«

Hi,

I've been working with PhotoShop for some time now, and decided i wanted to
design my website with it. Or at least try what i could accomplish.
So, in order to have an idea how to create a site, i downloaded a template
(a editable PSD, a exported site from that PSD (layout.html/images) and the
primary index.html which i can edit with a webeditor.

I checked the template out, and edited some stuff and exported as a new
layout.html. All looked ok. (However, i noticed the site/page in the
layout.html is much smaller than the index.html page.. Not full screen..
Maybe it's just a preview?)

So, i decided to create my own design. Background, buttons, shapes,
different layers.. All worked ok, sliced it and saved. Then used Image Ready
CS to get the buttons to work (rollover-effect).
That worked great, so i decided it was time to export/save it as HTML. It
saved it as the layout.html and the images directory.
It seems to work ok, but it doesn't look like a site yet. If i open the
page, it's just a small but working version of the site. The buttons, etc
seem to work but it's not filling the screen like the index.html did.

Did i miss something? Any way to export it correctly from Photoshop or Image
Ready to create a correct, editable index.html instead of a preview??

Or do i need to use another program to create a full correct index.html??
(Webeditor maybe? Tried opening layout.html with a few editors, but it is
still a small version of the site.. How to display/export it correctly??

Or do i have to edit another thing with a webeditor instead of the
layout.html?? The PSD itself??

If someone could tell me how i could get the site to display correctly, that
would be great..
I'm almost done, but this keeps bugging me..

Thanks,

Allegro.

When you say you "exported," do you mean "save for web?" Usually this will
create the html and images and even create an image folder.

I usually slice an image (from guides), name the slices, save for web, and
then use the graphics and associated html page to begin a Dreamweaver
template.

Corey :-)


"Allegro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:415ea595$0$25965$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I've been working with PhotoShop for some time now, and decided i wanted
to
> design my website with it. Or at least try what i could accomplish.
> So, in order to have an idea how to create a site, i downloaded a template
> (a editable PSD, a exported site from that PSD (layout.html/images) and
the
> primary index.html which i can edit with a webeditor.
>
> I checked the template out, and edited some stuff and exported as a new
> layout.html. All looked ok. (However, i noticed the site/page in the
> layout.html is much smaller than the index.html page.. Not full screen..
> Maybe it's just a preview?)
>
> So, i decided to create my own design. Background, buttons, shapes,
> different layers.. All worked ok, sliced it and saved. Then used Image
Ready
> CS to get the buttons to work (rollover-effect).
> That worked great, so i decided it was time to export/save it as HTML. It
> saved it as the layout.html and the images directory.
> It seems to work ok, but it doesn't look like a site yet. If i open the
> page, it's just a small but working version of the site. The buttons, etc
> seem to work but it's not filling the screen like the index.html did.
>
> Did i miss something? Any way to export it correctly from Photoshop or
Image
> Ready to create a correct, editable index.html instead of a preview??
>
> Or do i need to use another program to create a full correct index.html??
> (Webeditor maybe? Tried opening layout.html with a few editors, but it is
> still a small version of the site.. How to display/export it correctly??
>
> Or do i have to edit another thing with a webeditor instead of the
> layout.html?? The PSD itself??
>
> If someone could tell me how i could get the site to display correctly,
that
> would be great..
> I'm almost done, but this keeps bugging me..
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allegro.
>
>

Hi,

Yes i meant save for web, just wasn't sure what it was in the English
version.
But if i have the images, and layout.html that were created after i saved
for web, how can i create a template for that?
Do i have to start from scratch, or can i import the layout.html or so?

Thanks,

Allegro.

P.S: I have the whole Adobe CS suite installed, and Dreamweaver, so that
should be ok.

"Peadge" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:FrCdndoxaZhXt8LcRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> When you say you "exported," do you mean "save for web?" Usually this
> will
> create the html and images and even create an image folder.
>
> I usually slice an image (from guides), name the slices, save for web, and
> then use the graphics and associated html page to begin a Dreamweaver
> template.
>
> Corey :-)
>
>
> "Allegro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:415ea595$0$25965$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been working with PhotoShop for some time now, and decided i wanted
> to
>> design my website with it. Or at least try what i could accomplish.
>> So, in order to have an idea how to create a site, i downloaded a
>> template
>> (a editable PSD, a exported site from that PSD (layout.html/images) and
> the
>> primary index.html which i can edit with a webeditor.
>>
>> I checked the template out, and edited some stuff and exported as a new
>> layout.html. All looked ok. (However, i noticed the site/page in the
>> layout.html is much smaller than the index.html page.. Not full screen..
>> Maybe it's just a preview?)
>>
>> So, i decided to create my own design. Background, buttons, shapes,
>> different layers.. All worked ok, sliced it and saved. Then used Image
> Ready
>> CS to get the buttons to work (rollover-effect).
>> That worked great, so i decided it was time to export/save it as HTML. It
>> saved it as the layout.html and the images directory.
>> It seems to work ok, but it doesn't look like a site yet. If i open the
>> page, it's just a small but working version of the site. The buttons, etc
>> seem to work but it's not filling the screen like the index.html did.
>>
>> Did i miss something? Any way to export it correctly from Photoshop or
> Image
>> Ready to create a correct, editable index.html instead of a preview??
>>
>> Or do i need to use another program to create a full correct index.html??
>> (Webeditor maybe? Tried opening layout.html with a few editors, but it is
>> still a small version of the site.. How to display/export it correctly??
>>
>> Or do i have to edit another thing with a webeditor instead of the
>> layout.html?? The PSD itself??
>>
>> If someone could tell me how i could get the site to display correctly,
> that
>> would be great..
>> I'm almost done, but this keeps bugging me..
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Allegro.
>>
>>
>
>

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:56:52 +0200, "Allegro" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been working with PhotoShop for some time now, and decided i wanted to
>design my website with it.

And that was your big mistake. Photoshop is an image editor. The best
image editor. As a web site design tool it's about as much use as a
chocolate fireguard.


>If someone could tell me how i could get the site to display correctly, that
>would be great..
>I'm almost done, but this keeps bugging me..
>
Design it in web design software. I'd recommend Dreamweaver, or if you
really must, GoLive (Which would be better named GoSlow, but still..it
works after a fashion). If those are too expensive, try NetObjects
Fusion. It's pretty good, it's cheap, and as long as you only use the
templates as guide lines, it works.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:48:49 +0100, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:56:52 +0200, "Allegro" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've been working with PhotoShop for some time now, and decided i wanted to
>>design my website with it.
>
>And that was your big mistake. Photoshop is an image editor. The best
>image editor. As a web site design tool it's about as much use as a
>chocolate fireguard.
>
>
>>If someone could tell me how i could get the site to display correctly, that
>>would be great..
>>I'm almost done, but this keeps bugging me..
>>
>Design it in web design software. I'd recommend Dreamweaver, or if you
>really must, GoLive (Which would be better named GoSlow, but still..it
>works after a fashion). If those are too expensive, try NetObjects
>Fusion. It's pretty good, it's cheap, and as long as you only use the
>templates as guide lines, it works.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>(E-Mail Removed)
>veni, vidi, reliqui

This is horrible advice, many of us have designed websites in
Photoshop for years. Please do not guess answers if you don't know.

If you think image editors are not for building websites, have a look
at http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/ and tell me what you
think this tool is for.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:10:15 -0600, Jerry McEwen <no-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>This is horrible advice, many of us have designed websites in
>Photoshop for years. Please do not guess answers if you don't know.

That probably explains a lot of the horrible web sites...

>If you think image editors are not for building websites, have a look
>at http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/ and tell me what you
>think this tool is for.

I know what Fireworks is for - it's for preparing images to insert
into proper web site building software - Dreamweaver. Using Fireworks
to build a web site is stupid when you can use software designed for
the job - Dreamweaver. Fireworks is good at dealing with
images/bitmaps for the web. I use it all the time. But it isn't web
site design software and nor is Photoshop. Try asking Macromedia what
they think is the primary use of Dreamweaver and the primary use of
Fireworks. If you don't know the difference, you're in trouble.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:23:28 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:10:15 -0600, Jerry McEwen <no-(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>This is horrible advice, many of us have designed websites in
>>Photoshop for years. Please do not guess answers if you don't know.
>
>That probably explains a lot of the horrible web sites...

You sound much too smart to really believe that. I think you know that
many sites are mocked up first in an image editor.

>>If you think image editors are not for building websites, have a look
>>at http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/ and tell me what you
>>think this tool is for.
>
>I know what Fireworks is for - it's for preparing images to insert
>into proper web site building software - Dreamweaver.

I agree that DW or Homesite or UltraEdit or whatever is a much better
tool for the actual building, but surely you realize that thousands of
websites are mainly sliced images. In case you don't know this, here
are a few:

http://www.apple.com/
http://www.juxtinteractive.com/
http://www.saab.com/
http://www.kennethcole.com/
http://www.fossil.com/

I know you don't think they all suck, do you?

>Using Fireworks
>to build a web site is stupid when you can use software designed for
>the job - Dreamweaver.

DW cannot build images,

> Fireworks is good at dealing with
>images/bitmaps for the web. I use it all the time. But it isn't web
>site design software and nor is Photoshop.

You seem to be saying that deisgning an interface in animage editor is
*not* building a website. I would say that, untill CSS took hold, most
sites were built primarly in an images editor first.

Would you say that http://www.projectfireworks.com/index.aspx was
built only in DW? How about http://www.projectseven.com/?

I think we agree, but you sound as if are steering the OP away from
using it at all. "Photoshop is an image editor. The best image editor.
As a web site design tool it's about as much use as a chocolate
fireguard."

Far from the truth.

> Try asking Macromedia what
>they think is the primary use of Dreamweaver and the primary use of
>Fireworks. If you don't know the difference, you're in trouble.
>
> --
>
>Hecate - The Real One
>(E-Mail Removed)
>veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:21:45 -0600, Jerry McEwen <no-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>>>This is horrible advice, many of us have designed websites in
>>>Photoshop for years. Please do not guess answers if you don't know.
>>
>>That probably explains a lot of the horrible web sites...
>
>You sound much too smart to really believe that. I think you know that
>many sites are mocked up first in an image editor.

I might show a look in image editor. I wouldn't design the site in an
image editor.

>>>If you think image editors are not for building websites, have a look
>>>at http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/ and tell me what you
>>>think this tool is for.
>>
>>I know what Fireworks is for - it's for preparing images to insert
>>into proper web site building software - Dreamweaver.
>
>I agree that DW or Homesite or UltraEdit or whatever is a much better
>tool for the actual building, but surely you realize that thousands of
>websites are mainly sliced images. In case you don't know this, here
>are a few:

You're joking right? I wouldn't even put Homesite in the same
paragraph as DW. Serious website design means using either DW or
direct coding using, e.g. ASP plus something like DW.

>http://www.apple.com/
>http://www.juxtinteractive.com/
>http://www.saab.com/
>http://www.kennethcole.com/
>http://www.fossil.com/
>
>I know you don't think they all suck, do you?

Not *all* of them. However, I regardless of the number of images they
use, I doubt very much any site was designed and built in an image
editor.

>>Using Fireworks
>>to build a web site is stupid when you can use software designed for
>>the job - Dreamweaver.
>
>DW cannot build images,

That's right. That's why y7ou use an image editor. To build images.
That's all. Full stop. You don't design or build the site, nor do you
do ASP coding, JSP, Coldfusion, C++ or anything else in an image
editor.

>> Fireworks is good at dealing with
>>images/bitmaps for the web. I use it all the time. But it isn't web
>>site design software and nor is Photoshop.
>
>You seem to be saying that deisgning an interface in animage editor is
>*not* building a website. I would say that, untill CSS took hold, most
>sites were built primarly in an images editor first.

All an image editor does is cope with the images - i.e. produce the
images required for a web site. No web site builder/designer would
think of using an i9mage editor to build/design a website in the same
way that I wouldn't use DW to attempt to edit an image.

>Would you say that http://www.projectfireworks.com/index.aspx was
>built only in DW? How about http://www.projectseven.com/?

Yes. It uses Fireworks images in the build, but it still isn't
built/designed in Fireworks. In fact, if you have any of P7's
software, you'd realise that.

>I think we agree, but you sound as if are steering the OP away from
>using it at all. "Photoshop is an image editor. The best image editor.
>As a web site design tool it's about as much use as a chocolate
>fireguard."
>
>Far from the truth.

No, not at all. As a producer of images for a web site it's great (As
long as one remembers not to use the awful dog Image Ready). As a web
site design and build tool it's no good at all. Try writing an ASP
script in Photoshop and see how far you get.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:35:09 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You're joking right? I wouldn't even put Homesite in the same
>paragraph as DW. Serious website design means using either DW or
>direct coding using, e.g. ASP plus something like DW.

I gave you too much credit. How you can defer to direct coding and
diss Homesite over DW?

>Not *all* of them. However, I regardless of the number of images they
>use, I doubt very much any site was designed and built in an image
>editor.

You are quite mistaken.

>>>Using Fireworks
>>>to build a web site is stupid when you can use software designed for
>>>the job - Dreamweaver.
>>
>>DW cannot build images,
>
>That's right. That's why y7ou use an image editor. To build images.
>That's all. Full stop. You don't design or build the site, nor do you
>do ASP coding, JSP, Coldfusion, C++ or anything else in an image
>editor.

Maybe you do not, but most all the pros I know do and that is many
dozens of pros..

deásign
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Middle
French & Medieval Latin; Middle French designer to designate, from
Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare
to mark -- more at SIGN
transitive senses
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :
DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect
crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her
studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed
primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans
for

> No, not at all. As a producer of images for a web site it's great (As
> long as one remembers not to use the awful dog Image Ready).

ImageReady happens to be great for animated gifs and it's optimization
is second to none (same optimization as in Photoshop).

> As a web
> site design and build tool it's no good at all.

I believe I already shot that down.

> Try writing an ASP script in Photoshop and see how far you get.

Now you are being silly.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:13:10 -0600, Jerry McEwen <no-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:35:09 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>You're joking right? I wouldn't even put Homesite in the same
>>paragraph as DW. Serious website design means using either DW or
>>direct coding using, e.g. ASP plus something like DW.
>
>I gave you too much credit. How you can defer to direct coding and
>diss Homesite over DW?

Why do you think 90%+ of professional site designers use DW?

>>Not *all* of them. However, I regardless of the number of images they
>>use, I doubt very much any site was designed and built in an image
>>editor.
>
>You are quite mistaken.
>
>>>>Using Fireworks
>>>>to build a web site is stupid when you can use software designed for
>>>>the job - Dreamweaver.
>>>
>>>DW cannot build images,
>>
>>That's right. That's why y7ou use an image editor. To build images.
>>That's all. Full stop. You don't design or build the site, nor do you
>>do ASP coding, JSP, Coldfusion, C++ or anything else in an image
>>editor.
>
>Maybe you do not, but most all the pros I know do and that is many
>dozens of pros..

None of the pros I know would even contemplate trying to do that stuff
in an image editor.

>de·sign

So,you have access to a dictionary. And your point is?

>
>> No, not at all. As a producer of images for a web site it's great (As
>> long as one remembers not to use the awful dog Image Ready).
>
>ImageReady happens to be great for animated gifs and it's optimization
>is second to none (same optimization as in Photoshop).

Actually, it's second to Fireworks every time.

>> As a web
>> site design and build tool it's no good at all.
>
>I believe I already shot that down.

No, you didn't.

>> Try writing an ASP script in Photoshop and see how far you get.
>
>Now you are being silly.

Above, where I say :

You don't design or build the site, nor do you do ASP coding, JSP,
Coldfusion, C++ or anything else in an image editor.

You follow with:

Maybe you do not, but most all the pros I know do and that is many
dozens of pros..

SO who is being silly?

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui