Turn .psd layers into web page SiteGrinder 2

[Layer01]

thats really cool.
I'm not a web developer and i'm about to start making my own site, i'll have to give this a spin.
thanks for the heads up :)

[Matt]

So besides turning text layers into html formatted real ascii text, what does this do that slices can't?

It looks like it creates simple flash galleries/animations.

The example pages look half decent, for standard mainstream websites. I might give it a try for clients who want a dirt cheap, "$500 site."

[mech7]

Automatic coding is teh suck ;) a machine does not know how to write a semantic layout, and does not know where to tile an image and where to use a css bg color :)

[ffear]

Automatic coding is teh suck ;) a machine does not know how to write a semantic layout, and does not know where to tile an image and where to use a css bg color :)

You and Matt seem to know how to build web pages.

This program is for people who know Photoshop and not HTML.

The examples look good :thumbsup:

So besides turning text layers into html formatted real ascii text, what does this do that slices can't?

Maybe a bad tutorial: slices (http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=104695) - but slices looks far more complicated and only sets up the PS stuff for further editing elsewhere (Dreamweaver.)

________

HTML looks cool but I've got allot to do besides learn web building ;)

[eunuchbot]

I find that automation leads to extremely bloated code. Even Dreamweaver if left to its own devices would create extra (unnecessary) code. If you want a website, you're better off suckering (bartering with) a friend who knows what he or she is doing. The tech is great, but it's not there yet.

[pluMmet]

I find that automation leads to extremely bloated code. Even Dreamweaver if left to its own devices would create extra (unnecessary) code. If you want a website, you're better off suckering (bartering with) a friend who knows what he or she is doing. The tech is great, but it's not there yet.

Before I wrote this post I saved the source of this thread. From the top of the page with it's flash to the bottom. It's 47k of data.

Here is one of the sitegrinder examples of an artists page: http://www.circadiaimages.com/
Each page is about 4k of data.

I don't know much about all this only that his site is smaller. Either way 47k doesn't sound to me like allot of data much less 4k.

[eunuchbot]

His site should be smaller than this forum, there's not nearly the same amount of information on the his page vs. this one. Under 5k is pretty standard for a page.

... a machine does not know how to write a semantic layout, and does not know where to tile an image and where to use a css bg color :)

It's not just the html that the browser has to load: it also has to load the css docs, the java scripts and all the images.

background:#ffffff; is 19 bytes where as a 100x100 jpg of pure white is 771 bytes. In todays day and age where even my grandmother has a cabel modem (even though she doesn't need it), its getting less and less important to optimize your code/images to the smallest possible values. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

pluMmet, you made a valid point, all I'm saying is this tech doesn't beat a good friend's help. :)

[Matt]

Ouch, I never thought about doing 10x10 color backgrounds for tables and pages instead of just body bgcolor... It would take less bytes. So strange. Well, not really but...

Anyways.

Slices are not difficult. You just move them around to 'crop' around certain images, etc. Then you specify if something is a link, a rollover, blah blah blah.

You can make a basic website with them if you know what you're doing.

The code will be bloated, usually, though.

[mech7]

This is something from the old days using spacer images tables etc... When using css it is much easier to maintain and modify your page. Html is needed to be used as a way to describe your content and CSS to style it.

background:#ffffff; is 19 bytes where as a 100x100 jpg of pure white is 771 bytes. In todays day and age where even my grandmother has a cabel modem (even though she doesn't need it), its getting less and less important to optimize your code/images to the smallest possible values. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

pluMmet, you made a valid point, all I'm saying is this tech doesn't beat a good friend's help. :)

[Szos]

Well I for one think that this program looks interesting.

I am of the "this web stuff confuses the hell out of me" camp, even though I use much more complex 3D programs on a daily basis.. the 3D/Photoshop/CAD stuff clicks. The web stuff, not so much. I will have to investigate this program more this weekend to see what it can really do. I do have to say though, that the price seems fairly high.

[zzacmann]

Turns photoshop files in webpages? Hmmm. Interesting.

Although I think I liked it a little better the first time I saw it, when it was called Imageready.

Buh-Bye.




Seriously though. I also put myself into the "knows pretty much nothing about real web design" camp, but I think I strung together a pretty decent little site using just Imageready and setting up the navigation and links in Frontpage. Photoshop already has the Flash gallery-maker built right in. Slices in Imageready is a concept that doesnt really take more than 5 minutes to wrap your brain around.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.