New for me!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Microsoft FrontPage Help



Message

Mango Himself -> New for me!!! (5/16/2006 22:53:00)

Hello everyone

a customer asked me to create a site in Frontpage 2003. I hosted it in Yahoo and, obviously, activated FP extensions.

Now, the customer wants the site to be built in Dreamweaver. He is willing to pay for whatever rework is necessary which is fine by me.

Question is: can I just delete the current files from the site's hosting and upload the newly designed site via FTP/Dreamweaver?

In other words, will FP extensions conflict with Dreamweaver's product?

I've done sites in FP and Dreamweaver but this is a first

Thanks for the help



Tailslide -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 2:51:34)

I can't see that there'd be any conflict - I have some clients that have FP extensions on their web space and I've put my hand-coded stuff on there without any difficulty. (I stand to be corrected though!).

One thing though - FP extensions take up a fair bit of room on the server - or so I've been told - your client can get them disabled fairly easily and it might make a bit more room for them.



jaybee -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 6:21:15)

No they won't conflict. They pick up webot calls from the FP code and Dreamweaver doesn't create those.

I would remove the FPSEs though, as soon as you FTP to the host they will be corrupt anyway.



caz -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 10:11:25)

quote:

Now, the customer wants the site to be built in Dreamweaver.


Just an idle question but, why?



Mango Himself -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 11:36:26)

Hello everyone and thanks

regarding the change to Dreamweaver, the old story: someone told the customer that FP is a very basic program that "just anyone" can use. We know better!

He (the customer) approached me and said (and I quote) "I want a top of the line site". I then suggested a CSS site and he didn't have a clue.

Make a long story short, it's just like the guy who wants the latest car even if it is a piece of junk as long as he can say he has a "top of the line model".

Anyhow, the original site was $2,200 and I am charging $2,755 for new model. He agreed.

Unfortunately, ignorance is a terrible thing. Once a customer gets it into his/her head that FP is a basic,anyone-can-use-it application, they feel cheated. They begin questioning the designer's abilities. In this situation, I ended up making extra money since I will use 95% of the files.

Unfortunately, I am trying to stay away from FP (although I like it) since customers seem to feel it is the "fast food" of web design.



caz -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 11:41:35)

[sm=rotfl.gif]

I guessed as much, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... although I could be macho/retentive and say that I "hand code". ( Well I work in FP code view for html and use my hands on the keyboard to do it, don't I? [;)] )



jaybee -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 12:09:50)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caz

I "hand code".


Bespoke coding costs 10 times as much. The real Rolls Royce of web design. [;)]



MartynB -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 13:56:48)


quote:

ORIGINAL: caz

[sm=rotfl.gif]

I "hand code".


Keep it clean, I'm shy![:)].



caz -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 14:34:05)

Blimey, i am trying to keep it clean - then Jaybee has to talk dirty. [;)]



MartynB -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 14:40:28)

This is quite normal for Jaybee who majors is sausages and bananas. Lowers the tone don't you know?



curious monkey -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 15:08:18)

your comments involving Jaybee bring a whole new meaning to her title...



womble -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 15:49:07)

[sm=yikes.gif] OMG! A thread that desceded into total smut and innuendo (and before Donkey asks, that's not an Italian suppository) in under 10 posts, and not a Gopher or Mr Dpf in sight! [:D]



Mango Himself -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 18:17:02)

Ladies and gentlemen:

before we get ino deep waters (as I normally do), I would like to continue this thread focusing on Bespoke coding. What's your feeling on it?



womble -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 18:51:39)

quote:

focusing on Bespoke coding

What do you mean by bespoke coding?



Kitka -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 19:02:44)

quote:

bespoke

• adjective Brit. (of goods) made to order.


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/bespoke

In other words, custom made.



Mango Himself -> RE: New for me!!! (5/17/2006 20:13:43)

Bespoke is a word commonly used for anything that is custom made. The origin is related to tailoring. When a pice of cloth was selected and put away for a specific customer it had "been spoken for".

A tailor who makes a suit based on a person's individual measurements is referred to as bespoke. Made to measure is not the same since it uses a template, a pattern.

In web design, it applies quite well. CSS, as much as I like it, can not be really called bespoke. Why? because even when being created, a set of patterns rule.

For a site to be truly "bespoke", every section, every font, every picture must show an individuality that makes it unique. Individuality is achieved through many hours of hard work. I am only guessing that's what Jay refers to when she mentions cost.




Tailslide -> RE: New for me!!! (5/18/2006 2:54:25)

I see what you're getting at MH - although I tend to take a more simplistic view of the word Bespoke. If it's not a template and if I actually write the markup myself - then it's bespoke. I do have a bare-bones CSS stylesheet with zeroed margins/padding etc and a couple of other rules that I always apply (such as font-sizing and clearfixes) but apart from that I'd write it from scratch.

That said, if I want a two-column layout with header and footer I'm not going to try to find a new way of doing it needlessly (although I'm always on the look out for new, better techniques) - I'll use a technique that I've used before and I know works cross-browser etc.

I guess the analogy is that a tailor will use the same techniques and equipment when designing a bespoke suit even if the cloth and pattern are different.



caz -> RE: New for me!!! (5/18/2006 7:00:01)

quote:

If it's not a template and if I actually write the markup myself - then it's bespoke.


That's it - not a template and I'd add, not using the drop and drag/design/wysiwyg features of any html editor. I do layout and css from scratch for all my sites but like others I do use techniques that have worked well in the past and hunt around for something new on sites like Stu Nichols' . Though why this would cost 10 times more is beyond me.

/back to databases after this light relief.../[:@]




Nicole -> RE: New for me!!! (5/18/2006 7:41:01)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide

I do have a bare-bones CSS stylesheet with zeroed margins/padding etc.


I've often wondered whether anyone did that. There'd be a fair bit on unnecessary code but it could easily be deleted if wasn't needed, putting everything (well almost everything), into like a standard style sheet, pulled out with each new job and just altered to suit.

I mean it'd be really handy to have I think, especially while learning CSS positioning to remember what some default properties are.




jaybee -> RE: New for me!!! (5/18/2006 8:15:07)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mango Himself
I am only guessing that's what Jay refers to when she mentions cost.



Frontpage and Dreamweaver templates don't qualify. Hand coding and doing your own thing does.

quote:

Though why this would cost 10 times more is beyond me.


Because it can. [;)]

And I'll own up to the banana but the sausages are somebody else's misfortune.



Tailslide -> RE: New for me!!! (5/18/2006 8:54:21)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicole

There'd be a fair bit on unnecessary code but it could easily be deleted if wasn't needed, putting everything (well almost everything), into like a standard style sheet, pulled out with each new job and just altered to suit.


I'm only talking about the very bare minimum - I don't normally need to change anything in it from site to site. I literally just have fonts, page-shift workaround, blank links, blank headings and clearfix.



Mango Himself -> RE: New for me!!! (5/20/2006 2:04:14)

My feelings on bespoke:

even the best tailor in the world must use techniques others have invented. I f we apply this to web deisgn, all of us use something that was already invented or used.

I have seen several sites from different people but one of my favorites or favourites (depending on where you are) is LIttle Blue Plane. It's elegance, simplicity, usability make it a pleasure. That is what I aim to. Sure, I use Flash and other software, but the plane rules!!!!

Before anyone gets offended, I like a lot more sites as well. It's just that the plane is elegance, beauty, etc

Could anyone please refer me to that CSS site Zen garden or something like it?



Electric_Cowboy -> RE: New for me!!! (5/20/2006 3:28:23)

quote:

before we get into deep waters (as I normally do), I would like to continue this thread focusing on Bespoke coding. What's your feeling on it?


That's what I started out with, although since I am only making a website for myself
I am willing to take a few shortcuts.

I would much rather use the dot net framework than wade into the deep evil
waters of Perl coding.



Tailslide -> RE: New for me!!! (5/20/2006 3:29:04)

Not quite sure what to say [:)] Thank you I suppose would probably be appropriate!

Zen Garden is here: http://www.csszengarden.com/

But for some really beautiful CSS sites have a look at these:

http://cssbeauty.com/gallery/
http://cssimport.com/

There are loads of these but those are my favourites.

Probably the best exponent of CSS layouts plus beautiful design is Cameron Moll - have a look at his site and some of his work: http://www.cameronmoll.com/portfolio/



Mango Himself -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 15:28:40)

Thanks Helena,

I just say it like it is and am sure most people here agree: your site is very close to perfection.

Thanks for the links. I am currently working on a technique (nothing new) that combines Flash and CSS. I still haven't published anything with it but I'm having a lot of fun with it.

Keep it up!

Cheers



jaybee -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 17:21:03)

quote:

sure most people here agree: your site is very close to perfection.


No it's not. The little blue plane has flown off. [;)]



dpf -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 17:25:52)

and whats with a blue plane, anyway? howcan you see it againsta bluesky?



Donkey -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 17:41:15)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpf

and whats with a blue plane, anyway? howcan you see it againsta bluesky?
Good point Dan. Not very accessible either (to blue plane spotters who may be colour blind)[;)]



dpf -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 18:02:40)

quote:

Not very accessible either
exactly! where is the contrast? and what about Proptype? I checked her site and no Proptype - what is this little blue plane? single engine? duals? what?



womble -> RE: New for me!!! (5/21/2006 20:07:51)

/thinks it also may discriminate against big blue planes and indeed people who haven't got a plane [;)]

(also a tad confusing possibly (though not to us cos we were never confused [:D]) as people may think you do infact sell little blue planes and be a mite disappointed when they find you don't [sm=lol.gif])

(and I do have to agree it's damned near perfection, though if the blue was neon blue....)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375