Edited site template with PS & IR, exported to HTML, works but too small.. HELP!

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Allegro, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. Allegro

    Allegro Guest

    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.
     
    Allegro, Oct 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Allegro

    Peadge Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:415ea595$0$25965$4all.nl...
    > 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.
    >
    >
     
    Peadge, Oct 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Allegro

    Allegro Guest

    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" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:415ea595$0$25965$4all.nl...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Allegro, Oct 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Allegro

    Hecate Guest

    On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:56:52 +0200, "Allegro" <>
    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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Oct 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Allegro

    Jerry McEwen Guest

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:48:49 +0100, Hecate <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:56:52 +0200, "Allegro" <>
    >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
    >
    >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.
     
    Jerry McEwen, Nov 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Allegro

    Hecate Guest

    On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:10:15 -0600, Jerry McEwen <>
    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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Nov 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Allegro

    Jerry McEwen Guest

    On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:23:28 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:10:15 -0600, Jerry McEwen <>
    >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
    >
    >veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Jerry McEwen, Nov 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Allegro

    Hecate Guest

    On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:21:45 -0600, Jerry McEwen <>
    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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Nov 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Allegro

    Jerry McEwen Guest

    On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:35:09 +0000, Hecate <> 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.
     
    Jerry McEwen, Nov 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Allegro

    Hecate Guest

    On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:13:10 -0600, Jerry McEwen <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:35:09 +0000, Hecate <> 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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Nov 25, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeff
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    295
    Scott Glasgow
    Feb 11, 2006
  2. Rich

    visit my site (photoshop edited images)

    Rich, May 4, 2004, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    243
  3. Allegro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    206
    Allegro
    Oct 2, 2004
  4. willie  clement

    very small space for darkroom. too small?

    willie clement, Oct 9, 2005, in forum: Darkroom Developing and Printing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    747
    GlennB
    Oct 12, 2005
  5. GRL

    Small cameras getting too small?

    GRL, Jan 28, 2006, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    499
    Skip M
    Jan 30, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page