coreldraw...to design homepage

**shotokan99** · 03-16-2007, 10:13 PM

using coreldraw you can design,layout your homepage easily and later publish it as a web. and everything except for embeded internet objects will be converted as an image (.jpg / .gif).

now when you want to edit something, since they are all images you need to go back again to coreldraw, do modifications, and again publish as web.

is this a good practice? is this advisable?

**LadynRed** · 03-17-2007, 10:13 AM

You already asked this question on another thread - and it has been answered.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-17-2007, 12:14 PM

He did? He asked about Paintshop Pro, but not Corel DRAW.

My problem with Corel DRAW is simply that...well, it sucks. Anti-aliasing never turns out right, the interface is awkward and hasn't been changed much in the last 8 years (Corel 8 - 13 is my reference point...I've used all of them because clients have had them), professional printers can't handle CDR files, and a myriad of other reasons.

That, and the silly gecko thing in 13 is ugly.

**Tom_M** · 03-18-2007, 12:49 PM

Designing web pages in a graphics program is just plain wrong in my book. They are fine for doing mock-ups, but for design, it just isn't a good idea.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-18-2007, 01:35 PM

I know what you meant, Tom. But just so people don't get too confused, I'll clarify this.

Graphics programs are meant to draw, not code. You can sketch out a layout fine using a Photoshop or something of that nature. But when it comes to coding, that's why text editors exist. Hand coding provides the cleanest coding.

**shotokan99** · 03-18-2007, 09:28 PM

ok so guys u mean, graphics program is simply use to layout and when it comes to implementation notepad is best? in corel there's an option publish to web..dont u think guys its whole lot of shortcut that coding things from scratch?

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-19-2007, 12:30 AM

The first question is right. Graphics programs are for graphics. Text editors are for code. Shortcuts will hurt you in the long run.

**shotokan99** · 03-19-2007, 01:48 AM

ok so u mean u guys when u build websites you really code everything? as in <html><head>.....</html> ???

i guess ill adapt the experts way ;-)

**Tom_M** · 03-19-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotokan99

ok so u mean u guys when u build websites you really code everything? as in <html><head>.....</html> ???

i guess ill adapt the experts way ;-)

It is easier than you make it sound. Exporting web pages from a graphics design program will spit out very chunky, non-compliant, slow loading junk code.

You could literally make a living re-designing these junk sites for clients. There are enough of them out there.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-19-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotokan99

ok so u mean u guys when u build websites you really code everything? as in <html><head>.....</html> ???

i guess ill adapt the experts way ;-)

Sort of. As you go along, you'll be able to develop your own reusable templates and code samples for things. For example, the old version of HomeSite (pre-Macromedia buyout) started the user off with a blank HTML 4.01 Transitional template (doctype declaration, <html>, <head>, <body> tags, etc. You could twist that around to your own specs and go from there.

**LadynRed** · 03-19-2007, 03:00 PM

I agree. I use TopStyle, and it puts in all the basic elements for an HTML page using the DOCTYPE I've specified. I've got a 'library' of basic layouts that I've set up for various types and modify as needed for each design. I also have files that are CSS frameworks.