My question is:
If you create a template in Photoshop, slice it in ImageReady, using
the CSS output option(under the "slices" menu in "output--options"),
and then use the CSS output for a template(which will all be
absolute-postioned DIVs)--would there be any foreseeable drawbacks to
this?

Put another (simpler) way: are there drawbacks to positioning
everything on the page with absolute references alone?

My motivation for this is I am finding it tricky to make heavier,
corporate, image-templated sites in CSS alone. (without relying on the
use of some tables)

many tks in advance,
xtort

On 30 Aug 2004 22:45:01 -0700, xtort <omziff@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My question is:
> If you create a template in Photoshop, slice it in ImageReady, using
> the CSS output option(under the "slices" menu in "output--options"),
> and then use the CSS output for a template(which will all be
> absolute-postioned DIVs)--would there be any foreseeable drawbacks to
> this?
>
> Put another (simpler) way: are there drawbacks to positioning
> everything on the page with absolute references alone?

Chopping up a large image can often lead to the actual download being
larger due to how packets work. Any site based on a large image is doomed
to fail in most browsers, wherever the screen resolution, browser type and
other factors differ from the deezigner's setup.

Drawbacks with absolute positioning? It depends on what you consider a
drawback. It produces the same unportable and totally unfriendly website
fixed frames produce.

> My motivation for this is I am finding it tricky to make heavier,
> corporate, image-templated sites in CSS alone. (without relying on the
> use of some tables)

Well, over-imaged sites are cumbersome, unlikely to render well and
frankly disrespectful to the consumer. My opinion, naturally. But the user
problems are real. Long downloads, fixed sizes which are unlikely to match
the visitor's preferred setup, etc.

Yeah, you need the dough, they want the crappy website, you take the job.
I do fully understand. But know there is a better way.

For these behemoth sites which think the WWW is TV or print, give 'em what
they want. Tables, nested tables. Put revolving mailboxes up. But know
there is a better way, and always lobby for designs which don't rely on
ignoring the way the WWW actually works.

xtort wrote:
> My question is:
> If you create a template in Photoshop, slice it in ImageReady, using
> the CSS output option(under the "slices" menu in "output--options"),
> and then use the CSS output for a template(which will all be
> absolute-postioned DIVs)--would there be any foreseeable drawbacks to
> this?

1. There may be no logical order of blocks in the code.
2. There may be problems when changing the font size in the browser
(some text overlapping another).
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

omziff@yahoo.com (xtort) wrote:

>My question is:
>If you create a template in Photoshop, slice it in ImageReady, using
>the CSS output option(under the "slices" menu in "output--options"),
>and then use the CSS output for a template(which will all be
>absolute-postioned DIVs)--would there be any foreseeable drawbacks to
>this?
>
>Put another (simpler) way: are there drawbacks to positioning
>everything on the page with absolute references alone?
>
>My motivation for this is I am finding it tricky to make heavier,
>corporate, image-templated sites in CSS alone. (without relying on the
>use of some tables)

Besides what has already been said, there's the problem of maintaining
the pages. You either go back to the designer and re-export the design
all over again each time modifications are necessary, or some poor web
developer has to painstakingly push the pieces around in a code editor
and hope they still all fit together.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ๔ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

thanks a lot for the help--the main thing I was overlooking here was
that the way the www looks on the surface (like a tv or magazine) is
not how it works under the hood. The other problem is the client
demand: they have been weaned on the image-heavy template type site,
so it might be that it makes them feel as if they are getting a better
"money's worth", as the design with all of its images looks as if it
took more work somehow. So they drive a consumer demand based on
misguided aesthetics, instead of semantics and function.


best,
xtort


Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vfi8j09o4u5ncma
ppom0uvfe9q104ccjhe@4ax.com>...
> omziff@yahoo.com (xtort) wrote:
> 
>
> Besides what has already been said, there's the problem of maintaining
> the pages. You either go back to the designer and re-export the design
> all over again each time modifications are necessary, or some poor web
> developer has to painstakingly push the pieces around in a code editor
> and hope they still all fit together.