Hey corinth1974,

You are wise to design a .PSD file and code from there. It took me years to adopt this approach and there is no comparing the final sites.

I've not used Site Grinder, but slicing up a Photoshop doc really isn't that difficult. .CSS can seem confusing at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's not bad.

For what it is, Dreamweaver is likely the best WYSIWYG out there. However, before you put too much effort into it, I'd strongly consider you look into a CMS. Drupal is my tool of choice, but Joomla! and WordPress certainly have their place at the table. Designing a dynamic site is a little more work than creating a static one, but they offer significantly more usability.

Blessings!

-NP

PS: If you end up going with Drupal, check out Episode 33 for some theming tips.

Sitegrinder 2 is an amazing tool. I use it to slice up and pre code my PSD files. Seriously, a fantastic tool. If you are beginning this is an amazing tool, keeps the focus on the creative side.
Its simply awesome.

Cant believe I havent heard of this before. Have to go checkout sitegrinder 2 now. Thanks

Just a word of warning...not all of the sample sites validate.

http://validator.w3.org/

-NP

I've tested site grinder and really liked it. It sets everything up for you in the html file. I'm more of a "designer" than a coder so I do the slices in photoshop to website thing. And when you design something without thinking how it will go in dreamweaver tables... it works great.

I did an arched navigation and dont know a lick of code(enough to get me in trouble.) I couldn't figure out how to slice it to work in tables in DW. Tried Site Grinder and it sliced it and put it in DW the way I wanted it!

But in the end I decided to change the navigation to something easier since I didn't purchase site grinder, they water mark everything.

The Big problem with site grinder and other sites like them are they do a very bad job with SEO.

I'm kinda new to all this and trying to figure out the best way to move from Photoshop to CSS. Didn't Matt and Rob rail against slicing up Photoshop to create sites? Is SiteGrinder slicing or doing something different?

To those using other processes, could you recommend any online tutorials, software (preferably free) or other references to help me move forward?

I think there's a chance that discussions about Photoshop slicing can get confusing because it could mean two things.

In the late 90s, many designers would design a site in Photoshop and then slice the whole thing up and reassemble it using tables-within-tables-within-tables in HTML. For many of these sites, all of the content was just bits and pieces of a bigger image smashed back together this way. Tools like Adobe GoLive reigned in making horrid HTML in this method.

Photoshop slicing using standards-based design and proper CSS means taking elements or layers of the Photoshop image, creating individual images, and then applying those to the site using CSS, leaving the HTML as a relatively pristine holder of the actual content.

A great demonstration of this can be found on Rob's MustardSeed Media video cast, episode 4.

That being said, I've never heard of SiteGrinder, so I can't answer that part of the question.

Micah

Hey nickvu2,

I'd steer clear of this. I checked out the demo awhile back and did not like the code it generated. Every designer dreams of a tool which effortlessly spits out clean .xhtml from .psd files. Sadly, I don't believe SiteGrinder fills the bill.

Truthfully, it's really not too difficult to step back and forth between Photoshop and markup by simply moving one element at a time. Basic positioning with .css is really is not that difficult and the only way I know to create standards-compliant code. If you're wanting to build decent sites, every moment spent learning how to do this will reap rewards later down the line.

Until then, you might want to check out the A List Apart article, Quick CSS Mockups with Photoshop. The author expressly states "This is not a production technique for people who want to get the most benefit out of (X)HTML...Creating structural, semantic markup...still takes time, thought, and hand-coding." However, it might get you started in the right direction.

Blessings!

-NP

Micah & NP,
So helpful; you ROCK!

Thanks =)

If you are good in Photoshop, or use Photoshop to design your pages, SiteGrinder is an ideal tool. It will let you turn your photoshop pages in accessible webpages in no time. I work as a freelance graphic designer/photographer and I use Sitegrinder a lot. I think it is absolutely fantastic. It is really easy to turn a design proposal into a working website. It does galleries, Flash slideshows and forms too. Buttons, rollovers, multi-level menu's are a snap.

The Big problem with site grinder and other sites like them are they do a very bad job with SEO.

I don't know where you got that idea from but I am pretty sure that you do not speak from your own experience. What you say is certainly not true, on the contrary. Sitegrinder sites are easy accesible and that includes searchengines too. I use Google's webmaster tools to check the relative position of the keywords I put in my (Sitegrinder generated) sites and they do very well. I do add a custom meta-description for each separate page (Sitegrinder uses just one meta-description sitewide) but that's all I have do to improve SEO ranking on top of what Sitegrinder gives me.

There seems to be a lot of prejudices around about the code that any WYSIWYG tool produces. If it is not done "by hand" it cannot be good. But actually Sitegrinders code is different from what you would expect. Everything is done with just HTML and CSS. The pages load fast and validate successfully with the W3C for XHTML 1.1 Unordered list menu's are supported, output is ordered so that if anyone wants to work in the code later on it is easy. Images use the -img tag and Graphic buttons automatically have the title attribute placed on them with the title being the layer name. You will find no tables or spacer gifs.

check out some sites I made with sitegrinder here
you can check for yourself if they validate or not.

Last but not least, their support is unrivaled. If you have a question you will find it answered in hours. If you have a problem and truble fixing it they will ask you to send them your file and help you out. Try that with a big company.

If you want to see for yourself download the demo and try it out. It takes some study to grasp the concept, but once you get it you'll wonder how you ever did without.

I also love the ease at which you can produce beautiful sites with Site Grinder. I've put up a few sites now with working widgets, slideshows, analytics, etc. However, I do want to improve the SEO. How can I do this?

Sorry for reopening this thread again but I am new here and so this thread is "new to me" -let grace abound...

My issue with this "type" of program is the whole approach. Admittedly I have never tried this app but have been a web developer for 13 years and have lived through many trends - so I've been there.

Web sites are about communicating information and ideas - not design...
{awkward pause}

Design is important but not at the detriment of the information. Design should be about an affective way to communicate the information more than about pretty graphics. Often the design can actually distract from the information and lead your eye to the skin and away from the meat.

Good web design is also about solid information architecture, strong SEO, accessibility, semantic code that validates, manageability... the list goes on... Often much more effort is put into the look and feel of a site than it's functionality. Not that less time should be spent on design/look/feel but often more needs to be spent on the rest.

So go make a great design in PS but make sure the rest is considered as well - make sure that your design is backed by great code (which is seldom if ever archived from anything besides hand coding). Make sure that you have great IA and nav and your site is manageable...

ok - I've gone past my 2 cents here - my last thought - websites are so much more than the graphical design and it should not be your only focus - applications like this make it too easy to focus strictly on design...

You can "effectively" communicate through the use of SiteGrinder. SiteGrinder allows you to get your info. out in a very clean and nicely designed way very, very quickly. Face it, people are much more likely to spend time on your site if it doesn't look cluttered or ugly. Design is not just about graphics or layout but how you communicate your message! It's the whole package. A good design does communicate well, and it draws the eye to what you want it to see. A good design should - at a glance - encapsulate the message of your site through the senses. This would include all of the design elements and text (font, wording, grammar, etc.) That's the whole point of a good design.

Your beef isn't with these types of software so much as it is with poorly designed web designs (the designer's fault).

Benefits of Site Grinder would be (if used correctly!!!!)that you can quickly create a nice look and feel to a site while still keeping good, recognizable and searchable text.

If you know code and LOVE the look and effects you can create in Photoshop, you will probably really like Site Grinder. You can create your pages in Site Grinder very quickly then place them into Dreamweaver. You can check out the coding and hand code in what you want to add, change, etc. till your hearts content, and you will have great site up in no time.

SiteGrinder actually isn't bad at all for SEO by itself. Again, you just need to know how to use the program correctly by placing proper tags and descriptions as well as some basic web building skills. You can just use SiteGrinder itself, and turn out an amazing site in no time which includes slide shows, widgets, Flash video, etc. and yes, that validates correctly.

@Sarah - you have some valid points - I was trying to stay away from an application specifically (of which I have no direct experience with) and talk more about approach.

My problem is more with people trying to make building websites really easy - at least at the development level. The management level should be designed to be easy.

The truth is - web development is hard - real web development anyway! Buying a WYSIWYG app like FrontPage and throwing up (yes pun intended) a few pages does not make you a web developer. I am not saying that that this app is the same as that but I am saying that it [can] be used in order to not have to learn the hard stuff. If you use it as a tool to make things go quicker and then hand fix the issues and really consider all of the other web dev issues then great. If not then maybe it's not the best plan.

Agreed. :)

I find it so interesting reading these blogs. You really have to consider the source when reading comments and reviews. It seems that most coders and web developers are greatly threatened by Site Grinder and are dissing it out of hand, many times without having ever used it. The designers love it, the coders hate it. Too funny! As a designer and not a coder, I'm having a tough time finding a good assessment of SiteGrinder that is unbiased. Adding to the confusion are magazine or site reviewers who seem more like pr hacks for SiteGrinder than true reviewers. It seems like a great product, and I'll give it a try. But I wish I could find a more unbiased source of info prior to pulling the trigger.

Personally, I'm not someone who has used site grider. The reason that, as a html/css coder that I don't think it can be very good is that I know how intense and in depth it is to convert a theme from photoshop to CSS. That being said I've never seen the code that sitegrider puts out. I would be SOOOO intersted if someone could post the html/css code that sitegrider spits out as an example. I think doing this would allow us all to assess and discuss it based on some facts, instead of just bias and theories.

Can anyone post some resulting code from sitegrider?

After a quick search, I found a page that used sitegrider to do the layout. Check it out

Any real CSS/HTML designer would FAINT at the way this page is built. It's HORRIBLY done. There is no nested structure of layout and EVERY div is simply positioned absolutely on the page (very bad idea). As a professional CSS designer, I can tell you, without a doubt, that anyone in the professional web community would agree that this is NOT a good design and it will not be manageable or sustainable over the years or on any kind of dynamic website.

I'll continue to look at more examples of sitegrinder (to be fair), but this first one confirms what I originally thought: SiteGrinder is not going to give professional, solid and properly developed code, even if it might output a properly laid out page at first glance.

So how do you ad meta-description for each separate page after you "grind" your PSD design? Do you need different software like dreamweaver for that? Or can you just ad any meta-descriptions within the sitegrinder environment?

This is really going to depend on what you do with the template. Do you put it in something like Joomla!, Wordpress, or drupal? Is going to be used for static pages? Each way you can use the template will have a different way to do the meta description for each page.

I'm a complete noob at website making. Ok, now that thats been established, I am going to make a website using PS and sitegrinder soon. I don't see how this can go wrong. I design a webpage on photoshop, add the hints to the layers, and then "publish" the site. Once published, I check the site and it is exactly as I designed it in photoshop with all links, forms, flash slideshows, and everything in place working as intended. This was the case with example page I designed using the trial version of sitegrinder. So whats wrong with it? Why does it matter how the CSS is written as long as sitegrinder gets the job done; the job of posting my website exactly as I wanted it?

I must admit that I had the same thought as Bushido of "if it looks the way I want it to look...and if it does what I want to do", why do I care what the back-end looks like? I'm not anywhere near ever being (or wanting to be) a developer, but I do have need to make a few good-looking websites. So far, it's only my learning curve for Photoshop that are holding me back from using SiteGrinder's demo...as I figure more out in PS, SG gets better and better for me. I've been pleased with SG so far after several days.

I *am* interested in the discussion about how to optimize SG's SEO (yeah, I had to look up what that term was initially - though I did know what it meant).

Cheers from New Zealand

PS: my posted website (yes, a shameless plug) was what led me to check out SG...I paid for a mediocre template that I now realize I could have eventually figured out how to do with SG.

I also had to look up what SEO meant haha. This is going to be the future of web designers; people like Briyin and I who don't know anything about web page building, pumping out these WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) websites... UNLESS someone who knows what they are doing leaves a comment here to tell us WHY to stay away from sitegrinder and applications like it.

Actually, that's what the web was with frontpage and dreamweaver for many, many years... If all you want is a personal web page for people to look at on their computer, then do whatever works for you. If you want to design web pages for clients, then you need to consider the fact that as time goes on, computers will be just one of many ways in which your client's customers interact with the site, and it may not even be the most popular one. Web Standards exist for specifically this reason: to provide a standard set of tools and coding standards so that websites will render well on all devices.

Tony

It (SG) ain't cheap, but it's not as expensive as some other apps. From the non-developer perspective, I'm really happy with SG so far. As I get better with PS, I'm sure I'll like it even more.

With wed stuff there is more to it than just putting what you create in PS out there. There's the markup that generates a page. Robots, like googlebot, need to be able to read your site as well as people. This is making it SEF (search engine friendly). SEO is another ball of wax that gets into how people use the web, your thing, and how to manipulate your content.

If you're looking to make websites it'd be good to team with someone who does the stuff other than photoshop. If you want to the site to be a success I wouldn't go with sitegrinder.

Andy,

Your opinion is very valid, and as a professional web designer, it's natural that you would take that stance.

However, design is not just about 'pretty graphics'. Beyond the asthetic, it has the function of communicating in a way which is as valid and as important as the content itself.

These programs will never take the place of the professional services of someone like yourself. What they will do is provide people like myself (and from going through hundreds of sites trying to find an easy to use web design program, I am not alone!) with the facility to create a nice and functional site with very limited resources, be it time or money.

I don't think that programs like Sitegrinder make you focus only on design. Having even tried coding myself, I have exact ideas as to what I want a site to look like, both in terms of design and functionality, but I am not a web designer or developer and only have so many hours every evening to do this work in my spare time. Sitegrinder gives me the luxury of being able to produce something with the Photoshop skills I already have, and that can only be a good thing :-)

I think every comment here is valid, the important question is: what is the purpose of the site you are building?

If you intend to use your site for e-commerce to which you aim to drive a lot of traffic, then it will be wiser to build a site with professional coding and a solid structure. I don't think that any business serious about the web would not have a budget for a sound website.

On the other hand, if you are creating a site for personal use, or even as an internet presence for an offline business (say like a small restaurant or boutique) then I don't think there is a problem with using apps like SiteGrinder.

What matters most is the ultimate objective and purpose of the site, and the budget and resources available to make it happen.

From the point-of-view of someone who knows nothing about coding but just wanted a webpage (without having to pay the several thousand dollars I was quoted), I have used SG on two different sites since I wrote last. The only reason my sites don't look better is because of my barely intermediate skills with PS (I use CS2 but am about to upgrade following a course I took). I've had no issues at all with SG and am continually impressed at how easy it has been to put something quite decent together quickly. As the developers have written on here, though, I have no idea how my backend looks - but, again, don't really know enough to be care. (We're I smarter with it, I could be convinced that my views would go up were my backend designed better, of course.) It works for my short-term needs - not sure about long-term. Cheers.

Designers dont be fooled. I just built a site with site grinder and had to laugh...it really was very good. Why did I laugh? Because I have hand coded long enough to know that when there is a program that works, it works. The back end if fine if not a bit simple and working with and modifying in dreamweaver is a snap. I have found you can generate better code by building a better site by strategically placing the hints and even adding hints when none are needed just to get the div tag for that layer. I admit, I go into the generated code and tinker with it but nothing major and I can get amazing results. CSS generated is simple, organized, and also easy to tinker with as well if you choose to do so. I was so impressed and paid for the pro version and built a photo gallery that would have taken me hours if not days in minutes. I probably spent 15 minutes changing some things around in Dreamweaver and it came out perfect, coded and compliant with the best of them. So as someone who is experienced in "hand coding" as well as design I have to say it rocks. I will say unless you know just a little bit about using an external editor with your SG files, updating your site is a bit more tedious but still fairly easy...even if that means just making your changes in PS and then reloading the entire site...which could suck if you a bunch of heavy files you have to re upload. Conclusion: Designers unless your trying to sell a site to AT&T or Bank of America...which I assume most of you are not...then you have found what you were looking for with Site Grinder. PS. dont give up on learning something about hand coding...just the minimal knowledge will work wonders with site grinder.

Hi cincyscott, I'm surprised by your post. I understand the appeal from someone who can't code themselves, buy how do you justify unnested divs positioned absolutely? Or the header of this site which was highlighted above, http://www.cinetone-decorbouw.nl/, (which should be a background color) comes across as a big 'ole bloated image? Blessings! -NP

The background color can be set in the SG menu box. If put out as an image it sounds like the designers mistake. I really like SG, I have used it for a couple sites and find it very helpful in cutting out all the tedious coding. That said, I am more of a designer than a coder. One thing that I did notice was that SG outputted several CSS files for a very simple website which seemed rather redundant to me. Maybe I could compile it into one css page?

"Or the header of this site which was highlighted above, http://www.cinetone-decorbouw.nl/, (which should be a background color) comes across as a big 'ole bloated image? "

If you look carefully, you'll see that the "ole bloated image" is not a solid color.
It is actually a gradient, if very subtle.

So it cannot be a background color. It could be a background image offcourse, but that would not make a difference with what it is now, a graphic.

Andreas, my mistake, I'm sorry.

What about http://www.bureaugroenadvies.nl/dankumedia/maincon...?

Blessings!

-NP

I lean slightly more toward the designer side than the coder side… but I do have coding experience as well. I have created professional websites coding by hand, and I have also used Joomla and Wordpress to create professional websites for businesses. I recently have been working doing much more in the design field and have become much more proficient with Photoshop lately. I ran across Site Grinder just the other day because I had an idea for a new style of websites to promote specific types of products (sorry for being vague here, but i really don't want anyone taking my idea)… anyways…. getting to my point. The new style of website that I am looking at creating is very simple…. to the customers eye…. yet very complex at the same time. The graphical interface will look simple yet very interactive.

For the customer it will look like one page… but on the design side of things it takes probably 20 very unique pages graphically utilizing many many small graphics per pages, all uniquely placed on the page and with effects added to each image... which would be a nightmare to code by hand… I could do it, but its honestly not worth it to me to start from scratch. So as I was looking for ideas to help me with this new idea i somehow came across Sitegrinder. I downloaded the demo version and started playing with it. Since I am now mostly working as a designer and use Photoshop for around 10 hours a day, I already had a psd ready to work with that would accomplish what i was attempting to to.

I was shocked by what happened when i built the site… it loaded very quickly (i was careful with my graphics also though) and it created this very complex interface perfectly just as i had hoped it would. It even looked just as good in IE6 (which i can't stand by the way) Yes… i am aware that the code could be cleaner… and I will spend some time doing that in good time… but at the same time I could not possibly justify spending day after day hand coding this type of project… it would not be profitable. I have tried other similar products that did not impress me in the least bit… they did look decent graphically, but they did a terrible job with the code, to the point that it was unacceptable to me. I had given up on this type of application until now. It may not be perfect, but for certain types of websites and markets I think the idea is Genies.

Good code can drive customers to a site… but good design will keep them there… and keep them coming back. They are both equally important. I work for a company who develops software and this is the order we prioritize things. #1. Customer Satisfaction, #2. Clean Code and Tasteful Graphical Interfaces. You hardcore coders can bash design all day long for all I care… but your everyday person that is viewing your website bases their first impression of your website by the graphic design… not the code they don't see. They will then begin to interact with the site which will give them a feel of how functional the site is… which will also affect their opinion of the site. Your right… its not only about design… but saying that what matters most is clean code is just as ignorant. This tool has allowed me to create something that otherwise would be unthinkable by hand in an acceptable amount of time… even by the best of them.

Would I use this to design every website i do? No…. But will I use this for MOST sites i make… YES. I'm glad people like them are innovating and finding new and creative ways to do things rather than sticking to the norm. Thats how we progress people… stepping out of the box and trying something new. I still haven't purchased Site Grinder, but I going to within the next few days…. The money I invest in it will be recuperated in a matter of weeks by how much time this is going to save me in the design stage of creating a website. This post was from someone who wanted to hear from people who have EXPERIENCE with Site Grinder… and what their thoughts are… not for you hardcore coders to get on your "good code can only be written by hand" Soapbox.

Most websites I make for my clients are: Mostly niche markets… they bring in customers from other mediums, but use their website as an added benefit to the people who use their products, or who are contemplating using them… they are not looking to drive people to their site for sales or anything of that nature. What matters to their clients is a clean intuitive interface, which Site Grinder seems to do very well from my limited experience (in a fraction of the time). For what I am currently working on… coding by hand would great and all… but overkill to be honest with you. I'm sure some of you guys work in markets where this type of program wouldn't be a feasible solution… but don't bash it just because it may not be the best solution for your industry. Give it a try and judge it from there.

Sitegrinder is either the best program ever written or someone is spamming us. Has there ever been another product which has attracted such a plethora of rave reviews from so many unregistered users?

No one is spamming here. I don't know about Sitegrinder being "the best program ever written" but the fact that it allows you to quickly and easily put out a great looking site using Photoshop alone is bound to generate a lot of positive buzz. It has problems like every other WISIWYG, but I believe the benefits outweigh any negatives you may encounter, and the negatives are easily fixed. I've used it for some sites and have loved it, but I'm not limited to it. I also love using Artisteer to generate Wordpress themes. Both of these tools are enhanced by the designers knowledge of code as well as different design techniques.

Before posting any negative or positive comments, I'd check out Sitegrinder for yourself and see if it accomplishes what you want it to. If you don't like or don't use Photoshop often, Sitegrinder is definitely not for you.

NonProfit, you bring up a good point!

I find it frustrating to click on someone's "profile" only to realize you are getting sent to a web site instead......But, at least, those web sites are web design related. And I have to say they look pretty good.

If someone is going to post 3 or 4 times on a topic, I think they should register and become a part of the community. They can have their website in the footer of their post. Personally, I place more value on posts/comments from registered users than anonymous users.

Hi there - as one of the people I suspect you're referring to for my link taking you to my website. I only provided that link because it's one of the blocks to fill out in this response form. This site doesn't make people register to reply - perhaps making us do so prior to replying might help keep the blogs cleaner? I wasn't interested in registering, to be honest, and only found this site by searching for SG reviews. I was interested, basically, in the discourse on this product prior to me potentially plunking down the several hundred dollars for SG and am not a programmer interested in the rest of this site. I appreciated all the feedback and didn't get the impression that anyone was secretly advertising for them, but was instead, providing honest feedback. At least, that's what I was doing. And I agree with Sarah in that if you're not proficient with PS, then SG is not for you. Thanks everyone and my apologies for cluttering up your board with non-programmer-type comments. :)

Briyin,

...my apologies for cluttering up your board with non-programmer-type comments. :)

Geeks & God is not a place where anyone gets to feel superior to anyone else. I truly hope everyone interested in tech feels welcome to express their ideas and share their knowledge. So thank you for your thoughts. I apologize if I have said anything to offend you.

It is good for people like me to remember that not everyone wants to be a full-time developer. Thus, it is likely a waste of time to learn how theme a site if all you desire is one or two personal sites. If that's the case, there is probably nothing wrong with SG or many of the other code generators.

However, I posted a comment in another thread regarding Artisteer, a similar type of product. They were hyping the fact that the program allowed you to create templates with no technical skills. My response was:

"If you're serious about being a designer or developer (or whatever) you WANT technical skill. That skill only comes from study which often becomes a necessity only when we come upon a situation we don't understand."

I also don't like how SG nests absolute positioned div's. But at the end of the day, if you find value with it, more power to 'ya.

Blessings!

-NP

Spam is, by definition, unsolicited. Because the comments in question are on topic for this thread, I'm going to rule them to not be spam. They may or may not be valid arguments, but they're relevant to the topic. It does seem a little lop-sided to see so many unregistered users on this thread, but those comments are pretty well balanced by responses from Rob, Matt, NonProfit and others.

There are other tools out there similar to SiteGrinder. Our church is moving toward Drupal, but we also have a couple of sites that are made with a similar service, whose name I won't mention at the moment. Those sites are 100% flash and you have to scroll down to get to the navigation on a 1024x768 screen in most of their templates. The non-technical people at our church who manage these sites rave that it's the best website tool ever.

@houseofbean, I understand your comment about links to user profiles vs sites. As mentioned, anonymous posters are allowed to put their websites here. I do the same when I post anonymously on other boards. Sometimes those links tend to be a little spammy, (not judging this thread one way or the other,) but the rel="nofollow" tag makes them useless to googlebot. I assume all users with no photo are suspect and look at my browser's status bar when I mouse over those links before clicking.

I think at this point, everyone has had their fair say on this topic, and future readers can make up their own minds from the info here. In the interest of keeping the peace, I'm going to close this topic to further comments.