[RESOLVED] how large?

[rbblue8]

So...

when you guys code a page..

what size screen rez do you code it for?? 1024x768?

[khendar]

Personally I try to make my pages as flexible as possible - so they will work as low as 800x600. Any lower than that and the viewer doesn't deserve to view my masterwork :P It was drummed into me during my studies to accommodate as much of the target audience as possible.

These days - I think you'd be safe aiming for 1024.

[Jason Batten]

700 - 750 pixel width seems to do it.

*waits for someone to b*tch about fixed widths

[Weedpacket]

I try to code the page so that it can be used in Lynx.

[Jason Batten]

Yeah I've been using that for the past year. Works wonders :)

[vaaaska]

Between 480 - 1024.

[rbblue8]

thanks guys!


I assume you use an autop strech table to lay our your site?

[piersk]

Tables?

*spit*

[rbblue8]

lol,

then how?

[piersk]

Css

[vaaaska]

I had a dream last night that I was doing this 'live' design compeition (with a live audience) and the goal was to screw up your code as bad as possible and still make something. I was cutting out large pieces of code on styrofoam and wearing it...

Yeah...I know...I shouldn't talk about these kinds of things. ;)

I'm all for dynamic layouts that make use of css and javascript together - it's just too easy and works on most things. I think it's funny...it's mostly the ultra-nerds who turn off their javascript and complain about it. If things degrade well then why not?

I wonder how many of these same folks stopped complaining when they saw just how interesting ajax made things...

Ok, back to my hole...zzzzhhhhhhwwwwwzzzzzaaaaap!

[LordShryku]

II think it's funny...it's mostly the ultra-nerds who turn off their javascript and complain about it.

I seem to remember a javascript virus, and Microsoft telling people to avoid being infected, turn off Javascript. This strikes me as a reason a non-ultra-nerd would have it turned off.

[rbblue8]

I seem to remember a javascript virus, and Microsoft telling people to avoid being infected, turn off Javascript. This strikes me as a reason a non-ultra-nerd would have it turned off.

Yeah.. Being a network admin... I remember that.


I also do not know how to code using css and java.

I mean come on.. I use dreamweaver for god sake.

Not a note pad kid here

[khendar]

I use DW too - But I still code in raw HTML :P

Tables should be used for displaying tabular data - Layouts should be designed in CSS.

[rbblue8]

yeah..

have no idead how to do that.

I design my layouts in photo shope... then it exports it into html.

then DW comes along and finishes it off the for the one two.

[bpat1434]

have no idead how to do that.
I think it's time you picked yourself up a book.... or looked online for a tutorial on it (w3schools.com has some okay basic tutorials). You'd be amazed at just what can be achieved. Hell, even a table can be made with CSS... oh yeah... I went there.... TABLES CAN BE REPLACED BY CSS!!! HAHAHAHA!!

I design my layouts in photo shope... then it exports it into html.

then DW comes along and finishes it off the for the one two.
Reason #1 why I'll never respect any designer that does that.... dreamweaver makes some of the WORST code i've ever seen. Yes I started there, but I learned quickly that staying there wasn't for a real designer. I still design inside of a graphics program, then I chop up my images manually, and lay them into a custom CSS design. Then I know what works, what doesn't, and where I went wrong. Plus, it's half the fun of designing....

Get enough monkeys in a room and hitting buttons & keys on a mouse, and they too could make a design. Maybe not type shakespeare (only 35 letters so far, been running for 15 days), or make the best looking site, but by chance they could do it.

EDIT
Oh yeah... to answer the initial question:
I design for the target audience. Usually I know the general majority of the audience would be on a 15" CRT monitor running Windows 98 at 800x600 resolution. So I usuall code to a max width of 750 px. But then again, I also code for some larger audiences with a min width of 750px.... so the audience should determine the size.....

[rbblue8]

well i would defently agree with you when it comes to dw making the worst code.

I made a very simple page in dw when i first started out. Ya know.. a few lines of txt and a few images. then i made the mistake of wanting to be perfect and went to http://validator.w3.org/

lets just say when it came back with more errors then lines of code.... i was a little up set at dw.

Yeah it looked good in IE... but i just had to have the W3 logo on my page :)

[Merve]

Code with percentages wherever possible, but maintain a reasonable range of widths of between 600 px and 864 px if necessary. At least, that's how I tend to design webpages, not that I do very often.

And try to start hand-coding stuff. That way you have complete control, and you can make it validate. It takes a lot of time at first, but it's worth it. Eventually, you'll have a whole set of templates that you can swap and modify when you need them.

[Rodney H.]

yeah..

have no idead how to do that.

I design my layouts in photo shope... then it exports it into html.

then DW comes along and finishes it off the for the one two.

Have at it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=css+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search

[rbblue8]

Have at it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=css+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search


I auctally have spent most of the day yesterday working on it.

http://www.nightlance.com/test.php <--css

http://www.nightlance.com <--bad version.


I'm all most there.

[Weedpacket]

Here's someone whom we haven't heard from for a while....
I seem to remember a javascript virus, and Microsoft telling people to avoid being infected, turn off Javascript. This strikes me as a reason a non-ultra-nerd would have it turned off.I seem to remember the DHS's recommendation was to use a different browser....

[rbblue8]

Here's someone whom we haven't heard from for a while....
I seem to remember the DHS's recommendation was to use a different browser....


yeah. 6.0 or was it 5.5

[Weedpacket]

Ah, found it (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878);
Use a different web browser

There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies related to the IE domain/zone security model, trust in and access to the local file system (Local Machine Zone), the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented as operating system components that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. These components are integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.

It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine (MSHTML).

[Sayian]

Download Firefox, or the evil browser demon will come to visit you tonight.

[rbblue8]

Download Firefox, or the evil browser demon will come to visit you tonight.


you rdy for firefox 2.0????

[bpat1434]

you rdy for firefox 2.0????

Sooo far off.... although we will see this before Vista (of course, I'm pretty sure we could see J. H. C. before Vista comes out (sorry Dale) )

[Sayian]

you rdy for firefox 2.0????

Ive been ready every since the day i saw 1.0

I wonder what 2.0 has in store ..

This information is probably somewhere on the firefox dev site, i just havent looked into it yet, Any new goodies?

[Rodney H.]

Ive been ready every since the day i saw 1.0

I wonder what 2.0 had in store ..

This information is probably somewhere on the firefox dev site, i just havent looked into it yet, Any new goodies?

Here is a list of the Features:

Bon Echo will retain all of the existing Firefox features, with improvements that:


update the look and feel of the browser
improve and augment the capabilities for Bookmarks and History
improve the user experience of web browsing and tabbed browsing
improve and augment the capabilities for handling web feeds
improve the user experience of adding, removing and managing extensions
add new capabilities to protect users from dangerous extensions
improve and augment the capabilities for web search
make it easier to install and distribute the browser
include the latest security and stability updates
include new security features to protect users from phishing
update our end user documentation so it's more useful to users looking for help


But of course you can learn much more here, on the FireFox 2 wiki: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox2

[rbblue8]

whats wrong with the look and feel?

Hell i'm just happy that i have my tap browsing. :)

[Sxooter]

well i would defently agree with you when it comes to dw making the worst code.



Even worse than Front Page? Wow, that takes skill (of some sort).

Sooo far off.... although we will see this before Vista (of course, I'm pretty sure we could see J. H. C. before Vista comes out

Sorry I was late, I was busy coding up the apocolypse...

(I'll never fool anyone, J H C doesn't wear glasses...)

[rbblue8]

Even worse than Front Page? Wow, that takes skill (of some sort).



Sorry I was late, I was busy coding up the apocolypse...

(I'll never fool anyone, J H C doesn't wear glasses...)


:confused: -huh?

[bpat1434]

Sorry I was late, I was busy coding up the apocolypse...

(I'll never fool anyone, J H C doesn't wear glasses...)
HAHAHAHA!!!! :) :) ;)

[Sxooter]

:confused: -huh?

Look at the picture next to my post... my son...

[rbblue8]

uh huh.

[Rodney H.]

Even worse than Front Page? Wow, that takes skill (of some sort).

Ah, well, Bpat didn't say that Dreamweaver was worse than Front Page.

In my experience, Front Page is the worst, THEN comes GoLive, and the best of thost three is Dreamweaver.

Now, since Brett has such strong convictions, I guess I am the only one who is willing to stand up FOR dreamweaver.

I do agree with you, Brett, that you should learn how to code pages yourself. But to be honest, Dreamweaver IS a great way to learn how to code HTML and CSS IF you use split view, where you can see the layout and the code view in two panes in one window. As you make changes to the code, you can see what and how it effects the layout.

As far as DW producing "BAD" code, I think that is totally wrong in respect to HTML, CSS, And Javascript. It does, as far as I know, produce code that consistently validates. Where I do agree with you is the code that it produces for PHP. BUT I have never used that feature, and only looked at another's PHP code written in DW and needed oxygen, LOL! You are RIGHT there. It was pitiful.

The other point that you made that I am not 100% behind is whn you said you would never respect a designer who produces a layout in photoshop and then imports it into GoLive or Dreamweaver to help him/her with the HTML. That is what a LOT of designers do. They are not programmers. They are graphic designers. Period. When the web development process is specialized in larger firms, that is what is expected of them. Then they have a team who will code the page with HTML and CSS, and another team of programmers working on the back end. Right? If you are talking about someone trying to pass off THAT as web development, then yes, I agree with you. Just need clarification, LOL!! Maybe I just needed to vent.

Bpat, Take what I say with a grain or ten of salt, as I am filled with vinegar today, for no apparent reason, and of all that you have written here on the forums, I usually agree 99/100 % of the time...

@Sxooter: Is that Apocolypse in production or Beta??

[csn]

What's JHC?

[Sxooter]

@Sxooter: Is that Apocolypse in production or Beta??

Well, we've been having hard time hitting our milestones.

OTOH, we've got a beta test going in the middle east, and it looks promising.

Now we just need to get some marketing partnerships going with Korea, Pakistan, and a few other key players and then we can catch the American market by surprise, with some kind of big production. You know, trumpets blasting, clouds parting, seals breaking.

:)

[Sxooter]

What's JHC?

Jesus Holy Christ.

[bpat1434]

JHC = Jesus H. Christ....
Hence the biblical allusion by Sxooter....


As far as DW producing "BAD" code, I think that is totally wrong in respect to HTML, CSS, And Javascript.
I too learned with DW; however, I noticed that I didn't like the code it created. It made it really weird for me. So to me it was "bad" code. And I got away from it. Now, I haven't used the PHP stuff, but have seen it and just cringe....

And you hit what I meant to say on the head of the nail...

[Rodney H.]

And you hit what I meant to say on the head of the nail...


Gotcha, Bpat. Thanks!

:)

[khendar]

I actually use DW for PHP development and find it pretty good. Inline documentation, code library, reference library. Saying that DW produces bad PHP code is not really a relevant argument considering that most PHP is coded by the programmer not the application. If the code is bad its because the programmer wrote it that way not because of some limitation of the software.

It all depends on how you use it.

[Merve]

Even worse than Front Page? Wow, that takes skill (of some sort).

I always why Front Page spit out HTML with capitalized tags. I mean, since when was it proper to write <BODY>, or <FONT>...

BTW, I have a friend who sort of looks like Jesus...

[rbblue8]

Ah, well, Bpat didn't say that Dreamweaver was worse than Front Page.

In my experience, Front Page is the worst, THEN comes GoLive, and the best of thost three is Dreamweaver.

Now, since Brett has such strong convictions, I guess I am the only one who is willing to stand up FOR dreamweaver.

I do agree with you, Brett, that you should learn how to code pages yourself. But to be honest, Dreamweaver IS a great way to learn how to code HTML and CSS IF you use split view, where you can see the layout and the code view in two panes in one window. As you make changes to the code, you can see what and how it effects the layout.

As far as DW producing "BAD" code, I think that is totally wrong in respect to HTML, CSS, And Javascript. It does, as far as I know, produce code that consistently validates. Where I do agree with you is the code that it produces for PHP. BUT I have never used that feature, and only looked at another's PHP code written in DW and needed oxygen, LOL! You are RIGHT there. It was pitiful.

The other point that you made that I am not 100% behind is whn you said you would never respect a designer who produces a layout in photoshop and then imports it into GoLive or Dreamweaver to help him/her with the HTML. That is what a LOT of designers do. They are not programmers. They are graphic designers. Period. When the web development process is specialized in larger firms, that is what is expected of them. Then they have a team who will code the page with HTML and CSS, and another team of programmers working on the back end. Right? If you are talking about someone trying to pass off THAT as web development, then yes, I agree with you. Just need clarification, LOL!! Maybe I just needed to vent.

Bpat, Take what I say with a grain or ten of salt, as I am filled with vinegar today, for no apparent reason, and of all that you have written here on the forums, I usually agree 99/100 % of the time...

@Sxooter: Is that Apocolypse in production or Beta??

i have yet to make a table with a few tables and images in dreamweaver that will be w3 ok. usally it forgets to add the close of the IMG tag most of the time.

[Rodney H.]

i have yet to make a table with a few tables and images in dreamweaver that will be w3 ok. usally it forgets to add the close of the IMG tag most of the time.

That issue has long since been corrected with DW. Since MX if I am not mistaken, and two versions have come out since then.

I would have to suggest it is a user error, my friend...

[rbblue8]

............................

[Elizabeth]

I'll give a few mad props to DW although it's mostly because I'm lazy in HTML. I use it in conjunction with TextPad to clean up the code, and I hardly ever write the PHP code straight in DW.

[Rodney H.]

............................

OK, yeah. thanks for not saying what you REALLY wanted to say. I apologize if I was blunt.

Um, to be helpful, let me just clarify that if you do use the proper DTD using DW, for instance XHTML transitional, it will add the closing " /> " for the img tag. Hope that helps.

[Rodney H.]

I'll give a few mad props to DW although it's mostly because I'm lazy in HTML. I use it in conjunction with TextPad to clean up the code, and I hardly ever write the PHP code straight in DW.

The thing I like about DW is the ability to save all my code, the classes, and functions I use often as "SNIPPETS" which are XML files that I can then use simply by dragging and dropping them into the page where ever I need them...

If you would like to try this, just open up the CONFIGURATION / SNIPPETS folder

Then, copy an existing document and paste it back into the same folder.

Then, change the name of the file, and open it up in any XML editor or Notepad.

Then, change the title, description and content.

Add your favorite bit of code and save.

Lastly, restart DW and bob's your uncle, you have made your first SNIPPET, or portable code that you can use over and over and over again...

But, you may already know this.... :)

[bpat1434]

Many programs have this feature. It's nothing more than a ClipText library. Nothing special, and not just DW code....

[Rodney H.]

Never said it was exclusive. I just said it was a feature that I liked.

I just don't know why so many people here slam DW ... ??

It is nothing more than a tool. In the hands of a skilled professional, it is no more or less of a tool than notepad. There may be features that allow him/her to work more efficiently, like the feature noted above, but the fact still remains:

If you know what you are doing, you can work in just about ANY text editor type of application and the results would be similar.

[bpat1434]

True; however, I find dreamweaver to be almost too much overhead. It encompasses far too many languages at the expense of speed. I like lightweight apps. They should do their job, and do it well. Dreamweaver is essentially an IDE, and I just dislike them. Usually they're too large, and too feature packed that they lose sight of what they're doing.

For example:
Dreamweaver has buttons for everything, and code-hints, and plenty of side-bars. While I like the idea of code-hints, and butons for ease of access, the buttons are filtered into a menu system so you have to have a certain set showing. And I dislike the side-panels, even though you can remove them, I don't see their worth.

I will give dreamweaver props for having a templating system; although, I used it once and it kept reverting all my pages to what I had just typed. So if I changed the title on the template, it would change it all-around, even though the title was template-independent (you were allowed to change it). Small bugs and issues like that.

[Sxooter]

OK, my opinion on DW is pretty close to the one I'm seeing here. It was utter crap. It's gotten better. I don't use it myself, but it's useful, especially for beginners.

I can still remember the pre-MX days. oh dear god that thing made some hideous code. But by the time MX came along, the graphic artists could make a web page for me, and all I had to do was chop it up into a template to put a php app inside it. Quite nice by then, and as mentioned, that was several years ago now.

[shonuff]

I'm not patient enough to wait 10-15 seconds for Dreamweaver to load to make a simple edit when I could do the same thing with Textpad, which takes all of a fraction of a second. This would be especially true on an older machine. ;-)

[Rodney H.]

My story/history with DW is this:

1) I worked for a large corporation, THE MAN, Inc. : (
2) Published word.docs to the Intranet : /
3) Discovered HTML. : )
4) Company policy: Front Page only : (
5) Won free copy of DW MX at convention : )
6) Fought THE MAN so I could use DW : )
7) Left company after learning xhtml, css, and a little PHP : )
8) New job at small design firm with really nice people : )
9) They use GoLive : (
10) DW allows me to do things differently at work : )

Moral of the story: Do your homework so you can BE THE MAN, instead of work for HIM...., no wait, that is not it.... ummmm... Always wear clean underwear.... nope... *CRUD* I always had a hard time extracting the moral of the story. What is the PHP function for that, anyway?? Oh, DW is really all I know... LOL!

PS: I have written way too much about this. If someone wants to suggest something that does syntax highlighting, allows you to write your own code snippets, and is a lighter, easier to use app, I am all ears...

[khendar]

http://php.net/extract_moral

strip_tags

(PHP 3 >= 3.0.8, PHP 4, PHP 5)

extract_moral -- Parse a story and extract the moral

Description

string extract_moral ( string str )

This function tries to return a string containing the moral of the story contained in string str.

Returns 0 if no moral exists.

[bpat1434]

PS: I have written way too much about this. If someone wants to suggest something that does syntax highlighting, allows you to write your own code snippets, and is a lighter, easier to use app, I am all ears...
Have a look at EditPlus. It has Syntax highlighting, matching brace, CTL (ClipText Library), ACP (AutoComplete) and supports all web languages, plus C, C++ and many more. It's really nice.

A sample of what the CTL library would look like for HTML (remember, you can define your own CTL files and they're accessbile via the side-bar):
#TITLE=HTML 3.2
#INFO
EditPlus Cliptext Library v1.0 written by ES-Computing.
This file is provided as a sample Cliptext library of EditPlus.
#SORT=n

#T=!--
<!-- ^! -->
#T=!DOCTYPE
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
#T=A
<A HREF="">^!</A>
#T=ADDRESS
<ADDRESS>^!</ADDRESS>
#T=APPLET
<APPLET CODE="^!" WIDTH="" HEIGHT="">
</APPLET>
#T=AREA
<AREA SHAPE="^!" HREF="" COORDS="" ALT="">
#T=B
<B>^!</B>
#T=BASE
<BASE HREF="^!">
#T=BIG
<BIG>^!</BIG>
#T=BLOCKQUOTE
<BLOCKQUOTE>^!</BLOCKQUOTE>
#T=BODY
<BODY>
^!
</BODY>
#T=BR
<BR>
#T=CAPTION
<CAPTION>^!</CAPTION>
#T=CENTER
<CENTER>^!</CENTER>
#T=CITE
<CITE>^!</CITE>
#T=CODE
<CODE>^!</CODE>
Where you see "^!" that's a marker of where your cursor will be after insertion of the text. It's a Drag & Drop type o interface. It's really nice. I personally don't use it but on occasion when I can't remember the DTDs....

[Rodney H.]

All right. found it here (http://www.editplus.com/download.html). I will download it and take it for a spin around the block. Thanks for the tip.