You forgot....., Eh, never mind. posted by Mblue at 10:29 AM on July 7, 2007
This seems like a good resource jonson. Thanks for posting it. posted by turing_test at 10:29 AM on July 7, 2007
Are they sponsored by Adobe by chance? posted by srboisvert at 11:33 AM on July 7, 2007
Nope
Domain Name: THELEARNLIST.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net posted by doctor_negative at 11:36 AM on July 7, 2007
Filed under "kinda useful." A bunch of links that (well, personally) I don't like with a few that are new to me & I do like. posted by volk at 12:04 PM on July 7, 2007
Filed under "could be more useful." This project needs more curation, and less mindless link collection.
"Top links" with zero description or commentary as to material provided -- how is that any improvement on the results I'd get if I Googled "photoshop tutorials" myself? I'll wait to see if the site evolves past a link dump as bait for Google ads and Amazon reselling. posted by pineapple at 12:23 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
What a lame list for Webdesigners who are unable to use Google?
I second homodigitalis' first link. posted by brundlefly at 1:08 PM on July 7, 2007
I still don't get how to do layout exactly right in CSS. I end up using someone else's template most of the time. Maybe I haven't spent the time trying to learn it, but I need a show and tell, and a handholding method. These sort of webpages are nice, but they really don't help me much. posted by chlorus at 1:53 PM on July 7, 2007
I still don't get how to do layout exactly right in CSS.
CSS is a terrible nuisance due to IE. If it weren't for the need to 'hack' the code for it's (IE's) idiosyncrasies, CSS would be much more user friendly. As it is, I make a nice layout and it looks great in FF, only to break down completely into a jumble of squares and rectangles in IE. The more I find out about it, the more I understand that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Browsers and standards are both broken. posted by IronLizard at 2:29 PM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
chlorus, I'd recommend literally just playing around with CSS (in a good browser - Firefox, Opera or Safari). When I was first learning, I read DWWS, and then with the pocket reference sat down and just messed around, trying to get different layouts. Then, when you hit any trouble that seems to be some sort of bug or whatnot, hit up PIE to see if it's a browser bug or something.
Then conditional comments to sort out IE... posted by djgh at 2:45 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, why not just get CSS Vista and look at your code in two browsers at once? It is free, after all. posted by IronLizard at 3:10 PM on July 7, 2007
I still don't get how to do layout exactly right in CSS.
I don't think anyone does. That is, I don't believe there's anybody out there doing this that doesn't get surprises and headaches while doing it.
I think it's possible to master a subset of behaviors across the major browsers, and if you're doing the design yourself as well as implementing it, then it's easy to stick with what you know you can implement well. But if you're implementing arbitrary designs handed to you by someone else (that, further, may have arbitrary elements placed in them later), it seems that rendering surprises/headaches are almost inevitable.
I've been working seriously with CSS positioning for five years now, probably over hundreds of sites. I still run into troubles. Early this week I ended up struggling for hours on a layout that went bonkers once I placed some flash in divs that were previously well-behaved. When I finally decided that the pragmatic route was more likely to lead to a happy ending, it took about a half hour to set things right.
Knowing it is still very useful, and so I still recommend learning it, but some of the masochistic-slavishness that seems to follow drinking the CSS kool-aid will very likely lead to regular rendering migraines if you apply it everywhere. posted by weston at 4:21 PM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
developers, developers, developers, developers... posted by fusinski at 4:55 PM on July 7, 2007
Am I missing something? I don't see any tutorials. Rather, I see a list of links.
Would it be so difficult for the rollovers to spell out the name of the software package/language? What if you don't happen to know what AS is? posted by asfuller at 5:03 PM on July 7, 2007
It takes what it takes to make a web page. The first link in the XML section is a mish-mash of CSS and tables. Yes, tables. Not that I knock them persnally, but I know some "real" web designers who pull their own heads off at the sight of tables. Since I only make websites for fun, or rarely for profit, I still do things the easy way -- make a bunch of tables to position content, and use one external style sheet to define text attributes and color across the site. Very web 1.0. posted by Devils Rancher at 7:07 PM on July 7, 2007
I find the links tagged 'webdev' or 'webdesign' on Del.icio.us a much better arbiter of value than a site which seems to be a dump of random, might-be-helpful links. posted by Down10 at 8:02 PM on July 7, 2007
I still do things the easy way -- make a bunch of tables to position content, and use one external style sheet to define text attributes and color across the site. Very web 1.0.
I find that to be the hard way. It's so easy to do presentation in CSS rather than in HTML, and makes editing down the road very simple, not to mention an entire redesign. A couple of !important hacks for IE and you're done. posted by juiceCake at 7:12 AM on July 8, 2007
Subscribe
posted by Mblue at 10:29 AM on July 7, 2007