*Connie takes off shoes and enters Dojo of the Flying Mad Hatter,
seeking answers to the Web's greatest questions*

If you don't mind, Oh, Sensei, I'd like to ask you a couple of
questions . . .

1) Do you WRITE in code? Or do you use a graphical interface for basic
design and THEN clean/write code??

That has me stumped considering ALL the coding that seems necessary . .
.. I'd like to learn the RIGHT way to do as opposed to quick n' easy or
roundabout way.

2) Do you code in CSS? I know you use Flash alot . . . mainly, I'm
curious if you think that CSS is a good idea to learn or should people
just kind of focus on Flash. Also, how much better is CSS compared to
plain ol' HTML?

St00pid questions, I know. But rather than Google for peoples' opinions
(people that I don't know), I'd rather get YOUR take instead. ( :

And finally . . .

3) When you DO code CSS, what app do you use? I'm going to assume DW,
but I'd like to be sure. WHY do you use that particular app?

Now, watch, instead of using DW, you'll probably say you code directly
in some other app (the kind without a forgiving GUI. You're
complicated, but I can only assume that you're complicated for a
*reason*.

Anyway, thanks for listening (and hopefully answering - esp without
flaming) . . . I'm not trying to "leech" off your hard-earned
experience, but I figured that there's no harm in asking. If I've got
to ask anyone, you're the best one TO ask. ( :

Hope you're having a great (and busy) weekend!

--
C Pierce

Sheesh Connie, there's *alot* of tiptoeing going on in your post!

--
Helen, lime, et al.

In article <mEFVf.17001$dy4.1889@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, lime
<nuthin@here.com> wrote:

Just being playful . . . Hat'll get my point - we've talked about
martial arts before in other posts. ( ;

Honestly, I'm stumped on these questions . . . and Hat's the most
technically-gifted person that I know of. Learning Illy, InDesign, etc
took me only hours, but my brain can't seem to wrap around the whole
CSS thing (even after several days of obsessive reading/trying). I get
the HTML coding, but CSS? Nope. Not a bit . . .

Besides, as the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than
vinegar! ( ; Can you tell I'm southern?

--
C Pierce

Connie Pierce wrote:
Obviously, I'm not Hatter, but I'll try to provide some additional
insight, because multiple perspectives are almost always valuable.


Ultimately, you are far better off learning the code first, then using
shortcuts later. By that, I mean that there are some tools out there
that can help you out and do the mundane stuff, but if you can learn to
actually write HTML/CSS/Action Scripting/etc., from scratch, you will
be *far* better off when it comes to troubleshooting.

Furthermore, once you learn how to actually write the code, you will
gain a far better understanding for how and why certain things work the
way they do. You might even come to realize that *some* shortcuts are
next to worthless and it's still faster to hand code it.


Building a site in Flash is one approach. Building it in HTML/CSS is
another. There really is no general "right" or "wrong." There are
some people who feel more comfortable in one environment versus
another.

Personally, I wouldn't learn Flash at the expense of building strong
HTML/CSS knowledge.


That's sort of like asking how much better chocolate syrup is over just
plain ol' vanilla ice cream. ; )

Really, though, CSS isn't so much "better" than HTML as it is essential
to it. With each new browser release, more and more HTML code that
controls "presentation" is being depreciated. That doesn't mean that
this code won't work (yet), but that it won't work if you're coding to
"strict" standards. However, there are no guarantees that anything on
the depreciated chopping block right now will still be supported a
browser release or two down the road.

Furthermore, if you want any hope at all of creating an HTML-based web
page that is accessible to many types of display devices (computer
screen, mobile device, etc.), then you absolutely require CSS in order
to control the different appearances for those devices.


Dreamweaver has never been really reliable when it comes to handling
CSS. The most recent version is probably the best yet, but even so,
it's still a little clumsy. I use DW for the content management (I
like being able to drag and drop files or rename them and have all of
the links/code site-wide automatically update), but I don't rely on it
*at all* for coding my CSS or most of the HTML -- I do that by hand in
Code View -- nor for viewing it.

If you insist on an application to hold your hand through your CSS
coding, then probably a better choice than DW would be Top Style Pro
(http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/).

A lot of people will tell you that you don't need anything other than
Notepad. True enough, but then again, Notepad doesn't have content
management. If DW is what you're comfortable with using, then stick
with it, but *still* learn the code on your own and don't trust it to
do it for you.

Basically, what it boils down to is your level of seriousness about
your career. You would put the time and effort into learning about
traps, bleeds, color management, kerning, CMYK vs. RGB, etc., for your
print work, right?

If all you want to do is make some personal web sites, then it really
doesn't matter what you do, but if you intend to add web site design to
your professional skill set, then you should do your clients the
service of really knowing what you're doing. Using shortcuts is fine
if it's to save time, but not if you have to rely on them.

Think of it this way: If your clients want something that really isn't
feasible, and you don't know the code, then you either can't give them
a credible answer for why it won't work the way they're asking, or
because you don't know any better, you'll stumble along trying to get
DW's shortcuts to figure it out before you have to give up in
frustration and go back and explain it to the client. Neither is a
good option. On the other hand, if you know the code and how it works,
when they suggest something that isn't possible or is overly
complicated, you'll be in a position to suggest something that will
work within the spirit of what they want to do.


-- Robert

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:08:48 -0600, Connie Pierce
<cmpierce@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote:

Fire away, Grasshopper.

I straight code, in notepad. It's easy breezy, you keep a copy of the
html file open in notepad while having the file simultaneously open in
say Internet Explorer. So then if you make a change and you want to
preview you just hit Ctrl+S, then Alt+Tab to IE, then hit F5 to
refresh.

Well the quick way (or rather the sloppy way) would be using something
like Dreamweaver. Now, there ARE some semi-graphical HTML proggies
out there that make certain things easier, like they'll automatically
close tags and have a build in preview mode...but personally I like to
have as few nonessential programs installed on my system as possible,
so I don't use that sorta stuff...plus I don't think they really offer
a whole lot more in the way of convenience over my current
methodology.

Yup.

I do now.

I would learn Flash. Knowing CSS is good, but then you don't need to
REALLY know it. I mean, don't take the time to memorize every last
CSS property, that's why God invented reference manuals. The CSS tags
yer gonna use most often are as follows:

position:absolute;
left:100px;
top:100px;
z-index:1;

Really, that's it. That'll let you position a layer to where you want
it and the z-index will let you stack layers on top of each other
(lowest number is on bottom). You just use division layers like nyah:

<div></div>

Add in the CSS like nyah:

<div style="position:absolute; left:100px; top:100px"></div>

Now then, whatever you stick in between the division tags with be
positioned 100 pixels from the top and 100 pixels from the left.

See, that's what makes CSS so simple. Think of it as splitting the
page apart into layers, like in a graphics programs. Everything in a
<div></div> is in its own layer and you can give that layer any number
of different attributes. Just use a reference guide like nyah:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp

And if you want to see what one does, try it out, stick it in the
style="" part and see what happens.

Now, there's some other stuff you can do with CSS, like you can make
an external CSS file with a set number of attributes and then use a
class="" tag to apply those attributes to whole bunch of different
division layers at once (different pages can even share the same
external CSS file)...but really yer probably not going to need to do
that so don't bother with it. In theory it cuts down on the overall
amount of redundant code and is supposed to save you time if you're
too stupid to figure out how to copy and paste or makes it easier to
change a whole bunch of stuff at once...but those benefits are pretty
lacking unless you're talking about like 4 or 5 THOUSAND pages or
something.

Really CSS isn't all that complicated at all, it's very simple in fact
once you understand how it works. The neat part comes when you use
CSS in conjunction with Javascript. Basically you give each division
layer a name, like nyah:
<div id="namey"></div>
And then once you give it a name you can use Javascript to alter any
CSS property in that division layer at any time. Like on some of my
non-flash sites you see animated stuff...that's just Javascript
continually altering the top and left CSS properties.

If you really want to LEARN, learn something I'd go with JavaScript or
ActionScript, once you learn one really well you can pretty much code
in any type of scripting language (from PHP to Perl), they're all
pretty similar, just the syntax is a lil different. ActionScript is
what you use with Flash, Javascript is what you use with HTML/CSS and
PHP is what you use for database connectivity (as well as some other
things if you want them done server side instead of client side).

Well you can't really use CSS without HTML, CSS merely compliments
HTML.

No, no, no...just Notepad. Again, you don't need any sort of silly
hoo-ha program to code CSS, Javascript, HTML, PHP or pretty much
anything else for that matter. Dreamweaver is just like training
wheels for people who are too afraid to know what the code looks like.

*shakes head*

You've got it backwards. It's programs like Dreamweaver that are
complicating it. Coding in Notepad is simple...because the whole
thing *IS* simple. I mean, if you've gotten this far into my
post...you already know how to code in CSS, it's THAT simple.

You might also want to check out this post:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...582b7a21b9f0e1

It's basically a "how to" guide on CSS. Goes a lil more in depth than
this post and has some examples you can try out on your own.

Whatever you do, DO NOT waste your money buying a book on CSS...CSS
doesn't need a book, it needs Notepad and an online reference guide,
that's it.

Busy would be the operative word, I need to have 50 thousand name tag
blanks made for DQ by the middle of next month...at least it's only
for their Grill & Chill chain stores, otherwise it'd be like 500
thousand...*shudder*...

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On 26 Mar 2006 22:50:56 -0800, fsdstudio@gmail.com wrote:

I have to disagree, at this point as far as achieving the MAXIMUM
cross platform and cross browser compatibility Flash is king...and
probably always will be. I'd say with a lot of coding stuff I find
HTML/CSS/Javascript to be a bit faster development wise than using
Actionscript...although part of that is probably because I'm not as
used to coding with the later. But if you want to achieve the maximum
level of cross compatibility, then the "right" answer is Flash, there
is no question, nor debate.

HTML/CSS doesn't really require any building though. You just need to
develop a basic understanding of the syntax and terminology (tags,
properties and so forth). Once you know HOW it works you just need a
good online reference guide, no point in memorizing dozens and dozens
of different tags).

You do realize that if you actually understood web coding on the next
level you would NEED Dreamweaver at all. The trick is to use
Javascript and PHP to actually build your HTML and CSS on the fly,
creating dynamic pages. Like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/

The entire "site" is only one single page that is "rewritten" on the
fly when you click on the navigation arrows. No need to bother with
drag and drop anything or file renaming when you only have ONE file
that does it all.

Although personally, even without creating dynamic pages I always
found it much better to manage all my own files and such rather than
leaving it in the hands of Dreamweaver. Usually results in cleaner
directories amongst other benefits. I've done a lot of site redesigns
myself, so I'm all too familiar with cleaning up after Dreamweaver and
it's sloppy dribblings.

Unless you're dealing with something like 4,000 different pages,
content management should ALWAYS be done by yourself in my opinion,
there's just no reason not to outside of laziness and a want for
sloppy directories.

Yup, if you just want to make a personal homepage or something
Dreamweaver is fine, I mean, that's what it's really for...hobbyists.
Now does that mean that some "professionals" aren't gonna still use
it? Of course not, hell there are people in the movie industry doing
their editing in Final Cut Pro fer fuck sake. It's a hobbyist program
too...but that doesn't stop ignorance from using it. If you're a
"professional" the point is what level you want to take your work to,
yes, you can use Dreamweaver...but I know a fuck of a lot of stuff
that you CAN'T do using Dreamweaver that you CAN do manually. Just
like with Final Cut Pro, there's a LOT of stuff that you simply can't
do unless you're takin it to the extreme and doing frame level editing
in a graphics program.

Some "professionals" don't much like people such as myself. I once
had this one video editor d00d who made some comment about how I
thought all video editing was amateurish unless you were making sweet,
sweet love to every single frame of video...which, to an extent, is
true. Cause any idiot can use Final Cut Pro, slap in some footage and
make some generic cuts with some generic transition effects...but to
break it on down to frame level editing...well now that requires not
only skill, but incredible patience as well.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

"Connie Pierce" <cmpierce@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote

As with any good education process, I'd recommend you seek a variety of
opinions about the issues you raise and decide which outlook seems to fit
your experiece, objectives, resources and needs. Good luck.

--
Fred Doyle

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:55:30 GMT, "Fred Doyle" <fdoyle1@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:

Well if you want variety I'm the guy to ask. Unlike most people in my
fields of expertise I didn't acquire any of my knowledge via book
learning, which gives me a rather unique perspective on many issues,
since most people tend to simply regurgitate the recycled knowledge
and experience that they slurped up out of some deficient text book
that was WRITTEN by some other dribbler whose only knowledge and
experience was slurped up out of some other deficient text book.

It's a vicious cycle and in most cases produces ignorant fuckwits who
don't even comprehend the true nature behind WHY they're doing what
they're doing...like that stupid fucking moron who was in here the
other day who was raving on about XML...but then when it came down to
ACTUALLY explaining what I could with XML that I couldn't do without
it...yeah, suddenly he's at a loss for words and just starts hurling
insults without any purpose or direction.

Best to research, study and experiment on your own, that's the BEST
way to learn, because you truly are learning, not simply being a
walking encyclopedia of SOMEONE ELSE'S knowledge and understanding.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Really, you're the one doing that, eh? Don't mind if I inform them of
that? It's funny, cause, DQ is a family business and we have access to
all the info on where any promotional material is made. It would
probably be very interesting to them to hear that your making
promotional material for them - especially to the design firm that's
currently working on it. I'll pass this on to the head office.

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:.
HTML by itself is 100% cross browser compatible. So is most CSS.
Where most problems arise are with CSS-based layouts that rely on
certain positioning and spacing constraints that aren't consistent
across browsers.

As far as client work is concerned, I'd say that it's far more likely
to run into a situation where Flash isn't a workable solution than
where an HTML site would be the problem. Specific example: I had to
develop a site for a company for use internally. Individual computers
were not allowed outside Internet access, and what was and wasn't
allowed on the systems was strictly controlled. On any given computer,
browsers have whatever was installed with the OS and that's it. They
specifically wanted and needed a simple HTML-based site. Granted,
that's an extreme case, but still, it's far more likely that a client
will be in a position to not have access to Flash than not have access
to a browser capable of handling HTML.


To a certain extent, I agree. However, from a development standpoint,
it's much better to understand and memorize the basics. When writing,
for example, it isn't necessary to know how to spell any and all words
you might someday need, but on the other hand, if you had to consult a
dictionary for spelling everything, it'd take you an hour to type a
small paragraph. Same with HTML/CSS -- knowing how to "spell" (so to
speak) the basic language will make development that much faster.
Plus, it will make understanding of the more complicated stuff easier
when you do have to look it up.



It depends on whether or not you allow Dreamweaver to rewrite all of
the code or not. Left to its own devices, DW can do some pretty screwy
things.


I'm not sure how it is that anyone would get sloppy directories out of
DW. I still have to create the files and tell DW where I want them
saved, so in that sense, I maintain full control over what goes where.
The time saver I'm talking about is within the actual files. For
example: if, for whatever reason, I decide that I need to rename an
image, I would have to go in and manually change the name in every file
that referenced that image (easy for a one-off graphic, a little more
complicated if that image happens to be a replacement for the bullet in
lists or something). Or, in DW, I can simply rename the image file
from within the site manager. DW will automatically update that image
name in every single file using it -- it won't rewrite any other code,
or add anything else, it will simply change that image name.

Maybe that could be considered lazy, but I don't have a problem with
that. Lazy is only crippling when it leads to inaction. Otherwise, if
you want something done quickly and effeciently, give it to a lazy
person. ; ) I consider it simply a matter of saving time. I *could*
open up every single file any time I make a change or adjustment and
edit or copy and paste the change, but frankly, there are other ways
I'd prefer to spend my time.



Exactly. Thus my point about knowing the code (or at least how to work
with it). Using the shortcuts of DW's Design View will only get a
person so far. The only way to move beyond that is to go into the code.
For me, I don't ever "build" anything in the Design View -- I may use
it for editing text or whatnot, but anything to do with the code I
handle in Code View.



I think it depends on the context. For example, I've done some 3D
modeling and animation work. There are times when it's necessary to
fret over every polygon, and other times when "close enough" is
perfectly fine -- for example, if something is going to be moving
quickly across the frame, or at considerable distance, then there's no
reason to take the render time hit for a highly detailed model.

I think that most experienced professionals understand the value of
nitpicking the details, especially when it will produce a better end
product. It happens all the time in the special effects industry where
they will labor frame-by-frame over important shots, but there will be
other shots that don't require that level of intensity.

-- Robert

In article <1143442256.778031.210320@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
<fsdstudio@gmail.com> wrote:

Really, thank you . . . I figured Hat would respond and to be honest,
I really respect him and his range of talents (no flaming please). I
don't think that he went to school for his knowledge - I think it's all
hard-earned, struggled for, and brought about by trial-and-error,
experimentation, etc. And TBH, that really increases the respect ratio.

Considering that *I'm* trying to teach myself, his approach to getting
the knowledge and results, I think, is so similar to what *I'm* trying
to do, that it made perfect sense to ask him these questions. But that
being said, if *anyone* like to offer insight, tips, and MORE, I will
be a huge pair o' ears attached to a brain stem! ( :
I've been obsessively studying/practicing HTML coding (and when I say
obsessively, I mean OBSESSIVELY) but CSS has been stumping me something
awful. So that's why I was wondering about whether or not I NEEDED to
learn it or if that wasn't the most efficient workflow. I often spend
too much time obsessively trying to learn the little things to the
point of losing sight/energy/time for the big important things. I
didn't want to do that . . .
Well, I think HAt has a def point about using a manual for the actual
use of the CSS selectors/codes. But my problem is that I can't quite
seem to wrap my brain about what they mean and WHY they are what they
are. I know that sounds goofy - I can't quite explain it.

Like Hat solved my problem understanding the whole "div" thing
(something all those online tutorials and books I bought wasn't able to
do, BTW). But the stuff about "span(s)," coding for graphics/images,
etc. That still really stumps me. I think that HTML was MUCH easier to
get the hang of and I'm feeling a bit disillusioned because the CONCEPT
of CSS isn't coming as easy.

Yeesh . . . did THAT make sense??
Well, at this point, Flash is MUCH harder to wrap my brain around than
CSS. Also, I think that if I can get the hang of CSS, I can eventually
figure out the concepts behind Flash. That's what I'm hoping for, at
least.
TBH, I'd rather use GoLive (I'm more comfy in there than in any other
app) but I've been told that it's coding lite. That its just not as
good at the coding as the others that are out there. But I don't want
to have my hand held so much as I want a quick and easy interface so I
can TRY the code and then take a looksee at it.

Hat suggested NotePad (I guess TextEdit in my case), but I think he's
TOO technical in that case, for my learning curve. I think that if I
tried using a text app, I'd just get too overwhelmed (at this point)
and I don't want ANY exucse not to follow through with this. I'll try
that kind of technical whiz-kid stuff AFTER I have had my hand held a
wee bit.

I don't want to be an armchair coder eventually. I want to learn at my
own level/pace, but eventually, I want to be as badass as Hat (not
saying that I'll ever GET there, but then again, it's the journey that
counts not the destination so much).
I will check that out . . . hopefully, it comes on Mac platform! ( ;
I've always prized my abilities/knowledge when it comes to print design
and production (I may not be the best, but I DO my best). And I
certainly don't want to shortchange clients. So if I AM to offer this
as a skill set (which I don't right now), I will HAVE to be as
knowledgeable as you say. The trick is getting there! ( ;

Again, thank you VERY much, Robert! You really have been a big help!!
--
C Pierce

In article <ukbf229s85uqno6pvm2hlii6ji888n8ls9@4ax.com>, Onideus Mad
Hatter <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:

You've opened the flood gates - hope you're wearing high-waters! ( :
Too cold for shorts where you are, I think . . . ( : Supposed to get
to the 80s here, later this week! ( ;
That's too complicated for me now. I think I need a little bit of
handholding at this stage - maybe pull/drag items in and then see what
it does? I really don't have the brain for this. I tried 3D imaging
software a while back and the whole x, y, z axis stuff just REALLY
knocked me out of the ball park.

If you HAD to use a GUI, what would you use?? Or think of it this way -
your 10 y o niece wants to learn how to make a personal web page for
herself and she has DW or GoLive to choose from . . .
Yes, but again, you're choosing your methodology based, I think, on
your comfort level and skill. Two things that *I* don't have. I need
the one that will hold my hand as necessary and TELL me when I'm being
stupid (which will probably be 90% of the time). But again, it's like
you, a rocket scientist, say, telling me to use one of those fancy
calculators (the engineering or scientific kind) when I can barely get
a $2 calculator from the grocerty store to work.

Which leads me . . . what app did you FIRST use when you were
learning? Or did you start in NotePad (not surprised if you did). Your
way just sounds too technical and too . . . well, intelligent comes to
mind. I need something that is 75% technical and say 25% GUI. Like what
a designer cum web designer would use versus what a coder cum web
designer would use.
What about fonts? colors? ids? stuffing an image in there? I think
that's what's getting me. I get the whole HTML thing, but once you
start talking about style sheets (which I PERFECTLY understand in
InDesign - but then, there's no coding there), spans (still have no
idea what that is), ids, selectors, labels, etc. That's where I scratch
me head and say "WTF?"
BTW, I thought I should mention that your explanation of Div layers is
the best (and easiest to understand) that I've come across. I have
about 3-4 (?) books on CSS, countless tutorials, mag articles, etc. And
not a single frigging one explained it as well as you just did.

When are you going to stop *talking* about it and *write* a frigging
book?? I can't believe that I'm the only one who needs this kind of
direction - if you're not going to think about the moolah, think about
the number of designers cum web designers out there suffering
needlessly! Even if you don't feel like dealing with publishers, you
could do an e-Book and sell it on your web site . . . just a thought.
Okay, once again, you've reverted to uber-technical-frigging-genuis
speak and left me in the dust.

External CSS file - are you talking about the "Main.CSS" that I keep
reading about?? Or the @ import CSS file?? Or am I just too stupid or
too old to figure this out??

Sorry for the ravings/rantings, but I am just REALLY confused and
feeling at ses, here. And not in a pleasant LSD kinda way - more like
the uber st00pid, abandoned in the department store, kinda way.
Again, there's th "id" thing . . .

I'd like to learn those, too. But I think (from just overall skimming)
that CSS will be easier to learn and will function as a "stepping
stone" to that kind of mindset and knowledge. I'm not trying to start
out on a 2 yo level, but not at the uber technical either. Mainly
because I know I'll get disillusioned and disgusted with myself. Sounds
wussy, I know. But I've had books and the desire to learn Flash and CSS
for over three years now and they're getting dusty and stinky. Gotta
use'em now before the Silverfish set in and Alzheimers starts kicking
my ass.

Too, I REALLY want to.
But in your opinion, is it WORTH knowing CSS? Or is it kind of like the
icing on the cake?? It's nice and makes it taste better, but if the
cake is any good it's not the end-all-be-all to the
experience/quality??
I'm not afraid of what the code will look like, but I think I def need
training wheels.
No, I STILL don't. You explained WAY more than the books, tutorials,
etc have, but you've still talked to me like I have some sort of basic
knowledge of CSS. You've talked to me like an entry level WD, not a
senior designer looking to enter the world of WD.

Have you thought that perhaps, because you're so comfy with CSs that
it's THAT easy? Your mind seems to have NO problem getting in to the
CSS, php, Java thing . . . mine does. It's kind of like a brain
surgeon explaining how to perform a lobotomy to a bricklayer. You have
knowledge that to YOU is BASIC, but to me, is fantastic and oh, SO
complicated. Not trying to be whiny, bitchy or a pain in your ass . . .
just being honest (okay, AND whining for help).
All I'm seeing is Div layers - what about all that id, span, selector,
etc, mumbo jumbo? It DID explain Div layers (as I said earlier) better
than any $40 frigging book.
Too late - I bought SEVERAL. I am THAT desperate to try to learn this.
They just all seem to speak to a higer level of knowledge than I
possess. ) :
Yes, true, but the money ain't bad is it? And think of it this way, it
could be worse - you could be sleeping with Larry's mother for $$!!
(Sorry - haven't insulted Lar in quite some time now and I NEEDED
that!!)

Really, Hat, I appreciate you writing me back and helping this poor
n00b j0b. I hope you'll write some more and possibly get off yer ass
and write a frigging book! ( :
--
C Pierce

In article <1143472504.230001.325580@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
<b00010001@gmail.com> wrote:

Who's "we?" Sounds a bit "Big Brother" ish to me . . . ( ;

LOL, a lot of companies go out-of-house nowadays. Especially for
promotional items. Many companies (family owned or otherwise) use their
in-house profs for *in-house* needs (AKA, memos, annual reports,
charts, presentations, etc). One of my clients is a BIG company and
that's all their in-house group does. For marketing. campaigns, ads,
etc, they go out-of-house.

And as to a possible out-of-house firm handling that sort of thing, I
know that I often outsource projects like that. I had 525 badges for a
big conference (not so big on size, but BIG on publicity) that I
outsourced. It's not my specialty (whereas the ads, courtesy folder,
etc were), so why should I do something myself that someone else can do
*BETTER*? Not very good business, if you ask me. You should never gyp
the client on quality just to keep a few (or more) extra bucks.

--
C Pierce

Connie Pierce wrote:

Connie, here is a very quick and dirty tutorial that will hopefully
explain some of it:

Really, CSS isn't hard. It's just different. I've taught some classes
on both HTML and CSS and in my experience, the one thing that trips
people up the most about CSS is the syntax. It appears scarier than it
really is. People see something like:

p {text-align:center;}

and they freak out. Really, though, that CSS rule isn't all that much
different from HTML. That is just CSS's way of saying:

<p><center></center></p>

The difference is that the CSS applies the centering globally to every
instance of the Paragraph tag.

Also, in HTML, you always have to remember to open and close your tags.
Same in CSS. Essentially, that's what the { and } are in CSS --
openers and closers.

The second thing people have trouble with is the "selector" that goes
before the {

You're either going to use CSS to make a rule for an existing HTML tag,
or you're going to make up something (kind of like creating your own
tags in a way). Any HTML tag is fair game to be modified by CSS.

When you make your own, you can (almost) call them anything you want
and there are two different types of custom selectors you can create:
Classes and IDs. The difference between the two are that IDs are
unique - you can only reference them once per page. Classes are
generic -- you can reference them as many times as you want. (For an
easy way to remember, think of ID as, well, an ID: I might IDentify
you as "Connie," but I might CLASSify you as a "woman" -- there are
many women, but only one Connie.)

IDs and Classes are differentiated in CSS by the "#" and "." symbols.

ID = #connie
Class = .woman

The trickier part is knowing when to use which. The ID selector is
necessary for certain Javascript functions. If you don't intend to
incorporate Javascripting into your web sites, then you can probably
get by without ever using IDs (in fact, it might be better if you don't
when you're starting out -- you can easily accidentally use an ID twice
on one page, which you can't do). There are also some more advanced
ways to use IDs and Classes (such as applying both to one HTML tag),
but that gets you started on understanding the differences.

When you make your own CSS rules, in order to use them, you have to
apply them to an HTML tag. So something like:

<p class="woman"></p>

is basically just saying, "for everyhing in *this* Paragraph (but no
other Paragraphs), style it according to the "woman" class."

CSS rules are also cummulative, thus the "cascading." So, for example,
way up at the top I defined that Paragraph tag to align text to the
center. I could create another style specific to changing the color of
the text:

..textRed {color:#FF0000;}

(There are some names you can't use -- you can look them up. For the
most part, it's recommended that you pick names that will help you
identify what it is you're doing -- thus, "textRed")

Then I might have the following HTML:

<p>text</p>
<p class="red">text</p>
<p>text</p>

In that, all of the text would be aligned to the center, because all of
it is within Paragraph tags. However, the text in the Paragraph with
the class "red" would be centered AND red (FF0000 is the hex code for a
red color).

This is useful because I might have certain attributes that I'll want
to apply to all instances of a specific HTML tag, but I also want to
ability to give some of them different attributes. Maybe I want all of
my Paragraphs to use a certain font and to be a certain size. I can
define a CSS rule for the <p> tag to control that so that I don't have
to define those attributes for every <p> tag. Then, I can create
separate classes so that some Paragraphs can be a different color, or
maybe aligned differently, and so forth.

Finally, because style sheets cascade, they also gain more importance
the closer they are to the HTML tag they are modifying. So, let's
change it up a little and style a DIV. Here are the styles:

div {text-align:center; color:#000000}

(this defines all text within a DIV to be aligned to the center).

..textBlue {color:#0000FF;}

(this defines any text with this class to be colored blue)

Then in the HTML, we'll code it like:

<div>
<p>text</p>
<p class="textBlue">This is some text with some of it colored <span
style="color:#FF0000;">red</span>.</p>
</div>

So, what's happening here is that the DIV sets the base attributes of
centered, black text. The first Paragraph has these attributes since
it's within the DIV and has no other styles applied to it.

The Class of "textBlue" defines the color of text to be blue. Since
this class is directly applied to the second Paragraph, it overrules
the DIV tag and colors the text Blue (but the text is still centered,
since the "textBlue" text didn't tell it to change that).

Finally, we added a style directly into the HTML in the <span> tag.
Since this is even closer yet, it overrules both the DIV and the Class
and colors the text Red (again, the text remains centered, because we
didn't tell it to change that).

That's all pretty basic stuff, but hopefully it helps you to better
wrap your head around what's going on with CSS.

-- Robert

Connie Pierce wrote:
I believe most code today is mostly HTML/Javascript/CSS etc as the
flash from flash, IMHO, is fizzled out. I realize some folks think it's
still the best but they are in the minority and always have been, but
still there is less and less of it showing up around the web today.
There are still some fantastic web sites built with flash but they tend
to be few are far between.

You also need to find some type of tool to help with the coding of
the stuff as only super macho men are using notepad today, and they
will tell you so all day long. There are a ton of editors, quite a few
that are free that will help you create better code faster than using a
simple text editor. CoffeeCup Software has a free tool that you can
start with to see what's available and they also have a good book on
HTML/CSS, etc. to start with.

In article <ttCdnRrECNpj8rXZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com>, James
Douglas <james.douglas@genesis-software.com> wrote:

If YOU had to choose, would you use Adobe GoLive or Dreamweaver?
--
C Pierce

Connie Pierce wrote:

It's worth noting that Adobe purchased Macromedia and now owns both
Dreamweaver and GoLive. Dreamweaver is generally considered to be the
better product and is far more widely used than GoLive, and Adobe has
no need for two competing web editors in their stable of products.

Long story short, if I were to bet on it, I'd say that GoLive is going
to be phased out.

-- Robert

On 27 Mar 2006 07:20:20 -0800, fsdstudio@gmail.com wrote:

WRONG! First off, WHAT HTML specifically are you referring to? I
mean, even if yer talkin about restricting yourself to 2.0 there are
STILL differences between browsers and operating systems as far as
object placement, text size, text kerning, etc, etc, etc.

The bottom line is that with HTML...anything. There is NEVER an
absolute certainty about what it's going to look like on a client
system...especially if your client is retarded and did this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...t/uramoron.gif

With Flash, there is ABSOLUTE certainty about what your stuff is going
to look like...on ANY system.

WAY, WAY WRONG!

I mean, that is *SO* wrong at this point I have to wonder if you've
ever even used CSS. I've been in quite literarily DOZENS upon DOZENS
of threads pertaining to cross compatibility issues regarding
CSS...and I'm not even talking about CSS2 issues.

Actually I would say that most CSS problems are related to browser in
dependant properties, like some of the cursor options, or scroll bar
color alterations, chit like that.

....how could Flash EVER not be a workable solution? I mean, maybe if
you didn't know what you were doing.

Well you're confusing what's possible with what a client wants...two
entirely different things. I mean if a client wanted fuckin MIDIs on
their site I'm sure not gonna tell em no...might suggest otherwise,
but if that's what they want. I decided some time ago that most
companies simply are not worth edifying, so like if they want a site
connected to some sort of database and they want me to use some
outdated, unpatched version of Coldfusion...hey, if they THINK they
know what's best, who am I to tell them otherwise? I make it a point
to establish that right away with a client, whether they want to trust
in my experience and expertise or whether they want to pretend that
they know what they're doing. If it's teh later, they get what they
want, I put zero concern into it...even if I know I'm just creating a
giant open target for anyone to come along and smash to hell.

I disagree, some version of Flash comes preinstalled on just about
everything these days, it would be HIGHLY unusual for a system not to
have SOME version on it. Even with your "extreme" case, 10 to 1 says
every machine they've got has at least Flash 5 installed on it.
*shrugs*

Uh...isn't that what I said?

"You just need to develop a basic understanding of the syntax and
terminology"

To me syntax is like spelling and punctuation.

I've never actually used the program myself, I've only spent time
cleaning up its messes.

Beats me, I'm assuming it's the interface. Like I said, I've cleaned
up after the program and I've seen some pretty messed up directory
structures...although maybe that was just the clients fault and not
the programs.

But what is the interface like with that? Is it clear to the user
what they're doing? I find a lot of times most people using computers
have an EXTREMELY poor grasp of directories, files, formats and the
nature of how they're organized and controlled. If the interface
isn't setup like File Manager/Explorer I find that it usually leads to
messes.

I see you haven't discovered this yet:
http://www.backwater-productions.net...et/Replace.png

It's amazing really, that sometimes the simplest solution (in this
case Notepad) actually has just as much functionality as the bloatware
alternatives. *shrugs*

Some might argue that you should have named your files correctly in
the first place...which to an extent I have to agree with...I also
don't understand WHY you would suddenly want to start changing names
around after the fact. I don't think that's laziness so much as
pointlessness.

In that case it might actually be better to fret over every lil
polygon, but then only animate every other frame and then use a frame
blending technique to build the transition frames, it'll produce
smoother/clearer movement, it'll encode better with a smaller file
size and on a Hi-Def display it'll look much better.

....I find most peeps don't take the time to consider that, what their
work will look like on a Hi-Def display. It's sorta like when I was
doing a lot of graphic work on an older system with 16 bit color...and
then teh first time I looked at the stuff on a 32 bit color system it
was like...EYAAAH!

Or where they simply don't think anyone will notice...like in Narnia
for example...boy they spent a LOT of time on that great big fuzzy
lion...but they sure skimped on processing power in a lot of other
shots (especially a lot of the foresty background stuff).

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:45:32 -0600, Connie Pierce
<cmpierce@NOSPAMcreativeveritas.com> wrote:

....uh, Connie...why are you arguing with this fruit loop? I mean, if
he wants to go and play pretend and email DQ and start whining about
me he can go right on ahead, it ain't any of my concern if he wants to
make an idiot of himself. *shrugs*

Coincidentally Dairy Queen outsources quite a LOT of stuff, like with
their employee catalogs, as far as I know it's ALL licensed
merchandise, Dairy Queen doesn't make any of it. Of course, that's a
normal practice with most major corporations since 9 times out of 10
it saves them a TON of money.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

you never answered that?

Whatever. How do i get to punch you in your face?