[doyle789]

Hi.

I'm a bit of a beginner, I know a fair bit of CSS and HTML, and I'm just doing a course in some server side stuff, and I've decided I want to try and get my first website done It's just going to be static, so I don't need to worry about databases or anything. I want to make sure it looks pretty good though, hopefully with some buttons etc that I'll do in photoshop, and a little javascript thing at the top. I just have a few questions about where to begin...

I just wondered if people mainly use photoshop and then but it into fireworks/dreamweaver? Or do people here mainly code their sites themselves?

Also, about javascript, is it pretty accepted that people borrow other people's bits of code? Or should I be looking to code everything myself?


Thanks for any help.

[cibgraphics]

I don't use Dreamweaver at all, an neither should any serious programmer (unless you use only the code view). I use TextMate to do all my programming.

Borrowing bits of code is alright if you need a certain functionality that you are unsure how to do yourself. Use a library (jQuery is my personal favorite), but only use javascript to add enhancements not just for the hell of it or you feel you should. Never steal a bunch of code outright unless they give you permission (like in a tutorial for example) but even then, try to make it your own.

[notbanksy]

I agree with the above - dreamweaver is fine as a plain text editor, but there are many better ones out there and much less bloated than DW. Shop around and see what takes your fancy.

As for javascript and so on, there's any number of free and open source scripts out there to do most of the popular web page behaviours. You could in theory get away without learning js, but it's always best to learn it if you can.

[BlueDreamer]

doyle789, on 12 March 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

I just wondered if people mainly use photoshop and then but it into fireworks/dreamweaver? Or do people here mainly code their sites themselves?

Also, about javascript, is it pretty accepted that people borrow other people's bits of code? Or should I be looking to code everything myself?

Photo... what? Dream... who? Personally I don't go near Adobe products unless I really have to

With Javacript there are oodles of script resources where you can copy code from, or copy and butcher yourself...

This post has been edited by BlueDreamer: 12 March 2010 - 07:40 PM

[cibgraphics]

BlueDreamer, on 12 March 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

Photo... what? Dream... who? Personally I don't go near Adobe products unless I really have to

With Javacript there are oodles of script resources where you can copy code from, or copy and butcher yourself...

Any reason you don't like Adobe products?

[junior]

I have never used adobe products either. Find them too much money for what they are there to do. Dreamweaver is not a useful tool in my eyes, I tried it once and when I deleted things from the page the end codings were still in the code. People that just wanted it to look good could use it and manipulate things to the way they want them but I do make things myself.

As for JS I have learnt this as well as: HTML; CSS; XHTML; DHTML. They are all useful.

If you know a fair bit about CSS and HTML yourself then why are you worrying about how the page turns out until you create it???

[doyle789]

BlueDreamer, on 12 March 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

Photo... what? Dream... who? Personally I don't go near Adobe products unless I really have to

With Javacript there are oodles of script resources where you can copy code from, or copy and butcher yourself...

Do you not even use photoshop for banners, logos, buttons etc?

junior, on 12 March 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

I have never used adobe products either. Find them too much money for what they are there to do. Dreamweaver is not a useful tool in my eyes, I tried it once and when I deleted things from the page the end codings were still in the code. People that just wanted it to look good could use it and manipulate things to the way they want them but I do make things myself.

As for JS I have learnt this as well as: HTML; CSS; XHTML; DHTML. They are all useful.

If you know a fair bit about CSS and HTML yourself then why are you worrying about how the page turns out until you create it???

I did an Open University course, so I know most of the tags and how it all works I think, but I've never really put it to practical use, only the quite small website I did for an end of course assessment.


http://www.gotgoldgetcash.co.uk/

This is the kind of look I want to go for - but it looks to me like a lot of it was done in photoshop!

[TylerCollins]

I use a program called webuilder, has syntax highlighter so even easier to read the code.

What course did you do out of curiosity?

[cibgraphics]

junior, on 12 March 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

I have never used adobe products either. Find them too much money for what they are there to do.

Never used InDesign have you?

[BlueDreamer]

cibgraphics, on 12 March 2010 - 08:10 PM, said:

Any reason you don't like Adobe products?

lol... personal preference:

1. I started web designing before Photoshop could even save a .jpg without a plugin, and have stuck with my trusty image editor which had web features way back in the 1990's. It took Adobe many years to "catch up" with the web and by that time I didn't need Adobe software.

2. Bloatware - I hate they way they install a ton of useless crap on my system.

3. Overpriced - I hate paying good money to shareholders, I'd rather support smaller/independant developers which I try to do at all times.

4. I've tried Photoshop and Dreamweaver several times. PS is so hard to use compared to my normal image editor, that probably stems from the fact that PS has always been primarily aimed at the print trade rather than web developers. One niggly thing I remember is not being able to see dimensions of objects as you draw them - such a simple thing, that might have changed now?

Dreamweaver? Yes it's ok, but again it's grown into bloatware and I could never get on with the interace - too fiddly. WeBuilder is my weapon of choice, fast loading but very powerful

Flash? I'm not a Flash guru by any means but if I have to I use SwishMax - it does what I need it to do at a fraction of the price.

5. Poor UI - despite being expensive Adobe products are ridden with bugs and frustrations - http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/

But that's only me

[BlueDreamer]

doyle789, on 12 March 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

Do you not even use photoshop for banners, logos, buttons etc?

Nope

[notbanksy]

Bluedreamer, can you remind me what your image editor of choice is?

I do agree with bluedreamer on most of these points. Adobe software is very bloated and expensive. There are loads of other programs out there which do the same things (except perhaps for flash) and cost far less or are even free.

Don't feel tied to adobe products just because you're doing web work. You'll be surprised how many people on this forum don't like them that much, particularly dreamweaver.

[doyle789]

TylerCollins, on 13 March 2010 - 01:41 AM, said:

I use a program called webuilder, has syntax highlighter so even easier to read the code.

What course did you do out of curiosity?

It was an Open University course "TT280 Web basics: design, development and management". It was alright I guess, good overview for a beginner. I'm now doing one on databases "TT380 Databases within website design".

[cibgraphics]

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

2. Bloatware - I hate they way they install a ton of useless crap on my system.

While they do install a lot of stuff on the computer you have the option to not install them during the install process. And each program they install is actually a useful tool IF you need them. Just to go over a few of them. ConnectNow is a great collaboration tool for screen and video sharing that I have used many times with clients to get projects done. Device central is great if you are designing apps and webpages for mobile devices. While there is a online tool for this, it is slow and a dedicated program is far faster and more comprehensive. Adobe Bridge is by far the most useful file management program I have ever worked with Not only will it tell you useful information about your files that you would have to open to find out, but you can group items without moving them between files, and auto automate functions from photoshop right from the interface. It is a great time saver. Version Cue is WONDERFUL if you have a team of designers working on the same project and don't want to override each other files. Think of it as subversion but for graphical files.

So while it may seem like bloatware, they are actually very helpful tools. You don't have to install them, and you can easily uninstall them anytime after they are already installed.

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

3. Overpriced - I hate paying good money to shareholders, I'd rather support smaller/independant developers which I try to do at all times.

They are quite expensive but you can not deny that they are the most powerful group of graphical software out there. Other programs either cheaper or free don't come close to the power and functionality that Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat and other programs have. While it is said that tools don't a designer make (and that is true), Adobe products usually can make the process to accomplish something much faster than in other software. Take for instance the vanishing point filter. Other programs do not have this power (that I am aware of), and to do what it can do in other programs would take hours where in photoshop it can be done in a matter of minutes.

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

4. I've tried Photoshop and Dreamweaver several times. PS is so hard to use compared to my normal image editor, that probably stems from the fact that PS has always been primarily aimed at the print trade rather than web developers. One niggly thing I remember is not being able to see dimensions of objects as you draw them - such a simple thing, that might have changed now?

If what you said is true and that you are using an image editor from 1990's of course Photoshop is going to be hard to use. With all the power that it has, the interface has to be more complex. But Adobe has made strides in making it as simple as it can posibily can with optimized panels and shortcut keys. It may seem hard to use at first, but once you learn it, it isn't as complex as it sounds.

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

Dreamweaver? Yes it's ok, but again it's grown into bloatware and I could never get on with the interace - too fiddly. WeBuilder is my weapon of choice, fast loading but very powerful

Honestly, Im not even going to defend Dreamweaver because I hate it too. I use TextMate.

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

Flash? I'm not a Flash guru by any means but if I have to I use SwishMax - it does what I need it to do at a fraction of the price.

Don't use Flash much either so I can't really say which one is better.

BlueDreamer, on 13 March 2010 - 05:24 AM, said:

5. Poor UI - despite being expensive Adobe products are ridden with bugs and frustrations - http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/

I really don't agree with the poor UI. If you have ever used Gimp or Paint.net you will see how fantastic the Adobe UI actually is.

For that actual site for the gripes, half of them look like computer problems not adobe, some were just that they have no clue how to work the software, some of them were just retarded. Now I am not claiming that the UI is perfect and always going to work properly, it is software for peat-sake, that webpage is awful biased and most of those legit errors only happen in a very small number of instances (as in almost never).


Now I do this not to fight with you, it is to tell you using Adobe programs isn't as bad as most people make them out to be. They have a great quality product and I really don't want to work with any other software because of the shear quality of it.

Think of it as this... We could be all forced to use MS Expression software.

[BlueDreamer]

notbanksy, on 13 March 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

Bluedreamer, can you remind me what your image editor of choice is?

Photoimpact - have been using since version 3, it's now on version 13 with a new version in the wings

[BlueDreamer]

@ cibgraphics

I don't disagree that Adobe make powerful software with it's various tools, and certainly if you work in a multi user media based environment then everyone will be at home with it.

As for installing stuff I didn't want, I've never been given the choice of what components to install - that may be because I've mostly used trial versions though

cibgraphics, on 13 March 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

They are quite expensive but you can not deny that they are the most powerful group of graphical software out there. Other programs either cheaper or free don't come close to the power and functionality that Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat and other programs have. While it is said that tools don't a designer make (and that is true), Adobe products usually can make the process to accomplish something much faster than in other software. Take for instance the vanishing point filter. Other programs do not have this power (that I am aware of), and to do what it can do in other programs would take hours where in photoshop it can be done in a matter of minutes.

Powerful yes, but for many people they'd probably never use 90% of it's features - there's no point in having a Ferrari if all you're going to do is run around town It depends on the environment you're working in, obviously if you're in print/graphics/media then it fits because there is little choice apart from Corel and maybe a few other lesser known ones.

As for doing things "faster" I'd have to disagree, Photoshop is well known for it's slow rendering of heavy vector files, especially when compared to something like Xara Extreme which knocks the spots off it. Sure Xara hasn't got every last feature of PS but it really depends on your overall needs.

cibgraphics, on 13 March 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

If what you said is true and that you are using an image editor from 1990's of course Photoshop is going to be hard to use. With all the power that it has, the interface has to be more complex. But Adobe has made strides in making it as simple as it can posibily can with optimized panels and shortcut keys. It may seem hard to use at first, but once you learn it, it isn't as complex as it sounds.

Photoshop is an image editor from the 1990's as well (PS1.0 came out in 1990?) - my editor of choice was conceived around the same time, and that's now on version 13.

cibgraphics, on 13 March 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

I really don't agree with the poor UI. If you have ever used Gimp or Paint.net you will see how fantastic the Adobe UI actually is.

For that actual site for the gripes, half of them look like computer problems not adobe, some were just that they have no clue how to work the software, some of them were just retarded. Now I am not claiming that the UI is perfect and always going to work properly, it is software for peat-sake, that webpage is awful biased and most of those legit errors only happen in a very small number of instances (as in almost never).

I think my point with the "gripes" is that you shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing in a premium priced product. Of course you'd expect things like Gimp or Paint.net to be a bit flaky in places but they haven't got the massive resources that Adobe have.

cibgraphics, on 13 March 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

Now I do this not to fight with you, it is to tell you using Adobe programs isn't as bad as most people make them out to be. They have a great quality product and I really don't want to work with any other software because of the shear quality of it.

Think of it as this... We could be all forced to use MS Expression software.

No worries, just having a debate!

[cibgraphics]

Quote

Powerful yes, but for many people they'd probably never use 90% of it's features - there's no point in having a Ferrari if all you're going to do is run around town It depends on the environment you're working in, obviously if you're in print/graphics/media then it fits because there is little choice apart from Corel and maybe a few other lesser known ones.

All the designers I have worked with in the 6 years I have been designing, HAVE needed and used 90% of the features.

Quote

As for doing things "faster" I'd have to disagree, Photoshop is well known for it's slow rendering of heavy vector files, especially when compared to something like Xara Extreme which knocks the spots off it. Sure Xara hasn't got every last feature of PS but it really depends on your overall needs.

Good thing Photoshop is mainly a raster program

Quote

Photoshop is an image editor from the 1990's as well (PS1.0 came out in 1990?) - my editor of choice was conceived around the same time, and that's now on version 13.

Sorry, the way you were talking seemed like you were still using the same version way back when, not an updated copy of that software.

Quote

I think my point with the "gripes" is that you shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing in a premium priced product. Of course you'd expect things like Gimp or Paint.net to be a bit flaky in places but they haven't got the massive resources that Adobe have.

Again, that site is heavily biased and is quick to point out ANY error that comes by their way. Even Ferrari's break down once and a while. My personal problems with the software have been VERY minimal and has been very reliable. I have never had to reinstall it, and have had only one or two program errors in the 7 years I have been using Photoshop.

[rallport]

cibgraphics, on 12 March 2010 - 06:40 PM, said:

I don't use Dreamweaver at all, an neither should any serious programmer (unless you use only the code view). I use TextMate to do all my programming.

Borrowing bits of code is alright if you need a certain functionality that you are unsure how to do yourself. Use a library (jQuery is my personal favorite), but only use javascript to add enhancements not just for the hell of it or you feel you should. Never steal a bunch of code outright unless they give you permission (like in a tutorial for example) but even then, try to make it your own.

Come on, this is such a clique of a response to this question

It really doesn't matter what you're using to write code as long as you understand it and that code is valid. Granted, using the design view to make webpages isn;t exactly best practice, but saying someone should be using a particular app is a bit much imo.

I sit next to a developer at work who literally does everything in the vanilla notepad that comes with windows. It's down the personal preference and how you work best.

I personally use DW code view and find it fine for 95% of the work I do.

[cibgraphics]

Reread what I said. I didn't say never use Dreamweaver. I said you should only use DW if you only use the code view. Unless you are a beginner at HTML/CSS, any WYSIWYG controls that DW gives you is actually slower than hand coding it. This is especially true when you put it up against the power of something like ZenCoding. In any case aside from the basics, DW gives you bloated and sometimes non-symantic code. I swear if I see another .style1{} I am going to scream.

[c69]

offtopic: You cannot say bad things about Photoshop (CS2 and lower) and not get accused in trolling. Its a great tool, and one of the best software lines ever existed. Though, yes, CS4 is bloated and overpriced.

ontopic:
Dreamweaver is ok for coding if you are noob and don't plan or wish to learn any further.

but if you do - then check Aptana or NetBeans

[cibgraphics]

Aptana is great (though a little slow). I have never used Netbeans.

[ElanMan]

With regards to text editors/IDEs, I believe it's very much a personal choice.
Personally, I dabbled with Dreamweaver 8 some years ago and the only thing I liked about it was the code editor. The integrated ftp was ****e, site management was buggy etc etc.
What I find hardest to understand is that relative beginners all seem to be using DW. Why pay £400-£500 for an IDE when you're just starting out?
Or are they not paying and using hacked copies?
What are the stats regarding genuine usage of DW, PS or indeed the CS4 suite?
Perhaps this is why they are so expensive as Adobe try to recoup their costs?
I'm not saying the products from Adobe aren't good; clearly they are but the cost is the most prohibitive factor in my opinion.
Who on this forum can honestly say they paid approx £1600 for the full CS4 Design Suite?
Very few I imagine

[jnicol]

I used DW when I started out in about 98 or 99. But I quickly realised it made spaghetti of my code, and I started hand editing my markup. For several years I have used PHPDesigner as my IDE.

I know that there have been big advances in DW since I used it, but any web developer worth their salt hand codes. DW has its place, but I would recommend migrating away from it as soon as you feel comfortable.

To answer your question about Javascript - yes it is quite acceptable to borrow other peoples code snippets and libraries. Just be aware that you may be required to leave a credit or license comment in the code.

Unless you are a hardcore JS nut I would recommend using the jQuery library. It is the most widely used JS library, and you will find a vast number of jQuery plugins available.

[doyle789]

What about Photoshop though? I sort of assumed that it was used by pretty much everyone, and that there wasn't really anything which matched it in terms of creating images etc.

[jnicol]

doyle789, on 17 March 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

What about Photoshop though? I sort of assumed that it was used by pretty much everyone, and that there wasn't really anything which matched it in terms of creating images etc.

Yup. There would be very few web designers who don't use it. Personally I don't use any of its slice features though.

[naffro]

I always design with illustrator and photoshop first. They are both pretty daunting programs when you first start out but that is not because they are "bloatware" it's because they serious design tools that are limited only by the designer using them. If you look around you'll find some simply stunning graphics that have been achieved using this software.

They are expensive but once you get good with them you can design sites that people want to pay a lot of money for so really it's a good investment.

Like Jnicol i don't use the slice features in photoshop, i find its easier to crop the images and place them using css, i do use dreamweaver but only as code editor.

I'm sure there's programs out there that do the same job just as well BUT I LOVE ADOBE AND I DONT CARE WHO KNOWS IT!