Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

So who is the best blog designer?

Maldini

Maldini

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 21, 2007
216
1
Riyadh
Well i'm looking for someone to design my personal blog.. i dont want to use any of those templates.. i want something individual and fabulous :D.. i know it might cost me alot , i've heard about 1500 to 3000$...
But who is worth that money? which designer do you recommend ? maybe someone you had experience with :confused:
 
I couldn't see myself paying anyone money to design my blog. There's tons of free options and you can customize them with a little effort.
 
Only the best do liquid layouts. Also referred to as flexible. This means a layout that takes into consideration any sized browser window, content and images that adapt (reflow) to resizing of the window and fill up the entire space. Most of the crap you see out there is static template based and copies of slightly altered copies with static widths. Don't let the fancy graphics alone be the benchmark of your decision. This is because templates are often created from sliced images that are not optimized properly with solid images used as background images in tables instead of simply specifying colors. Also, slicing for a liquid layout is much trickier, but pays off because the graphics still look great at 800 pixels wide as well as 1600 pixels. Many Mac users appreciate this, of course with their monitor setups.

Liquid layouts rely on a combination of CSS and tables using percentage values and render almost identically across all major browser platforms (no to IFRAMES, yes to CSS2 and XHTML 1.0 Transitional).

So as you find templates or developers willing to create one for you, make sure you mention you want a liquid layout. This separates the junior kiddie scriptors from the professionals. This is not to say you won't find a nice static layout, but since the thread starter here hinted at 'quality', this is one way to determine the developer's skill level when it comes down to signing that check.

-jim
 
SrWebDeveloper said:
Only the best do liquid layouts. Also referred to as flexible. This means a layout that takes into consideration any sized browser window, content and images that adapt (reflow) to resizing of the window and fill up the entire space. Most of the crap you see out there is static template based and copies of slightly altered copies with static widths. Don't let the fancy graphics alone be the benchmark of your decision. This is because templates are often created from sliced images that are not optimized properly with solid images used as background images in tables instead of simply specifying colors. Also, slicing for a liquid layout is much trickier, but pays off because the graphics still look great at 800 pixels wide as well as 1600 pixels. Many Mac users appreciate this, of course with their monitor setups.

Liquid layouts rely on a combination of CSS and tables using percentage values and render almost identically across all major browser platforms (no to IFRAMES, yes to CSS2 and XHTML 1.0 Transitional).

So as you find templates or developers willing to create one for you, make sure you mention you want a liquid layout. This separates the junior kiddie scriptors from the professionals. This is not to say you won't find a nice static layout, but since the thread starter here hinted at 'quality', this is one way to determine the developer's skill level when it comes down to signing that check.

-jim
Click to expand...

To say that only pros, and the best way to create a layout is to use liquid layouts, is purely subjective and in my opinion wrong. There are pros and cons to each but one is not "better" then another. The appearance of liquid is what makes them professional, not the fact that they are. Have you ever opened a fully liquid site on a 30' display? Probably not how you anticipated it looking.

The advantages of static outlining layouts is that you can create a look that is going to be consistent across all resolution platforms. You can control widths and where certain design elements will break.

Also, tables are not what you want to use to create a layout with. Tables should be used for tabular data only. Tables were the trend, but no more.

Radiant Mark would be my suggestion. Seems like it would be right up his alley.
 
Slow down a bit, ChicoWeb!

Nowhere in my writing did I say a liquid layout was "better", what I did say was "This is not to say you won't find a nice static layout but since the thread starter here hinted at 'quality', this is one way to determine the developer's skill level when it comes down to signing that check." That refers to the subject of this thread - how to select a quality developer. You read alot more into it than I actually wrote.

In addition, I never said to use "only" tables, what I actually said was rely on a combination of CSS and tables using percentage values - and CSS means working with DIV's and the like and not to EXCLUDE tables in the design (and yes, for tabular content, I agree). You selectively quoted on that one!

And finally, of course I've seen sites on very large screens with various aspect ratios. What did you think my reference to Mac users was about? Obviously the wonderful large screens. The W3C suggests liquid layouts as a "best practice" and has guidelines to assist developers. I hinted on a few, you expanded, but the reason I replied is because all of the suggestions so far are static in design.

The whole point of my diatribe is to remind people that the W3C knows what they're talking about, professional developers know the standards, and a liquid layout is rare only because of cookie cutter static sites which are easier to create and sell.

I stand by my comments that developers who are aware of and have sites in their portfolios that demonstrate a liquid approach are a class above.

But thanks for selectively quoting and misinterpreting my comments!

-jim
 
SrWebDeveloper said:
Slow down a bit, ChicoWeb!

Nowhere in my writing did I say a liquid layout was "better", what I did say was "This is not to say you won't find a nice static layout but since the thread starter here hinted at 'quality', this is one way to determine the developer's skill level when it comes down to signing that check." That refers to the subject of this thread - how to select a quality developer. You read alot more into it than I actually wrote.

In addition, I never said to use "only" tables, what I actually said was rely on a combination of CSS and tables using percentage values - and CSS means working with DIV's and the like and not to EXCLUDE tables in the design (and yes, for tabular content, I agree). You selectively quoted on that one!

And finally, of course I've seen sites on very large screens with various aspect ratios. What did you think my reference to Mac users was about? Obviously the wonderful large screens. The W3C suggests liquid layouts as a "best practice" and has guidelines to assist developers. I hinted on a few, you expanded, but the reason I replied is because all of the suggestions so far are static in design.

The whole point of my diatribe is to remind people that the W3C knows what they're talking about, professional developers know the standards, and a liquid layout is rare only because of cookie cutter static sites which are easier to create and sell.

I stand by my comments that developers who are aware of and have sites in their portfolios that demonstrate a liquid approach are a class above.

But thanks for selectively quoting and misinterpreting my comments!

-jim
Click to expand...

You didn't go in and edit your post now did you ;)

I guess I'm just saying there is more out there then 100% table liquid design. And, I'm not a script kiddie because I create fixed width designs.
 
You didn't go in and edit your post now did you
wink.gif


I guess I'm just saying there is more out there then 100% table liquid design. And, I'm not a script kiddie because I create fixed width designs.
Click to expand...

I wrote my original reply yesterday @ 10:44am, edited it at 10:51am and then you replied at 2:36pm all the same day. Making a a public accusation when the timestamps are right in front of you demonstrates alot. Best thing for you to do is keep it on subject now, not personal.

As to your recent comment, and I'm sure everyone here is shaking their heads as to why you continually apply the wrong logic to mine, of COURSE there is more out there than 100% table liquid design. That's why I noted DIV's and such in my recent reply and also why I said liquid layouts should be a part of the portfolio along side static layout. And I didn't say anyone IS a kiddie scriptor simply because they use static layouts, but it is true a liquid layout is a skillset of kiddie scriptors (note the difference). I was hinting that a professional is distinguised by additional skill sets, including the W3C best practice liquid layout.

Okay, I've had to clarify some basic stuff because you chose to debate points contrary to what I posted. Now that you're informed of my opinions and mine of yours, move on. I'll give you the last word as a gentleman and fellow developer. This means I won't address *you* in this thread anymore and the moderators will do what's necessary if you persist.

-jim
 
I have to agree with Chico. Liquid layouts have their benefits and their faults just like any other design strategy. With a liquid layout you could have someone with a high resolution looking at your site full screen which would turn what would normally be a paragraph in a lower resolution monitor into a one lined disaster. It can be just as difficult to do a liquid layout 'right' as it is to do a static layout 'right'. A good designer will know which elements to make flexible and when.
 
Yep, werther, I agree with that, of course. The example you cited (paragraph becomes a one line absurdity on a wide display) is excellent and very common - we could spend all day talking about do's and don'ts (pitfalls) for static and liquid layouts alike.

The W3C guidelines include best practices for avoiding common pitfalls:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/G146.html

I'm simply suggesting a client can tell the pros from the amatuers based on portfolios that include both types because as noted above -> what distinguishes one candidate from another in this context is indeed how they conform to the design while avoiding those ugly pitfalls.

-jim
 
I too agree with Chico, it's all subjective.

SrWebDeveloper, you seem to imply that you know how to identify quality developers and everyone else is plain wrong for disagreeing with your subjective method of qualification. It seemed like a blunt overconfident generalization on your part. I also noticed that your own website uses a liquid layout, so are you implying you are part of the "best?" In my opinion, only the best know to avoid usage of deprecated tags/attributes in their HTML, such as <font> or bgcolor, for example. That really separates developers/designers from so-called script kiddies, of which I am happily part of (my lazy use of iWeb is top notch :eek::D)...

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html

In all seriousness, Maldini - did you select a designer yet?
 
One, not the only, factor is a quality liquid layout. I've stated this before, and actually agree with alot of the comments here! Honest, I do.

But be careful when judging liquid sites that have legacy font tags (as opposed to complete separate of style from content required in XHTML 1.0 strict) --- in my site, as in many others, content is dynamically imported via syndicated feeds and other means (through API's, AJAX using back end queries of content populated by CMS users via a WYSIWYG editor that isn't strict, etc.) so the developer cannot always control 100% of the source.

I'm sure you concede this point as a professional, yourself, right?

The other thing is, XHTML Transitional 1.0 permits those tags, and this is the most common DTD used due to syndication, portals and dynamic content generated sites today. I wish we lived in a strict world, but you'll likely even admit that 99% of the templates and layouts we're discussing would have to be rewritten as strict - coding for that DTD requires training and skill.

Where I concede a valid point made by developers here is most professional developers probably are better off with static displays until the rest of the world catches up in higher resolution monitors. The W3C guidelines however take into account dynamic font sizes as well as floating content div's so most sites that implement a liquid layout properly WILL render properly. But there is no doubt static is common due to the standard 17" 72dpi 4:3 aspect ratio monitors still being sold to the masses for the Windows world PC's.

-jim
 
Thank you guys for your helpful posts, though you were more technical but now I have an idea what i should expect, and most of the sites you posted were really nice :cool: .
I'm in contact with a couple of designers and hopefully i choose the right one :D
 
I'm sure you will find someone wonderful, no matter the technical sidebar discussion that occured here. I said all I needed to say, the rest is up to you.

Thanks for posting, Maldini. Take care! :cool:

-jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back