I have been slicing for a long time and maybe I'm missing something here but ImageReady(IR) has slice capibilities far surpassing Photoshop; grouping slices into tables, etc. But if Adobe is going to make IR web ready why can't we nest tables? We can nest slices into tables, but we all know that only goes so far.

??? What's up Adobe? It's like half ***, from a company that has the industry locked down.

I think Photoshop should have all the capabilities of IR and and just get rid or IR. And lets nest tables.


Any comments?



J

But I must admit I don't know of any other prog. that even supports tables. Not fireworks, that's for sure.

Paint Shop Pro allows for slicing, but Photoshop just allows more options. Or it did.. I'm not sure how PSP9 works.

There is not a single program that creates usable code from slicing. But Fireworks is just as (in)effective as Photoshop and ImageReady, plus it's a more versatile vector graphics program with some very nice bitmap editing features. If Fireworks supported CMYK and Pantone, I would uninstall Photoshop. And I simply don't even bother opening ImageReady - ever.

I think you guys are missing my point. Photoshop only allows one table per image, (a whole webpage) whereas IR allows many tables per image per "group slices into table". My gripe is you can't nest tables inside of other table in IR. If you haven't gotten into slicing via IR then you haven't sliced. But that limitation is a real putz. I will be happy to send examples.

J

AFAIC, no need to send examples. Regardless, all the markup produced by any of these is garbage. Debating which one produces better or worse garbage hardly seems worthwhile.

I say that not to belittle the original question. The point is that if one is going to take a critical look at the markup produced by a particular graphic design program and ask for comments on it, the fact that the markup produced is horrendous either way simply cannot be ignored.

I disagree with you on the markup. IR seems to produce clean markup and you can eliminate all comments and other garbage easily. I use the rollovers only to get the images exported. I then delete all comments and scripts with Dreamweaver and go from there.

If you have better techniques I wish you would share. I have only been doing this for a couple of years, and am very open to any professional tips you pro's might offer.

Thanks

J

It all depends on the particular design. The most obvious signs of poor markup are the massive lines of code devoted to empty cells with chopped up little bits of image in the background, or little 1x1 pixel cells meant to...well...I have no idea what they're meant to do. Or the rampant use of transparent spacer gifs to pad content. Then you have the use of deprecated markup, such as signifying background colors as HTML attributes. Or one of my favorites: the use of background="" in a table cell. This is not only not valid markup, it has never been valid markup, by any specification, anywhere, ever.

Even if the markup came out clean, 90% of it is usually unnecessary, and it limits the designer to very fixed layouts, many of which break easily when populated with content. The trick is not to view a Web page like it's a piece of paper. Creating a layout, slicing it and reconstructing it on a Webpage is about as beneficial as creating a .pdf document of your site. Strategic cropping and good use of CSS is a much more effective, accessible, bandwidth-efficient, cross-platform method to create a site.

And I agree with all the spacers. Although I have gotten decent enough to know how to slice without all those spacers. I know exactly what you are talking about and it took practice to get clean code. You can spot them instantly in dreamweaver when you go to expanded table mode. If I get that I know I sliced wrong and that is a simple matter to clean up. If you would like I will remove all images and send you the slices. And to me this is clean code, at least I think so. And that is what makes the nested tables so important!!! I won't have slices with those spacer cells. I guess that was the whole point.

I still think that IR has the capabilities to become a really powerful slice tool. And again, you usually have to revamp some in DR.

And as far as backgrounds; I think they are necessary. Whether they be colors or images. I realize they aren't valid but then what is more important, download time, or validity. I test with many browsers on several computers and monitor sizes, including win98 and Linux.

J

And as far as backgrounds; I think they are necessary. Whether they be colors or images. I realize they aren't valid but then what is more important, download time, or validity. I test with many browsers on several computers and monitor sizes, including win98 and Linux.
Both are important, which is why using graphic design program code is so bad. Validity is very important for a number of reasons, many of which have to do with accessibility in non-standard browsing environments, but another big concern is future browser support. There's no guarantee for support with new browser releases, and that's a game of roulette I'm not willing to play with a site. But download time is another area in which sliced images show their weaknesses. Proper cropping instead of wholesale use of sliced images can often reduce download times by as much as 70-80% because you reuse portions of your image data in creative ways, utilizing CSS to make the most of it. This is something graphic programs are entirely unable to do.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's cleaning up the crap expensive programs shell out. After you've removed all the unnecessary garbage (empty cells, deprecated markup, etc.) and pulled out the comments, you're still left with invalid, inefficient markup that does a poor job of taking advantage of Web technology. Instead of creating a mess and cleaning it up, why not just make it clean the first time? Yes, it takes some time to learn how, but learn it once, and it will serve you well for a long time. Trust me - once you completely let go of PS/IR/FW markup, you'll wonder how you were ever able to use it in the first place.

And so what you are saying is that hand coding it the only answer? www.eplanethosting.com is a slice job I did. 90% IR. Oh, and the menus too. No eratic slicing here.

I'd recommend validating that. There's your reason not to trust any WYSIWYG tool.

It won't validate. just the margins don't allow it. But I did this one and it validates.. www.matchmakerdallas.com

Originally posted by jwebby
And so what you are saying is that hand coding it the only answer?
The only answer? No. The best answer? Absolutely. But only if you're willing to learn the ins-and-outs of the technology involved. It's when you've learned it that you come to see the inefficiencies and faults inherent in programs that do the coding for you. Some of these are no more than annoyances. Many of them are downright dangerous when it comes to creating sites that work universally. After you've been handcoding for awhile, you also come to appreciate the speed at which you can create markup - not only are you doing the job better, you're doing it faster, mostly because as an efficient coder, you're creating much less markup to achieve even better results.

So:
- Faster
- More cross-platform friendly
- Less expensive

Handcoding's for me!

But I'll let others pitch in here. There are a lot of handcoders who use this forum, and I know they'll join in :)

And so what you are saying is that hand coding it the only answer? www.eplanethosting.com is a slice job I did. 90% IR. Oh, and the menus too. No eratic slicing here.
No, but with JavaScript disabled (which may account for anywhere from 8-12% of your audience) the site is entirely unusable. This is a W3C Priority 1 violation, for very good reasons. But IR won't tell you that. Not to mention the entire layout could be contained in about five <div>s with only minimal CSS1 for presentational markup, and a simple DOM structure for the menus that degrades gracefully when JS is disabled.

You are a pretty cool person and I thank you for chatting with me. Yes I need to learn alot more. By the way I'm 45 years old and trying to start a new life. I have used DR for quite a few years now (since v4). I'm not a good hand coder. I rely too much on visual. A fault. But one that can be cured.

Did you check out the code for flash? It works on browsers that don't have the plugin. Loads the image instead.

Oh well I try. and again, www.matchmakerdallas.com it valid. Old but valid.

Thanks for your input.


James

And I have fought the java script thing and I finally give up. Go to macromedia.com and many other sites. No one cares anymore. Update your browser or don't surf. If it wasn't for the form in eplanet it would look right in Netscape 4, ugh. Java is here to stay. I say to heck with all that jazz. Get modern. That is my opinion. And I'm old. Hahaha.

Originally posted by jwebby
You are a pretty cool person and I thank you for chatting with me. Yes I need to learn alot more. By the way I'm 45 years old and trying to start a new life. I have used DR for quite a few years now (since v4). I'm not a good hand coder. I rely too much on visual. A fault. But one that can be cured.

Thanks for your input.


James
:) Not at all. A customer/friend of mine in his mid 60s is converting his site (a GoLive minefield) into a tableless layout. Initially he hired me to reengineer his site. I gave him a page of markup and recreated/recropped images, and he thanked me, fired me, paid me for the work and made the executive decision to tackle the rest of the layout himself. He was absolutely fascinated by the methods used on the page I sent him and decided he wanted to take on the challenge himself. He calls every once in a while with questions (I charge for actual production, but never for guidance). And I think he's going to get some excellent results. But you have to really have a drive to understand this stuff.

Did you check out the code for flash? It works on browsers that don't have the plugin. Loads the image instead.
That's a very good thing, but doesn't address the JavaScript issue, which is the biggie here!

Oh well I try. and again, www.matchmakerdallas.com it valid.
Yes, but remember validity is only the first step. As far as I'm concerned, it's the baseline for Web development. Creating valid markup is where you get started. From there, you move on to semantic validity, efficiency and methods that make your site suitable for use in alternative browsing environments. I've always said my job is done when a blind man with a cellphone can use my site.

Besides, you can't preach validity and yet tolerate stuff like this in your markup:

<tr>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="65" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="78" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="83" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="20" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="121" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="48" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="122" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="9" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="12" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="45" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="38" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="61" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="5" height="1" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
I mean, c'mon now. You're better than this!

And I have fought the java script thing and I finally give up. Go to macromedia.com and many other sites. No one cares anymore.
Really? That's too bad, because I'm having trouble updating my PDA to use your JavaScript :(

You see, it's not about old browsers. You want to know who can't use your site? Anyone behind a corporate firewall with a paranoid IT department. People with disabilities (blind/low-level vision). People who blanketly choose high security settings to be safe (usually less net-savvy people - lots of these). And back to PDAs and cellphones, fast-growing markets. Do you know who tend to use these technologies? Primarily more affluent business people, early technology adopters. What a great audience to lose by not accounting for non-JS people!

Update your browser or don't surf.
Update your site so that it works in my modern technology! C'mon now - get with the times - you can't have a site that entirely relies on JavaScript to be used anymore. ;)

I'd just like to add my small voice in support of Paul here and say that the markup produced by graphics programs is an embarrassment to the Web.

And making your site usable without JavaScript isn't primarily concerned with people using old browsers, it's about the future, lightweight browsers/portable devices, and people concerned about security.

Having a site that doesn't rely on JS for proper navigation or display isn't getting less important, it's becoming more important all the time.

It's about future-proofing your site, and writing markup that really takes advantage of what HTML and semantic markup is all about. Using that powerful framework to create something that's basically a print layout is a shame.

And how embarassing, that matchmakerdallas site does have those crummy spacer cells :blush: . Not that I'm going to fix it or anything. Hahaha

J

And I don't preach validity.


Originally posted by the_pm
:) Not at all. A customer/friend of mine in his mid 60s is converting his site (a GoLive minefield) into a tableless layout. Initially he hired me to reengineer his site. I gave him a page of markup and recreated/recropped images, and he thanked me, fired me, paid me for the work and made the executive decision to tackle the rest of the layout himself. He was absolutely fascinated by the methods used on the page I sent him and decided he wanted to take on the challenge himself. He calls every once in a while with questions (I charge for actual production, but never for guidance). And I think he's going to get some excellent results. But you have to really have a drive to understand this stuff.


That's a very good thing, but doesn't address the JavaScript issue, which is the biggie here!


Yes, but remember validity is only the first step. As far as I'm concerned, it's the baseline for Web development. Creating valid markup is where you get started. From there, you move on to semantic validity, efficiency and methods that make your site suitable for use in alternative browsing environments. I've always said my job is done when a blind man with a cellphone can use my site.

Besides, you can't preach validity and yet tolerate stuff like this in your markup:

<tr>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="65" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="78" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="83" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="20" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="121" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="48" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="21" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="122" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="9" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="12" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="45" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="38" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="61" height="1" alt="" /></td>
<td>
<img src="images/spacer.gif" width="5" height="1" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
I mean, c'mon now. You're better than this!


Really? That's too bad, because I'm having trouble updating my PDA to use your JavaScript :(

You see, it's not about old browsers. You want to know who can't use your site? Anyone behind a corporate firewall with a paranoid IT department. People with disabilities (blind/low-level vision). People who blanketly choose high security settings to be safe (usually less net-savvy people - lots of these). And back to PDAs and cellphones, fast-growing markets. Do you know who tend to use these technologies? Primarily more affluent business people, early technology adopters. What a great audience to lose by not accounting for non-JS people!


Update your site so that it works in my modern technology! C'mon now - get with the times - you can't have a site that entirely relies on JavaScript to be used anymore. ;)

I do all my slicing in Photoshop and save for web, it's a really "round-about" way of doing it but at least I know exactly what I'm doing with my image, then I just create the code from scratch.


Cheers,
Robert