View Full Version : newbie question
I'm just making my first web page and i have this major problem;(. Basically when i insert a flash movie into my page it appears really small on the actual page, what i'm i doing wrong? I'm using dreamweaver 3 and flash 4.
Thanks
-[Raven]-
16-09-2000, 20:46
Make sure you use the exact code that Flash gives you when you publish it.
Or alternatively, code your web pages by hand. Which is, imo, much better.
harriersfan
16-09-2000, 20:59
also make sure u make the flash movie so that it has a scale of 1:1.
harriersfan
In reference to to your problem go to modify | movie in flash where you can edit you movie properties.. also as flash is a vector program you can stretch it and expand it with out any quality loss... you can do this in Dreamweaver by just pulling at the edges of the movie.
I have to disagree with Ravens view on hand coding ... I used to do that and belived that it was the best way... but it is the main reason that only in the last 6 months websites have actually started to look good.
Before that time they were done by hard coders who found it impossible to put a good design to-gether cos they spent most of their time looking at tags. The web page is a visual interface and so needs to be designed in a similar way.
In my opinion you cant design a web page without knowing code like the back of you hand...... but as soon as you reach that level you will be able to increase your speed and the attractiveness of your sites by using a visual program such as Dreamwever (expensive but the best)
Of couse this is purely my opinion.... but I challenge anyone to say that it is wrong :)
I say you are wrong. I work at a web development company and although we do take on board what our designers say most of the time we hand code in Interdev. There are loads of companies out there who prefer to do it a different way but since we are the market leaders(well in our opinion anyway) i would say we are doing it the right way. We hardly every use flash either, you can always produce better rusults with Javascript / CSS in my opinion.
http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html
I dissagree.
i dont know any coding really and I knocked this site out.
http://www.digitalgenocide.f9.co.uk
all u need is practice of dreamweavers behavours to do the more advanced functions.
also if u dont have programs like dreamweaver or fireworks, then get warez versions of em. some of u might be strongly against pirate software but imo these programs r for companies who can offord em. Thats y they r so expensive to buy. Thats y i dont give a **** about using warez versions of em.
mr_grumpy_man
18-09-2000, 14:06
It's generally acknowledged that ideally, you're competant at doing both. It's one thing to be able to use DW or FP, but you can't really be sure what tags have what properties if you've no experience of hard-coding a page in notepad :)
I agree on what's been said about Flash though. At the moment, it's pointless for anything short of little animations - better effects can be achieved using other methods.
Sorry Greap... but looking at the sites that link from you post proves my point. In order to take the web into the mainstream... (which despite what people say it is not yet) we have to make the web site a more attractive place to go.. texty pages which are 5 scrolls long are never going to convince the average person to use the web.
These are the classic unattracive sites produced by hand coding. Think of how your mum or grandad would find that interface. They are fine for the hardcore web heads but you have to think of the future and what people will expect from the web in 5 years time with the implimentation of broadband and every single range of demographic using the web... not just lads stuck in bedrooms. We cant keep the web geeky for ever.
Hand coding is still an effective tool when drawing in databases etc but soon that will die. As for using it for standard web design......... its long gone.
I think with hand coding you can create a good base, but once you have the final version, you can start using tools and stuff to give your site a better look.
HAND CODING is still very important to start with, because they can't put all the possible ideas of web-creators into wizards or templates.
This a common misconception of those who have not used visual coders extensively. They do not use wizards or templates.
They offer more control over design than hand coding ever will as you can quickly edit and change your work if you do not like it. Anyone who has not used Fireworks slice tool and seen what it can do will have trouble understanding what I am saying.
Well, I'm open to new things and I wanna try it.
What is the best to use?
Fireworks, Interdev, ....
Where can I find full free versions or ev. demo's?
You want to use notepad or real programmers use 'vi'. :)
When i helped do the code for Thomascook.com i used vi !
lol
:)
There are two different angles here... from a design point of view forget hand coding. If you want to integrate databases etc then VI is a very good option. Even then VI ,although not a visual design program, is no where near hand coding.
In summary front end..... Dreamweaver Fireworks etc. Back end... Well u can use the new Dreamweaver ulta dev or you can use VI.
I doesn’t matter what site it is though, what the customer or whoever can see should not be hand coded..... if you want to produce a site quickly, and with visual appeal.
Face it.. the reason that coders code is cos they have the artistic flair of a drunken mammoth. The artists within web companies all use visual programs to do their stuff. Unfortunately when coders try to build the front end of a site.. they fail miserably as they can't or wont get to grips with design packages and integrate them into web pages.
So Karve,
I need to make a page for a clan.
Not directly with flash, but with nice pictures and so on.
You say that I can do it with 'Dreamweaver Fireworks'.
Well, my first page I made it in notepad ;), now I wanna try it in 'Dreamweaver Fireworks'.
I'll try to get a version and try it. Then i'll see if it really is a lot easier.
Face it.. the reason that coders code is cos they have the artistic flair of a drunken mammoth. The artists within web companies all use visual programs to do their stuff. Unfortunately when coders try to build the front end of a site.. they fail miserably as they can't or wont get to grips with design packages and integrate them into web pages.
So you say that people hand-code because they can't use a graphics program? Sounds a bit strange to me.
We'll see
mr_grumpy_man
19-09-2000, 14:00
What Karve said :) Anyone who voluntarily knocks out web pages in hard code is nuts.
Apps like Dreamweaver are wysiwyg, making formatting, colour-matching extra soooo much easier. They still allow you to tweak the code yourself - but if you wanna code nested tables, then theres something wrong with you.
I see it now. I think I missed the point of the whole discussion.
But can you tell me what it was all about then?
Thanks
schmoely
19-09-2000, 14:39
Just thought I'd add my irrelevantness...
Before working at Gameplay, I was in Chelsea (which I *hated*!) with a company who did "loyalty publishing" - they kept the most loyal clients from a company interested by offering them special "things", whatever they may have been, and I joined the new Web Team.
They were, and still are, employed by the likes of British Airways and are quickly becoming used more than agency.com (which anyone who knows anything about on-line presence, will know they are *BIG*).
The process was fairly simple - take a template from one of the designers (who used Dreamweaver), and plug in all the necessary ASP code...
Sounds nice, but when they handed you a piece of HTML with 30 tables (I jest not) and asked you to arrange things such that they came out all pretty and nice and aligned in your generated HTML...
Not easy. Not easy at all.
So poor old muggins "coders" (VB is a dolly language, but v. powerful, in my opinion) had to re-template the pages in an ordered fashion, using 4/5/6 tables and thereby allowing for easy insertion of code WHEREVER we so wanted.
So - Dreamweaver is an excellent templating tool - but the code it produces is a bit duff. It *does*, however, provide you with the tagging and suchlike, so re-structuring the HTML in a way that is re-useable is painless.
Hmm
Sorry if that made no sense. I'm knackered :(
After wacthing the ball bouncing back and forth, I have to agree with Schmoel.
I have been using Visual Interdev for ages now and find that it the best program to use for my HTML pages. I am a person who likes my code neat and tidy so if in the future things need changing I know exactly where to find them. This leaves Dreamweaver out of the question because the code it produces is messy and all over the place.
Dreamweaver is good if you want to whack up a page in minutes and have it looking visually good but, if you are looking to optimize your pages and reduce the actual file size, then I don't care what program you use you will never be able to achieve the results that you would if you hand coded.
Another point is that you can get really creative with your HTML by hand coding where as you are restricted by the paramaters of a bit of software.
Fair point designers and coders need to work together on big projects with back ends. Any designer with 1/2 a brain will know this and consider when formatting pages.
Zeux is wrong.... (I should know I sit next to him) :) There are loads of programs which will tidy up code strait away.
Hand coding might give you nice neat code.. but that doesnt matter if no one looks at your unattractive un-navigable web site.
Surf over to http://www.clancaligula.co.uk and take a look at the site. This was done using VI and hand coding, no visual monkey stuff here!
Well,
Since VI is the max (according to some people), where can I find it?
And no, I can't buy it.
Sorry m8, I can not help you out on that one since the copy I got came with the MSN subcribtion.
mr_grumpy_man
19-09-2000, 17:01
I was under the impression that DW gave better code than most (than, although this is probably an unfair comparison :), Frontpage).
My opinion is: Packages such as DW are the best way for people like me, and people putting together relatively simple clan sites (for example). If you've got a databasey thang going on behind the scenes, however... then I can't comment :)
So my recommendation to people looking to start would be to start by learning html tags (and maybe a little scripting) before using a design package such as DW. That way you know more what you can do, and can design better. A lot of people who go straight into using a wysiwyg package try to us design concepts suited more to traditional printed media.
And as for Flash... don't get me started.
I agree with you 100% on this point. And yes I have got a database thing going on in my site. the reason for this is to allow the site to be dymanic and be changed with little fuss.
Everyone who uses HTML must have a good understanding of HTML. IMO this can only be done if you hand code. You can read all the books you like but if you use WYSIWYG and never get a hands on exp. you will never roll out really good pages.
I think that we can go on forever with this thread and never get anywhere because it all boils down to personal preference. :)
But I am always up for a good debate.
PS Karve is wrong for the simple fact he has been sitting next to me for far too long and I have warped his fragile little mind.
lo all
anyone using Adobe GoLive 5.0 ??
/puts on crash-hat
:)
True in the end it is down to personal prefernce.
As for the sites in my sig (cant be arsed to go back and check who posted comments on them). The Rumble Club site was created in WYSWIG (dreamwaever i think) by D33. It looks good but it is difficult to navigate and the file sizes are too big. Then vampire radio was created by the guy who runs the station and although the site looks cac it is the best radio station in the world by far, has great shows and it has a web request system. THe Badgers site i created myseelf. It looks a lil cac because i was using old contetnt andi just wanted to throw and easy to use and fast laoding interface round it. We do huge hand coded sites at work with our currnet project running at just over 2700 pages. DUe to the disclosure agreement in my contract though i cant say which site that is but i would think many of you would of at least heard of the site if not shopped or visited it.
Gwil Da Skank Of TA
19-09-2000, 22:40
well, the best way to go ( imo ) is learn the code first
knock a few pages 2gether with some tables, with some images and links
THEN
use dreamweaver / gl to design your first 'proper' webby, as using a GUI makes things easier because you dont have to keep checking your coding in IE / NS, coz its there with its WYSIWYG and preview features.......
sigh..
Oh, and dreamweaver produce messy code??? i havent noticed this my self, the only quarm with it being it leaves so many spaces in with tables!! grrrrraaaaaaaaghhhhhhhwwaaaaaaaaaah
check out me webby in sig
Just a comment from my corner of the world.
A few months back we employed a new web designer at work. The stuff he demonstrated was really good, he said he was willing to learn etc.. He lasted a week because he did everything in dreamweaver and when asked to switch he point blank refused to learn the html code. :)
Our current web designer uses homesite a bit to save typing tags in all the time. I wouldn't say her work suffers from primarily hard coding sites. The key to design is visualisation I think, if you can visual what you want and you understand html code, you can produce superior results to a do everything for you type package. And best of all (for me anyway), I get readable html I can write code around, not the rubbish that dreamweaver etc. seem to come up with.
WoooHooo, another one that believes hand coding gives you more freedom.
Another point is that once I have finished a site, I can sit back put my feet up and say to myself, That's all my hard work and none of it came from dreamweaver and it still looks good.
totally agree sjs.
I think thats a perfect resumé of this topic.
Dreamweaver can be used for visualisation, but you can better realise your thoughts if you do it yourself.
If your visualisation is good, you don't need a visualisation tool. :)
I have read the discussions on the argument for or against visual composition of web pages with tools such as Dreamweaver and Visual Interdev.
I could not believe the number of people that support visual composition for live Internet sites. When you need a quick solution in a controlled environment like a corporate Intranet, I can see no problems but in a professional environment it makes no sense to Visually Compose a page and then have a team of people validating the code after the computer has produced it.
Everybody when producing a page should work to a list of tags that they should support, that way then can ensure everybody's experience on the site is the way that the site was intended.
You cannot do this with Visual Compositional tools no matter how skilled you are with them.
I have seen the effects of Visual composed sites on top sites, classic problems like spacer.gif errors and tables that have been Visually composed badly, the people that have been doing this are professionals yet they are sloppy because they use armature tools.
Hand coding is a skill that all employers in the Internet space require and if want to be in that space you need to think in hard code. A generation of people that are skilled in dreamweaver but cannot troubleshoot the code that it produces are useless.
They are useful tools at times but they cannot ever replace coding skill. :)
mr_grumpy_man
20-09-2000, 14:14
I still don't understand how anyone can accuratly code large nested tables by hand. Unless you spend weeks doing it, testing, debugging, testing, debugging...
schmoely
20-09-2000, 14:23
Very easily, and I'm not a graphics design person. It's just a question of thinking what needs to go where and then applying the tables accordingly...
mr_grumpy_man
20-09-2000, 14:31
I can see how you would try - I've been programming for about 12 years. But to have nested tables, especially using them to build a page. I just think it seems silly to go to all that effort when you could do it far easier visually.
I'm not knocking direct-coding, it's how I started, it's how I tell everyone else to start. I just don't see the point when there are packages that will do the work for you.
schmoely
20-09-2000, 14:43
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecoz all these packages make life _harder_ for you, or at lesat I found that, when it came to doing fancy columnating with ASP...
If I wanted to do it with the HTML Dreamweaver gave me, it was OK to a certain extent - until the table exceeded the height/width it was in dreamweaver and then everything went screwy.
"Make the tables taller in dreamweaver then" I hear you say... That was fixed height and looked stoopid if the content didn't even get that far down la table
mr_grumpy_man
20-09-2000, 14:56
Aaaaah. I've just realised the problem with this whole debate. I (and some others) have been looking at the issue from the point of someone who does simple sites (maybe with some script, cgi and Java). Whereas those of you who prefer hand coding seem to be doing more with databases and true dynamically generated pages.
Sound right?
on reflection everyone should use dreamweaver cos then i will get payed more.
as for tables. In my opinion it is a very bad idea to use packages liek dreamweaver cos from the code i have looked at and worked on it loves putting in these little ******* cells which when you try to remove them to make the code cleaner mess up the table big time. It might take 3 days to make the tables but the code will be much cleaner and if you are working on a site which gets updated constantly and lots of new functionality is added all the time tehn it saves you time in the long term. There is also alot of satisfaction when you finish and you can see a kick ass apge infront of you that you lovingly crafted rater then somthing you threw together in 5 minutes in dreamweaver.
Have any of the hard coders used Ultra Dev yet?
mr_grumpy_man
20-09-2000, 15:10
My point is that we (I?) don't make sites that need updating very regularly or use databases etc. And I take offence at the suggestion that our pages are just thrown together in five minutes! :)
[Edited by mr_grumpy_man on 20-09-2000 at 03:15 PM]
lol. well if it does the job then there is nowt wrong with it but when you are working for a web development company they tend to insist that you hard code. You still get the one or two bad eggs who are lazy and use word with the HTML cleanup plugin so they can just convert the word documents the clients give us without having to do any hard coding. Those are few and far between.
mr_grumpy_man
24-09-2000, 00:36
From Computer Arts Special 'Exposure' section (page 94):
"Like most Web Monkeys we are huge Macromedia fans here at Gameplay Towers. The HTML was built in Dreamweaver, the still graphics in..." Guy (Cowan - site designer) explained.
Tee hee hee.
-[Raven]-
24-09-2000, 10:39
phwoooaah what a thread :)
But anyway, I've done all my pages in notepad. I'm at the stage where I can code tables and nested tables on the fly so quickly I don't even have to think about it logically. I just find it extremely easy. I can split pictures up in a matter of seconds in PSP, and arrange them back so I can have pictures that fit together around my site in less than a minute.
I just feel easier and more in control by coding it myself. I've used dreamweaver, yes, but this is the way I prefer it. And theoretically, anything you can do in dw, you can code as well :)
DW is good though, as it doesn't take over the job, it just makes it more efficient to do. DW is really pretty useless unless you have expert coding knowledge.
Yep in the end it is personal preference. Its good to see that we can all have such a well thought out and informative debate.
mr_grumpy_man
25-09-2000, 14:27
Indeed. We should stop before we get a bad reputation on the forum :D
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.