There are very few cases were you cant convert your photoshop layout into a fully functional website that looks just like the mockup (not counting stuff like font smoothing). Just need a lot of patience with the coding side of things, it can get tedious and I can see why it would be difficult to get started, CSS markup is pretty patchy stuff with quite a lot of bodged ways of accomplishing relatively simple things that you wouldnt think to use right off the bat.
Dont be afraid to accompany your website with images, obviously stuff like titles / nav links should not be images without some form of text-based backup for users which do not have images enabled (few and far between I know, but its good to cover all grounds). But for containers, logos, sidebars e.t.c. Its fine to just take your images right outta photoshop and convert them to containers were necessary.
I guess one way to learn these days would be to just have a read through some relatively simple HTML5 / CSS markup, hopefully then you can get a feel of how websites are structured through the markup, might give you a starting point for creating your own websites.
I have loads of website templates that are pretty simple and well layed out in terms of HTML and CSS, should be quite easy for you to decipher how they work. I can upload them for you if you want, not sure of how much use it would be though!
[QUOTE=Ohfoohy;35506049]Trying to make myself a portfolio. But I've never learned CSS or HTML(5) so it's hard for me but I enjoy doing it. I'm a terrible designer too, so that doesn't help. I've come up with decent ideas and mockups in photoshop, just having trouble coding them.
But right now, I'm about to scratch my idea and come up with something more effective.
[url]http://jakesullivan.me/[/url] :pwn:[/QUOTE]
Just keep at and eventually you'll get better. Try making a blog like template using HTML and CSS, you will probably learn a lot from it.
Read up on all of the HTML5 tags as well. I saw in your source that you used <header> but not <nav> or <footer>!
[B]Toptip[/B]: Don't use <center> tags, they are deprecated in HTML5. Use the CSS: margin: 0 auto; instead, that makes the side margins expand to the width of the parent container creating the same effect.
I don't get why people were complaining about the pricing on Google App Engine. Obviously if you were doing something that it wasn't designed for (like interacting loads with external APIs) then you are going to munch through instance hours but it wasn't designed for that.
It would cost me less than £20 a month to serve 4 million normal requests.
The only requests that cost more are the ones were I have to interact with another server. Since the only requests that do this are when someone is paying for something (need to interact with paypal server) and these cost approx $1 for 1000 it is obviously no issue at all.
I mean it is pretty darn good value: 100% uptime, really fast, can survive a dDOS (only limit is how much money you can spend as they aren't going to overload Google's infrastructure - and at £20 for 4 million requests it would have to be a pretty large attack before you cared that much).
Obviously it isn't perfect for everything, but for what it is designed for it is absolutely amazing.
[QUOTE=spidersdesign;35508807]It would cost me less than £20 a month to serve 4 million normal requests.[/QUOTE]
that's 1.5 requests per second.
my $5 a month fanatical vps can do that without even breaking a sweat
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=spidersdesign;35508807]The only requests that cost more are the ones were I have to interact with another server. Since the only requests that do this are when someone is paying for something (need to interact with paypal server) and these cost approx $1 for 1000 it is obviously no issue at all.[/QUOTE]
a dollar for the privilege of making a thousand external request?
...and you're ok with that?
wow you're getting done
Could your VPS cope if all those requests came at once?
And like I said the only external requests that are made are payments and since the minimum payment is £10:
$1 = £10,000
It is all to do with proportion.
I don't expect to pay a penny within the near future as a will not exceed the free quota.
You are assessing this as if the two systems are the same. They are not - GAE has better uptime, response time, scalability etc. If it costs me a couple of pounds for this then so be it (It is a couple of pounds for fuck sake).
That is like comparing a Dell to a custom build, sure the custom build is likely to be more expensive but when you need to upgrade something it is a hell of a lot easier to upgrade the custom build then the Dell.
Whilst GAE is more expensive, it is better so it is money well spent and the difference is negligible. If for every 4 million requests a site serves it is not making well more than the £20 they cost then they are doing something wrong. The amount of money I pay in paypal/banking fees is far far greater than what I pay for infrastructure so £20 a month for a service tht is rock solid and scalable is value. Your VPS is NOT rock solid, and is NOT scalable.
web~scale`
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
i happen to know a thing or two about scaling
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
while there may not be any difference between the ~cloud~ and DIY on the lower levels you're working at, as soon as you need to grow, you'll notice GAE is starting to cost way more than necessary
and at that point you're too locked in to their service to move away easily
you're not gonna win this argument
[QUOTE=swift and shift;35509255]web~scale`
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
i happen to know a thing or two about scaling
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
while there may not be any difference between the ~cloud~ and DIY on the lower levels you're working at, as soon as you need to grow, you'll notice GAE is starting to cost way more than necessary
and at that point you're too locked in to their service to move away easily[/QUOTE]
It will never cost more than £20 for 4 million requests and that is an amount that I am more than comfortable with. These costs are so insignificant for what I do compared with the revenue. Naturally a file sharing site would cater more about costs but my core revenue is not through the site itself and therefore any hosting related costs will never amount to more than about 3% of total costs so for me the reliability of the app engine is more than worth the tiny amount of money I will have to pay. If my site was serving more than 4 million requests a month then I would be very very very surprised as the sort of work I do is not mass market work, I do not advertise - they find me.
your first post was talking about how you don't understand why people are complaining about GAE in general and now you've changed your argument to being specifically about your use case
[QUOTE=swift and shift;35509823]your first post was talking about how you don't understand why people are complaining about GAE in general and now you've changed your argument to being specifically about your use case[/QUOTE]
I said for what it is designed for - my use case is a perfect example of what it was designed for. If someone has an issue with the pricing then they were using it for something that it was not designed for.
[QUOTE=spidersdesign;35509916] If someone has an issue with the pricing then they were using it for something that it was not designed for.[/QUOTE]
so GAE isn't designed for any real world, medium/high traffic app?
Google App Engine changed pricing structure, significantly increasing the cost and changing how it was calculated (from CPU-time to instance time). That's why people are complaining.
Radix tree of PHPs builtin functions (PHP 5.3.10 with Suhosin-Patch (cli) (built: Feb 6 2012 19:18:12))
[url=http://img.itsbth.com/f/php_func.svg][img]http://i.imgur.com/PUs9H.png[/img][/url]
Code: [url]https://gist.github.com/82f8d9f58798e960b9e2[/url]
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
Oops, double post.
Man I'm trying to follow that tutorial somebody posted earlier but Photoshop is such a pain in the ass to learn and understand
[QUOTE=Over-Run;35513943]Man I'm trying to follow that tutorial somebody posted earlier but Photoshop is such a pain in the ass to learn and understand[/QUOTE]
I find [url="getpaint.net"]Paint.NET[/url] easy to use, as well as professional.
.. and it includes everything you need.
.. and it starts up in no time.
[QUOTE=itsbth;35513118]Radix tree of PHPs builtin functions (PHP 5.3.10 with Suhosin-Patch (cli) (built: Feb 6 2012 19:18:12))
Code: [url]https://gist.github.com/82f8d9f58798e960b9e2[/url]
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
Oops, double post.[/QUOTE]
Hm, I feel like you could combine the fold and add functions if you wanted to. If I skimmed correctly, you pull everything apart for starters when it's added and then push it all back together in the fold function.
Why not start with everything "top level" and then pull it apart as stuff gets added...if you know what I mean.
[editline]10th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=xmariusx;35514429]I find [url="getpaint.net"]Paint.NET[/url] easy to use, as well as professional.[/QUOTE]
I lol'd
[QUOTE=xmariusx;35514429]I find [url="getpaint.net"]Paint.NET[/url] easy to use, as well as professional.
.. and it includes everything you need[/QUOTE]
It's quite horrible actually, gets in your way and makes your work even harder.
[QUOTE=adamjon858;35514431]
I lol'd[/QUOTE]
No joke.
Paint.NET includes everything you need to do in web designing.
+It's super easy.
Photoshop is more photo editing, why would you do that in web design?
[QUOTE=TerabyteS_;35514484]It's quite horrible actually, gets in your way and makes your work even harder.[/QUOTE]
Gets in your way?
[img]http://yeyfiles.net/614907308/Guangzhou.png[/img]
Looking for feedback.
One-hour project I tacked together at work as a prototype for the QA guys:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/t8OSK.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1UUmn.png[/img]
It's called lumberjack, it's a context-aware logging server & interface for multiple services, it understands common patterns and weird malformed log syntaxes from retarded legacy applications, runs on NodeJS.
The interface streams log feeds live through a websocket, you can subscribe to feeds from the different sources, and it can also fire off events on different conditions, for example, a super-bad® error in the log stream can cause e-mails to be fired off and the whole system to halt.
A LOT of little things that still need fixing, but hey, so far I'm pretty happy.
[QUOTE=xmariusx;35514490]Photoshop is more photo editing, why would you do that in web design?[/QUOTE]
Er.. okay..
[QUOTE=adamjon858;35514431]Hm, I feel like you could combine the fold and add functions if you wanted to. If I skimmed correctly, you pull everything apart for starters when it's added and then push it all back together in the fold function.
Why not start with everything "top level" and then pull it apart as stuff gets added...if you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of that, but it was just a quick script I made for fun, so simplicity > performance.
[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;35507999]There are very few cases were you cant convert your photoshop layout into a fully functional website that looks just like the mockup (not counting stuff like font smoothing). Just need a lot of patience with the coding side of things, it can get tedious and I can see why it would be difficult to get started, CSS markup is pretty patchy stuff with quite a lot of bodged ways of accomplishing relatively simple things that you wouldnt think to use right off the bat.
Dont be afraid to accompany your website with images, obviously stuff like titles / nav links should not be images without some form of text-based backup for users which do not have images enabled (few and far between I know, but its good to cover all grounds). But for containers, logos, sidebars e.t.c. Its fine to just take your images right outta photoshop and convert them to containers were necessary.
I guess one way to learn these days would be to just have a read through some relatively simple HTML5 / CSS markup, hopefully then you can get a feel of how websites are structured through the markup, might give you a starting point for creating your own websites.
I have loads of website templates that are pretty simple and well layed out in terms of HTML and CSS, should be quite easy for you to decipher how they work. I can upload them for you if you want, not sure of how much use it would be though![/QUOTE]
Sure! Thatd be awesome. Is there a good source you can recommend that has some good info on the different tags and what things like containers are/do. Also, I'm using notepad++ right now and was wondering if there was a good program for windows like coda for Mac?
[QUOTE=xmariusx;35514490]
Photoshop is more photo editing, why would you do that in web design?[/QUOTE]
I've tried several programs (Paint.NET, CS5, Gimp and Sumo) and Photoshop was definitely the nicest to use for me personally with design. Photographers tend to edit photos in programs such as Lightroom and not Photoshop due to you using a raw image format.
It almost seems like you're saying Photoshop is for photo editing because it has the word [b]photo[/b] in it.
[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;35514669]
It's called lumberjack
[/QUOTE]
We called our servers' logging system lumberjack, because it logs things :v:
And one of our boxes is called dawkins :v:
[QUOTE=TerabyteS_;35446775]Yes, they've probably been made in Photoshop, at least the "ribbons". Shadows and borders, though, are pretty easy to do with CSS3 nowadays.
[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]
[img]http://www.gabrielecirulli.com/p/20120406-010139.png[/img][/QUOTE]
css only? :)
[QUOTE=j4NZKUE;35521457]css only? :)[/QUOTE]
Yes, except for the logo.
Okey,I got it. we all have different taste.
At least, I find paint.net usefully. Only use photoshop to draw.
After reading several times that Ruby and Ruby On Rails is worth a try, I decided to install it and check it out.
Just started with it, so I'm currently going trough: [url]http://guides.rubyonrails.org/getting_started.html[/url]
It kind of looks like what I always looked for in terms of a programming language and Framework.
let us know how you fare
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
