Do you use photoshop to create a site, I find it hard to make a snazzy looking website like [URL]http://tutsplus.com/[/URL] I'm a premium member there and all they seem to talk about it using photoshop to create a nice looking site, where as I code all of my stuff and here is the shit I come up with [URL="http://www.Dareforstuff.co.uk"]www.Dareforstuff.co.uk[/URL] and [URL="http://www.Elliottcoe.com"]www.Elliottcoe.com[/URL].
I've sort of gone the wrong way about learning web design where I've looked at certain parts of the actual code and not thought about the design theory.
Guys, what is your design process and what should I be doing to make nicer looking web pages?
Update,
How do you get along if you haven't got access to photoshop?
In general, you should design everything in Photoshop first and then code it.
But I'm too shit at design so I just design it in my head and then code it.
You can design it in Photoshop, and photoshop can actually generate the html for you if you want, but it's not very well done. I design it in PS and then code it.
MSPaint, Notepad++, beer.
I often design as I go. As I never got the hang around using Photoshop.
Should maybe start using Photoshop first for the design.
[QUOTE=pdkm931;26447984]I often design as I go. As I never got the hang around using Photoshop.
Should maybe start using Photoshop first for the design.[/QUOTE]
Only problem is, I'm on Linux and Gimp is annoying.
[QUOTE=smidge146;26448044]Only problem is, I'm on Linux and Gimp is annoying.[/QUOTE]
Use WINE.
Idea -> Paper drawing -> create graphics -> static HTML -> code serverside parts.
[QUOTE=smidge146;26448044]Only problem is, I'm on Linux and Gimp is annoying.[/QUOTE]
Try Inkscape. Vector graphics are awesome!
First, I use a pencil and paper, I get it to where I think it looks fine then I move onto [url=http://pencil.evolus.vn/en-US/Home.aspx]Pencil[/url] making it look exactly as I want it to. (I make the images in Photoshop at this stage as well) Finally, I code and upload it.
Depends greatly on the design.
I start with a basic HTML layout then I work on desired graphics piece by piece.
You talk to your client, or 'talk' to yourself.
You write down the basics of the design: What's its purpose? What are you trying to achieve? What is the target audience? What are the obstacles? Does the target audience have any special needs? Are a majority of them blind, deaf, really dumb, or just old? What is the hierarchy of the information, or content, of the website? How can you make your design more efficient for yourself, for your client, and for the users?
You lay down a rough concept of your design, and run it through a test group - friends, co-workers, a paid team, your parents. Were there any issues you didn't consider initially? Are there improvements you can make? Did the users find the site's content easily accessible/was the UI intuitive? Does your test group match the target audience?
You take the needed changes/improvements into consideration, and design a (semi)-final product. Does it fullfill it's goal? Are you/your client happy? Repeat the previous steps for as long as needed/possible until you have the finished website.
This goes for any user-geared design work, not just websites. Remember you're in essence just framing content and giving the user the tools to navigate it, everything else is fluff. Covering a chair in glitter doesn't make it more comfortable, flipping it upside down and replacing its legs with spikes doesn't make it more comfortable either. Be reasonable, and when in doubt, err on the side of simplicity.
[i]"Less is more."[/i] - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe"]Ludwig Mies van der Rohe[/URL]
1. Photoshop
2. Notepad++
3. Upload
4. Tweak and Bugfix
5. Repeat step three until done
1. andersonmat
2. HTML/CSS
3. Active content, eg. js and server stuff
[QUOTE=Siemens;26463081]1. andersonmat
2. HTML/CSS
3. Active content, eg. js and server stuff[/QUOTE]
1. [noparse]:awesome:[/noparse]
2. Active content, minor modifications
[QUOTE=amcwatters;26461123]1. Photoshop
2. Notepad++
3. Upload
4. Tweak and Bugfix
5. Repeat step three until done[/QUOTE]
Tip: local development server.
[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;26463600]Tip: local development server.[/QUOTE]
Tip: [code]git commit -a -m 'Update'; git push[/code]
[QUOTE=Qombat;26463697]Tip: [code]git commit -a -m 'Update'; git push[/code][/QUOTE]
Tip:
[code]Ctrl+S[/code]
[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;26464229]Tip:
[code]Ctrl+S[/code][/QUOTE]
Tip: Autosave.
[editline]4th December 2010[/editline]
What the fuck happened to that quote box...?
[QUOTE=Qombat;26464385]Tip: Autosave.
[editline]4th December 2010[/editline]
What the fuck happened to that quote box...?[/QUOTE]
My method is shorter and the quote box knows it. I hereby declare myself the winner.
In the web developers indistinct your a designer or a 'coder'. it's rare you will do both.
Indeed, it's rare to find a both good coder and a good designer in one. Though I'm pretty sure a good coder is more common than a good designer.
[QUOTE=Qombat;26463697]Tip: [code]git commit -a -m 'Update'; git push[/code][/QUOTE]
Tip: You should be explicitly pushing to production, not making production the origin.
[QUOTE=Siemens;26479633]Tip: You should be explicitly pushing to production, not making production the origin.[/QUOTE]
[CODE]CTRL+S[/CODE]
Hello, production.
[QUOTE=Qombat;26463697]Tip: [code]git commit -a -m 'Update'; git push[/code][/QUOTE]
[code]cap deploy[/code]
I win.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;26480407][code]cap deploy[/code]
I win.[/QUOTE]
Technically, no.
[code]webdeploy[/code]
I have a script setup to do that for me. :v:
I guarantee you that capistrano is still more powerful than whatever you're using so if you want to bring technicality in to the equation I still win :)
You really shouldn't have your production environment set as the remote for your git repo though. Your repo should be separate and your production environment should be pulling from that git repo, not running directly from it.
[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;26490879]I guarantee you that capistrano is still more powerful than whatever you're using so if you want to bring technicality in to the equation I still win :)
You really shouldn't have your production environment set as the remote for your git repo though. Your repo should be separate and your production environment should be pulling from that git repo, not running directly from it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I know how Git works. I don't know how Capistrano works so I can't be bothered working it out. :v:
I already answered this. My 'production environment' is basically my desktop, but with a few fictional user/file db entries in Filemaw's case.
There's probably other underlying issues that you're talking about, but I like this setup for now. If something goes wrong then I guess I'll have to mod it.
Capistrano uses git, they're not mutually exclusive. Capistrano is for deployment, git is for version control. Apples and Oranges.
If it's on your local machine it's not your production environment unless you're also running a web server off your machine that is serving the sites you are designing. (particularly in reference to the filemaw mention, as your explanation of that is the exact opposite of a production environment :P)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
