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.

Take the job. You'll learn more in a professional web design environment than on any university course. Get on the career ladder as soon as you can, and coming in at junior level has immense prospects. Do it. Good luck in your new job.

*looks back at previous post*

Repeating what Jack said, a hover-activated mobile menu makes literally no sense, as hovering doesn't exist on mobile/tablet. Your mobile menu is also quite uncomfortable to use in a desktop browser too, actually. I'd keep it simple - make it clickable.

So, I just got made redundant due to my company collapsing. Fun times. Free time is so great, and yet so crushing. Hmm. *twiddles thumbs* Eh.

I know you wouldn't be, but don't be all cliché-esque in your responses. For example, if they ask "What's your biggest weakness?", obviously don't say "I just work too damn hard for my own good!", with some cheesy grin they'd want to slap off your face. Honesty will get you through, I've found. In the last interview I got for my web designer job, I told the interviewer/boss that, again referring to such question about weaknesses, that my perfectionism often impedes my progress and my Javascript was ****e, but always improving. Take your time to consider their responses and try to think one-sentence ahead, so you've always got something lined up. Remember - they've asked you to come in to meet you, a person, a human, learn your character and personality, not because they want to hear you repeat what skills they've seen on your C.V. Just be yourself, honestly, it'll work. Be confident - they want to buy you, so sell who you really are, and don't fidget!

I agree with every word, Jack. I've made one or two concoctions of websites for clients that defy my personal taste and approval as a designer and therefore don't make it onto my portfolio. It could be down to the fact that I'm often incapable of working outside my comfort zone, or fail to grasp how the client's approach may benefit the site. But when a client isn't open to change or a new way of thinking, especially when their recipe takes inspiration from their old, out-dated, failing site, then it's especially annoying. One client, for example, refuses to accept any other main colour than 'business light blue'. Nothing else works. Bleh.

Hi alisiaro. There are quite a few problems with your code leading to you not achieving the desired effect. I've written up a very quick solution to what you asked for in the screenshot you attached, at least with the header and the buttons (nothing past there though): <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <style type="text/css"> body { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; } #container { border: 1px solid #000; width: 607px; height:987px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 20px; margin: 20px auto 20px auto; } #header { border-radius: 10px; float: left; width: 100%; height: 150px; background: red; } #buttons_row { float: left; margin: 10px 0px 0px 0px; text-align: center; width: 100%; } .button{ background: grey; display: inline-block height: 130px; width: 130px; } </style> </head> <body> <div id="container"> <div id="header">header</div> <div id="buttons_row"> <div class="button">Main page</div> <div class="button">Our menu</div> <div class="button">Services</div> <div class="button">Contacts</div> </div> </div> </body> </html> Here are a few things to learn from this: - I've kept the height property in your #container, but it's not really necessary - the content will determine the height, not the container. I'd remove it. - The CSS float (e.g. float: left;) is the best way to stack elements underneath each other. - By applying 'text-align: center' to the #buttons_row, and then 'display: inline-block' to the .button divs, you can centre each button inside the parent. Just to save you time figuring this out. - I would study HTML5, so you don't use <div>'s for all your elements. I've retained your HTML code, but research HTML5, so your header becomes <header>, buttons_row becomes a <section> and so forth. There are quite a few more things, but this should set you on the right course. Good luck.

It's amusing how responsive design is almost nearly, if not already, one of the core requirements of typical job roles, like it's regarded as its own entity. Its demand and role in web design is so key in 2014 that it's recognised as far more than just another CSS3 feature, and rightfully so.

I was on the fence with this little CMS debate until I read this, which I am in complete agreement with. I can see where citypaul is coming from - Wordpress is often the 'cheap way out', and I don't mean price-wise. Wordpress allows people who label themselves as 'professional web designers' to churn out pre-processed sites, with all the building blocks already glued together, and use them to create this illusion that they're masters of their craft. I am, not for one second, suggesting that all WP sites are shoddy, tacky, poorly built and used as an escape rope to avoid doing a 'proper job' (a bespoke site), but I have for a long while now believed that WP is transforming the way web designers approach customer requests and specs. It's like getting a Big Mac Meal instead of trying to make one yourself - it'll do everything you want and taste great, but it won't be yours, you won't know exactly how it was made and you won't feel an enormous sense of pride. However, something I've learned at my work. Some people do genuinely need nothing more than what a Wordpress CMS-supported and themed site can do for a small budget. 'Brochure' sites are still in huge demand, and WP does exactly that (referring to cibgraphics's point that not every project is on a massive scale). Turning away such business because 'it's beneath' you is rather silly - WP is taken more seriously in current web design culture than any other web builder. As long as you know you're capable of building a site with nothing more than a text editor, then by all means, use Wordpress when it's needed. Besides, the ability to use Wordpress is often a requirement of web designer job candidates just as much as HTML5 and CSS3 knowledge, whether that involves producing a pre-built site or implementing a bespoke theme into it. But, to say that all WP sites are shoddy and not worthy of any recognition is wrong in my opinion. I personally can't stand it, it's overrated from an engineer's perspective, but I can't deny it serves its purpose well and helps out with 'small scale' requests now and then. Anyway, Perch isn't a CMS for the novice by any stretch, but I'll plug it anyway. It's awesome, enough said.

HTML5 and CSS3, first. Normally you'd then be told to learn Javascript/jQuery, but I'd actually advise you to put that off and focus on responsive design afterwards, which falls under CSS3. Companies nowadays are super critical of mobile/tablet adapted websites, and I can assure that having strong knowledge and experience of responsive design will put you in better stead than some experience with Javascript/jQuery. Don't forget them though, of course.