www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - d-programming-language.org template

reply Tiberiu Gal <Tiberiu_member pathlink.com> writes:
http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
May 17 2006
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 06:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Tiberiu Gal wrote:


 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



Very nice indeed.

The little 'go' button at the top could read 'find' or 'search' instead
though. Also "Comunity" ;-) I assume that under the community option we
would have things like links to a forums, Dsource, Wikis, etc ...

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
18/05/2006 4:03:17 PM
May 17 2006
parent Tiberi Gal <Tiberi_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <a602096gyzrn$.1d18x05ehvx8x$.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...

On Thu, 18 May 2006 06:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Tiberiu Gal wrote:


 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



Very nice indeed.

The little 'go' button at the top could read 'find' or 'search' instead
though. Also "Comunity" ;-) I assume that under the community option we
would have things like links to a forums, Dsource, Wikis, etc ...



We can have a forum right under that tab, and/or links to other communities...
anyway, this is just a drawing, I am suggesting a layout and a color scheme,
text and button can be changed anytime later. I think we sould choose a layout
and start adding content.
so please let me know, find another layout, use diferent colors? and when we all
agree on the layout, I'll make it into html...
..or, I can make a nuke like portal with many themes so everyone can be happy
May 17 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent F <F_member pathlink.com> writes:
Cool, nice work, baiatule!



In article <e4h2i0$jud$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tiberiu Gal says...

http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
May 17 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
 



I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

Have you considered using an existing template?
http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
May 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Tiberiu Gal <Tiberiu_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e4hahl$uci$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
 



I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

Have you considered using an existing template?
http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



just css? why? what's wrong with tables?
I know what's wrong with tables, I also know what's wrong with css, I preffer
tables for layout, I only use css for text formating (that's may way)
I know your template, it's clean, very easy to implement, ...but it doesn't say
much. I make everything a bit more bombastic, that's how I work. it's not always
the best option, I know...but it says "this is different, this is not like the
rest, we have something special". many people go for the image and the content
is left behind.
I hope I'm not too pushy with my style... this is just an option, the community
will have to decide
May 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 In article <e4hahl$uci$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



 just css? why? what's wrong with tables?



Great question (what's wrong with tables?) - served me well over many 
years and many web pages.


 I know what's wrong with tables, I also know what's wrong with css, I preffer
 tables for layout, I only use css for text formating (that's may way)



Same here - can't argue with success...


 I know your template, it's clean, very easy to implement, ...but it doesn't say
 much. I make everything a bit more bombastic, that's how I work. it's not
always
 the best option, I know...but it says "this is different, this is not like the
 rest, we have something special". many people go for the image and the content
 is left behind.
 I hope I'm not too pushy with my style... this is just an option, the community
 will have to decide
May 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:
On 18/05/2006 3:25 PM, Dave wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 just css? why? what's wrong with tables?



 
 Great question (what's wrong with tables?) - served me well over many 
 years and many web pages.



Tables are for tabular data, not layouts.

Tables aren't good for accessibility (screen readers for the blind etc) 
or searchability.

Most search engines weight page relevance not only on the content and 
tag "importance" (e.g. P, H1, H2, H3 etc) but also on the content's 
order within the HTML page. So a H1 at the top of a page followed by a 
well-written explanatory paragraph increases relevance reletive to pages 
with similar content poorly structured. Placing content within table 
cells, surrounded by empty cells (or with spacer or GUI images), can 
work to decrease search engine relevance.

Using tables mixes content and layout, whereas intelligent use of XHTML 
+ CSS can almost completely separate content and layout, making future 
maintenance and desgn makeovers MUCH easier - simply replace the stylesheet.

There are many reasons not to use tables, but these are the 3 most 
important IMHO.

And anyway, good XHTML structure plus CSS can realize all layouts 
formerly done with tables, even with inadequate CSS support in MSIE 5/6.


Brian.
May 18 2006
next sibling parent Tiberiu Gal <Tiberiu_member pathlink.com> writes:
please don't make this a html forum...

I think the phpbb at dsource.org is a better place to talk about this.
this, I mean the site design and logos ... this really has nothing to do with d
programming. 
I already started a topic:
http://dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9229#9229 

thank you
May 18 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Brian Hay" <bhay construct3d.com> wrote in message 
news:446C8BA5.2090900 construct3d.com...


 Tables are for tabular data, not layouts.
 ...



Of course, the main advantage for using tables for layouts?  Portability.  I 
have had so many problems getting divs to work right, or at least the same 
way, in all browsers (IE especially..).  Tables almost _always_ work the 
same way.

But for something large, like an expansible, wiki-based site, I would 
definitely recommend using CSS layout, if for nothing else, making it 
simpler to generate the pages from the internal databases, and making the 
pages smaller (by not cluttering them with all the presentation code).
May 18 2006
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Brian Hay" <bhay construct3d.com> wrote in message 
 news:446C8BA5.2090900 construct3d.com...
 

 Tables are for tabular data, not layouts.
 ...



 Of course, the main advantage for using tables for layouts?  Portability.  I 
 have had so many problems getting divs to work right, or at least the same 
 way, in all browsers (IE especially..).  Tables almost _always_ work the 
 same way.




Try telling that to:
- somebody using a device with a small screen on which it becomes harder 
to read
- somebody using some accessibility feature that may be confused about 
the structure of the content
- somebody listening to a website on a speaking browser
- a search engine robot

Moreover, even within UAs of the same kind, what matters is not that it 
looks (or feels or sounds) exactly the same in them all.  What matters 
is that it works in them all.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 19 2006
prev sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 In article <e4hahl$uci$1 digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



 just css? why? what's wrong with tables?



 Great question (what's wrong with tables?) - served me well over many
 years and many web pages.



I frequently use a PDA (which has a 240x320 screen) to view web pages
and the like when I'm at uni and don't have access to my desktop.  It
annoys me NO END when someone uses huge tables instead of flowing DIVs
and CSS.  Even if I pull all of the stylesheets out of the page, it
still formats as if it was on a desktop, and makes it unreadable on the
small screen.

On the other hand, every single site that uses clean HTML for structure
and CSS for layout has displayed *without a problem*, since I can just
strip off the CSS.

I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
 My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:

1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
2/3 of my main monitor)?
2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
colour blind people?
7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?

If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)

	-- Daniel Keep

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/
May 18 2006
parent reply nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:


 I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
  My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:
 
 1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
 2/3 of my main monitor)?
 2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
 3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
 4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
 5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
 6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
 colour blind people?
 7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?
 
 If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)
 
 	-- Daniel Keep



I think my layout passes 1, 2(tested in safari a while back), 3
(especially with fonts set to -1 size), 4, 5.

I haven't tested it for 6 or 7, but I would like to know how that turns out.
May 18 2006
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
nick wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:
 

 I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
  My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:

 1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
 2/3 of my main monitor)?
 2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
 3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
 4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
 5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
 6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
 colour blind people?
 7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?

 If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)

 	-- Daniel Keep



 I think my layout passes 1, 2(tested in safari a while back), 3
 (especially with fonts set to -1 size), 4, 5.
 
 I haven't tested it for 6 or 7, but I would like to know how that turns out.



6. You can use http://colorfilter.wickline.org/.

7. If you use Firefox, you can usually get away with grabbing the Web
Developer toolbar, and resizing your window down to ~240px wide,
selecting "View" -> "Page Style" -> "No Style", and dropping the default
font size once (using Ctrl+-).

That said, although I haven't put it on my PDA (it's a pain in the
arse... stupid not having wireless have to find stupid dock), it looks
fine at low res.  Code examples push out to the side, but that's fine
since they'd look *worse* wrapped.

Also, I quickly ran the site through the colour blindness checker, and
it looks... almost exactly the same, which is quite good :)

As for blind people, the layout could use one change: put the content
first, then the navigation.  Here's how to test if you've done it right:

1. Grab a copy of lynx (I use Cygwin, so I'm not sure how to get it
otherwise).

2. Run this command:
   lynx -dump URL > page.txt

   I believe there is a website somewhere that will run a URL through
lynx for you, and display the result.  Can't remember where, tho.

3. Read page.txt.  Literally.  Read it out loud.  Every single word.
And read it slowly, just like a computer would.  For extra effect, put
the word "LINK" in front of all hyperlinks.  In fact, for best results,
feed the page directly into a text to speech engine.

Yes, this is roughly what blind people have to put up with.  Just
imagine listening to the site navigation being read out to you over and
over again every time you visit a new page...

If you can't work out how to coax the HTML into the right structure, you
can cop out and put a link at the top of the page like this:

<a href="#content" style="display:none;">Skip to content</a>.

Of course, the CSS should be in a separate file.

Hope this helps, rather than hinders :)

	-- Daniel Keep

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/
May 18 2006
parent nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 7. If you use Firefox, you can usually get away with grabbing the Web
 Developer toolbar, and resizing your window down to ~240px wide,
 selecting "View" -> "Page Style" -> "No Style", and dropping the default
 font size once (using Ctrl+-).





 Code examples push out to the side, but that's fine
 since they'd look *worse* wrapped.





 Also, I quickly ran the site through the colour blindness checker, and
 it looks... almost exactly the same, which is quite good :)





 As for blind people, the layout could use one change: put the content
 first, then the navigation.  Here's how to test if you've done it right:
 
 1. Grab a copy of lynx (I use Cygwin, so I'm not sure how to get it
 otherwise).
 
 2. Run this command:
    lynx -dump URL > page.txt
 
    I believe there is a website somewhere that will run a URL through
 lynx for you, and display the result.  Can't remember where, tho.



the right for lynx but moved it back.)


 3. Read page.txt.  Literally.  Read it out loud.  Every single word.
 And read it slowly, just like a computer would.  For extra effect, put
 the word "LINK" in front of all hyperlinks.  In fact, for best results,
 feed the page directly into a text to speech engine.



Yeah, the sidebar can go on the right.


 Yes, this is roughly what blind people have to put up with.  Just
 imagine listening to the site navigation being read out to you over and
 over again every time you visit a new page...



this group of people may not be our target audience. Shouldn't be too
much work to support them either way.


 If you can't work out how to coax the HTML into the right structure, you
 can cop out and put a link at the top of the page like this:
 
 <a href="#content" style="display:none;">Skip to content</a>.
 
 Of course, the CSS should be in a separate file.
 
 Hope this helps, rather than hinders :)



badness of table-based layouts also helps.
May 18 2006
prev sibling parent Serg Kovrov <dyh pathlink.com> writes:
Hi Tiberiu Gal, you wrote:

 just css? why? what's wrong with tables?
 I know what's wrong with tables, I also know what's wrong with css, I preffer
 tables for layout, I only use css for text formating (that's may way)



for tabular data. Not for page layout. Unfortunately the dark age when 
there was no standards make this as a common practice. Properly 
structured markup is like properly designed application - its might be 
harder or time consuming, but always better.

Besides there is a practical reasons not to use tables and/or images 
for layout. Inflexibility - tables layout couldn't be changed without 
altering markup. With CSS-controlled layout it is possible to change 
different layouts 'on fly', or if user work with small screen/window he 
could 'flatten' layout by turning off style. Bloat - unnecessary images 
and/or tags makes site to waste everyones traffic with no purpose.
And (I'm little bit afraid to say this aloud, but..) with CSS-controlled 
layout there is further separation data from presentation.


 I make everything a bit more bombastic, that's how I work. it's not always
 the best option, I know...but it says "this is different, this is not like the
 rest, we have something special". many people go for the image and the content
 is left behind.



Garden project (http://csszengarden.com/) - nothing prevents people from 
make 'bombastic' things with css-controlled layouts. However I prefer 
stylish ones.

PS. It is a little bit wrong forum to discuss this topic (no offense, of 
course).
May 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:
On 18/05/2006 10:17 AM, nick wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:
 

http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.
 
 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?
 
 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think 
Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but 
certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't 
appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.

Brian.
May 18 2006
next sibling parent reply Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:
On 18/05/2006 11:04 AM, Brian Hay wrote:


 FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think 
 Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but 
 certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't 
 appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.



I should have mentioned that I think the D logo design on Tiberiu's 
template is great - certainly the best of all the proposed logos I've 
seen to date.

Brian.
May 18 2006
parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Brian Hay wrote:

 On 18/05/2006 11:04 AM, Brian Hay wrote:
 

 FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think 
 Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but 
 certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't 
 appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.



 
 I should have mentioned that I think the D logo design on Tiberiu's 
 template is great - certainly the best of all the proposed logos I've 
 seen to date.
 
 Brian.
 



That logo was proposed a while back ;)
May 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Brian Hay wrote:

 On 18/05/2006 10:17 AM, nick wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:


 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



 FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think 
 Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but 
 certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't 
 appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.
 
 Brian.




I prefer Tiberiu's template.  I think it will cater to programmers just 
as fine as anyone else.  Really, I don't think being a programmer should 
have much influence on whether a person likes that template or not.

But imagining and thinking prove very little in this regard, since every 
person seems capable of such activities. :)


-JJR
May 18 2006
parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:

 Brian Hay wrote:

 On 18/05/2006 10:17 AM, nick wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:


 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?

 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



 FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think 
 Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but 
 certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't 
 appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.

 Brian.



 
 I prefer Tiberiu's template.  I think it will cater to programmers just 
 as fine as anyone else.  Really, I don't think being a programmer should 
 have much influence on whether a person likes that template or not.
 



I agree - it has a nice clean look to it, yet seems both modern and 
"minimalistic" (and that's not a detractor). I really like the Mars/D 
logo as well.


 But imagining and thinking prove very little in this regard, since every 
 person seems capable of such activities. :)
 
 
 -JJR
May 18 2006
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Brian Hay wrote:

 On 18/05/2006 10:17 AM, nick wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:


 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.

 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?






I think it's possible to create that page without any intensive use of
tables - div-elements in xhtml help a lot. Those background gradients
aren't that heavy either (~200x1 px PNG). I don't like those antialiased
fonts there because I want to be able to browse the page also with links
(text mode browser). The biggest problem would be those round corners
and creating necessary hacks to render it correctly in IE.

Nicks design seems to offer a lot more content and performance than
this, but this looks very user friendly. Still I'm afraid this doesn't
appeal to programmers that much since we need content, not art. The most
annoying thing in Ruby on Rails (http://www.rubyonrails.org/) is that
their home page really sucks. Too much fancy images, too little words.


 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html



 FWIW: I prefer the clean style of Nick's template also. I don't think
 Tiberiu Gal's template is "impossible to implement well in CSS" but
 certainly harder and, more importantly, the design I'd imagine doesn't
 appeal/cater as much to the target audience i.e. programmers.



Why can't we have both. Let the user decide the stylesheet he/she wants
to use.


-- 
Jari-Matti
May 18 2006
prev sibling parent reply Charlie <noone nowhere.com> writes:
 that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.



What is the crazy need for just CSS ?  And when did tables become the 
devil ?

Honestly - using just CSS for layout sounds perverse.

I know , do the whole thing in XML and we'll just use XSLT to display it!

Charlie



nick wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 I am not trying to push my layout so much as I don't want everyone to go
 and make their own (this is a common trend in the D community). Also, I
 am concerned (read "I am almost certain") that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.
 
 The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images;
 how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?
 
 Have you considered using an existing template?
 http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
May 18 2006
parent nick <nick.atamas gmail.com> writes:
Charlie wrote:

 that the template you suggest
 will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.



 What is the crazy need for just CSS ?  And when did tables become the
 devil ?
 
 Honestly - using just CSS for layout sounds perverse.
 
 I know , do the whole thing in XML and we'll just use XSLT to display it!
 
 Charlie



I think this will answer your questions.

http://www.webcredible.co.uk/benefits/css-design.shtml
May 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Olaf Pohlmann <op nospam.org> writes:
Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



Sorry if this sounds offensive, but what's the point in offering a 
graphic if the result should be HTML+CSS? A web site should scale with 
the size of the browser window and the font size chosen by the user. 
These are the first things to get right and only then you can try to 
make it look pretty. This is especially true for a site with a technical 
subject. It needs a good navigation structure and it has to work.


op
May 18 2006
parent Charlie <noone nowhere.com> writes:
As a freelancer programmer for a long time I have seen the creation of 
websites done this way about 90% of the time.  A graphic designer 
creates an image of what the site should look like, and then breaks it 
into a template you can use to create the pages with.

Getting the design right is the first step.  Breaking into HTML+CSS is 
trivial.

Olaf Pohlmann wrote:

 Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



 Sorry if this sounds offensive, but what's the point in offering a 
 graphic if the result should be HTML+CSS? A web site should scale with 
 the size of the browser window and the font size chosen by the user. 
 These are the first things to get right and only then you can try to 
 make it look pretty. This is especially true for a site with a technical 
 subject. It needs a good navigation structure and it has to work.
 
 
 op
May 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Charlie <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Looks great I really hope Walter goes with this.

Charlie

Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
May 18 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
 
 



Color scheme is very easy on the eyes.

-DavidM
May 18 2006
prev sibling parent Jarno Tuomainen <zorbuz gmail.com> writes:
Tiberiu Gal wrote:

 http://dworks.marte.ro/template3



I dont like that "boxed" layout at all (DFL 1.4, Thinking in D, etc..).

Those boxes seem like a waste of space to me.

I think this is quite a bit better: http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png
May 21 2006