Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Site re-do
jgs240
07-05-2008, 05:44 PM
Well i have decided to take this summer semester off from school to see if i can pick up on this programming and to see if i like it enough to pursue it in school.
Here's what i am up too now:
-trying to master the basic css property's
-start learnign JS
-mastering all the html property's
-and re-do a friends site (his business site)
I thought i would make a quick (rough?) mock up in ps so that i could illustrate what i am trying to achieve with the re-do. Its kind of rough, but i think it gets the point across well enough.
I want the navigation to be on top, the body will be directly below that with all the info. The background for the body will be our corp. logo, but i want it to be pretty opaque so that text can be read easily. I don't know what to do about the background for the page, it will be one of the last things i take care of. I want to try and follow a "web2.0" style to colors and images, so the buttons will probably have "vista" quality's in them, a few drop shadows here and there followed by some crisp color combos to finish it.
I am going to start on this a little later tonight, but i wanted to get some input on it. I don't really know where to start, or how to start so some suggestions that pertain to that would be very helpful.
Declan1991
07-05-2008, 06:29 PM
That should be an li of links, and a div below with all the content. Use a proper DOCTYPE (I'd recommend HTML 4.01).
Don't over do the graphics. The page should be easy to read if you just stumble upon it. You don't want a page so full of graphics that it takes forever to load on a slow, or even average, connection. Remember as well, not everyone uses the same browser as you, or screen resolution or OS, and may be blind, visually impaired, unable to use a mouse etc. Make your page accessible above all, then fancy.
jgs240
07-05-2008, 06:47 PM
That should be an li of links, and a div below with all the content. Use a proper DOCTYPE (I'd recommend HTML 4.01).
Don't over do the graphics. The page should be easy to read if you just stumble upon it. You don't want a page so full of graphics that it takes forever to load on a slow, or even average, connection. Remember as well, not everyone uses the same browser as you, or screen resolution or OS, and may be blind, visually impaired, unable to use a mouse etc. Make your page accessible above all, then fancy.
Thanks for the tips! How does someone un-able to use a mouse navigate the site? Tab and Enter everything?
So two main id's (menu and say, content) and then some classes for the li's and random font changes?
WebJoel
07-05-2008, 07:13 PM
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
body {font-size: 65%; padding-bottom:25px; /* IE does not understand "margin-bottom" on BODY, so padding-bottom instead*/}
#wrapper p {color:black; background-color:transparent; font-size:1.2em; line-height:1.2em; margin:10px 0 10px 0;}
/*non-content: e.g., -navigation lists, etc. Slightly smaller than content text {font-size:0.75em;} */
ul li {float: left; /* cure IE5.x "whitespace in lists" problem */width: 100%;}
ul li a {height: 1%; /* make links honour display: block; properly */}
#wrapper {min-height:100%; overflow:hidden;} /* 100% height for compliants, enwraps content*/
* html #wrapper {height:100%;}/* and feed IE what it needs */
<p>But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and
I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of
the truth, the master-builder of human happiness.</p>
<p>No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how
to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who
loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances
occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure.</p>
<p>To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some
advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that
has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?</p>
<p>On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized
by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that
are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is
the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish.</p>
<p>In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammelled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best,
every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty
or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted.
The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure
other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html> A quick mock of your design. This looks the same for Firefox 3.x as IE7, validates. DIV "#main" will expand/contract vertically as more text is added/removed. The important parts pretaining expressly to this, are in BOLD.
Use with the images, attached. Enjoy. :)
jgs240
07-05-2008, 07:21 PM
wow....how long did that take you? Thanks for all the little comments you left in there btw.
I don't want to sound disrespectful or un-appreciative but i don't want to use your work. I am going to complete this one on my own (with help from your demo and great comments though :D)
I was about to ask how i could get the 'ol' to line up horizontally instead of vertically, but i see that has been answered above. Thanks again for the help you have given me.
Alright i have had some time to look over this and sort things out, now i have some questions:
-The '*' symbol is a wild card right? Is applies what follows to all the elements of the doc right?
-What is this for, or rather why is the syntax like this? * html #wrapper {height:100%;}/* and feed IE what it needs */
-The '#main' div is relatively positioned to the '#wrapper' div right?
-There seems to be a lot of extra's put into this (the text styles and such). Do you save all those like a library for future use? And if you do how do you organize them so that you can find them quickly?
WebJoel
07-05-2008, 07:39 PM
how long? about 45-mins. with minimal distractions here (wife getting our son ready for bedtime, etc).
No worries, -use my template or create your own. I have no claim this as the creative behind it is your design. I just codified it. :p g'nite.
jgs240
07-05-2008, 09:32 PM
Small update for the night. I made these little buttons, it took about 3 hours to get it right but once i got it things went pretty smooth! These are my first graphics worthy of using so i am pretty excited :D
Yes, -several basic ready-for-all templates. Most of the template doesn't apply to your demo. I use a html-editor that I have pre-prepared several versatile validating templates so any build gets off to a quick-start. :)
Those images are neat. I would however, suggest just ONE image with NO text on it, and use it as the "background-image" of each "<li>" and use real TEXT for the text. First off, you have limited this to just one http-request for ONE image instead of FIVE images as images are un-readable to user-agents that have no images/images turned off. User-agents for the blind would be confused with 'just images' and be unable to parse.
Using a "UL" with "li" text places the text centered over the background-image and works nicely and do it using 1/5th the kb size, and you can still style the text to do effects (change color, spacing, placement, font-family, underline-on-hover, etc...)
jgs240
07-06-2008, 10:52 PM
Yes, -several basic ready-for-all templates. Most of the template doesn't apply to your demo. I use a html-editor that I have pre-prepared several versatile validating templates so any build gets off to a quick-start. :)
Those images are neat. I would however, suggest just ONE image with NO text on it, and use it as the "background-image" of each "<li>" and use real TEXT for the text. First off, you have limited this to just one http-request for ONE image instead of FIVE images as images are un-readable to user-agents that have no images/images turned off. User-agents for the blind would be confused with 'just images' and be unable to parse.
Using a "UL" with "li" text places the text centered over the background-image and works nicely and do it using 1/5th the kb size, and you can still style the text to do effects (change color, spacing, placement, font-family, underline-on-hover, etc...)
Again, and always...more great info!
I did save a blank one just in case, thank god i did :) I will try this setup when i get time again (back to work tomorrow).
natobasso
07-07-2008, 12:59 AM
Make sure your styles aren't inline as shown but in a css file.
WebJoel
07-07-2008, 07:24 AM
.... I did save a blank one just in case, thank god i did :) I will try this setup when i get time again (back to work tomorrow).
You can do some pretty kewl stuff with this.
Using a technique not pioneered by myself, you can 'combine' several pseudo-state images (at-rest, hover, active, etc) into ONE image and using the psuedo-states, change the position of the image. This method is superior as even though the image is 3X larger than the 'single re-used image', it will stilload faster, is cached (no additional http-requests), and the 'roll-over' is nearly instantaneous making it better than the javascript version.
Using the attached image (notice that there is NO text on this, a single image), some years ago I made a site for a fannish interest.
The image-change is only to show the 'state' button (red, green, black). Realistically, I could shave this down to *just the GREEN button*, and the 'hover' and 'visited' thirds could be just about 30-40px wide, showing *just* the bulb-color change and the 'link' image is always present anyway... This would reduce this single image's size by nearly another 60%!
http://terryrhodes.awardspace.com/index1.html
(p.s., -try to not judge my current skills by the coding on this legacy page... it is horribly outdated & I have become a LOT better... we just haven't gotten around to updating this yet..)
WebJoel
07-07-2008, 07:39 AM
oh yeah, btw:
yes, " * {margin:0; padding:0;} " is "universal selector" meaning "all/everything", but:
-What is this for, or rather why is the syntax like this?
Code:
* html #wrapper {height:100%;}/* and feed IE what it needs */
specifically targets IE. I probably incorrectly refer to this as "the star-hack". Basically, it teaches brain-dead IE to make "#wrapper" as tall as the parent elements "html, body {height:100%;}". IE does not do this by default, and has to be told. -IE rides the short schoolbus, ya know... :D
jgs240
07-07-2008, 10:08 AM
You can do some pretty kewl stuff with this.
Using a technique not pioneered by myself, you can 'combine' several pseudo-state images (at-rest, hover, active, etc) into ONE image and using the psuedo-states, change the position of the image. This method is superior as even though the image is 3X larger than the 'single re-used image', it will stilload faster, is cached (no additional http-requests), and the 'roll-over' is nearly instantaneous making it better than the javascript version.
Using the attached image (notice that there is NO text on this, a single image), some years ago I made a site for a fannish interest.
The image-change is only to show the 'state' button (red, green, black). Realistically, I could shave this down to *just the GREEN button*, and the 'hover' and 'visited' thirds could be just about 30-40px wide, showing *just* the bulb-color change and the 'link' image is always present anyway... This would reduce this single image's size by nearly another 60%!
http://terryrhodes.awardspace.com/index1.html
(p.s., -try to not judge my current skills by the coding on this legacy page... it is horribly outdated & I have become a LOT better... we just haven't gotten around to updating this yet..)
That is very cool, i had seen this done before i just passed it off as a duplicate image with larger text. I have read a little bit about pseudo classes (i am trying to stay away from the more advanced things until i get comfortble with this), how is the support for these? I ask because the business site this is going onto has a large group of older browsers that visit it (Mostly IE6, and "Slim broweser" ) on top of the regulars (FF2/3 and IE7).
What if i only change the text size, and not the background color of the image...will this produce a desirable affect?
jgs240
07-07-2008, 10:10 AM
oh yeah, btw:
yes, " * {margin:0; padding:0;} " is "universal selector" meaning "all/everything", but:
-What is this for, or rather why is the syntax like this?
Code:
* html #wrapper {height:100%;}/* and feed IE what it needs */
specifically targets IE. I probably incorrectly refer to this as "the star-hack". Basically, it teaches brain-dead IE to make "#wrapper" as tall as the parent elements "html, body {height:100%;}". IE does not do this by default, and has to be told. -IE rides the short schoolbus, ya know... :D
I have had my run ins' with this retard as well....it was a table width issue on a pricelist i was making a year ago. It looked good in everything but IE6, then when i got it looking good there it fell apart in FF/O/S....pita. Like i said before though, all your comments are truly helpful!
WebJoel
07-07-2008, 03:14 PM
So far, support for this technique has proven quite reliable. I tested IE6, 7, Mozilla, Opera, Safari-on-XP, NN, Firefox 2x-3 and, on Linux: -Konqueror, Firefox and Galeon
-and maybe a few more and so far, so good. The effect is quite stable.
If the link text 're-sizes' on-demand, this might post a problem perhaps. I tend to make my link-size big enough so that I doubt it needs to be resized, and I state link-sizes in "px", which helps to prevent re-sizing. I make my "<p>" and "<H>"1-6 in "em" sizes, so that they can be re-sized on user-demand..
jgs240
07-07-2008, 08:30 PM
Make sure your styles aren't inline as shown but in a css file.
Already taken care of, but thanks for the heads up.
jgs240
07-07-2008, 08:32 PM
So far, support for this technique has proven quite reliable. I tested IE6, 7, Mozilla, Opera, Safari-on-XP, NN, Firefox 2x-3 and, on Linux: -Konqueror, Firefox and Galeon
-and maybe a few more and so far, so good. The effect is quite stable.
If the link text 're-sizes' on-demand, this might post a problem perhaps. I tend to make my link-size big enough so that I doubt it needs to be resized, and I state link-sizes in "px", which helps to prevent re-sizing. I make my "<p>" and "<H>"1-6 in "em" sizes, so that they can be re-sized on user-demand..
cool, i will give this a try tonight. Maybe have some demo to post up...
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.