| |||||||||||
The Grumpy Editor encounters FirebugThe Grumpy Editor encounters FirebugPosted Aug 28, 2007 20:06 UTC (Tue) by frazier (subscriber, #3060)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug
This is nice article. I've had Web Developer in use before and liked it. I'll have to give Firebug a try.
I start designing web pages in Photoshop. I'll then build it largely by hand (with some ImageReady in there if needed). I find that spending more time upfront in Photoshop and less time "designing" in html/css gives better results in less time.
-Brock
(posting this in part to see what my user ID# is)
(Log in to post comments)
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 28, 2007 20:53 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Photoshop can be a time saver IF you're familiar with the limitations of HTML and CSS. I've had ex-print designers come up to me with mockups and I'd have to explain, "This flow would take days to lay out and won't work in all browsers, and this rounded liquid area over here is flat out impossible." Burns up a lot of time until they get a feel for what's reasonable.
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 28, 2007 23:24 UTC (Tue) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] Very true. I started with HTML so it is easy for me, but I know what you're talking about. I worked in an ad agency for awhile in 1999-2000 and some of the things the graphic artists would hand over were not practical to implement (this was the IE3/NS4 days so there was a lot of rendering errors and limitations) or usable on a screen since they were still composing with a print mindset.
Photoshop makes it far easier to try effects and scale things than trying to do it while coding up a page. As you mention, knowing the limitations is very helpful.
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 28, 2007 23:06 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] > (posting this in part to see what my user ID# is)
Could see it from your previous comments, "My Account"->"Comments you have posted".
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 30, 2007 4:02 UTC (Thu) by midg3t (subscriber, #30998) [Link] I wonder if it's really worth publishing user ID numbers alongside the comments. I don't understand what it gains, aside from the tiny possibility of reducing the ability to impersonate a user by using a similar name.
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 30, 2007 7:31 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] Well, I like this feature - one easily sees who's a senior subscriber and who isn't ;-) B. boards typically list user's join date. Consider this an equivalent.
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 30, 2007 14:36 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I'm not sure what it gives you other than a warm fuzzy feeling, though: for it to mean anything more you'd need to know the subscriber signup rate (should I be scared that I first thought 'first derivative of signups with respect to time'?)
The Grumpy Editor encounters Firebug Posted Aug 30, 2007 14:47 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] I get a zero-order approximation by knowing the date the LWN subscriptions began and my own subscription date and #; first order corrections might be made based on occasional Jon's statistics reports ;-)
|
|||||||||||