Inspired
Privileged
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Inspired
-
But the question is about which is the easiest CMS for designing, not which has the most extensions, is the easiest to install or the easiest to develop with. Those would be different questions...
-
Disagree with you on that one. Personally, I find it far more logical than the same process for Wordpress. Horses for courses though I guess... Exactly the same as Joomla.
-
Fortunately, science can do all the hard work for you. Colour Theory, Google it. + Andy's link.
-
-
Oh, so you want a designer to work for free? Don't expect a lot of replies. Do you also ask you dentist / lawyer / accountant if they will work for free? Is your shop giving away goods for free? No, then don't ask designers to work for free. Design is a profession (pays our rent, feeds our kids, etc.) and we don't just pull incredible designs out of a magic hat. What's that? If we do a *really* good job you *might* give us something? Moron. I support Anti-spec, http://antispec.com/, as should every professional designer.
-
Why? Both methods I linked to, and Rich's site, are already using just a list of links for navigation...
-
Whoah! Looking much better already Drop-downs are always somewhat of an issue for small devices. Personally, I prefer a single level menu that converts to a drop-down on small screens. I posted some code (and my thoughts) about this approach on my blog this week: http://internet-inspired.com/wrote/thoughts/on-responsible-responsive-navigation If you really want to go with a multi-level menu, the best responsive solution I have used is Flexnav: http://jasonweaver.name/lab/flexiblenavigation/ and it's easy to integrate with html5bp.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being so critical. The first sites I ever built were from Dreamweaver templates as well Honestly though, I think you will find things a lot easier if you start with a modern foundation.
-
http://www.shopify.com/ Job done.
-
Bonus points for doing the banner all in css, I would have just used Fittext (http://fittextjs.com/) I think, but your JS free solution is admirable.
-
I like the design, but you shouldn't set a max value here: <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1"> That disables accessibility features in a users browser. Just set device width and initial scale and leave it at that, it will still always fit onto smaller screens as intended.
-
Addendum; you should be more concerned about accessibility for real users than Google. If you take care of real users, Google will also be fine and in fact will appreciate that you are building for real users first. Build for accessibility.
-
Doesn't it depend how it is hidden? Use javascript to hide the text, no problem. No accessibility issues, no issues for robots. Use javascript to reveal text you have hidden with css: problem. Bad for accessibility, bad for robots. Don't do that.
-
-
The best advice I can give has already been mentioned a few times, start with a modern framework. No offence, but the whole 3-column layout thing and all your styling inline it looks like something Dreamweaver would have spat out in 2001. The underlying code is old-skool, asking it to perform like the latest and greatest is like expecting to watch a 3D hi-def blueray, in it's full glory, on a 19" black and white CRT. Just take html5 Boilerplate, drop your markup (not the inline css!) into it and you will 95% of the way there. It'll take about 2 minutes. You'll find most of the styling you would need already in place (courtesy of normalize) and you can then just add in some styles for the desktop view. TBH, if you want a decent experience on mobile you would be better going with a 2-col than a 3-col layout.
-
Your content only breaks out of the container because you have absolutely positioned it. Just remove this; .twoColHybLtHdr #mainContent { position: absolute;..
-
So just look at the code. Every web page is a tutorial of sorts, just press ctrl+u on your keyboard. Study, learn, adapt.
-
I think this depends a lot on who you ask and what their background is. EE is very popular with designers, in my opinion largely because it is very easy to design in. My personal preference is for neither. I don't do this: Not within a CMS at least. Obviously, there are cases where good old-fashioned html is definitely the way to go. In fact, I have recently become intrigued by (and vowed to try asap) a couple of flat-file CMSs that I'm hearing great things about; http://statamic.com/ and http://getkirby.com/ as I seem to be spending more and more time just battling bloat.
-
-
Building mobile-first is not the same as designing mobile-first. You should definitely build mobile-first as it is far more efficient (you aren't writing any code to remove 'desktop' stuff) and you don't end up making a fluid layout into a fixed one and then making that fixed layout back into a fluid one. That's just silly. Design is a separate issue, though I have to admit my preference is to design mobile-up too, it's far simpler and you'll end up writing a lot less css.
-
-
-
A lot of designers and devs cross over to CMS from static html, and for them there's a huge learning curve with the 3 most popular CMSs to just be able to get back to the point where they can properly control the output they see. For these guys CMSs that enable them to turn a static html page into a CMS editable one with the addition of just a handful of tags are very attractive. This is why Expression Engine, for example is so very popular with designers. It places very few obstacles in the way of moving from a static design to a dynamically rendered one and the process of moving from static to CMS is painless. And just to be clear, I don't do this.
-
What isn't?
-
Firstly, I would question the need for the items you want to hide. If mobile users don't need them, why would desktop users? If you do really need them you might want to look at conditionally loading that content only upon request on smaller devices; http://adactio.com/journal/5414/
