I've just finished the basic design for a site I'm working on, and I thought I would ask what you all think while it's easy for me to edit it as it's still in image form.

http://stevesmiscellany.8bit.co.uk/

Cheers
S.A.

P.S. The current code will NOT be used in the final site, it was just wipped together to get the site up.

I always whack out a template in photoshop then code the site in Dreamweaver.
When designing it in PS, it's best to approach it with HTML in mind - think of how you are going to code it and how you will split the image up into sections to use in HTML.

Also remember that you shouldnt rely on images too much, some of us are still on 56k! :(
So when designing it, look for ways of cutting back on images used.
For example if you wanted a table with a fade from red to blue, instead of using a large image for the whole table, just use a 1-pixel wide image of the fade.
This means that if the image is used as a table background, the image will still fill the table if you change the width. But, if you change the height of the table it will screw up.
You can also do this with horizontal scaling.

With a bit of tweaking on some of the backgrounds it would be very easy to make that site work in most resolutions.

An easy solution to the logo image is just to add a fade to white on the left of the image, then set the Bg color to #FFFFFF and align the image to the right.

Allred wrote:
> The whole site is currently an image, you try stopping a 600px image
> pixelating on a 1280px wide browser...

Your site doesn't look very scaleable, is the thing. Each of your content divs (the title, the navbar and the main content) has an image in the background that is already very large but won't scale. How are you going to make the site span the full width of my page (2432 pixels) without heavy pixellation in your images? Wrap them? How big are those images to start with? It looks like an awful lot of graphics to force your users to load, as well as reducing the range of things you can do over the top (although the white on blue works well). Don't get me wrong, the site looks ace (apart from the width), but I don't think it's practical or scaleable.

sixpacker wrote:
> ive got a new site up and running
> http://danielsamuels.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

Good for you...

Coin wrote:
> Wrong, use a centered background in CSS and have the typeface as
> either a high-res image or just use

Steve's
> Miscellany

.
>
> That way, the graphic in the background won't pixelate, and you'll
> still get a high res. type.

The whole site is currently an image, you try stopping a 600px image pixelating on a 1280px wide browser...

Wrong, use a centered background in CSS and have the typeface as either a high-res image or just use

Steve's Miscellany

.

That way, the graphic in the background won't pixelate, and you'll still get a high res. type.

Hmmm... wrote:

> FWIW - 600 pixel's wide does look far too thin.

I need to explain something here I feel. Th site is just an image currently so that I can edit the details easily, but when I code it I will use CSS to make the site span the entire 100% of a browser. It is just impossible to get an image to do that and not pixelate.

Allred wrote:
> There is no reason for the site being aligned to the left, that was
> just the quickest way to code it. So, in relation to what I was
> actually asking about people don't like the banner's typeface?

Sorry - not too keen on that font - System or Smallfonts or similar.
To me it looks like the text hasn't been anti-aliased correctly.

FWIW - 600 pixel's wide does look far too thin.

There is no reason for the site being aligned to the left, that was just the quickest way to code it. So, in relation to what I was actually asking about people don't like the banner's typeface?

Maybe he's blind in one eye?