Good Creative

[Jeff Wheeler]

Just saw this on Web Creme… I really like it (one of my favorite things is the sub-nav styling on the left side).

Good Creative (http://www.thegoodness.com.au/index.html)

[evildrummer]

I like it, clean crisp, easy to navigate. Just looked at the CSS and its very easy to read, and very well organised.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Yuck, I hadn't looked at the source. It was made with Dreamweaver… there are some hints of messiness. :(

[ramie]

aye it's nasty, but at least they use basecamp for project management!

[evildrummer]

:o Whats wrong with it made in dreamweaver? Surely that doesnt make a difference mean I do all my work in dreamweaver but I dont use the design tool I just use it for sytax highlighting and it ending my tags, and browser supposrt checking. unless you maybe have a windows one which is lighter easier and has those functions. please say you do cause I want one :P. anyway the source doesnt matter THAT much mean its the output that matters right........?

[Icy Penguin]

yueah i saw this the other day.
very clean and crisp.

off topic:
what program would one use then to clean up your code (dreamweaver always screws mine over whenever i change text for example)?

[Jeff Wheeler]

@evildrummer: Aptana (http://aptana.com/). It was released just the other day… and it's awesome.

@Ice Penguin: HTML Tidy.

[McGuffin]

OMG! THEIR SOURCE IS MESSY!

BS.

It doesn't matter if the source is tidy or messy, what matters is the end product. You can develop a ****ty website and have the tidiest source, and it wouldn't make a drop of a difference.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Oh yeah? What about the extra load time? What about the extra file sizes? What about Google? What about accessibility? What about ability to update all files later? ;)

[Anogar]

Uh oh Nokrev, that site uses Flash! Quick! Delete the post and hide your shame! :stare: Just kidding. :lol:

[Jeff Wheeler]

So? The Flash is subtly and nicely used?

It's a great use of Flash…

[Anogar]

You touched it. You're dirty now. Go shower.

[Jeff Wheeler]

I didn't touch the development application… only the Flasy Player ;)

[Anogar]

Fair enough. (-:

[Jeff Wheeler]

I touch the Flash Player all the time… every time I view this site. :P

[McGuffin]

Oh yeah? What about the extra load time? What about the extra file sizes? What about Google? What about accessibility? What about ability to update all files later? ;)

Website infrastructure and code tidiness are two completely different things. Besides the fact, we're talking about fractions of seconds in loading time difference. There's reason to make a big deal if and when they're loading redundant CSS code that could be better implemented in one stylesheet, when the mistake creates a situation where they're loading extra 10s of KBs. But in the case of this site, they aren't making that mistake.

Otherwise, it's a fuss about nothing. Bottom line is that you can have the cleanest and most efficient code ever written and it could just as well suck. No one is going to stop using your site because the code is somewhat inefficient or the markup leads to some hiccups in accessibility (after all, every site breaks at some point). No one is going to use your site if the design sucks and content sucks, period.

[Jeff Wheeler]

I didn't mean it specifically in this context. You stated that having tidy vs. messy code is not important, and I disagree.

Surely you will admit that Google prefers clean code over dirty code, which it has trouble reading, as do most screen-readers?

[McGuffin]

I'll admit and agree with everything you've said on the subject matter, just not to the same degree of importance that you would.

[evildrummer]

Im downloading Aptana now, looks good, if it has thee quarters the functions of dreamweaver I will admit your right and vow never to touch into the darkworld of dreamweaver again

[Jeff Wheeler]

:thumb:

[Dave321]

lol, man the code is fine, no client will care, it looks and functions good. i dont care about google or w/e else, the code being 'messy' will be insignificant.

mike

[Jeff Wheeler]

i dont care about google

:lol: × ∞

[Michael Chen]

Nice and simple, thanks for sharing :)

[simplistik]

Nice site... but just so you know Dreamweaver doesn't create their structure they do last I knew DW only did what I told it to do, if I want clean code it's up to me to make it clean. SO place your blame on the developer(s), not the tool they used. You guys and your retarded DW sucks statements.

[ditt0]

I agree with simp, it is the developer who doesn't know to use the software, not the software's fault.


@evildrummer: Aptana (http://aptana.com/). It was released just the other day… and it's awesome.

It was released just the other day, it's a beta, it's awesome and you recommend it over Dreamweaver? Wow, you're a fast beta-tester. I presume you already compared it to all the client-side and server-side integration features that Dreamweaver has before you made that statement, right?

The site is ok imo, clean design. If there's one thing that I particularly like it's the right side in the works section, the rollovers (even if done the old way, tables and javascipt) look very smooth to me.

[Jeff Wheeler]

@Simp: They used the tool without knowing about the code it created. You can tell by the messy rollover code, which should be simplified. Yes, it's the developers fault for using the messy code output in Dreamweaver, so, in my opinion, it's the fault of both. Dreamweaver shouldn't give bad code to ignorant (that's a strong word… don't take it as such) developers, and developers shouldn't be ignorant enough to use the crappy code.

As for Aptana, it is a beta, but evildrummer specifically requested an application with,


sytax highlighting and it ending my tags, and browser supposrt checking

Which, from my understanding, it does. ;)

[ramie]

I like this site, everything is grand except the source. Personally I just think it's a question of professionalism, when a site states on it's homepage that "We are good" (also a play on words I know) I expect the source code as well as everything else to be tight, but thats just me, I'm very anal about these things.

[evildrummer]

Aptana is pretty damn good, much faster seeming though I still only have 386 mb of ram and a crapy computer. :( but one thing it doesnt have is PHP, so any recomendations on a light one, if you can I will stop using dreameweaver even if is a dam,n good piece of software, just a bit too heavy.,

[Jeff Wheeler]

http://www.aptana.com/blog/?p=41 ;)

[evildrummer]

Ok Dreamweaver Uninstalled and the discs archived just incase I do want them, Thanks Nokrev, And now I realise you dont need to spend money to get good software, next thing to buy is a MacBook Pro :D

Why is it half my posts there is a trophy next to my name and the other half there arent?

[Jeff Wheeler]

:beam:

[Anogar]

Aptana is pretty awesome. I've been using it lately.

When you first post, it doesn't show the trophy. When you come back to the thread, or when anyone else comes, it's there.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Yeah, it also doesn't show your post count. ;)

Edit: Nevermind… I guess that was fixed a while back.

Edit 2: Oh, it's the style that doesn't show up. :)

[evildrummer]

Well that certifies it, you can get any question answered in minutes on the KForums.

[Anogar]

If you're an established poster, you can seriously get any question answered in minutes on this forum. (Except what kind of Motherboard I should get, you bastards. :fight:) edit: nevermind, that got answered overnight. :stare::pa::look:

[evildrummer]

If you're an established poster, you can seriously get any question answered in minutes on this forum. (Except what kind of Motherboard I should get, you bastards. :fight:)
If I knew i would sure damn tell you, I always reply to things I know especially if theyre a rgular. but i dont do hardware, all I know is more RAM = gd, + More CPU is gd. Thats about it, oooohhhhh and MRAM is gonna be really cool, but its still reletively small at the moment.

[Anogar]

No, I take it back, the K-masses have answered that question to. :stare:

[evildrummer]

:O ive just realised Anogar your a fellow arcade ruler, lol you deserve respect, joke. when I need motherboard help I hope the kirupian army can give me advice.

[Anogar]

You stole my Spy Hunter award, you bugger. :lol: (terrible game, eh?)

[evildrummer]

I did it by shooting everything that moved so by the end of my fourth turn (the one I beat you :D) my finger felt like it was gonna die, tetris is a real game. cant hurt you, hours of fun if not a tad repeitive or a rubiks cube. And may i add my old friends dad helped invent the rubiks cube so I have about 100.

[ramie]

spammers

[LunaSolar]

lol, man the code is fine, no client will care, it looks and functions good. mike

This is 100% the FACT. Designers can about "Web Standards" and ultra-tidy code, clients don't.

Google does, but not that much really, you can still get to #1 in your targeted areas even if it is coded by a box of drunk monkeys. Case in point: ESPN.com

As designers it is our job to care about things like "semantic web" and all that garbage, but the moment you start pretending someone besides yourself "REALLY cares", you're delusional.

If you turn in ultra sleek mark-up and perfect CSS, but your competitor turns in something more pretty and fun to play with...... you LOSE!

[haam]

If you turn in ultra sleek mark-up and perfect CSS, but your competitor turns in something more pretty and fun to play with...... you LOSE!
damn you actually said something worth reading!

seriously, all this web-standards nonsense is great if you're a dull-arse programmer and you don't care about what anything actually looks like.

i'm a designer tho... guess that's why i don't find these cookie-cutter blog templates as facinating as the rest of you. this site, aside from colors, looks exactly like nokrevs new blog site. big deal. :td:

[LunaSolar]

i'm a designer tho... guess that's why i don't find these cookie-cutter blog templates as facinating as the rest of you. this site, aside from colors, looks exactly like nokrevs new blog site. big deal. :td:

That isn't a limitation of proper coding as much as it is a commentary on the fact that coders can design, and designers can't code.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Google does, but not that much really, you can still get to #1 in your targeted areas even if it is coded by a box of drunk monkeys. Case in point: ESPN.com

ESPN.com is one of the most beautifully coded large sites out there! One small table… and that's it. Everything else is great…

You can blame that on Mike Davidson. :)

As for clients not caring, isn't it really the other reasons that make it beneficiary? It's not the fault of standards that many websites look bloggish; it's the fact that most people who design those sites are developers.

There are tons of absolutely spectacular css sites. Nothing stops a css site from looking identical from a table-based site, except that the stereotype is hurting css, because css evangelists (e.g. myself) tend to be developers, which is why we care about our code.

[evildrummer]

I agree with nokrev, most designers use tables and not CSS meaning CSS is given a bad reputation, just go to www.csszengarden.com to see some amazing CSS pieces done, I managed to understand CSS in a few hours, o f course im not perfect at it but I have spent so little time on it im not suprised. CSS is the way the web is going that and XHTML, you can either join in and get more clients wanting good websites that run properly on every browser and get good search results or you can stick to old traditions and get bad search results and all the clients that actually do know about the basic web but just cant make a good design or whatever will say they wan a standards compliant. Alot of people now actually know what that means.

[DDD]

I really hate it when the css vs tables or DW vs Notepad topics come up. The programs make files, Developers make the art. Like I always say the most important skill that most people/developers/artists lack, is knowing the right tool for the right job. If you use DW here is a cookie, if you use notepad here is a cookie.

Now onto the site. It is very clean and I dig it.

[ramie]

In most decent studios with a proper team, coders get sent the png, psd whatever from design, the coder bloke then builds regardless of how hard it looks, feedback is given etc, but the core design remains, and is 9/10 times a headache but always dooable because of the feedback, so it's the developers responsibility no? sloppy code would be poor workmanship.

[mercy]

The site looks clean and simple.
But that lacks some professionalisum.

[Willofdarkness]

my problem with going for all CSS is that IE still has the largest market share in browsers, and I don't feel like filling my CSS with all kinds of hacks to make IE do stuff that Webkit and Gecko browsers do automatically.

[Jeff Wheeler]

You know, as much as I like to complain and hate on IE… it really has never been all that bad for me. On my current site, I only had to apply like one simple hack that I found after Googling for like five seconds. It only took one line of code to fix…

[haam]

That isn't a limitation of proper coding as much as it is a commentary on the fact that coders can design, and designers can't code.

bah, i totally dissagree. most programmers that've i've worked with in real work experiences don't know a damn thing about good design. but i know TONS of great designers that can code and program very well.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Then why do most programmers use CSS, while designers are stuck with crappy code?

[DDD]

Then why do most programmers use CSS, while designers are stuck with crappy code?

I havent seen many coders I have been around use CSS (most of the time it is not their job to apply css). Matter of fact it is pretty much the opposite. They usually deliver their (backend) code to us in generalized tables and we apply the CSS/design. But it could be diff on your side of the globe. But to make a gross generalization like this is well......uummm. bizarre. most css stuff lies on the front end which usually falls in the designers lap. But to say either cant do one or the other is ...bleh :trout:

But I do fall into the designer that cant code category so to speak.....I still suck at AS. And attempting to learn AJAX is not going well either.

[Jeff Wheeler]

I knew the moment I posted that, that it was gonna come back to bite me. :P

I'll defend what I said anyways.

I'm not referring to back-end developers… that's a completely different thing, but I'm meaning the coders who do the xhtml/css, which appears to be the designer in your case (from previous posts in this thread, I assumed that in studios, this was not the case).

Yeah, I should not generalize, but, well, surely you'll admit many designers are more comfortable in WYSIWYG environments, as opposed to code… and that's why they use tables.

Developers (i.e. those who right code by hand) tend to be more comfortable looking at code, so that's why they look at css.

Ok, I had a bad argument… but what the heck. :P

[DDD]

aaahhh...I see what you are saying. And I tend to agree with you now that I understand your angle. In the general board sense there is not a difference between a designer and a developer. But in the career sense there is. Essentially there is a designer, a developer and a coder. Designer and developer can sometimes be one person. But I think in your example a coder is a developer and a designer being the person that delivers sloppy code....well now that I am thoroughly confused :hangover: I will end by saying I think I agree with you.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Huzzah! :D

[ramie]

Where I worked, there was a clear line, design and development, then a bloke who floated between the 2, his job was the markup, if the dev person had to do it then he/she did, the designers would not have known where to start and never got asked, anyway, this seems to be the case a lot here, a dedicated markup coder, backend people and design (who just seem to make nice things all day, lucky people), there was also a junior who hacked the css to help out dev, markup never seemed to get the same respect, we would throw php and ruby books at them and perhaps point and laugh.

[B L U E]

bah, i totally dissagree. most programmers that've i've worked with in real work experiences don't know a damn thing about good design. but i know TONS of great designers that can code and program very well.
then they can't strictly be labeled as designers

[DDD]

Where I worked, there was a clear line, design and development, then a bloke who floated between the 2, his job was the markup, if the dev person had to do it then he/she did, the designers would not have known where to start and never got asked, anyway, this seems to be the case a lot here, a dedicated markup coder, backend people and design (who just seem to make nice things all day, lucky people), there was also a junior who hacked the css to help out dev, markup never seemed to get the same respect, we would throw php and ruby books at them and perhaps point and laugh.
This is a relatively normal pipeline.....Except I was the go between bloke usually that kept a happy medium. Make sure designers do go nuts with designs, and make sure developers dont go Rambo and do their own stuff.

[ramie]

the bloke we all hated, because we didnt know where to pigeon hole him and they usually had the 2 skills going on :D

[eclectrik]

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLCOPTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @ THIS WEBSITE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!