Webdesign

[scubawuba]

hewy everybody. whats up? nothing here. but yeah. i was wondering what i should start with for building a site. i see all this php stuff and the asp stuff. and i see java and flash. what should i use to get started. well what should i learn too. im planning on having a little bit of e-commerce on the site but yeah. what should i start out with. Also. Could anyone tell me where i could get some tutorials for flash and java? Also. could anyone tell me some good programs i should look into for this stuff. if there is any. Also. could someone tell me where i could learn to creat templates and stuff like that for my site. and last of all. could you tell me where i could get some photoshop 7 tutorials?

 

sorry if thatz a lot. but yeah.

thank you

peace out

scuba wuba

[AGThePoet]

for most o fthat just go to google.com and search for it. If you just want to be biuld a simple website learn some html and javascript, and php if you want form processing.

[TINNY]

I recommend you just use Macromedia Studio 2004. It has Dreamweaver(html, scripting, database, site management, can also generate PHP and ASP scripts visually and user-friendly), Flash(you know it), fireworks(optimize graphics, create animated GIFs and page layout), FreeHand(similar to photoshop). That's all you need. There are plenty of tutorial and easy help (e-books) content that comes with it. On top of it, they are all integrated seamlessly.

[Tormod]

I second that - I use Dreamweaver MX 2004 and Flash MX 2004 Professional, plus occasionally Fireworks MX 2004.

 

Tutorials for flash can be found on a lot of places online - Macromedia has great tutorials at http://www.macromedia.com/

 

Photoshop tutorials...just google it!

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

As for which language to use...I know AGThePoet would recommend php but I say go for ColdFusion. It's what this site is built on...and it is what NASA use as well.

 

These discussion forums are made by FuseTalk and are also completely based on ColdFusion.

 

Tormod

[TINNY]

people say ColdFusion is easy but expensive. The server is expensive, and not many host support it. i've never tried it though. so maybe tormod's right.

anyway, there are many more other than fusetalk that are based on asp, php etc.

[Freethinker]

<center>notepad,[/size]

now THERE is an html editor!</center>

[Tormod]

Tinny - ColdFusion is something you will never have to pay for...except for the hosting fees (and there are even free hosts). Hypography is hosted at Crystaltech, http://www.crystaltech.com/ - and I am very happy with them.

 

And yes, there are other boards. A lot of the php boards are truly excellent and the only reason I don't use them is...well...I don't know php!

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Frethinker - I stopped using notepad when the first version of Homesite came along. I code everything by hand, but tools have come a long way in the past few years. Dreamweaver MX 2004 with Bradsoft Topstyle 3.1 Pro are my main tools for the trade (plus Flash).

 

It's kind of like with bikes and motorcycles. Sure, you can use an old, battered bike to get you around town but when you need to get a lot of places in a short time, you need a motorbike.

 

Since I code ColdFusion and HTML, program SQL, write CSS, use a dedicated development site plus maintain a production site I have no time to fiddle with notepad.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

The problem I see with Homesite/Cold Fusion is the same one I see with Frontpage/ IIS. While they make web site creation easier, they develop nonstandard code. You can not host a Coldfusion designed site on standard servers anymore than you can use Frontpage Extensions.

 

The entire concept behind the Internet is universal compatibility. I get so tired of going to sites that don't work properly in W3 STANDARDS based browsers such as Mozilla and Opera.

 

I developed a website for a company that years later switched to another developer for their next site (I wanted to charge a reasonable amount, the other guy did it spec). It was developed for Coldfusion. The site sucked (not Coldfusions fault). They came back to me for a better site. There was no doubt that my old site was out of date. And some of the work they paid for in the new site was OK and could have been used, had it not been coded for Coldfusion. It cost them more because I had to correct for Coldfusion's lack of standards.

 

I oppose any coding on the net that is NOT W3 compliant.

 

I ran your site thru W3C MarkUp Validation Service:

 

http://validator.w3.org/

 

"Errors: 105

...

This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

 

There are standards for reasons. (Contrary to Microsoft's core philosophy) Not that I am one in general that sticks to rules and regulations very well :-) But one spot I do object to ignoring standards is on the net. The net has become what it is BECAUSE of the effort of MOST to make sure it all works together.

[special j]

i didn't read the rest of these fellas suggestions but here are my own:

 

- Dont use flash -- it is a terrible program in the hands of someone who hasnt had the time to master it. it is slow, fat and irritating to average users.

- Avoid Java unless you really want some moving effects that you cant get done in DHTML.

- Work in HTML until you are comfortable with the basics. use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro for your imagery.

- Textpad is a great HTML editing program.

- Your ecom stuff can be pre-made code when you get to that point (probably your best option for basic stuff man, going all out and coding it yourself might drive you up a wall unnecessarily).

 

feel free to e-mail me any little questions man, [email protected]

always happy to help a guy out.

[Tormod]

Well, the current site design is about 2-3 years old now and the result of numerous patchjobs so I wouldn't expect it to validate anywhere...just look at it in IE 6 vs Netscape 6 and you'll notice that the nice 3D effects around the boxes used all over the place are lost.

 

I am currently working on a new version which was due last year but was lost in a major hard disk crash (two disks gone, including the backup - learned a couple of lessons there).

 

It is based on CSS 2.1 and should degrade so that browser that do not offer CSS support (IE 4 and below, NS 4.8 and below) get non-styled (and butt-ugly) pages, while the current browsers get styled pages. I can tell you it's a hell of a job and most everything has to be written from scratch.

 

ColdFusion is not to blame - whatever one uses to make a site, be it php, asp, or ColdFusion, there are always the question of how to handle the enormous quantities of content. I have thousands of articles, links, hypograhies, forum topics, polls etc and it was impossible to foresee the way this site would grow.

 

So it is the craftsman, not the tools, that is to blame.

 

That said, about 93% of the users of this site use IE 6 on Windows machines. 4% use Netscape 6 or higher. 0.3% use Macs.

 

Considering that the least standards-compliant browser to this day is IE, I think every web developer who wants to get things right need to do a LOT of studying. And there is simply no time for it. New standars pop up all the time.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Actually Tormod, new standards DO NOT pop up every day. In fact there have not been any NEW HTML standards published since mid 2001 and that was for "X"html ( XHTML 1.1, the modularized version of XHTML, was published in May 2001, per W3C). There have been later standards, mainly applying to dynamics and graphics. But NOT to the basic markup language of html.

 

Yes IE is the LEAST standards compliant, which seems to be the Microsoft MO since day one. But that does not mean that IE CAN NOT display standards compliant sites. It means that sites can be designed that are NOT standards compliant to take advantage of non-standards hooks in IE/ Microsoft. This is made easier by "user-friendly", non-complaint web site creation tools/ servers (such as Frontpage extensions and Coldfusion).

 

Yes designing a GOOD functional web site is hard. And making an advanced site that is standards compliant is harder than point and click non-compliant design programs. But Open Source is gaining momentum. Some entire countries and now even parts of the world, are rebelling against the evil empire's (Microsoft) preditory practices. As this grows, those that do not make standards compliant web sites will find themselves in trouble.

 

That's what standards are for. Why not just use them and not have to worry about whomever using which ever browser coming to your site?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: special j

i didn't read the rest of these fellas suggestions but here are my own:

 

- Dont use flash -- it is a terrible program in the hands of someone who hasnt had the time to master it. it is slow, fat and irritating to average users.

 

That is absolute rubbish. Flash is like any other program: you get what you can create. I work with Flash on a daily basis. I don't see how it is "slow, fat and irritating" to average users. In what cases? Banner ads, okay. But where else? I don't see why Flash shouldn't be recommended just because some people can't use it right? Would you say text editors should be banned because people write bad books?

 

- Textpad is a great HTML editing program.

 

Agreed. But it is not the only one.

 

- Your ecom stuff can be pre-made code when you get to that point (probably your best option for basic stuff man, going all out and coding it yourself might drive you up a wall unnecessarily).

 

Some of us, of course, like driving ourselves up walls.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Actually Tormod, new standards DO NOT pop up every day.

 

In fact there have not been any NEW HTML standards published since mid 2001 and that was for "X"html ( XHTML 1.1, the modularized version of XHTML, was published in May 2001, per W3C). There have been later standards, mainly applying to dynamics and graphics. But NOT to the basic markup language of html.

 

You forget that HTML and XHTML are not the only standards around. There is also CSS, XML, web services, SOAP, DOM (latest recommendation on DOM 3 released today!), WAI, metadata and a long list of related buzzwords.

 

Then you have the different browsers and the way they handle these standards, which is why any new standard is not immediately adopted by programmers. If you had written a true XHTML site with CSS 1.0 in 2001 not many browser would show the site right (and that means you would be coding for 5% of your user base, at best). Man, they don't even get it right as we speak.

 

There are also technical standards to consider, like implementation of plugins and protocols. And there is the problem of deprecated tags (like XHTML not allowing the "target" attribute, which is required if you use frames).

 

So I would say new standards pop up all the time, yes. Just keeping up with what the list of standards is, is hardly doable for anyone not employed as full-time technology directors.

 

Yes IE is the LEAST standards compliant, which seems to be the Microsoft MO since day one. But that does not mean that IE CAN NOT display standards compliant sites. It means that sites can be designed that are NOT standards compliant to take advantage of non-standards hooks in IE/ Microsoft. This is made easier by "user-friendly", non-complaint web site creation tools/ servers (such as Frontpage extensions and Coldfusion).

 

IE is the browser which show this site the best way, since version 5.5. That's why I target it at this site. All other browser (since 4+, at least) get a good approximation.

 

You complained that my site was not standards compliant - well, that is your answer. I can't keep up with it. If you have sat down and read the XHTML docs you know that they are close to impossible to implement correctly for current browsers (yet the new site I am working on actually validates, so it is not completely impossible).

 

By the way - I wouldn't call ColdFusion a "non-compliant" server. It serves what it is told to serve, which is the HTML/XHTML/CSS/XML/JSP etc produced by the developer. ColdFusion is simply a server application technology.

 

Yes designing a GOOD functional web site is hard. And making an advanced site that is standards compliant is harder than point and click non-compliant design programs. But Open Source is gaining momentum. Some entire countries and now even parts of the world, are rebelling against the evil empire's (Microsoft) preditory practices. As this grows, those that do not make standards compliant web sites will find themselves in trouble.

 

I have heard this since I started designing web sites in 1995. That's nine years ago. For every web designer to make standards compliant web sites, you will have to force everyone to use the same browser and the same development tool. That would mean creating a monopoly.

 

Of course, if you'd rather have everyone stay with textpad (a Microsoft program), you would have to teach web design standards in school...

 

I use Macromedia software to build my sites, Adobe software for some design work, and various other tools (Topstyle, Bulletproof etc). Macromedia and Adobe both makes extremely good web creation tools, but they can't be foolproof. There has to be an element of creativity in this. That is where all the hacks come in - and I try to avoid any kind of hacks (why would a "stan

[Tormod]

My bad, Texpad is of course not a Microsoft program. I actually owned Texpad before I moved to Homesite.

 

What I meant was that it requires a MS platform.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

OK, I will agree that various "Standards" are constantly changing. But then I did specifically qualify my statement with

But NOT to the basic markup language of html.

Originally posted by: Tormod

I have heard this since I started designing web sites in 1995.

 

Kinda late getting here? :-)

 

FYI, I had my first internet e-ddress in 1987. it was at symbolics.com. Do you know the relevance of that? ftp/Archie, Gopher/ Veronica... ?

 

Anyway...

 

building a site that will work for every single browser on this planet is impossible.

 

actually. my company's website is completely browser independant, including original Mosaic and text only browsers. It's very plain and boring, but that is all we need right now.

 

But we can reject most older Browsers at this point. Perhaps Netscape 4.7 forward?

 

I will disagree completely that we need to pander to IE and Microsoft.

 

It is the browser makers who should be responsible for implementing the standards

 

That is my point exactly. And ALL browsers companies EXCEPT IE do so. To code to IE at the cost of EVERY OTHER STANDARDS COMPLIANT BROWSER is the wrong thing to do.

 

By the way - I wouldn't call ColdFusion a "non-compliant" server. It serves what it is told to serve,

 

While Coldfusion can SERVE standards compliant html, it, like IIS/ Frontpage exstensions, has hooks that are INTENTIONALLY non-compliant. IOW , all standards compliant sites can be served off of a Coldfusion server. But it is not conversely true, that all sites designed for Coldfusion can be server off of standards compliant servers.