html page reload

[John]

I have a web page which was authored in photoshop with a css xhtml
layout.I'd like for only the text an dmain image to change when the
user selects a new page, having the background images stay the same as
to avoid reloading of the entire page. Is there a way to just replace
the main text area and main image on the page when the user clicks on
the navigation menu? Other than reloading the entire page?


Thanks

John

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

I have a web page which was authored in photoshop with a css xhtml
layout.I'd like for only the text an dmain image to change when the
user selects a new page, having the background images stay the same as
to avoid reloading of the entire page. Is there a way to just replace
the main text area and main image on the page when the user clicks on
the navigation menu? Other than reloading the entire page?


Thanks

John

Do you have a URL? I'd sure like to see what photoshop produced. Maybe
with a URL we could be of more help.

 

[John]

I'm currently building it locally, so no url is available. however I
am used to hand coding css/xhtml and the photoshop follows that flow.
divs for each of the slices I've created in photoshop. I have about
four divs currently. Logo image, image area, background image, and
background image 2. Sorry I can't provide the page right now as I
don't have ftp access. Does that help at all?

 

[dorayme]

I'm currently building it locally, so no url is available.

If a link is clicked on the page you mention, you want the viewer
to see everything the same but a few bits? So is it so important
to you that it is a new page that loads as long as it looks the
same in the respects you want it to look the same? It is usually
fine to make a number of pages similar but different. With modern
browser caching, loading tends to be fast because the images and
other tthings are already on the users computer by time he does
any clicking to go elsewhere. If you want the bits that are the
same to be more easily controlled and "in one place" on your own
development computer and on the server, consider using includes,
either server side includes or PHP includes for the common
elements.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Do you have a URL? I'd sure like to see what photoshop produced.

No you don't! ;-) It will be a huge image that has been Ginsu-knifed and
repasted as a "web page"... I put money on it!

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

No you don't! ;-) It will be a huge image that has been Ginsu-knifed and
repasted as a "web page"... I put money on it!

It's like when a natural disaster happens, you just can't help watching the
devestation on the news.

 

[Bergamot]

I
am used to hand coding css/xhtml and the photoshop follows that flow.

?
Not sure what that really means, but it seems contradictory somehow.

divs for each of the slices I've created in photoshop.

Ugh. Slice-and-splice is one of the *worst* ways to construct a web
page. The only thing worse is doing it with layout tables.

Please stop. Now.

And don't top-post. Learn a little netiquette, please.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post

BTW, if you used google groups as the searchable newsgroup archive it
was intended to be, you'd probably find your own answer in no time flat.

 

[dorayme]

Ugh. Slice-and-splice is one of the *worst* ways to construct a web
page.

You are surely right.

The only thing worse is doing it with layout tables.

You are surely wrong.

 

[dorayme]

No you don't!

Yes, she does! Like a recreational shooter motions for a new
target to be put up.

 

[John]

John wrote:

It is usually

Thank you Dorayme, that seems to answer my question.

Not sure what that really means, but it seems contradictory somehow.


Ugh. Slice-and-splice is one of the *worst* ways to construct a web
page. The only thing worse is doing it with layout tables.

Please stop. Now.

Do you have any other suggestions Berg, what's your best practice?

I'm curious to hear others opinions as to why using Photoshop and
Imageready to slice up a layout and export as an xhtml/css based
webpage is a bad idea. It seems like it's be a time saving practice
for designers who are working with graphic layouts.

 

[dorayme]

I'm curious to hear others opinions as to why using Photoshop and
Imageready to slice up a layout and export as an xhtml/css based
webpage is a bad idea. It seems like it's be a time saving practice
for designers who are working with graphic layouts.

Think about why you are bothering to slice things up? Compare the
complicated slicing and HTML that often results with simply:

<img src="myLovelyBigWebPageRasterImage.jpg" ...>

Think what the slicing is trying to achieve that the plonking of
a whole image does not achieve?

If part of the reason for the slicing is get text scalable, think
what this is going to do with the relationships you were seeing
in the image you started with. It is going to play havoc with
them basically. You will try to control this havoc, scroll bars
will appear, you will make all sorts of compromises, you will end
up wondering whether it was so useful and time saving after all.

Go ahead and try it or use a PS html export generator and post
the page and we can talk about it. Do it quickly in time saving
manner. I guarantee you will find the problems that result on
different browsers for different people with different eyesights
and capacities and different internet access speeds will make you
start wondering if there might not be a better way altogether.

You will be hearing about this better way.

 

[Bergamot]

I'm curious to hear others opinions as to why using Photoshop and
Imageready to slice up a layout and export as an xhtml/css based
webpage is a bad idea. It seems like it's be a time saving practice
for designers who are working with graphic layouts.

Using a graphics program to write your HTML/CSS for you is using the
wrong tool for the job. How can it possibly know what is the best markup
for your particular content? Even in the off chance it validates, it
will likely just end up as bloated "div soup".

It may be a time saving practice, but it does not make a better web
page. More likely it will just make a fixed design that falls apart in
browsing environments that are different from yours. It will also be
slower loading than it should be because of all the extra calls to the
server to get individual image pieces. One large graphic will load
faster, every time.

As for suggestions on how to do it better, that depends on your design,
but it will probably require you to think differently about the whole
process.

 

[Andy Dingley]

I have a web page which was authored in photoshop with a css xhtml
layout.

* We either need to see a URL to it, or else you'll have to buy us
all crystal balls and cross our palms with silver first.

* "authored in photoshop" makes me lose heart whenever I hear about
it on a web page. Do you mean you took a picture of one possible web
page on ejust one of the world's many computers, then chopped it up,
stuck it in a <table> and then forced people to look at a picture of
how it might look on someone else's computer? That's a terrible way
to do web design (as often discussed).

* I have no idea what "a css xhtml layout" means without actually
seeing it. Nor is using XHTML a good idea. Trying to use XHTML when
you still think PotatoShop is a good idea always leads to trouble.


As to the general problem of "dynamically updating one part of a page
without round-tripping the whole page through the server", then this
is a very well known problem.

Use frames (bad), use an <iframe> (not quite so bad) or use a purely
JavaScript technique like AJAX. Probably a combination of JavaScript
and <iframe> will be the most appropriate solution for you.

 

[Andy Dingley]

It seems like it's be a time saving practice
for designers who are working with graphic layouts.

It's even quicker to just hit them around the ears with a hot
clueiron.

"Web designers" do not work with graphic layouts. The web is not a
graphical medium, it's a declarative text medium that might give rise
to one of several graphical representations when combined with a
particular user's particular combination of browser and settings at
the far end. Not understanding the difference is the #1 worst problem
in web design. Nearly everything else flows from this.

If you think there's only "one true graphic representation" of your
site, then you'll be sorely disappointed when it's viewed on a browser
that can't or won't reproduce it in exactly that way.

 

[Bergamot]

Do you mean you took a picture of one possible web
page on ejust one of the world's many computers, then chopped it up,
stuck it in a <table>

Not to nitpick, but I think more recent versions of PS are capable of
taking a chopped up graphic and generating HTML of disconnected divs
instead of disconnected layout tables. Isn't progress marvelous?

Use frames (bad), use an <iframe> (not quite so bad) or use a purely
JavaScript technique like AJAX.

SSI or some other server-side process might be a better choice, but
there is no way to know what the best solution is without knowing more
about the particular "problem".

 

[Andy Dingley]

Not to nitpick, but I think more recent versions of PS are capable of
taking a chopped up graphic and generating HTML of disconnected divs
instead of disconnected layout tables. Isn't progress marvelous?

Yes, and that's actually worse. For what they're doing with it, a
<table> is more appropriate (the grid nature is a strong feature of the
<table> element, and that's essential for rendering the bitmap).