• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Web design

#3
It looks like i final have my first actuall project. There still has to bbe some approval by the board, but if it gets approved I will be designing the Youth in mission website. The only thing that i still have a problem with is designing the layout so it works with all diffrent kinds of monitor resolutions. Sometimes the sites show up small sometimes large. Ive read the rule of thumb is desin it in 600x400. I just got Studio MX. How do you fix that problem?
Joe
 
#4
The standard screen size when I started (a fair while ago) was 640 x 480. Nowadays, most people tend to use at least 800 x 600 or higher BUT there are also an increasing number of phone / PDA type devices with smaller screens (eg. 320 x 240 or less) or different aspect ratios (eg. more 'portrait' than 'landscape').

Therefore, you've got to think about who your audience is. My rule of thumb is that less clearly I can define my potential audience, the more flexible I have to make the layout, and that sometimes means sacrificing some of the really 'cool' things I could do in order to give everyone a useable site.

For example, if you look at my band website (see my sig, below), it will work on a wide range of screen resolutions. It could be flashier, but then I'd have to start making more assumptions about my visitors.

On that site, I've also incorporate a 'blog' from Link Removed to make it easy for me to keep the news up to date - something like that might be a helpful idea, as having a nice looking site that is obviously out of date is almost worse than having no site at all!

Wulf
 
#7
Yes, its very easy for me to find my target audience. We have hundreds of computers on our network which are automatically set to 800x600 (with the TPS site being the default home page)...(Kinda makes it an obvious choice...)

The true challenge is to make it fit well in 800x600 while making it still look decent in 1024x768.

I was able to somewhat solve this by creating a 1024x768 background for the Invalid Link Removed which extended the top header (which fits in well by itself in 800x600.)
The result is a page that looks well in both but doesnt create a large scroll bar at the bottom of the screen in 800x600.

Another option is to make two different pages that fit for either setting. (Using your index as the homepage that directs your audience for this option).

Oh yeah, when adjusting table width, (when nessecary), work in percentages rather than pixels.
 
#8
Originally posted by Dee Wurthy
Oh yeah, when adjusting table width, (when nessecary), work in percentages rather than pixels.
Click to expand...
Actually, using pixel based specifications can be a good idea - if the elements of your page need to be contained in a certain width, you can do that by having a fixed width table.

However, I do prefer the philosophy of more adjustable designs - I'm publishing the information and want to ensure that it looks good AND is legible to everyone who wants to use it.

That includes people with special needs who might want to make the text very large... and so tricks like using graphical buttons become less clever viewed in that light. By catering for a wider range or visitors you do have to sacrifice pixel perfect layout control... but there's still plenty of worthwhile challenge in providing a logical structure for the data so you succeed in your goal of communication.

Wulf
 
#10
Rather than going for a full on Flash based site, how about just using a few animations to add some sparkle to the page without relying on them for anything vital (like I do on my band website - if you haven't got flash, you're not missing anything vital).

You could also design an overall site that is very accessible but maybe use Flash for some added extras.

Another technique, best implemented on a dynamic site, is to give an option to switch between fancy and plain versions. For the site I designed for my Invalid Link Removed, accessiblity was an important feature and so the very first option you get in the top left corner of the page allows the visitor to choose a much plainer version of the site. However, because each page is dynamically generated, I only have to update the information once and then the webserver renders all pages according to the format the visitor chose.

Wulf
 
#15
Cool thread!

I do some web stuff... though I'm more of an admin/tech.

checkout my website. I like to use nested tables to layout the design, then cascading style sheets to set site wide font size, color, weight, alignment, etc.

I either use Homesite or Vim or notepad to do my HTML, PHP or Perl. I just installed HTML-Kit which is an open source code editing system that is working nice for me in the week I've been trying it out.

For graphics I use Photoshop... it's the best for me. I've owned it since version 2.0 on the Mac (I'm mostly on WinXP for the last 3 years).
 
#16
Definitely go with 800x600. You can align the content in the center so that larger resolutions have blank space on either side and those with 800x600 don't see those blank bars. Anyone running something smaller than 800x600 is in the stone ages and you won't encounter many if any of them, so they are negligible.
 
#17
The_Bass - I work on a number of operating systems, with Linux being my #1 choice. However, I've got Vim and The Gimp running on all three that I normally use (NT4, Win98 and Linux) - this ability to transfer skills across platforms (and both Vim and The Gimp have pretty steep learning curves to begin with) is one of the the reasons why I choose them :D

Speddling - one of my colleagues is a long-term HTML-Kit user and really likes it. It didn't grab me but the important point is that there are plenty of tools so that everyone can choose something they find comfortable.

UnsungZeros - 800 x 600 is one choice but, especially with more mobile browsing devices becoming available I think designing for a fixed size is becoming 'stone age' and flexible designs that pour smoothly across many different types of display devices are the way forward. IMHO, of course ;)

Wulf
 
#18
Do you guys usally draw your layout first? Im going to try something diffrent this time. Design the site in Fireworks mx, slice it then import it to dreamweaver. I read a tutorial about it a while ago. Ive made sites to, none that are up now since these were past bands ive been in. It would be nice to know someone who was into graphic arts, it would make my job easier.
 
#20
Wulf: There are plenty of tools to fit just about anyones needs. I've got Vim installed on Debian, MacOS, WinXP and Solaris... I love having the same tool across the board. You are so correct on the 'Fixed' size being a bad thing. I hate a site designed for 800x600 that sits against the top left corner of a 1280x1024+ browser... or having to side scroll in 800x600 (I've got a friend that designs for 1600x1200 :eek: I complained and he said 'Oh Well')

Warwickthumb: I've used slices a couple times but out of Adobe ImageReady (part of photoshop). They layout nice and easy but are a pain to edit / change in the future. Also make sure you use your "ALT" field when using graphics as links.

I usually maks an outline first, rough out the page topics / sections then set up my Style sheet and color theme. After I get that far, I sketch the layout (or pieces of) and start coding a template.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back