Hello, i do need some backup and feedback.
Yesterday i said to my self, that i am gonna learn to "slice" homepages.
I found some nice tutorials, and now i need some backups, after som playing around in photoshop i made this, and made it to a .html file to.
http://www.prillan.frihost.net/images/ja.html
And now i want to remove the "picture" in the midle and make a box in there so i can write whatever i want.
Can anyone please help me? | prillan wrote: |
Hello, i do need some backup and feedback.
Yesterday i said to my self, that i am gonna learn to "slice" homepages.
I found some nice tutorials, and now i need some backups, after som playing around in photoshop i made this, and made it to a .html file to.
http://www.prillan.frihost.net/images/ja.html
And now i want to remove the "picture" in the midle and make a box in there so i can write whatever i want.
Can anyone please help me? |
I looks good. You can't really tell what's on the banner though. Either make it darker or make a new one. I don't really know what you mean by picture in the middle.What's the point of making a "sliced" site? Why not just learn HTML? Web Design (not Photoshopping) is an employable skill, slicing a website in Photoshop isn't...
Nice job there prillan, I like that greenish look. Keep it up i think your site will look great.
You will usually see this:
| Code: |
<TD COLSPAN=2>
<IMG SRC="images/home_02.gif" WIDTH=94 HEIGHT=29 ALT=""></TD> |
what you need to do is take out the ">" after TD COLSPAN and the "<" before the IMG tag and come up with something like:
| Code: |
| <TD COLSPAN=2 IMG SRC="images/home_02.gif" WIDTH=94 HEIGHT=29 ALT=""></TD> |
and your content would go inbetween the tags like so:
| Code: |
| <TD COLSPAN=2 IMG SRC="images/home_02.gif" WIDTH=94 HEIGHT=29 ALT="">CONTENT HERE</TD> |
hope this helped you... you could also do it this way:
| Code: |
<TD COLSPAN=2 style="background-image:url('images/home_02.gif');">CONTENT HERE</TD>
|
Hope that helps I am super thankfull m8's!!
Im workin on the same verision but in more colours to 
| Arcath wrote: |
you could also do it this way:
| Code: | <TD COLSPAN=2 style="background-image:url('images/home_02.gif');">CONTENT HERE</TD>
|
Hope that helps |
Man that worked perfectly!! Very thankful m8, now i can complete my works!! 
Thanks Arcath. It also helped me alot. I'm redesigning my friend's site and was also having the same problems. | Zach Ownz wrote: |
| Code: | | <TD COLSPAN=2 IMG SRC="images/home_02.gif" WIDTH=94 HEIGHT=29 ALT="">CONTENT HERE</TD> |
hope this helped you... |
This will not work since there is no such attribute as IMG or SRC for TD tag.
| Arcath wrote: |
you could also do it this way:
| Code: | <TD COLSPAN=2 style="background-image:url('images/home_02.gif');">CONTENT HERE</TD>
|
Hope that helps |
That is a lot better solution but however all u need is the "background" attribute of TD tag, especially if u want it to be smaller size since
| Code: |
<TD COLSPAN=2 background="images/home_02.gif">CONTENT HERE</TD>
|
takes less place.
I wouldnt say no to styles thou, especially if u want to add more than a background to the table cell.
PS.: Its dangerous to omit the WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes, it can have undesired effect to ur table since background image doesnt stretch the cell as normal <IMG> tag in the content. So take that into account. | Marston wrote: |
| What's the point of making a "sliced" site? Why not just learn HTML? Web Design (not Photoshopping) is an employable skill, slicing a website in Photoshop isn't... |
Learning HTML and Slicing with Photoshop are different things, Photoshop is a great tool in helping with table creation. Of course sometimes u need to "retouch" those tables a little. Anyway why saying no to tools that helps in development and speeds things up? Because tables are an impractical and depricated method of creating layouts...
| Marston wrote: |
| Because tables are an impractical and depricated method of creating layouts... |
Hehe another of those that are "enlightened" i suggest u to read more about design rather than go blindly shouting "divs+css is the trend today". Just to give u a hint, there are always situations where tables are still better to use. And BTW tables are here since like forever so there is no problem to get em to work with any browser where divs+css still have various problems or dont work at all and still some things that u can do with tables is impossible to make with divs. Many things can be figured out but not all. Anyway go read about it, i am sure u will get to a lot of pros and cons for both ways. | Sappho wrote: |
| Marston wrote: | | Because tables are an impractical and depricated method of creating layouts... |
Hehe another of those that are "enlightened" i suggest u to read more about design rather than go blindly shouting "divs+css is the trend today". Just to give u a hint, there are always situations where tables are still better to use. And BTW tables are here since like forever so there is no problem to get em to work with any browser where divs+css still have various problems or dont work at all and still some things that u can do with tables is impossible to make with divs. Many things can be figured out but not all. Anyway go read about it, i am sure u will get to a lot of pros and cons for both ways. |
Yeah. Some of what you're saying is true, there's no disputing that there are pros and cons to both methods. Tables (in my humble opinion 
) are good for organising information, whereas CSS div's are good for laying out said information in the most attractive, accessible, and optimized way. | Marston wrote: |
| ... whereas CSS div's are good for laying out said information in the most attractive, accessible, and optimized way. |
Most attractive, thats the domain of the graphical design and layout of each particular webpage which has very little with the actual method used behind it.
Accessible, thats not applying to DIVs+CSS raher well since some browsers (even thou there are very few and almost not used but yet anyway some ppl use em) simply dont support CSS at an appropriate level. 
Optimized way, if u meant that u need to optimize CSS layouts for every browser differently then yes.
But i am not blind and i do see the PROs of DIV+CSS designs like:
easily customizable only through styles
easily readable, nice clean HTML
dont need to be loaded completely before they appear on screen
.
.
.
But yet i still take all the options into account and use tables as well as DIV+CSS depends on project. Sorry, but you've clearly been misinformed about CSS. CSS does not need seperate stylesheets for different browsers - a good designer will be able to make a single stylesheet look good on most, if not all browsers. Almost every current browser right now (excluding text-only browsers) supports Cascading Style Sheets, including FireFox, and Internet Explorer.
| Marston wrote: |
| Sorry, but you've clearly been misinformed about CSS. CSS does not need seperate stylesheets for different browsers - a good designer will be able to make a single stylesheet look good on most, if not all browsers. Almost every current browser right now (excluding text-only browsers) supports Cascading Style Sheets, including FireFox, and Internet Explorer. |
I've been not misinformed unfortunately couse i actually did create a few CSS+DIV designs as i wrote earlier, the problem is in CSS positioning not workin the same on all browsers which at the end totally ruins ur layout. 
Not to mention that u dont have all the cool tags like with tables and need to do tricks instead, like the valign property of table cell.
And dont forget that even if almost all browsers as u said support CSS doesnt mean they support the whole CSS or interpret the same tag the same way, as for the truth there is currently NO BROWSER that supports the whole CSS according to W3C standards which is sad.
