Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Web Templates

Back in the stone ages of the mid-1990's, I developed Web pages by hand. Some of my students seem pretty impressed that I can still code a page by hand, and seem to want to do things that way as well. My advice at this point is to not do it that way. A good working knowledge of HTML can be useful in order to tweak a page, or if you are writing a script to generate a dynamic Web page. However, for static Web sites, it generally makes a lot more sense to just use a Web development tool such as Adobe Dreamweaver.

As someone who is not a graphic designer, I would have problems making attractive Web sites. If I were really planning on doing Web development, I would either find a graphic designer to work with, or plan on purchasing some sort of package. Many times, designers or design companies will sell templates to Web developers for this purchase. For example, a site like Project Seven sells some really nice designs that I would never be able to create for $60. The nice part is they are designed for use with Dreamweaver, and should cleanly plug right in to your interface.

I look back on some of my early Web work, and it was clumsy, but by purchasing the rights to something like that, I'd be able to make some really professional sites with very little effort.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As mentioned in a previous "anonymous" post of mine, fear the "Getty Extortion Letter".

Templates and packages are wonderful, but if any of the IMAGES used in the templates or packages belong to Getty, and you use them w/out proper licensing (even without knowing you are doing so), you may end up with a settlement demand letter. All web design students, hobbyists, etc., I direct you to:

KNOW any images you use on a website. That is, know the copyright status of each and every image. This is becoming a very crucial area of web development it seems. There are examples of cases where people have purchased Adobe products for web design, images included. They find out that:
1) the EULA did not provide for public website usage and,
2) The images' copyright belongs to Getty, who demands a hefty sum of money retroactively after a site has been public for a while.