!) but I find it completely useless to harp on others who would rather do something more automated.
to each his own.
isn't the thrill of hand-coding reward enough?? - heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll make this short.
Pros don't do web development in photoshop. - kderby2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Give the Adobe+Macromedia merger some time, and they'll be tools for working between and integrating Photoshop and Dreamweaver.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only reason Adobe bought macromedia was because their web developement tools/applications SUCK!! GoLive produces some of the UGLIEST code and is some of the BUGGIEST software known to man! Photoshop's built in webpage for professionals... that is design professionals. People in marketing, peolpe who dont want to or don't know how to use dreamweaver and such tools.
EVERY professional web designer uses their choice of editors & a program like Adobe Photoshop for imaging, but NEVER for web design. Adobe now has a way to get the WHOLE market there. And FLASH market too. So they will have a HUGE market there now. Scary stuff! - yayson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm a bit of a web snob wysiwyg hater myself but I actually looked at the markup and CSS (I've never considered these "programming" languages either, rather markup/layout language) and the html was fairly semantic, nice and lean, maybe one stray div at the bottom but I didn't check it against the stylesheet. As for the stylesheet it was quite intelligent for being done by a piece of software, no padding or borders in sight to break the box.
Scary stuff for us know it all web snobs :)
Well done Photoshop I say. - TyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really awesome. +Digg
- LR2_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sweet, anyone else know of a tut that shows how to design in photoshop and code in dreamweaver?
- sqthreer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not bad but I still prefer Dreamweaver and EditPlus :P
- directandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yall are cracking me up
- thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why not use GoLive? It integrates nicely with Photoshop.
- floam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I said, after qouting you, "XHTML + CSS were designed to MAKE THE CODERS JOB EASIER.". True, no?"
I don't think the former is true. Most would agree that XHTML is harder than HTML because of how strict it is. XHTML makes the job of the user agent easier and makes the parsing of the markup more predictable. The only cases that XHTML is truly easier is if you're into things like MathML.
Also, don't take this to mean I don't endorse XHTML, it's great. - seven5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, time is money, and most of that time is spent in maintaining your code. XHTML + CSS allows maintenance to be much faster and easier.
Standards compliant code is 10 times easier to read and code than table based layouts. CSS allows for a much more rapid and aesthetically pleasing site overall.
I suggest the Os X users out there to download TextMate and google for a nice XHTML tutorial, and pick up Zeldman's book, 'Designing with Web Standards'. You'll be much happier and on a straiter path to an actual job rather than just hacking up a site to be hosted by godaddy.com for free. - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice tutorial.
It'll be very useful in the future.
+digg
+bookmarked - deepblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Obviously, the "pros" didn't read the tut. The title is misleading as it was purely a Photoshop tutorial on doing a webpage layout and creating the images. The code was just included in the download so you can view the completed page on a browser. The HTML/CSS was obviously hand coded. Tables were not used and Photoshop doesn't produce CSS.
If you want to comment "dig" or "no dig", please read what you are trying to comment on and not react based on the title! - lo0ol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whats with all these tutorials being posted on Digg? If you want to know how to make X in Photoshop, go over to pixel2life.com or good-tutorials.com."
No doubt. I would not be ideologically opposed if the only diggs were of sites like good-tutorials.com. ;)
This particular tutorial actually did fairly well the first day it was up on Good-Tutorials (yesterday), getting about 4k clicks. Decent. Actually I'm guessing that the digger found it from Good-Tutorials, though perhaps I'm just overestimating the reach of it a bit. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Site Grinder $129.00
http://www.medialab.com/sitegrinder
This is a plug-in for Photoshop that allows to to design a a site graphically right in Photoshop and export it. - floam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Actually they all do ..."
Really. I've been payed to this for a few years now, and I'm pretty sure I would not be getting payed what I get if I were to begin writing poor code in WYSIWYG editors. I'm also fairly certain, working in this industry, that this is true of most other professionals. Generally the only people that do it this way are not web developers, but merely graphic artists that do no understand how things work. They give us art, and occasionally some generated HTML thinking they are doing us a favor. It gets thrown away. - Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On which page exactly does he show you how to write the code, let alone write the code in Photoshop? Being able to download finished code doesn't count. The title is misleading, as well as the description of the tutorial, both here and on the tutorial site. This is nothing more than a glorified Photoshop tutorial. No digg.
- heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@battybattybatt
What the hell are you talking about? HTML is not based on XML. Neither one is a programming language - they are markup languages. There are programming languages expressed in XML, most notably XSLT, but it's not really an ideal setup since everything must be hierarchical.
XML doesn't date to 1982. SGML goes back much farther, and is the basis of XML, but XML came out of the 90s. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ugh! Fixed width is the tool of the devil! Not everybody has 800 or 1024 wide screens! This sort of thing is just abuse of HTML and CSS.
And yes, digg is pretty bad about this too. So are 95% of the blogs out there.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and design your page to scale to the available width properly instead of making a single column that takes less than a quarter of the width of some people's screens! A high end HDTV has at least 1920 horizonal pixels. Why does your webpage not scale for some future browser on an HDTV set? - eastcoastweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Quality is always better than quantity!
When you code your web site it should function and look the same in every browser on every platform. If it doesn't than your coding wrong or doing something that isn't supported by every browser... which is also wrong.
Web code and design is not a word processor. These companies are working against professionals who know their code and work hard to maintain it's standards. Why? To make more so mom and pop who can barely send an email can create a web site and pollute the web with garbage code. - RenAx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i dont even know y photoshop has the option to save as web page the code is soo bad, it took me about a mounth to leard Xhtml/css its not that hard to hard code it yourself...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Automated coding will never replace hand code - it's like trying to design a decent application in VB - it'll never happen.
The only way to ever have full control is to code by hand. VIM all the way! - suMMx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0seems like a lot of code snobs are just concerned with the eventuallity of their uselessness. Sure right now you need coders but who knows, eventually automated coding could be a decent replacement for hand code.
- BluParadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"There are programming languages expressed in XML"
I'd mostly call them scripting languages, not programming languages. Cold Fusion is another example I suppose though, although it's not exactly xml it could be said to be based on it.. - soccerob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thats got nothing on html and css.
http://soccerob.com - mojaam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Naa, still think combining PS and DreamWeaver is the best way to go.
- eastcoastweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Learn the language and hand-code! You don't drive a car without knowing how to drive a car.
Developing With Web Standards. WYSIWYG is the corruptor of web design.
Read and learn:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/ - Wuss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Useful for the uber beginner. Photoshop generated code very very messy. If you want to make web pages the right and efficient way, don't use PS to generate html. Learn to hand code or a real editor, i.e. Dreamweaver.
- eastcoastweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pros don't do web development in photoshop.
So true.... - TheOneGreatX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Anyone who designs web pages should know how to hand-code.
- seven5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ok, wow. Battybattybatt is just trolling now.
My "huh?" was in response to you quoting me. You never made a point in that post.
XML is in no way a programming language. Does is have control structures? I'm not even going to waste my time listing other elements that constitute a programming languge. XML is a document type, as is HTML. Its markup. You really aren't going to find anyone that aggrees with you that its a programming langugage.
You really aren't even making an argument anymore, you're just attacking everyone on this post, and really desecrating Digg.
I guess she/he expects everyone's sites to look as good has hers/his: http://clcradio.org/ - DJSdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the phrase "export as website" is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen.
- Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0PS is great for graphic design. Image ready is great for image optimizing and HTML output is great but needs some notepad/wordpad work.
- digman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When I was making webpages for a livin all I used was photoshop and wordpad. Sometimes I would use Dreamweaver but usually I would just type the code in wordpad, I love it.
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol, like a pro? This guy must be joking.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"@Floam -
Actually they all do, high productivity > low productivity"
quite true. time is money. - BluParadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Actually they all do, high productivity > low productivity"
Yes, but most of the time you have to consider the cost of not only initial development but also maintanence. That is why real developers would never code with photoshop. Try migrating your content from one design to another when everything was done in photoshop. You need to start over from scratch. Hell, try adding or slightly tweeking the elements on a page. You need to re-cutt the entire page. At this point you have multiple different images for the same areas on the page, naming conflicts and problems for your images, etc. Not to mention the huge file sizes of pages generated by photoshop. They arent even close to what you can do by hand in that respect. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All this is nice and fine, and I'm a fairly big proponent of hand-coding even though I religiously use Dreamweaver. However, there are certain situations where automated tools are lifesavers.
Why spend an absurd amound of time or money (yours and the customers) to generate a gallery? Photoshop's gallerys are more than adequate for many "brochure" sites that don't want the funcionality of a backend-based CMS system, they just want their pictures up and looking pretty with their descriptions. Why not use an automated tool to acheive these results?
There is a need for many of the tools out there, one must just have the disciprine to know when to implement them (do you use a jackhammer to drive in a nail?).
SB - eastcoastweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We use PhotoShop to design the look, then we take the look and hand-code the code. We don't use PhotoShop to write the code unless we don't care about the code that is put out.
- Skilaq, on 08/21/2008, -0/+0Nice Work :) I have a few basic tutorials on web design http://www.digistore.co.nz/blog/how-to-make-a-webs ... Cheers for the information!
- rickjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very good resource for beginners.
- floam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"And, yes they do, moron. Any Pro uses any and every known, agreed-upon, tool out there to make their job easier - you only have to look at the history of Maya."
What does the 3D modeling industry have to do with with the web development industry? Have you worked in both? Since when is photoshop an agreed upon tool? Semantic coders and those that hire them do not agree on any such things. - vipsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Whats with all these tutorials being posted on Digg? If you want to know how to make X in Photoshop, go over to pixel2life.com or good-tutorials.com.
- floam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yes, I screwed up my English there. I then, two comments later, fixed the screw-up. "s/semantic/pedantic/g".
- floam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0s/semantic/pedantic/g
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There is a product called Photowebber 2 (http://www.photowebber.com/) that makes it easy to go from Photoshop to a complete web site in one click. Reviews were good for it but I don't think it's in development anymore. I'm not sure if there's anything similar still being developed.
- Settra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1meh, lame. hundreds of these around. no digg.
- Chaos12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Floam -
Actually they all do, high productivity > low productivity -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is