Web Design - Canvas Size

[Darrell]

Hi,

Looking to create my first real design FWMX then slice for web, what size
canvas do you use:

640 x 480
800 x 600
1024 x 768

Got my head around liquid table etc (I think), so whats your views on canvas
size to create on?

Any recommendations or advice welcome.

Darrell...

[Coen Naninck]

Doesn't matter. Just use all the space you need and once you're done
creating your graphic, crop the whole thing.

Darrell wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Looking to create my first real design FWMX then slice for web, what size
> canvas do you use:
>
> 640 x 480
> 800 x 600
> 1024 x 768
>
> Got my head around liquid table etc (I think), so whats your views on canvas
> size to create on?
>
> Any recommendations or advice welcome.
>
> Darrell...
>
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Darrell]

Coen,

Thanks for attaching the files unfortunately my ms outlook as blocked access
to them!

Could you post them again with a txt extension, then I can download them and
change the extension back.

Thanks

Darrell...



"Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3F197433.50609@home.nl...

> I'm sorry Kim, but this guy is talking about Fireworks, not Dreamweaver
> eh? Ok, if you are going to create a mockup for Dreamweaver or for a
> site for that matter, then yes you would do well with that canvas.
>
> Darrel, I have included two Commands for Fireworks you may use. Just put
> them in your Commands folder and run the Command. Your canvas with be
> resized to fit what is visible on a standard Windows XP browserwindow.
> One is for 800x600 the other for 1024x768 resolution.
>
> --
> Good luck!
>
> Coen Naninck
> _______________________________
>
> Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
> on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
> can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
> just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
>
> Thank you.
>
> E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
> Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
>
>
>
>
> Kim Cavanaugh wrote:

> > Darell--
> >
> > Personally I work at 760 X 400-450 or so. That's a good safe size

> that takes

> > into account browser chrome and works for the lowest common

> denominator. For

> > about 80% of folks that will work out well.
> >
> > Of course that assumes that the browser window is maximized on a 800

> X 600

> > resolution monitor, but again that size is pretty safe.
> >
> > Kim
> >

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> fw.getDocumentDOM().setDocumentCanvasSize({left:0, top:0, right:1020,

bottom:586});


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> fw.getDocumentDOM().setDocumentCanvasSize({left:0, top:0, right:796,

bottom:417});

[Kim Cavanaugh]

Coen--

I understood that. If I'm making a mockup for a site design I still work at
750 wide. Why design for a resolution that will not fit on many monitors?

Once I have the smallest size set I can then work on the expandable parts of
the design using HTML and CSS to get the final look I want. But perhaps I
misunderstand what you're saying?

--
Kim Cavanaugh, author
Beginner's Guides to Dreamweaver and Fireworks
[url]http://www.dw-fw-beginners.com[/url]
------------
Extending Knowledge Daily at:
[url]http://www.communitymx.com[/url]
------------
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Fireworks
[url]http://www.macromedia.com/go/team[/url]
"Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3F197433.50609@home.nl...

> I'm sorry Kim, but this guy is talking about Fireworks, not Dreamweaver
> eh? Ok, if you are going to create a mockup for Dreamweaver or for a
> site for that matter, then yes you would do well with that canvas.
>
> Darrel, I have included two Commands for Fireworks you may use. Just put
> them in your Commands folder and run the Command. Your canvas with be
> resized to fit what is visible on a standard Windows XP browserwindow.
> One is for 800x600 the other for 1024x768 resolution.
>
> --
> Good luck!
>
> Coen Naninck
> _______________________________
>
> Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
> on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
> can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
> just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
>
> Thank you.
>
> E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
> Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
>
>
>
>
> Kim Cavanaugh wrote:

> > Darell--
> >
> > Personally I work at 760 X 400-450 or so. That's a good safe size

> that takes

> > into account browser chrome and works for the lowest common

> denominator. For

> > about 80% of folks that will work out well.
> >
> > Of course that assumes that the browser window is maximized on a 800

> X 600

> > resolution monitor, but again that size is pretty safe.
> >
> > Kim
> >

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> fw.getDocumentDOM().setDocumentCanvasSize({left:0, top:0, right:1020,

bottom:586});


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

> fw.getDocumentDOM().setDocumentCanvasSize({left:0, top:0, right:796,

bottom:417});

[Coen Naninck]

I thought he was referring to making a navigation element only. As a
matter of fact, I ALWAYS use Fireworks to create mockups and start in
800x600. Making them expandible afterwards withg spacers. :-)

Kim Cavanaugh wrote:

> Coen--
>
> I understood that. If I'm making a mockup for a site design I still work at
> 750 wide. Why design for a resolution that will not fit on many monitors?
>
> Once I have the smallest size set I can then work on the expandable parts of
> the design using HTML and CSS to get the final look I want. But perhaps I
> misunderstand what you're saying?
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Darrell]

Thanks people for the feedback and thanks Coen for the attachments.

I am actually quite new the Studio MX and from what I have read, one way to
create a site is to design it all in Fireworks MX as one full image, get it
as you want then slice the image into smaller pieces. Build your tables in
Dreamweaver and insert the slices.

Obviously you have got to think about creating the navigation system etc
etc.

So I am about to start with a blank canvas, I need banner, menu system on
side or below the banner, footer file etc.

Do I take it from the feedback that it is just personal preference as to the
canvas size, 750 x ??? or 800 x 600 or is there some kind of web good
practice guidelines to follow?

Many Thanks

Darrell...




"Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3F197EA5.5040805@home.nl...

> I thought he was referring to making a navigation element only. As a
> matter of fact, I ALWAYS use Fireworks to create mockups and start in
> 800x600. Making them expandible afterwards withg spacers. :-)
>
> Kim Cavanaugh wrote:

> > Coen--
> >
> > I understood that. If I'm making a mockup for a site design I still work

at

> > 750 wide. Why design for a resolution that will not fit on many

monitors?

> >
> > Once I have the smallest size set I can then work on the expandable

parts of

> > the design using HTML and CSS to get the final look I want. But perhaps

I

> > misunderstand what you're saying?
> >

>
>
> --
> Good luck!
>
> Coen Naninck
> _______________________________
>
> Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
> on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
> can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
> just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
>
> Thank you.
>
> E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
> Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
>

[Kevin]

As Kim suggested, designing for the lowest screen size is a good start.
I always build sites using 750x 450

A good idea is to find a free template that has FW files, and see how it's
done. Alot of template sites
create the templates to fit 800x600.
If you design the layout properly, you won't need to add ALL content right
away because it will expand the more you type or add content.

This site was created in FWMX [url]www.wishpocket.com[/url]
I made it on a canvas of 750x 450, the more content I add, the more the
design follows, but at the time of my actual layout, I didn't include all
text or images that would have been displayed.

People do things differently, I would suggest you "play" with the canvases
and see what you get.

Kevin J


"Darrell" <darrell.wootton@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bfc2aq$cng$1@forums.macromedia.com...

> Thanks people for the feedback and thanks Coen for the attachments.
>
> I am actually quite new the Studio MX and from what I have read, one way

to

> create a site is to design it all in Fireworks MX as one full image, get

it

> as you want then slice the image into smaller pieces. Build your tables in
> Dreamweaver and insert the slices.
>
> Obviously you have got to think about creating the navigation system etc
> etc.
>
> So I am about to start with a blank canvas, I need banner, menu system on
> side or below the banner, footer file etc.
>
> Do I take it from the feedback that it is just personal preference as to

the

> canvas size, 750 x ??? or 800 x 600 or is there some kind of web good
> practice guidelines to follow?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Darrell...
>
>
>
>
> "Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:3F197EA5.5040805@home.nl...

> > I thought he was referring to making a navigation element only. As a
> > matter of fact, I ALWAYS use Fireworks to create mockups and start in
> > 800x600. Making them expandible afterwards withg spacers. :-)
> >
> > Kim Cavanaugh wrote:

> > > Coen--
> > >
> > > I understood that. If I'm making a mockup for a site design I still

work

> at

> > > 750 wide. Why design for a resolution that will not fit on many

> monitors?

> > >
> > > Once I have the smallest size set I can then work on the expandable

> parts of

> > > the design using HTML and CSS to get the final look I want. But

perhaps

> I

> > > misunderstand what you're saying?
> > >

> >
> >
> > --
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Coen Naninck
> > _______________________________
> >
> > Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
> > on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
> > can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
> > just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
> > Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
> >

>
>

[Coen Naninck]

Don't insert slices from FW into Dreamweaver. If you create FW HTML then
FW already made a table for you.

Darrell wrote:

> Thanks people for the feedback and thanks Coen for the attachments.
>
> I am actually quite new the Studio MX and from what I have read, one way to
> create a site is to design it all in Fireworks MX as one full image, get it
> as you want then slice the image into smaller pieces. Build your tables in
> Dreamweaver and insert the slices.
>
> Obviously you have got to think about creating the navigation system etc
> etc.
>
> So I am about to start with a blank canvas, I need banner, menu system on
> side or below the banner, footer file etc.
>
> Do I take it from the feedback that it is just personal preference as to the
> canvas size, 750 x ??? or 800 x 600 or is there some kind of web good
> practice guidelines to follow?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Darrell...
>
>
>
>
> "Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:3F197EA5.5040805@home.nl...
>

>>I thought he was referring to making a navigation element only. As a
>>matter of fact, I ALWAYS use Fireworks to create mockups and start in
>>800x600. Making them expandible afterwards withg spacers. :-)
>>
>>Kim Cavanaugh wrote:
>>

>>>Coen--
>>>
>>>I understood that. If I'm making a mockup for a site design I still work

>>

> at
>

>>>750 wide. Why design for a resolution that will not fit on many

>>

> monitors?
>

>>>Once I have the smallest size set I can then work on the expandable

>>

> parts of
>

>>>the design using HTML and CSS to get the final look I want. But perhaps

>>

> I
>

>>>misunderstand what you're saying?
>>>

>>
>>
>>--
>>Good luck!
>>
>>Coen Naninck
>>_______________________________
>>
>>Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
>>on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
>>can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
>>just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
>>Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
>>

>
>
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Stéphane Bergeron]

"Coen Naninck" <ccnk@home.nl> wrote in message
news:3F19A0DC.6070707@home.nl...

> Don't insert slices from FW into Dreamweaver. If you create FW HTML then
> FW already made a table for you.

That table will be set to a frozen size. This may be alright for certain
applications but it's not the best way to go IMO. Darren had the right idea.
I also use Dreamweaver (along with TopStyle Pro) to build my page layouts
from images I slice and export from Fireworks. That way you can have far
better control over how things are built and you can use accessible and
lightweight markup and CSS to create as many elements as possible on the
page. You can also order the code so it makes sense for someone who cannot
see the graphics and you can choose to use more semantic markup. Tables are
not the only nor the best way to visually lay out a page either.

Stéphane

[Coen Naninck]

Sigh,... A VERY BIG SIGH!!

Don't you people have ANY knowledge about Fireworks Slicing? If you
Slice your project well enough, it doesn't create a those jittery Gif's
that "hold grandma's peasoup" together! It's all in the Slice job.
Now I know that Fireworks makes a mess all too well, but don't say that
you don't have any control over that. People that state that Fireworks
by default creates a mess are absolutely right. But those same folk
never really tried to make decent Fireworks created HTML IMO.

Let me ask any one of you: have you ever really been slicing for a
couple of minutes and tried to come up with various results - exporting
the different results and comparing the lot? I take it the answer to
that is no. If you had, there wouldn't be such lame statements i'm
seeing here.

Now, I apologise beforehand if I am somewhat too enthusiastic about this
issue, but after using Fireworks for almost 2,5 years now I don't
understand that people out there that have been using this app for as
long as me and most likely even longer (since 2,5 years isn't THAT long
anyway) - are putting statements like this out there to newbies.

All in all, if you're new to Fireworks you are INDEED probably better
off slicing your job and in Dreamweaver making your tables. I agree to
that in every means, make no mistake about it. But please don't forget
that Fireworks is indeed capable of doing the same good job with the
appropriate skill.

When I started with Fireworks I didn't know about the code issue, but I
learnt by mistake after mistake take Fireworks is capable of doing much
more than most people think. If a newbie spends just a little more time
on Slicing then the same job can be done in 1 program and in the process
might learn a thing or two about Fireworks.

Then again, these are just MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts, but I
really needed to say this.


--

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Coen Naninck]

I never called anyone an incompetent fool Stéphane. I would have to be a
real fool to do that. I respect anyones thoughts and if you read my
comment right you could have read the words "Then again, these are just
MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts.../".


| Fireworks can't insert background images in table cells, it can't set
individual cells to percentage sizes so they strecth, it cannot create
or edit CSS, etc.

This I know Stéphane. I couldn't make an autostrech table with Fireworks
either. I have never disagreed with you or anyone on that. I just meant
that when it comes down to simple navigation elements that need to have
good Slicing, that FW is capable of doing a fine job. Maybe DW is better
and actually i'm pretty sure it is, but then again if people say that FW
makes a mess of the code THAT is when I say "Ok, but that depends on how
you work with FW" and IMHO it should not be said by someone that uses FW
for a long time. That is all I was saying then and all i'm saying now.


| But many people prefer the instant gratification of creating sites
even if they understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old
fashinned but that's just wrong IMO...

Again, I agree with you on this issue. But I still lack in code skills.
However, I have never let that interfere with my goals and although I
don't know too much about code, I know when FW makes a mess and when it
makes .... well alright then - when it makes "less of a mess" :-)


| ...// I would strongly advise that you try to understand that, when
people disagree with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot yet
see for that. Try to understand them before making sweeping statements
about the expertise of people you don't know...

Although I never mean to offend people, yes sometimes I do. I am sorry
if this is what happened. I just feel very strong about certain issues,
I should not offend you or others. My apologies.


Thanks!



Stéphane Bergeron wrote:

> Coen Naninck wrote:
>

>> Sigh,... A VERY BIG SIGH!!
>>
>> Don't you people have ANY knowledge about Fireworks Slicing? If you
>> Slice your project well enough, it doesn't create a those jittery
>> Gif's that "hold grandma's peasoup" together! It's all in the Slice job.

>
>
> It can be yes but potential code bloat is just one of the problems with
> exporting entire pages from Fireworks. The frozen tables issue is
> something to consider as well since the Web is a flexible medium.
>
> Also, just because we disagree with your methods do not mean we do not
> know how to work with Fireworks. I've used Fireworks since version 2 so
> I know it very well. There are other reasons we may choose to work the
> way we do, finer control over tables (or AP divs) being one.
>

>> Now I know that Fireworks makes a mess all too well, but don't say
>> that you don't have any control over that. People that state that
>> Fireworks by default creates a mess are absolutely right. But those
>> same folk never really tried to make decent Fireworks created HTML IMO.

>
>
> Please stop making generalizations about people you barely know. I'm not
> bashing Fireworks when I say I prefer not to export HTML from it, I'm
> just saying that I believe it is faster and more efficient to build the
> markup (tables or divs) in a dedicated Web authoring tool like
> Dreawmeaver and I stand by that opinion. I know very well that one can
> slice in a way that creates less convoluted code but even that to me is
> less efficient than creating markup in a dedicated application designed
> for that task.
>
> Fireworks cannot create flexible pages no matter how you slice. It is
> not a shortcoming of the product it's just the way it works being a
> graphics editing tool. You would have to tweak the code outside of it to
> achieve flexible layouts anyway so I prefer creating the whole code in a
> Web editor. It's faster than tweaking exported code for me.
>

>> Let me ask any one of you: have you ever really been slicing for a
>> couple of minutes and tried to come up with various results -
>> exporting the different results and comparing the lot? I take it the
>> answer to that is no. If you had, there wouldn't be such lame
>> statements i'm seeing here.

>
>
> I have been using Fireworks at least twice as long as you have. I have
> experimented with it and slicing quite a bit thank you very much. Again,
> just because we work differently than you do does not wean we're
> incompetent fools. I was also using Photoshop/Illustrator coupled with a
> separate tool for slicing, optimizing and exporting before using
> Fireworks (Ulead Smart Savor Pro if you are wondering) and I replaced
> these 3 apps with Fireworks when I discovered it. I used to hand code
> everything in HomeSite (before it became a MM product) so I can slice
> and code tables or AP divs very quickly by using a minimal slicing
> strategy that works great for me. I can work even faster in DW now. It
> may require more advanced planning but really believe it creates more
> efficient and leaner pages.
>
> Btw, you have probably heard Richie B. talk about a book he was writing
> for that would have been published by Glasshaus right? I was also
> writing for that book and my 2 chapters dealt with exactly those issues
> of slicing and exporting from Fireworks. I cover both the "normal" way
> that you use and the minimal slicing strategy I've been talking about in
> detail. APress has bought the rights for the book and it seems they will
> proceed with publishing it sometime in the future so you may want to
> take a look at it if they do. If not I'll repurpose the material on the
> Web later.
>

>> Now, I apologise beforehand if I am somewhat too enthusiastic about
>> this issue, but after using Fireworks for almost 2,5 years now I don't
>> understand that people out there that have been using this app for as
>> long as me and most likely even longer (since 2,5 years isn't THAT
>> long anyway) - are putting statements like this out there to newbies.

>
>
> We do (well at least I do, can't speak for the others) because these are
> issues that go far beyond Fireworks and are at the core of efficient Web
> development. I've been building Web sites since early 1996, first as a
> hobby and I am now building my own small business. I have created more
> than my share of crap but I have learned a lot in the process. I believe
> in lean and efficient coding startegies that are not possible to achieve
> by using only Fireworks created code. Not because of flaws in the
> product (or in my knowledge of it...) but simply because it's not the
> best tool for the job in my view. Fireworks can do some great heavy
> lifting but I prefer to have the finer control and precision that
> Dreamweaver and TopStyle provide me for creating HTML and CSS.
>

>> All in all, if you're new to Fireworks you are INDEED probably better
>> off slicing your job and in Dreamweaver making your tables. I agree to
>> that in every means, make no mistake about it. But please don't forget
>> that Fireworks is indeed capable of doing the same good job with the
>> appropriate skill.

>
>
> No it's not. Not to the level of detail and precision that *I* need
> anyway. Fireworks can't insert background images in table cells, it
> can't set individual cells to percentage sizes so they strecth, it
> cannot create or edit CSS, etc. Fireworks is the finest screen graphics
> editing tools out there for sure. It has some very useful exporting
> tools added to that but they're not refined enough for the kind of work
> I need to create. It may be perfect for your needs, not just for mine
> and those of many others.
>

>> When I started with Fireworks I didn't know about the code issue, but
>> I learnt by mistake after mistake take Fireworks is capable of doing
>> much more than most people think. If a newbie spends just a little
>> more time on Slicing then the same job can be done in 1 program and in
>> the process might learn a thing or two about Fireworks.

>
>
> That's the thing. I myself came to Fireworks with a solid coding
> background already in place so my expectations were different and still
> are it seems. I strongly believe that newbies to Web design in general
> would be better to spend some time learning about the basics of the
> craft (HTML, CSS, etc) before they start relying on the automated
> features of any graphic or Web authoring application. But many people
> prefer the instant gratification of creating sites even if they
> understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old fashinned but
> that's just wrong IMO...
>

>> Then again, these are just MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts, but
>> I really needed to say this.

>
>
> I myself am really not easily offended but others might be. I would
> strongly advise that you try to understand that, when people disagree
> with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot yet see for that.
> Try to understand them before making sweeping statements about the
> expertise of people you don't know...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Stéphane
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Coen Naninck]

Tried to E-mail you Stéphane, but it came back to me. Please mail me at:
[email]cnnk@home.nl[/email]

Stéphane Bergeron wrote:

> Coen Naninck wrote:
>

>> Sigh,... A VERY BIG SIGH!!
>>
>> Don't you people have ANY knowledge about Fireworks Slicing? If you
>> Slice your project well enough, it doesn't create a those jittery
>> Gif's that "hold grandma's peasoup" together! It's all in the Slice job.

>
>
> It can be yes but potential code bloat is just one of the problems with
> exporting entire pages from Fireworks. The frozen tables issue is
> something to consider as well since the Web is a flexible medium.
>
> Also, just because we disagree with your methods do not mean we do not
> know how to work with Fireworks. I've used Fireworks since version 2 so
> I know it very well. There are other reasons we may choose to work the
> way we do, finer control over tables (or AP divs) being one.
>

>> Now I know that Fireworks makes a mess all too well, but don't say
>> that you don't have any control over that. People that state that
>> Fireworks by default creates a mess are absolutely right. But those
>> same folk never really tried to make decent Fireworks created HTML IMO.

>
>
> Please stop making generalizations about people you barely know. I'm not
> bashing Fireworks when I say I prefer not to export HTML from it, I'm
> just saying that I believe it is faster and more efficient to build the
> markup (tables or divs) in a dedicated Web authoring tool like
> Dreawmeaver and I stand by that opinion. I know very well that one can
> slice in a way that creates less convoluted code but even that to me is
> less efficient than creating markup in a dedicated application designed
> for that task.
>
> Fireworks cannot create flexible pages no matter how you slice. It is
> not a shortcoming of the product it's just the way it works being a
> graphics editing tool. You would have to tweak the code outside of it to
> achieve flexible layouts anyway so I prefer creating the whole code in a
> Web editor. It's faster than tweaking exported code for me.
>

>> Let me ask any one of you: have you ever really been slicing for a
>> couple of minutes and tried to come up with various results -
>> exporting the different results and comparing the lot? I take it the
>> answer to that is no. If you had, there wouldn't be such lame
>> statements i'm seeing here.

>
>
> I have been using Fireworks at least twice as long as you have. I have
> experimented with it and slicing quite a bit thank you very much. Again,
> just because we work differently than you do does not wean we're
> incompetent fools. I was also using Photoshop/Illustrator coupled with a
> separate tool for slicing, optimizing and exporting before using
> Fireworks (Ulead Smart Savor Pro if you are wondering) and I replaced
> these 3 apps with Fireworks when I discovered it. I used to hand code
> everything in HomeSite (before it became a MM product) so I can slice
> and code tables or AP divs very quickly by using a minimal slicing
> strategy that works great for me. I can work even faster in DW now. It
> may require more advanced planning but really believe it creates more
> efficient and leaner pages.
>
> Btw, you have probably heard Richie B. talk about a book he was writing
> for that would have been published by Glasshaus right? I was also
> writing for that book and my 2 chapters dealt with exactly those issues
> of slicing and exporting from Fireworks. I cover both the "normal" way
> that you use and the minimal slicing strategy I've been talking about in
> detail. APress has bought the rights for the book and it seems they will
> proceed with publishing it sometime in the future so you may want to
> take a look at it if they do. If not I'll repurpose the material on the
> Web later.
>

>> Now, I apologise beforehand if I am somewhat too enthusiastic about
>> this issue, but after using Fireworks for almost 2,5 years now I don't
>> understand that people out there that have been using this app for as
>> long as me and most likely even longer (since 2,5 years isn't THAT
>> long anyway) - are putting statements like this out there to newbies.

>
>
> We do (well at least I do, can't speak for the others) because these are
> issues that go far beyond Fireworks and are at the core of efficient Web
> development. I've been building Web sites since early 1996, first as a
> hobby and I am now building my own small business. I have created more
> than my share of crap but I have learned a lot in the process. I believe
> in lean and efficient coding startegies that are not possible to achieve
> by using only Fireworks created code. Not because of flaws in the
> product (or in my knowledge of it...) but simply because it's not the
> best tool for the job in my view. Fireworks can do some great heavy
> lifting but I prefer to have the finer control and precision that
> Dreamweaver and TopStyle provide me for creating HTML and CSS.
>

>> All in all, if you're new to Fireworks you are INDEED probably better
>> off slicing your job and in Dreamweaver making your tables. I agree to
>> that in every means, make no mistake about it. But please don't forget
>> that Fireworks is indeed capable of doing the same good job with the
>> appropriate skill.

>
>
> No it's not. Not to the level of detail and precision that *I* need
> anyway. Fireworks can't insert background images in table cells, it
> can't set individual cells to percentage sizes so they strecth, it
> cannot create or edit CSS, etc. Fireworks is the finest screen graphics
> editing tools out there for sure. It has some very useful exporting
> tools added to that but they're not refined enough for the kind of work
> I need to create. It may be perfect for your needs, not just for mine
> and those of many others.
>

>> When I started with Fireworks I didn't know about the code issue, but
>> I learnt by mistake after mistake take Fireworks is capable of doing
>> much more than most people think. If a newbie spends just a little
>> more time on Slicing then the same job can be done in 1 program and in
>> the process might learn a thing or two about Fireworks.

>
>
> That's the thing. I myself came to Fireworks with a solid coding
> background already in place so my expectations were different and still
> are it seems. I strongly believe that newbies to Web design in general
> would be better to spend some time learning about the basics of the
> craft (HTML, CSS, etc) before they start relying on the automated
> features of any graphic or Web authoring application. But many people
> prefer the instant gratification of creating sites even if they
> understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old fashinned but
> that's just wrong IMO...
>

>> Then again, these are just MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts, but
>> I really needed to say this.

>
>
> I myself am really not easily offended but others might be. I would
> strongly advise that you try to understand that, when people disagree
> with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot yet see for that.
> Try to understand them before making sweeping statements about the
> expertise of people you don't know...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Stéphane
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Coen Naninck]

Stéphane could you please E-mail me at: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
I E-mailed you but it came back.

Coen Naninck wrote:

> I never called anyone an incompetent fool Stéphane. I would have to be a
> real fool to do that. I respect anyones thoughts and if you read my
> comment right you could have read the words "Then again, these are just
> MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts.../".
>
>
> | Fireworks can't insert background images in table cells, it can't set
> individual cells to percentage sizes so they strecth, it cannot create
> or edit CSS, etc.
>
> This I know Stéphane. I couldn't make an autostrech table with Fireworks
> either. I have never disagreed with you or anyone on that. I just meant
> that when it comes down to simple navigation elements that need to have
> good Slicing, that FW is capable of doing a fine job. Maybe DW is better
> and actually i'm pretty sure it is, but then again if people say that FW
> makes a mess of the code THAT is when I say "Ok, but that depends on how
> you work with FW" and IMHO it should not be said by someone that uses FW
> for a long time. That is all I was saying then and all i'm saying now.
>
>
> | But many people prefer the instant gratification of creating sites
> even if they understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old
> fashinned but that's just wrong IMO...
>
> Again, I agree with you on this issue. But I still lack in code skills.
> However, I have never let that interfere with my goals and although I
> don't know too much about code, I know when FW makes a mess and when it
> makes .... well alright then - when it makes "less of a mess" :-)
>
>
> | ...// I would strongly advise that you try to understand that, when
> people disagree with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot yet
> see for that. Try to understand them before making sweeping statements
> about the expertise of people you don't know...
>
> Although I never mean to offend people, yes sometimes I do. I am sorry
> if this is what happened. I just feel very strong about certain issues,
> I should not offend you or others. My apologies.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Stéphane Bergeron wrote:
>

>> Coen Naninck wrote:
>>

>>> Sigh,... A VERY BIG SIGH!!
>>>
>>> Don't you people have ANY knowledge about Fireworks Slicing? If you
>>> Slice your project well enough, it doesn't create a those jittery
>>> Gif's that "hold grandma's peasoup" together! It's all in the Slice job.

>>
>>
>>
>> It can be yes but potential code bloat is just one of the problems
>> with exporting entire pages from Fireworks. The frozen tables issue is
>> something to consider as well since the Web is a flexible medium.
>>
>> Also, just because we disagree with your methods do not mean we do not
>> know how to work with Fireworks. I've used Fireworks since version 2
>> so I know it very well. There are other reasons we may choose to work
>> the way we do, finer control over tables (or AP divs) being one.
>>

>>> Now I know that Fireworks makes a mess all too well, but don't say
>>> that you don't have any control over that. People that state that
>>> Fireworks by default creates a mess are absolutely right. But those
>>> same folk never really tried to make decent Fireworks created HTML IMO.

>>
>>
>>
>> Please stop making generalizations about people you barely know. I'm
>> not bashing Fireworks when I say I prefer not to export HTML from it,
>> I'm just saying that I believe it is faster and more efficient to
>> build the markup (tables or divs) in a dedicated Web authoring tool
>> like Dreawmeaver and I stand by that opinion. I know very well that
>> one can slice in a way that creates less convoluted code but even that
>> to me is less efficient than creating markup in a dedicated
>> application designed for that task.
>>
>> Fireworks cannot create flexible pages no matter how you slice. It is
>> not a shortcoming of the product it's just the way it works being a
>> graphics editing tool. You would have to tweak the code outside of it
>> to achieve flexible layouts anyway so I prefer creating the whole code
>> in a Web editor. It's faster than tweaking exported code for me.
>>

>>> Let me ask any one of you: have you ever really been slicing for a
>>> couple of minutes and tried to come up with various results -
>>> exporting the different results and comparing the lot? I take it the
>>> answer to that is no. If you had, there wouldn't be such lame
>>> statements i'm seeing here.

>>
>>
>>
>> I have been using Fireworks at least twice as long as you have. I have
>> experimented with it and slicing quite a bit thank you very much.
>> Again, just because we work differently than you do does not wean
>> we're incompetent fools. I was also using Photoshop/Illustrator
>> coupled with a separate tool for slicing, optimizing and exporting
>> before using Fireworks (Ulead Smart Savor Pro if you are wondering)
>> and I replaced these 3 apps with Fireworks when I discovered it. I
>> used to hand code everything in HomeSite (before it became a MM
>> product) so I can slice and code tables or AP divs very quickly by
>> using a minimal slicing strategy that works great for me. I can work
>> even faster in DW now. It may require more advanced planning but
>> really believe it creates more efficient and leaner pages.
>>
>> Btw, you have probably heard Richie B. talk about a book he was
>> writing for that would have been published by Glasshaus right? I was
>> also writing for that book and my 2 chapters dealt with exactly those
>> issues of slicing and exporting from Fireworks. I cover both the
>> "normal" way that you use and the minimal slicing strategy I've been
>> talking about in detail. APress has bought the rights for the book and
>> it seems they will proceed with publishing it sometime in the future
>> so you may want to take a look at it if they do. If not I'll repurpose
>> the material on the Web later.
>>

>>> Now, I apologise beforehand if I am somewhat too enthusiastic about
>>> this issue, but after using Fireworks for almost 2,5 years now I
>>> don't understand that people out there that have been using this app
>>> for as long as me and most likely even longer (since 2,5 years isn't
>>> THAT long anyway) - are putting statements like this out there to
>>> newbies.

>>
>>
>>
>> We do (well at least I do, can't speak for the others) because these
>> are issues that go far beyond Fireworks and are at the core of
>> efficient Web development. I've been building Web sites since early
>> 1996, first as a hobby and I am now building my own small business. I
>> have created more than my share of crap but I have learned a lot in
>> the process. I believe in lean and efficient coding startegies that
>> are not possible to achieve by using only Fireworks created code. Not
>> because of flaws in the product (or in my knowledge of it...) but
>> simply because it's not the best tool for the job in my view.
>> Fireworks can do some great heavy lifting but I prefer to have the
>> finer control and precision that Dreamweaver and TopStyle provide me
>> for creating HTML and CSS.
>>

>>> All in all, if you're new to Fireworks you are INDEED probably better
>>> off slicing your job and in Dreamweaver making your tables. I agree
>>> to that in every means, make no mistake about it. But please don't
>>> forget that Fireworks is indeed capable of doing the same good job
>>> with the appropriate skill.

>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not. Not to the level of detail and precision that *I* need
>> anyway. Fireworks can't insert background images in table cells, it
>> can't set individual cells to percentage sizes so they strecth, it
>> cannot create or edit CSS, etc. Fireworks is the finest screen
>> graphics editing tools out there for sure. It has some very useful
>> exporting tools added to that but they're not refined enough for the
>> kind of work I need to create. It may be perfect for your needs, not
>> just for mine and those of many others.
>>

>>> When I started with Fireworks I didn't know about the code issue, but
>>> I learnt by mistake after mistake take Fireworks is capable of doing
>>> much more than most people think. If a newbie spends just a little
>>> more time on Slicing then the same job can be done in 1 program and
>>> in the process might learn a thing or two about Fireworks.

>>
>>
>>
>> That's the thing. I myself came to Fireworks with a solid coding
>> background already in place so my expectations were different and
>> still are it seems. I strongly believe that newbies to Web design in
>> general would be better to spend some time learning about the basics
>> of the craft (HTML, CSS, etc) before they start relying on the
>> automated features of any graphic or Web authoring application. But
>> many people prefer the instant gratification of creating sites even if
>> they understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old
>> fashinned but that's just wrong IMO...
>>

>>> Then again, these are just MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts,
>>> but I really needed to say this.

>>
>>
>>
>> I myself am really not easily offended but others might be. I would
>> strongly advise that you try to understand that, when people disagree
>> with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot yet see for that.
>> Try to understand them before making sweeping statements about the
>> expertise of people you don't know...
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Stéphane
>>

>
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

[Stéphane Bergeron]

Coen Naninck wrote:

> I never called anyone an incompetent fool Stéphane. I would have to
> be a real fool to do that. I respect anyones thoughts and if you read
> my comment right you could have read the words "Then again, these are
> just
> MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts.../".

Sorry if I overreacted Coen. I know you didn't use those words (and didn't
mean them) but some of your comments seemed to imply that you questioned the
knowledge of some long time FW users who choose not to use its export
features for a variety of reasons. I was reacting to those comments.

> This I know Stéphane. I couldn't make an autostrech table with
> Fireworks either. I have never disagreed with you or anyone on that.
> I just meant that when it comes down to simple navigation elements
> that need to have good Slicing, that FW is capable of doing a fine
> job.

For anything that can be rigid then yes, you are perfectly right.

> Maybe DW is better and actually i'm pretty sure it is, but then
> again if people say that FW makes a mess of the code THAT is when I
> say "Ok, but that depends on how you work with FW" and IMHO it should
> not be said by someone that uses FW for a long time. That is all I
> was saying then and all i'm saying now.

I did not say it made a mess, just that it didn't give me the control over
the code that I want. The HTML code that FW creates is just fine for many
applications but I choose to work differently as much out of habit as
anything else. I am personally more efficient creating a layout in a Web
authoring application, be it a visual one like DW or a code based one like
TopStyle or HomeSite. Fireworks exported code does not save me any time so I
don't use it period. That is in addition to the other reasons I mentinned in
my last post. This has nothing to do withany flaw in Fireworks itself for
me. The only feature of Fireworks that I believe is truly flawed is the
Popup Menu feature. You are well aware of my reasons for thinking that by
now so I won't go into them once again here.

As for Dreamweaver being better that's not exactly what I mean either. I
mean that I find Dreamweaver is "better suited" to the task of Web authoring
because it's what it was designed for. Dreamwqeaver MX in particular has
made great progress in accomodating designers who like to stick to Standards
and industry best practices so that's why it became my tool of choice. When
I fisrst started using Dreameaver 3 I kepts using HomeSite at least 80% of
the time. I used DW 4 even more and now I use it exclusively except for hard
core CSS editing for which I'll fire TopStyle.

All I'm saying is that I like to use the best tool for the job even if it
means running 2 or 3 apps at once to work on a site.

>> But many people prefer the instant gratification of creating sites

> even if they understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old
> fashinned but that's just wrong IMO...
>
> Again, I agree with you on this issue. But I still lack in code
> skills. However, I have never let that interfere with my goals and
> although I don't know too much about code, I know when FW makes a
> mess and when it makes .... well alright then - when it makes "less
> of a mess" :-)

:-) Good for you! If you ever have questions about code issues,
accessibility or whatever, don't hesitate to ask them. I and others will be
very happy to help you.

>> ...// I would strongly advise that you try to understand that, when

> people disagree with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot
> yet see for that. Try to understand them before making sweeping
> statements about the expertise of people you don't know...
>
> Although I never mean to offend people, yes sometimes I do. I am sorry
> if this is what happened. I just feel very strong about certain
> issues,
> I should not offend you or others. My apologies.

You didn't offend me. I rarely take comments personally, especially on the
Web where you cannot see the other person's body language. I did think that
others might have been though though so I tried to explain why some people
feel as strongly as you do that Fireworks may not be the best tool to create
the code behind Web pages.

It's a matter of work philosophy really. HTML was not created as a visual
display language. It's primary purpose is to markup the logical structure of
a Web document. CSS should be used to control the visual aspects of a page.
Working in Fireworks to create pages goes against those principles in a way
because its sole purpose is to design visually. This goes far beyond not
being able to create stretchy tables in Fireworks. We should be marking up
our Web pages meaningfuly with semantic markup and separate their structure
from their presentation. We should strive to keep them as lean as possible
by using as little presentational markup as possible. This helps the
accessibility and cross device compatibility of our pages greatly. All these
things cannot be automated as they depend on humans' best judgment and
decisions. I know that this part of my page will hold the main content so I
can id the div or table cell properly and style it with CSS accordingly . I
can deal with another part that holds navigation the same way. Fireworks has
no way to know any of that and gives me no mechanisms to deal with it
myself. Dreamweaver does in many ways.

If you want to know more about where I come from on this and learn more
about modern, efficient Web design in the process then you could take a look
at Project Seven's "Foundations" eBook as well as Jeffrey Zeldman's
"Designing with Web Standards" book. I was already working pretty much in
the way they describe but I learned quite a lot from both anyway. They may
change you whole outlook on Web design and its methodologies...

Cheers and no need to appologize. I know you're a passionate guy :-)

Stéphane

[Stéphane Bergeron]

Coen Naninck wrote:

> Tried to E-mail you Stéphane, but it came back to me. Please mail me
> at: [email]cnnk@home.nl[/email]

I received it and just replied. Can you send me what you received back? I'd
hate to have my mail bounce to people without my knowing.

Cheers!

Stéphane

[Coen Naninck]

I have read all of your words below and feel moved by it. I also
received the reply to my mail. I will answer that within a few days when
i'm done with my work here (so NO - I do not have as much time as you
might think) :-)

Let's close this thread, shall we? (don't answer!) :-D

Stéphane Bergeron wrote:

> Coen Naninck wrote:
>

>>I never called anyone an incompetent fool Stéphane. I would have to
>>be a real fool to do that. I respect anyones thoughts and if you read
>>my comment right you could have read the words "Then again, these are
>>just
>>MY thoughts. I respect others thoughts.../".

>
>
> Sorry if I overreacted Coen. I know you didn't use those words (and didn't
> mean them) but some of your comments seemed to imply that you questioned the
> knowledge of some long time FW users who choose not to use its export
> features for a variety of reasons. I was reacting to those comments.
>
>

>>This I know Stéphane. I couldn't make an autostrech table with
>>Fireworks either. I have never disagreed with you or anyone on that.
>>I just meant that when it comes down to simple navigation elements
>>that need to have good Slicing, that FW is capable of doing a fine
>>job.

>
>
> For anything that can be rigid then yes, you are perfectly right.
>
>

>>Maybe DW is better and actually i'm pretty sure it is, but then
>>again if people say that FW makes a mess of the code THAT is when I
>>say "Ok, but that depends on how you work with FW" and IMHO it should
>>not be said by someone that uses FW for a long time. That is all I
>>was saying then and all i'm saying now.

>
>
> I did not say it made a mess, just that it didn't give me the control over
> the code that I want. The HTML code that FW creates is just fine for many
> applications but I choose to work differently as much out of habit as
> anything else. I am personally more efficient creating a layout in a Web
> authoring application, be it a visual one like DW or a code based one like
> TopStyle or HomeSite. Fireworks exported code does not save me any time so I
> don't use it period. That is in addition to the other reasons I mentinned in
> my last post. This has nothing to do withany flaw in Fireworks itself for
> me. The only feature of Fireworks that I believe is truly flawed is the
> Popup Menu feature. You are well aware of my reasons for thinking that by
> now so I won't go into them once again here.
>
> As for Dreamweaver being better that's not exactly what I mean either. I
> mean that I find Dreamweaver is "better suited" to the task of Web authoring
> because it's what it was designed for. Dreamwqeaver MX in particular has
> made great progress in accomodating designers who like to stick to Standards
> and industry best practices so that's why it became my tool of choice. When
> I fisrst started using Dreameaver 3 I kepts using HomeSite at least 80% of
> the time. I used DW 4 even more and now I use it exclusively except for hard
> core CSS editing for which I'll fire TopStyle.
>
> All I'm saying is that I like to use the best tool for the job even if it
> means running 2 or 3 apps at once to work on a site.
>
>

>>>But many people prefer the instant gratification of creating sites

>>
>>even if they understand nothing of the underlying details. Call me old
>>fashinned but that's just wrong IMO...
>>
>>Again, I agree with you on this issue. But I still lack in code
>>skills. However, I have never let that interfere with my goals and
>>although I don't know too much about code, I know when FW makes a
>>mess and when it makes .... well alright then - when it makes "less
>>of a mess" :-)

>
>
> :-) Good for you! If you ever have questions about code issues,
> accessibility or whatever, don't hesitate to ask them. I and others will be
> very happy to help you.
>
>

>>>...// I would strongly advise that you try to understand that, when

>>
>>people disagree with your opinions, they may have reasons you cannot
>>yet see for that. Try to understand them before making sweeping
>>statements about the expertise of people you don't know...
>>
>>Although I never mean to offend people, yes sometimes I do. I am sorry
>>if this is what happened. I just feel very strong about certain
>>issues,
>>I should not offend you or others. My apologies.

>
>
> You didn't offend me. I rarely take comments personally, especially on the
> Web where you cannot see the other person's body language. I did think that
> others might have been though though so I tried to explain why some people
> feel as strongly as you do that Fireworks may not be the best tool to create
> the code behind Web pages.
>
> It's a matter of work philosophy really. HTML was not created as a visual
> display language. It's primary purpose is to markup the logical structure of
> a Web document. CSS should be used to control the visual aspects of a page.
> Working in Fireworks to create pages goes against those principles in a way
> because its sole purpose is to design visually. This goes far beyond not
> being able to create stretchy tables in Fireworks. We should be marking up
> our Web pages meaningfuly with semantic markup and separate their structure
> from their presentation. We should strive to keep them as lean as possible
> by using as little presentational markup as possible. This helps the
> accessibility and cross device compatibility of our pages greatly. All these
> things cannot be automated as they depend on humans' best judgment and
> decisions. I know that this part of my page will hold the main content so I
> can id the div or table cell properly and style it with CSS accordingly . I
> can deal with another part that holds navigation the same way. Fireworks has
> no way to know any of that and gives me no mechanisms to deal with it
> myself. Dreamweaver does in many ways.
>
> If you want to know more about where I come from on this and learn more
> about modern, efficient Web design in the process then you could take a look
> at Project Seven's "Foundations" eBook as well as Jeffrey Zeldman's
> "Designing with Web Standards" book. I was already working pretty much in
> the way they describe but I learned quite a lot from both anyway. They may
> change you whole outlook on Web design and its methodologies...
>
> Cheers and no need to appologize. I know you're a passionate guy :-)
>
> Stéphane
>
>

--
Good luck!

Coen Naninck
_______________________________

Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

Thank you.

E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnk@home.nl[/email]
Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]