Re: What to do w/PSD (was Solution - A Perfect Web Site!)

Sathish,

I've had more fun reading this thread than in most others - right up to the
point where you became pedantic, caustic and insulting to this list.  But
enough has been said on that already.

You asked for solutions to your psd problem.  I'll ask you a question which
no one else seems to have done - why do you have to convert that image to a
web page?  What would I do if I got one? Discuss the options with the client
and recommend design alternatives.  That's my job.

I'd also use that psd as a template for that web page rather than as the web
page itself.  All text is best hard coded - even if you're designing for a
typographer's site, it is just common sense to hard code in 'standard' fonts
those elements which don't have to be graphics.  It results in faster
downloads as well as better cross-browser support - assuming your definition
of perfection allows for such things as a site working in all browsers.  The
rest of the page - the eye candy - can be cropped from the original and
converted to new images if required.

Why bother with layers on something like this?  Is it really necessary?  For
crying out loud, you're talking about being a professional web designer and
you want to eliminate Series 3 users (which my stats show are still being
used by site visitors on at least one of my clients' sites) as well as the
visually or audibly impaired?

You also stated the following:
> Proper solution here is not throwing away Netscape 6, saying
>"To hell with w3c", or ignoring graphics. Proper solution is to
>create a page with incredible graphics, conforming to w3c
>standards and which works in most of the browsers.
>As of now, 4 plus

Your answer to the "perfect" page is to rely on coding technology that
precludes a significant proportion of my customers.  If I had hired you to
build a site and this was how you proposed to do it, then I'd be after your
blood.  Your answer does not work for every situation and therefore is NOT
the perfect answer you claim it to be.  Besides, if you were even half the
professional you claim to be, then I would expect you to explain both the
benefits and costs of building a purely graphics based web site.

I  live in Australia.  Our bandwidth remains limited - especially with an
international line between here and Singapore having more patches than a
Raggedy Anne doll - so fancy eye candy is not the best way to build sites.
I agree that there are some visually wonderful sites out there, when I have
the time to wait for them to download.

People here want information as much as they want entertainment.  You want
to build the "Holy Grail" of graphic websites.  Great.  Good on you.  But
who is your customer base?  Are you ABSOLUTELY certain that they use ONLY 4+
browsers?  Can you REALLY afford to alienate those customers who can't or
who choose not to view graphics?  For a professional, these issues are as
important as converting a psd to a web page - even if you are not the site
owner and no longer doing sites for free.  If you are worth anything more
than a plugged nickel, that is.

I'm not against graphics based websites, just narrow-minded site builders
who insist on clogging up my browser with poorly designed, visually
unappealing and hopelessly thought-out crap.  You want perfection?  Sort out
your design parameters first and get the content right, then deal with a
psd.  Or remain the kind of very expensive jackass who destroys firms by
building the kind of site people run away from.

Layers are a fine workaround for many design issues.  Slicing a graphic is a
great time-saver (especially for those developers out there such as myself
who lack freehand computer drawing skills).  They are not the only answers
to your hypothetical scenario and are definitely not the best answer for
consumers who don't live in America with its much higher bandwidth and
connection speeds.

Just my $10.00/hr worth.

Sincerely,

Henry John Boleszny
  Business & Web Site Consultant
  ABN: 27 097 668 056

E-mail:          henryb(at)seaeagle.aunz.com
Phone:           (07) 5529 2661
Post:            PO Box 3667, Burleigh Town QLD 4220, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sathish C. Bramhan" <sathish(at)bramhan.net>
To: "Larry Floyd" <lwfloyd(at)mactec.com>
Cc: "HWG Techniques" <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: What to do w/PSD (was Solution - A Perfect Web Site!)


>
> Finally, a psd is converted to a jpg or a gif. Before that, it has to be
> sliced. If it's a small image its okay, I agree.
>
> Recently I did a site, which had a psd for the index page. Image size was
> 1280px x 1024px and around 76 layers. I had to slice it up add rollovers,
> swap images and pop-up windows for flash movie and quick time trailers.
>
> You cannot have a big 1280x1024 jpg with image mapping. Mostly for
> compression and quality reasons.
>
> The general practice is to slice up the entire image and compress
> individually. This gives the feel of fast downloads. I don't think there
is
> any other method.
>
> This is where the problem lies.
>
> ... SATHISH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On
> Behalf Of Larry Floyd
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> Subject: What to do w/PSD (was Solution - A Perfect Web Site!)
>
> To answer that simple question, I'd convert the proprietary psd file
format
> into a GIF or JPEG, depending on which would be best that image.  I'd save
> the psd as my master image for future use, assuming that I use Photoshop.
>
> - larry
>
> >>> "Sathish C. Bramhan" <sathish(at)bramhan.net> 02/13/01 11:41 AM >>>
> The question is very simple. What will you do when you get a graphics in
the
> form of a psd?
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA