|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/04/06 22:33
In article <Xns988FEC9C613ECikkehierbe@195.130.132.70>,
Ikke <ikke@hier.be> wrote:
> mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2006.12.04.06.09.39.372897@xmbstevensx.com:
> > The photoshop design was a picture. A web page may appear to be a
> > picture on one browser and display. However, it will actually be
> > viewed on many browsers, and different displays, under many visitor
> > preferences; so it is not, in fact, one picture at all. A good web
> > page is adaptive, the design of a picture is not. The program must be
> > able to convey the information of the page in many different
> > environments, from hand-held devices and text browsers to huge
> > wide-screen monster displays.
>
> You are correct in stating that a web page is something entirely
> different from a picture, given the variety of screens, browsers,
> settings and even the devices itself that connect to the internet.
>
> But where I work, taking all that into consideration is the task of the
> developer. A designer creates a picture of what the site *should* look
> like, to present to a customer in order to show him what the final result
> will look like.
>
> Making sure that the design can actually be viewed by any and all is our
> task. Designers do not write html, nor do they write css, all that is the
> developers task.
>
> The entire process starts as a picture, but the end result is far from a
> picture, allthough it looks like the original picture.
>
What you are missing is perhaps this: this method is letting folk
who know little about web design straightjacket those who know
better That is, if it really has to "look like the original". If
"like" is loose and vague, then you run the risk of not giving
the customer what is promised.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|