Website Style

[Emmanize]

Sorry for the dumb question but how do you do web pages like this: http://www.cagedfish.co.uk/ ? Is it a particular style? It looks like a load of tables, but I do like the look.

[yarusskii]

advanced html (iframes, divs etc) javascript(rollovers), css.
photoshop(graphics), gif or png (transparency)

[Patrick Shannon]

Interestingly enough, they don't seem to be using CSS for the layout of the site, their stylesheet is limited to text styling. The body is built using tables, images and a few divs (for the most part).

[chris_bcn]

make the site in photoshop - slice it up - throw it in. Make sure you your measurements are exact. the once you have the slices you can put them in as background images via css

I wouldn't use their code as an example of how to do it though

[JPnyc]

The code is antiquated but if you like the look, that's the most important thing. 90% of your visitors will never look at the code, and that's a conservative estimate.

[chris_bcn]

true, but a professional designer.... ah forget it

[Emmanize]

Yeah I could tell it was all tables, with just sliced images. I could do this but I hate using lots of tables - even though that’s how I feel most comfortable working :o . I am not fond on image text, maybe I could use an ifame in the middle?

My portfolio is half done but I think Ill do some practise on this style, as I have never done it before.

[Patrick Shannon]

Personally, I am not a fan of iframes...very annoying when you're trying to view lots of content (based on the size of the window). But, I don't see any reason that content area site couldn't dynamically scale up and down, which is why CSS would be a better route when you do your own site like this as you're freed from the table model.

[JPnyc]

It's not just that it's all tables, but even the formatting is applied in the tag, the older HTML styling. There isn't a drop of CSS, and the Javascript is the absolute garbage variety that only Screamweaver can spit out. But again, this stuff doesn't matter to your users. They just see the site. Only web designers/developers will care

[chris_bcn]

This is very true - but slicing it up and putting it into a CSS / HTML layout is no harder than slicing it into tables. Just a different mindset to get your head around.

Users do just care about the finished job, but your clients should care about the work. Sadly not many do. I'm very lucky that all my clients embrace standards and job well done. It does take some training on my part. It's not just that it's the "right" way to do it, but that the benefits are greater - reduced files size, lower bandwidth costs, better SEO through semantic markup et.

A carpenter coming into your home and using a bit of 2x4 to ram a nail home will get the job done, but it woun't inspire confidence in the customer

[JPnyc]

Well thing is, I dunno how many clients are even that savvy. Don't get me wrong, I would never do a site like this, but then I never use any programs at all, save for a txt editor. I think golive or whatever program was used is responsible for the antiquated coding. I know that screamweaver or some other adopey/macromedia product spit out that crap javascript. It's unmistakable.

[chris_bcn]

They are if you explain it to them. Part of my job is to justify my price (which is higher than a lot of freelance competitors in SF - saturted market). I believe I'm good value for money, and I explain to them my process and the benefits of my process. I don't use geek speak obviously, but part of my breakdown is my methodology and reasoning. Of course, working in SF I possible have a more savvy pool of clients to work with

[JPnyc]

Yeah I can see that. But I find that even in the business itself, bad coding and incompetence abound. Fortunately for me, I'm not a code nazi, whereas when I was in the music biz, that kind of blindness to quality or the lack thereof made me nuts. Here I find it much easier to take. There's no aesthetic principles being spat on.