[watchintv]

I just don't understand, if you browse through any forum that allows you to sell templates, everybody (or most) is selling just the PSDs. I mean, why?

I know its a dumb question, it just annoys the hell out of me knowing that there is still alot of work ahead in coding it, and I hope to God nobody actually plans on using Image Ready to turn it into a website, becuase thats one of the worst ways to do it.

Ok, my rant is over...

[namenotfound]

Some people are lazy and/or don't know how to code but do know how to make pretty graphics in Photoshop. So they sell just the .psd file and have you code it yourself

[watchintv]

lol, ya thats what I figured

[namenotfound]

I think websites that uses a graphical template are dumb anyway...

You need to think about those on browsers that don't support images. Graphical templates aren't very user accessible in those cases. And also *some* people do everything with graphics, even the text. This also prevents the blind from using screen readers to read the text on your site, since there isn't any.

Target.com had a law suit a while ago for this very thing. They had a site that was totally unusable to those using a screen reader. I'm not sure what happened, weather or not they came to a settlement, but the site has since got re-designed.

[watchintv]

Ya, I cannot stand when people embed text into images, such a shame.

[Eriksrocks]

Originally Posted by namenotfound

I think websites that uses a graphical template are dumb anyway...

I'm not going to say that I think they're dumb, but I don't like them either. I prefer a nice, clean CSS layout with maybe a header or background image and that's really it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.oswd.org/files/designs/2199/andreas01/

Now if you can make a nice header image, logo, and some images in the content that's great. But when the whole layout is done with images, it really clutters it up and bogs down the page. If it's clean and it's not 100% images, I'm pretty much OK with it.

Websites done 100% in flash can sometimes get on my nerves too.

[namenotfound]

Originally Posted by Eriksrocks

I'm not going to say that I think they're dumb, but I don't like them either. I prefer a nice, clean CSS layout with maybe a header or background image and that's really it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.oswd.org/files/designs/2199/andreas01/

Now if you can make a nice header image, logo, and some images in the content that's great. But when the whole layout is done with images, it really clutters it up and bogs down the page. If it's clean and it's not 100% images, I'm pretty much OK with it.

Websites done 100% in flash can sometimes get on my nerves too.

Agreed. Here's another pure CSS site that looks pretty good:
http://eric.eschultheiss.org/

Yeah, a few images are fine. But it's when the whole site is one big image, that bothers me.

[Eriksrocks]

I like your URL squeezer. And your site.

I assume you have the Wii already? Is it cool?

This review makes it sound nice:
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=345

[namenotfound]

I really want the Wii, but I have to wait until the locals stores around here get a new shipment

What's stupid is all the stores have plenty of Wii games and accessories, but NO Wii consoles

[thecoalman]

If you set it up properly you can do sites that "look" like they have a lot of images but in fact are only a few small images repeated. Concerning putting text in a graphic if you code the image with a alt tag the visially impaired will have no problem reading it.

You can use Lynx to see your site as text only: http://lynx.isc.org/lynx2.8.6/index.html

You can check for accessibility problems here:
http://webxact.watchfire.com/

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by watchintv

Ya, I cannot stand when people embed text into images, such a shame.

That's why we have ALT tags.

[Gibble]

nm, coalman beat me to it

[watchintv]

I dont mind a little bit of text, but when people embed their main site text (paragraphs) into an image, thats what I hate.

[namenotfound]

Originally Posted by Gibble

That's why we have ALT tags.

Not everyone uses alt. Yes I know I can use it on my own site, but I can't control how other sites are coded.... a lot of sites that use graphical templates don't think to use the alt attribute. What also annoys me is when people use a tiny font for the text on images, even if I enlarge the image I still can't read the text (since tiny text on an image, when enlarged gets pixalated making it hard to read anyway)

[cnelson04]

ehh. i dunno.. you can't get the same effect with CSS, then pure photoshop. Now i'm not saying to use everything has an image, but like someone above said, just slice small images and table them, to a background table cell to expanding. It greatly cuts down on loading time. Plus sometimes image layouts look a lot nicer then CSS layouts.. for expample you can't make a 'Techy' looking website in CSS, you need to use graphics for the header and things like that.. CSS is good for clean, slick deisgns.. but thats really all. -cnelson.