Web Design/Development

I'm only three and a half months away from graduating with my Web Design diploma. The more I think about it though, the more I just don't want to do this as my main long-term career. It's something I'd rather do as a side freelance job.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to work fluidly with Macromedia Director in order to make a portfolio of my web sites. I'm having a hard time though, since I'm practically new to the program.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Ultima

Is a diploma in web design that annoying? I was considering going to school for web design but I couldn't find any schools for it. A lot of the schools I applied to have things like graphic design and digital media in which you can take web design courses, but no specific major that is specified as web design.

Leaning more towards Illustration or Graphic Design though.

Not annoying. Frustrating. I still like it though. I'm just not really a graphics guy, so my skills in Photoshop, Illustrator and Fireworks are average at best. I can make a couple of decent layouts and I can provide content, but that's as far as I'm going. I love doing the content.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Render

You and I could get along well. I HATE doing the content, but love doing the initial site design. :P

What exactly are you learning in your web design classes? I've always been curious since a girl from my class dropped out of Networking to enroll for a web class.

If it's HTML and CSS, then no thanks. I wouldn't mind some PHP and Photoshop classes since I'm average at best. PHP, I don't even know. SQL and Javascript I'm learning in my Programming classes this semester and next. I like doing the HTML, CSS, design and Photoshop portions the best. I would like to start a web design business sometime, but I need a back-end coding partner to make my sites dynamic. I can't do it. :P

Well, we've covered HTML, XHTML, CSS, Macromedia Fireworks, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Flash, Web Design, FrontPage and Dreamweaver so far.

I'm currently learning Macromedia Director MX 2004 and CGI. We'll be getting into ASP, Cold Fusion and access soon.

I don't know SQL. I do know JavaScript and I'm trying to learn PHP on my own. I don't know why not a lot of people seem to like JavaScript. I happen to find it very useful. I guess it might be due to CSS having many alternatives.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think Flash is great for Flash-driven sites that feature Flash games or Flash multimedia in general. Now, I'm not saying it should be over the top, but depending on where you utilize Flash, it can benefit.

A site with simple Flash effects works nicely and we're not talking about those annoying button rollovers that go DOOT DOOT DOOT every time you roll over them (MegaUpload for example has those).

Flash does have its place on websites (if you're showcasing videos, Flash files tend to be smaller and easier to view online, because of the preloader), but they are not a requirement to bring out really nice looking websites.

I made a very simple Flash project for my class. It's supposed to be a comic book shop, but I just made the layout and usability function. It does look pretty good in my eyes (without the bias ^_^).

I'm personally an XHTML, CSS and JavaScript user. It's what I like using best. I love using Dreamweaver to do all of that in.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's Framesets. I've used IFrames before, which are probably the only "frames" I'll ever use if at all. But, those complete framesets just seem to get in the way. I want easy and smooth browsing on sites, not cluttered junk or cluttered looks with cluttered junk. It was fun at first when I was experimenting with HTML, but not so much anymore. That's just me though.

Anyway, screenshots of all my "practice" websites are here.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Have you tried trimming down both the "schedule" blue bar and the dark blue bar so that they match on both browsers? I would feel that it would be a trial and error thing where you have to tweak the heights of the images, not the height attribute.

Maybe another alternative would be to resize the original dark blue image (if you have it saved) so that it's a bit lengthier than the one that you're using on the site and then to cut an inch of the bottom and putting that in the background, so that it shows up underneath where the image cuts off in IE and just make sure they look properly connected? That way when you're looking at it from Firefox, you can't see the background image, because the main dark blue image is covering it due to its correct rendering of the code, while in IE, you can see the background image and it gives off the illusion that there's nothing wrong with the dark blue image. I don't know. Something like that I guess.

I'm sure someone else has a far easier way of doing it though.

Most amazing jew boots

IE is a pain in general though. That's why I hate it. If this were inside of a table, it would've been trial and error. Since it's straight CSS, I don't know. See if you can find some CSS hacks like Qube said. I've only created a blog with pure CSS and graphic-wise, I've put the top header image together instead of slicing it into two or more pieces.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Just go alt="" for images that are supposed to be in the header or footer sections. Dreamweaver won't bother you then. I have a question for people here though. Do a lot of you use JavaScript for rollovers or CSS? I find CSS much easier and better.

FELIPE NO

Are you saying <span> is deprecated or just "out of style"? I find the <span> tag quite useful, despite what others say. I mean if it works, the design looks cool and it validates, right on. I used to use JavaScript for inline image rollovers, but I don't know. It's preference and whichever you find easier I guess. I just find that doing it through CSS avoids the hassle of using preloaders at the top.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I kind of do think that pure CSS-based sites are limited in everything else besides visual. CSS is after all for style and design of the layout. I think the whole purpose of using pure CSS is to get away from table layouts. Why? I have no clue. I think with tables it's way easier to structure things in proportion. With CSS, it just feels like one big pain in the ass, because you have to pretend to think that there are tables, but really you're using divs and margins. In the end, I would say that it's obviously geared towards the graphic designers. CSS has its place like all the other web elements, but they're only effective if used for the right things.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think this site has some cool stuff.

http://veerle.duoh.com/index.php

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by MeTaL_oRgY

The point for using DIVs instead of tables is semantic code. A table is for TABULAR data. A layout is not tabular data. A DIV is for grouping elements.

I know that tables are for tabular data. It's what they were originally used for. However, it's also a nice way of structuring things. HTML without tables is too simple on the other hand, although tables weren't used in the early days for website layouts.

Originally Posted by MeTaL_oRgY

And if you are trying to pretend that DIVs are tables when coding a CSS layout, you're doing it wrong. You don't need to pretend DIVs are tables, but blocks of elements. As you said, all the web elements have it's place; you just need to use them for the right things.

I didn't say anything about pretending that divs are tables. I said that you have to pretend that there (not they're) are tables, but instead you're using divs and margins. This is for alignment, positioning, etc. In the same way as you can see content inside of a td tag on the left side or on the right side, you have to know the locations of where you're placing things. That's all I was saying.

Originally Posted by MeTaL_oRgY

And the whole reason for using CSS as much as you can instead of tables/javascript or anything else you can think of is mere accessibility. It loads faster, it's semantic and withouth CSS, chances are that it will still work.

Accessibility or quick loading isn't always what makes a good website though, but I understand what you're saying.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.