throzen

And you're a self-righteous **** with who's made it his pathetic personal mission to lord himself over others on an Internet forum, hence the background you just provided. I give my opinion, as you do on forums, you persistently put it down, because you consider yourself superior. I do not give a toss what you think of me, my ability, my methods, my opinion or my actions. It's a ****ing internet forum. We have discussions with strangers. Sometimes you'll disagree with them. Deal with it. I've helped people on here, and held lively, enjoyable debates. Yet I have to deal with trolls like you, who have nothing better to do than write sweeping essays titled "Why I'm Right And You're Wrong". I am so done with you. Congrats for perpetuating the stereotypical arsehole developer persona, and thanks for making my time on here miserable. You absolute *******.

I think something like Bootstrap can only be used with pride by a freelancer or tiny agencies. Thriving, large companies, such as the one I'm in, time isn't of the essence. I take pride in my work.

Admittedly it's rather funny.

For the reason I already stated - I'd rather code it myself, not use somebody else's code. With third-party resources, especially Bootstrap, there's a great chance you'll wind up with heaps of code you don't need or want. So I'd rather make it myself, bespoke for individual projects. Maybe even code my own grid system for multiple projects. There's nothing wrong with that...

I've found that w3schools is more like a reference source, as opposed to an online school. You check it when you've forgotten how to write something, or what's compatible, and so forth. I certainly wouldn't use it as a means of learning how to code, there's no logic to the order of their tutorials or how code intertwines with one-another.

I'd prefer to stick to archaic methods. If I used as many tools and script generators as others do, or as some employers have encouraged me to (sigh), I wouldn't be true to my nature, I guess, heh.

With absolute positioning, you need to declare the container's height, which is a pain; all other position states can manage auto-height's. If you intend to continue using absolute positioning (there could be an alternative solution), then you'll have to declare the height; properties like overflow: hidden won't take effect. One work-around is to write a piece of jQuery that gets the container's height on page-load with the content in and then apply absolute position via jQuery, so the container's height (automatically adjusted by the content) will be calculated first, then applied, then made to be position absolute.

I make my own. I learned to code. Therefore I'll use my code. Not someone else's. Coding a grid isn't exactly too tricky or time-consuming either.

Hi pamamolf, welcome aboard. Ping me a message if you're hunting for some fresh blood for a project.

Hey, I was just reading the latest edition of NET magazine, which features an overview of a new web design tool called Macaw. Have you heard of it, or even used it? It's not freeware, it'll cost you an arm and a leg, but apparently it's worth it for the modern designer. According to the NET article, it substitutes coding a responsive site for 'drawing' one. It uses a Photoshop-esque layout, on which you drag, drop and generally fiddle with elements and the program automatically calculates dimensions relative to screen widths and whatnot. Now, I recently went to a job interview where I was criticised for "reinventing the wheel", by choosing to create things, like layouts and scripts, by hand, instead of using tools just like Macaw. So what do you think? Is it something you could see benefiting your workflow? Personally, I'd prefer to so wrongly continue "reinventing the wheel" - this whiffs of Dreamweaver and its web designing tools. I could be old-fashioned, electing to continue coding by hand instead of having a program work for me. I certainly wouldn't pay for it - learning code and typing it with my fingers costs me nothing. Thoughts? Their site: http://www.macaw.co

Bit harsh... Not everyone speaks English as a first language... Welcome vxplore, have a look at www.w3schools.com for some introductions into basic web development.

Nice site, looks casual, doesn't take itself too seriously, pleasing to look at, very suitable for what you're selling. One thing I'd look at is the fact that the tablet view seems to adopt the same appearance as the mobile view. At 767px width, the site is very slim, which would be expected on mobile. Some popular tablets, such as the Google Nexus, uses 600px width. I'd just change the media queries so that it's more 'responsive' to certain devices. So, example, min-width: 600px and max-width of 768px could use a container width of 500px, 480px to 600px could use 400px and, finally, 0px to 480px could use 300px, which you have now. Also, the site really ought to be coded in HTML5 using semantic elements, as opposed to divs for everything.

Spot on. I don't understand people who choose (and it is a choice) to sit in jobs they hate. If you spend most of your life working, make it something you love doing, regardless of pay and stuff. Web design is certainly one of those jobs.

Yeah, agreed. As my boss said, "skills can be taught, attitude and eagerness cannot". I never used GIT, Sass, tools like BrowserStack etc before getting a proper job. Basic coding/design skills + an upbeat, enthusiastic attitude = employment... usually.

Same. I have a BA in 'Creative Practices', focussing on journalism. Not much good when writing CSS, ha.