Well okay sorry. I didn't anticipate this would be taken as literal. The entire page is not cutup as a Photoshop image. Only items like the masthead/header, navigation, logo, etc are provided in cutup form. We do not cutup the actual body text.
Take a look at this page. http://dev.equalityforallca.org/ See the left nav and the Donation boxes on the right? These were all cutups form an original Photoshop PSD presented to the client. Once cutup there are some background images which sure can be replace with CSS styling. Mostly I will take the parts (tables) or the content and move these to PHP includes to be used on other pages. It's things like the left nav which is currently nested tables (3 I think) that scream to me unordered lists. Sure I can convert this once delivered from the design team, I'm a developer. I agree with what someone else wrote about this topic which was for my team to take the original image and create the CSS from scratch instead of waiting a day for the design team to provide the cutup. Thanks to all. P- --- Mike Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a page is composed entirely of a 'cut up' Photoshop image, what value is > CSS? > > If the page is created and managed as a photoshop document, is there any > useful presentation > feature offered by CSS? There is no font control (sizing, face, etc.) there > is no color > control, > there is no (real) hope of liquid layout, there is no alternate stylesheet. > If marketing > decides > to 'tweak' the page, you're going back to the original photoshop document. I > don't see how a > site > made of pages like this is much different than an interconnected PDF that > pops up in your > browser. > > Our webmaster draws pictures in photoshop and gets approval for pages using > those images, then > he'll create a FrontPage mockup - which is essentially the photoshop document > polluted with > Frontpage markup. The multipage mess is then handed over to me to "make > functional" by adding > infrastructure that should have been built first. Am I wrong to believe this > is not a 'best > practice' way to go about web design? (sorry for the wandering rant) > > ...Anyone have a favorite URL for 'best practice' web design? > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:58:36 +0300 > "Nick Wilsdon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > > >> If we want to produce good clean markup using CSS we have the basically > > rewrite much of the output from the design team. This seems like double > > work, Considering this is more a tool issue than the fault of the designers. > > What alternatives are there for this? > > > > > > This tool doesn't exist, sorry Paul. It just sounds like you need a web > > designer. You're essentially using Adobe ImageReady to 'make' your web sites > > at the moment. Once they finally launch a 'CSS web designer tool' then a lot > > of us are out of work! *g > > > > I have 2 people here (and myself) hand coding up the Photoshop layouts from > > the designers - I couldn't imagine doing it any other way. > > > > There are tools which make working in CSS easier - TopStyle by Nick Bradbury > > is one that really helps me. You can also pick up layouts at glish.com and > > bluerobot.com which will save your team time. > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
