![[decorative element]](http://designorati.com/wp-content/themes/d3/images/nav1_topics_OFF.png){kind=small}
SiteGrinder Makes Photoshop A Web Authoring Tool
Photoshop has always been useful for creating web graphics, but with the SiteGrinder plug-in it can now create webpages or even complete websites! Media Lab, Inc. (…)
Photoshop has always been useful for creating web graphics, but with the SiteGrinder plug-in it can now create webpages or even complete websites!
Media Lab, Inc. has a nifty plug-in called SiteGrinder that boasts some impressive abilities: imagine creating your website concept in Photoshop, then with one menu item turning it all into a standards-compliant webpage. Your text is live and styled with CSS. Scrollable text areas are automatic. Rollovers are a breeze and linking is a snap! And by using Layer Comps or (if you’re stuck at Photoshop 7 or before) the included SiteGrinder Tools plug-in, you can create multiple layouts in one file and export each one as a separate webpage, already linked to one another with navigation you can easily build in the Photoshop file.
Sound good? It does to me too. I build webpage concepts in Photoshop and to be able to move from concept to reality with one click would be a revolution in my workflow. So I tried to use SiteGrinder to build a webpage from a concept I had done recently for a client. It did not go well:
Photoshop’s interface makes SiteGrinder difficult to use. SiteGrinder uses text hints on layer names in order to create functionality: if you want a text layer to remain text, name it “LayerName-text”. There are all kinds of SiteGrinder hints (the list is here) and working with them all is reminiscent of coding HTML by hand. There’s not so many that it’s difficult to master SiteGrinder, but it can make for a steep learning curve. But what is a real bother is navigating Photoshop’s Layers palette and adding hints to all the little layer names. I’m used to adding alt tags and div names, but I do it Dreamweaver where the Properties Inspector makes it easy. But Photoshop’s Layers palette is crowded by comparison, and unfortunately I think SiteGrinder did its admirable best at fitting new functions into an application that was not designed for it.
What would be ideal is if SiteGrinder had its own palette similar to Dreamweaver’s Properties Inspector, where page layout could be controlled without having to rely on the elaborate hinting scheme.
The method for creating links is counter-intuitive. Typing “http://www.target.com/” in a type layer and naming it “LayerName-link” will make a text hyperlink to that site. But in my case I had a single text layer with some related links on single lines. The method for creating links like this is to name the layer “LayerNameX-haslinks” and then creating a new type layer, “LayerNameX-links” and typing in the link, where it should go to, and then a line break, then the next link, the next destination, and so on. I had to hide it of course because it wasn’t supposed to show up in the layout. I had two original type layers with multiple links on multiple lines, but if you’re a designer who laces content with hyperlinks then it will get both tedious and complicated to create two type layers for every content block with links.
Not only that, but I couldn’t get the function to work; I encountered an error that I couldn’t quash. SiteGrinder has a very good (and thorough) dialog box that flightchecks the pages and files before you commit to file-building (see Figure 1), but I couldn’t figure how to make it work. Unfortunately that wasn’t the only error I encountered…
Creating a drop-down menu created a fatal error. Creating menus is touted as one of the easiest and most robust things to do in SiteGrinder (”…If it weren’t such a cheesy sentiment we’d be tempted to say ‘the only limit is your imagination…’ “) and I put it to the test with two type layers, one being my main navigation (horizontal across the top) and a single drop-down menu. I was looking forward to seeing the result, but when SiteGrinder hit the drop-down menu layer it had an error and Photoshop stopped responding. Force-quitting was my only recourse.
So the SiteGrinder experience turned out to be a bust for me, which is disappointing because the promise this tool holds is exceptional. MediaLab.com has a page of example websites created with SiteGrinder, and they are good sites with clean, standards-compliant code (though it puts all image references in the styles and thus chokes the HTML pages with empty div tags). Notwithstanding my personal experience with SiteGrinder and my one concept, my impressions of SiteGrinder in general are:
This is a great plug-in for smaller, less complex and more graphic webpages and websites. A lot of the examples pages I see are graphics-heavy, simpler and with fewer pages to link to. It makes sense that, being tied into Photoshop, SiteGrinder would work better for such websites.
SiteGrinder makes slices and tables unnecessary. Photoshop and ImageReady have always been able to output HTML pages that lay out sliced images, but it’s done with tables—and tables should be used for tabular data, not for layout! I haven’t output an HTML file out of ImageReady or Photoshop for a long time, preferring to build layouts properly in Dreamweaver. SiteGrinder builds standards-compliant web layouts, and that in itself is a big step beyond the slicing tools that have been around since the early days of the internet.
SiteGrinder cannot replace a good web layout tool like Dreamweaver. Even after you get your webpages output using SiteGrinder, how will you edit the pages in the future? You can always make the changes in Photoshop and recreate the pages using SiteGrinder once more, but editing the HTML pages makes a lot more sense. SiteGrinder can’t do this, which means its usefulness is only as a first step toward creating a robust website. Once it’s created the pages and support files, it’s time for Dreamweaver or GoLive to take over.
SiteGrinder is worth a try by anyone who creates webpages; however, it’s probably only for the novice users, or those who love Photoshop but don’t know a thing about true HTML authoring tools. For intermediate users, SiteGrinder may be a useful tool to bring a concept off the drawing board and onto the web. But for advanced users with complex layouts and navigations, it may not be adequate to the task.
SiteGrinder
Pros: Go directly from Photoshop to HTML. Creates compliant code.
Cons: Interface can be clumsy. Difficult to output complex layouts and navigation.
Media Lab, Inc.
800-282-5361
Mac/Windows
$129
- Photoshop World, Days 2–3: More Cool Sessions, Surprises
- Chris Perkins Of Media Lab Discusses The Merger
- SiteGrinder 2 Builds Upon Its Predecessor
- Altia PhotoProto Brings Interface Design To Photoshop Users
- Photoshop Jargon: Edge Contrast
- Photoshop Lightroom Review At Macworld.com
- Photoshop Jargon: Grabber Tool
- Fireworks CS3 Is Looking For Its Niche
- Aperture 2.0 Now Available
- Why Lightroom Is Not Included With Any CS3 Suite
I have been an extreme user of PhotoShop for many years, and I love this SiteGrinder Program.
It launched our compnay into the Website Business!
It’s Great, and Getting better with each upgrade.
Mr Schultz seems to have missed the point. SiteGrinder lets the designer sidestep the entire HTML coding business and concentrate instead on the design and usability of the site - a priority which has been eclipsed by all the tiresome special effects and unwanted animations that far too many sites offer.
How he managed to make SiteGrinder produce a fatal error is baffling. I have rarely encountered such a stable and easy to use piece of software.
I’ll give it 5 stars (in fact I think I’ll give it 6).
I have been trying out Sitegrinder too, and I beg to differ on some points you made. Indeed the Photoshop layers-pallete was never intended for designing webpages, but with a little planning and organisation it works well. Naming my layers was something I already did before starting to use Sitegrinder, and I use layer groups to keep my layers pallet clean and organised. So with Sitegrinder, I have folders in my layer pallete, named “menu level 1″ “main pages” “portfolio” etc.
Within these folders I keep subfolders with the various elements. Also, if you use the “Layer Comps” feature, which is new to Photoshop CS, you will find that adding a page which uses shared elements combined with new elements is a breeze.
Also, I found out that the support is very good and fast too. Support mails are answered within hours.
Once you get the hang of it using Sitegrinder is easy and fast.
I would rate Sitegrinder higher than the 3 stars Jeremy gave it, after trying out the demo I bought it. Off course it is not an all-in one complete webdesign package, but you can always bring your Sitegrinder site into another program you are already using, to add more complex functionality or to further edit the site. It will still save you lots of time.
Thanks for your comments, Grant, Andre & Brian.
Re: Grant’s comment about sidestepping HTML, I’m not sure a web designer can really get away with sidestepping the coding aspect of web design. Even with Dreamweaver, which is supposed to minimize the need for coding, it still seems like a necessity. SiteGrinder may be great for generating XHTML from Photoshop, but there will still be a need for editing XHTML, and that’s not SiteGrinder’s function.
Re: the fatal error, I’m not sure how it happened either. The instructions were easy enough and the menu sounded like a simple task. But it died nonetheless.
Andre: thanks for the tip about using layer groups (called “layer sets” before CS2). I think for a project like a SiteGrinder/Photoshop webpage, it is essential to organize. Quick tip: if you want to make a group or set out of more than one existing layer, select them all (CS2) or link them (CS and earlier) and go to the Layers palette flyout menu—you’ll see “New Group from Layers…” or “New Layer Set from Linked…” and you can group them that way.
I was hoping to give SiteGrinder more than three stars, because I think it’s a great idea and does something Photoshop still can’t do—create clean XHTML code instead of table layouts. My experience working with it, though, was less than stellar.
Andre puts it best—it’s not a complete web design package, but it really help you out going from concept to functionality.
DESIGNORATI
grant, i think your review suggestions are fair. there _can_ be a real learning curve for new users.
but, i’ve also found that this curve is much easier than learning and applying codes/tools in other programs.
sitegrinder helped me move directly from my photoshop page onto my website. i was absolutely not able to figure that out using dreamweaver. . .
i’ve also found that tech support was absolutely wonderful! they helped me with every single question i had.
i really really found sitegrinder powerful and helpful. i’d give it 4.5 stars.
whoops! i meant to address jeremy! (sorry)
Andrew wrote, “…i’ve also found that this curve is much easier than learning and applying codes/tools in other programs.” That’s fair enough—learning how to code in the various web design languages takes a lot of time and study, probably more so than learning to handle SiteGrinder. I do think, though, that designers who have mastered Dreamweaver and coding will ask themselves whether it’s worth it to learn SiteGrinder as well.
DESIGNORATI
Last I checked DreamWeaver didn’t import Photoshop designs.
I use SiteGrinder at the beginning of about half the projects I work on these days and DreamWeaver every day. It’s not an either/or proposition, as you imply, more like chocolate and peanut butter.
Brian T
Hello, Jeremy, from Media Lab, and thank you for reviewing SiteGrinder!
I’ll get right to the point. I think your rating of 3/5 is overly harsh and that you are giving much more weight to the few negatives you encountered than you are to the unprecedented positives and potential of SiteGrinder. It’s a bit like giving a terrific movie a poor rating because the projector broke 15 minutes into it and you left before they fixed it.
As a pretty clear example of what I see as a lack of proportionality you actually state the following in one of your posts, above:
“…learning how to code in the various web design languages takes a lot of time and study, probably more so than learning to handle SiteGrinder.”
That you would use the word “probably” in this context absolutely blew my mind. Please admit that the few hours it takes to familiarize yourself with the five or so most used SiteGrinder hints and the basic SiteGrinder workflow could never, ever, ever begin to approach the years it takes to become proficient in the myriad confusing, often buggy and constantly changing technologies that underlie the web including but not limited to XHTML, document object models, programming theory, CSS, javascript, PHP/ASP/JSP, command lines in xNIX and Windows, graphic file formats, and, lest we forget, browser incompatibilities.
SiteGrinder allows a web-naive graphic designer to ignore those technologies in the same way Illustrator allowed them to ignore Postscript programming so many years ago. SiteGrinder can produce entire, ready-to-upload websites directly from a Photoshop design. You, of all people, should understand the amount of difficulty involved in performing that feat while at the same time leaving the average user blissfully unaware of the complexity. And yet there are more expensive Photoshop plug-ins that simply produce visual gewgaws of one kind or another on a single layer.
Equally important, SiteGrinder allows web-savvy designers to rapidly develop prototypes or initial pieces of their sites, like pre-linked skeletons, backgrounds and navbars. The upcoming SiteGrinder Pro will push the envelope a lot farther still.
These are not small things, and this not-so-objective observer thinks they more than make up for the negatives you described. A large number of our quite-a-bit-more objective customers feel the same.
I thank you for allowing feedback at the end of the review so I could say my peace. I feel much better now.
Tom Summerall
President
Media Lab Inc.
Hello all,
I feel compelled to add my 2 cents although SG is my “secret weapon” for web design and I don’t want to share it :-) it’s only when these kinds of apps are adopted by a critical mass that they improve and grow. And I want SG to rule!
As such, when my clients complain that their last web designer too 8 months to build a basic site and then I build a basic one while they wait (and watch) you have to admit that SG is a bit of a revolution. Like Brian , my business has evolved with SG as our main bit of “proprietary intellegence” that has launched my business over the top.
I’d go head to head with a dreamweaver coder any day on matters of speed. give us both the same photoshop file and see whose site it up first! a complete newbie at SG will build a professional site way sooner that a complete newbie and Dreamweaver. And I use them both.
Sure, there are some things that are more efficient with an HTML editor or DW, (like creating text links, or editing your style sheet) but with the impeding release of a Pro version I doubt this will be the case for long.
Long live SiteGrinder!
photobabe
Thanks to everyone for their comments and honest feedback. :)
Re: Tom’s post, SiteGrinder’s potential is definitely impressive; however, I felt I couldn’t grade higher only because my experience using it suggested the potential was not fully realized. I’m really curious to see the SiteGrinder Pro you mentioned; perhaps I’ll have a better experience with it.
The comments we’ve seen here center around what is the best and/or proper way for a web designer to create sites. Tom suggested that a designer can ignore code altogether now, and says code is confusing and buggy. Photobabe mentions speed, which is important. And Brian pointed out that SiteGrinder fills a void left by Dreamweaver because it can’t work with designs in Photoshop.
Unfortunately it’s my opinion that code is a fact of life in the web universe, and whether you design solely in Dreamweaver, SiteGrinder or a combination of both (which I mentioned in my review) you’ll be working with the code at some point. Or, at the very least, you’ll be working with an interface designed to work with code (such as Dreamweaver’s inspectors). It may not be fast, but once the client starts making revisions and changing things (arbitrarily, as always :) ) Dreamweaver and code-revising becomes imperative.
I didn’t mean to suggest that one should work with Dreamweaver or SiteGrinder, one or the other. Each one works differently and they both have value to web designers. But it’s up to each designer to decide what tools they want to use, and SiteGrinder is not a must-have for me.
DESIGNORATI
A couple of comments regarding Jeremy’s last post. He states
“once the client starts making revisions and changing things (arbitrarily, as always :) ) DreamWeaver and code-revising becomes imperative.”
This really depends on the type of change, doesn’t it? If your site contains things like anti-aliased buttons and other graphics (which most sites designed in Photoshop will), and the client decides they want to change the background color, you aren’t in a very good position to deal with that change in DW, are you? If you just go into the code (of each page) and change the background color, now all of your buttons are anti-aliased to the wrong color. Uh-oh! Time to painstakingly reconstruct many of your graphics on every page!! Have fun with that tedious task the night before the site is due… :-(
But with SiteGrinder you just open up your Photoshop file, take 30 seconds to change the background color, and click the build button. Now all of your background-color-dependent graphics have been rebuilt for you. It’s no coincidence that we frequently receive urgently worded orders that must be filled quickly for users finding themselves uncomfortably close to their deadlines. :-)
SiteGrinder is particularly good with the kinds of changes that represent hours or days of boring, intricate work with other tools. That’s really emblematic of why we bothered to create it in the first place.
Most of our products represent our own personal frustrations with the sometimes horribly awkward design software status quo, which make them must-haves for our customers who share those frustrations.
Tom
Hi, Tom.
You said:
Based on Jeremy’s review and the commentary since, SiteGrinder sounds like an interesting Photoshop add-in that does bridge the gap between clunky Photoshop-generated HTML and dedicated Web design applications for neophyte Web creators. In that, it has a tremendous value; as you observed, even learning enough HTML, CSS, and so forth to build a functional, graphically-rich site involves a great deal of study time and trial and error–I know, I’ve been a professional Web designer (and constant learner) since ‘94. SiteGrinder is a shortcut to reach the end result of a basic Website without the learning curve (this is not a bad thing).
From Jeremy’s review I inferred (and confirmed to my satisfaction by examining the sites of SG users responding here, as well as in your site’s gallery), that SG is a good product to create deliverable Websites for those who don’t need or have the skill to code. It also has significant value as a comping tool (although Photoshop itself, with or without SG, is not the most efficient tool available for comping graphically-rich Websites; but that’s a different discussion).
When client-requested changes go beyond the graphics–as, in my 20 years of design experience, they often do–SG’s utility may be diminished or eliminated. More often than changing the background color, the structure of a page or the text styling is at issue. In those cases, a few seconds in TopStyle, DreamWeaver, or Notepad can accomplish what might “represent hours or days of boring, intricate work” in Photoshop and SiteGrinder.
For instance, this site. What would be a ballpark time table to build this page in Pshop-SG? And, how long would it take to change the commentor names and date/time entries from left-aligned, floated box elements to non-floated, centered text with 2 more pixels of leading? In TopStyle or Notepad, the process takes less than 10 seconds and doesn’t involve referencing a chart of layer-name codes.
SiteGrinder has a place and utility, and it does make certain types of changes easier than other Photoshop-based methods; however, at the same time, SiteGrinder makes different types of changes more difficult and time-consuming. SiteGrinder is an excellent screwdriver, but when you need a hammer, you won’t reach for SiteGrinder.
You’ve got a good product in SiteGrinder–you are obviously proud of it, and deserve to be. Is it for everyone? No, of course not. Is SG right for the professional Web designer? Maybe; that depends on what he wants to do with it, how much control he needs over the display of his Web site, and the type of changes that may need to be made to the layout.
Is there room for a more advanced version? Yes–and, as you are readying the release of SiteGrinder Pro, you too clearly realize that. Is there room for improvement in the UI and the way in which SG integrates with Pshp? Yes. This is not a bad thing; if there were no room for improvement, you’d have no reason to keep developing the software, and no one would buy SiteGrinder 2.0, would they?
Jeremy was being honest about his experiences with SiteGrinder. Use those experiences as a learning opportunity. Give him SG Pro, and see if that provides him more favorable results. As you can plainly see, prospective SG Pro customers read Designorati:Photoshop. Only a fraction of those people actually commented here. Take the open invitation to try to change Jeremy’s mind, and thus inform all those readers who are also making up their minds about SiteGrinder.
DESIGNORATI
[...] So, SiteGrinder was reviewed on designorati the other day. You can see the review here. [...]
I am looking forward to the final release of Sitegrinder Pro, and unlike Jeremy Shultz, I think that SiteGrinder is a superb tool.
Sadly, aficionados such as Mr Shulz forget there is a real world out there, full of people who want to produce results by ‘working smart’ rather than ‘working hard.’
Surely this is what evolution is all about?
I was introduced to SiteGrinder’s predecessor, PhotoWebber, several years ago in a Photoshop seminar and enjoy the ability these programs offer to build web pages directly from Photoshop layouts. They allow a web designer to experiment with different creative approaches without a lot of fuss or setup. For simple sites, SiteGrinder is all you need. For more complex sites, like chocolate and peanut butter (as Brian T noted above), both SG and more intensive programs like DW can be used.
No program is a perfect be-all-and-end-all for every situation, but SiteGrinder fills a large niche for me. The interface takes a little getting used to, but works quite well. I’ve never encountered any fatal errors in the several years I’ve used SiteGrinder. There is a “look at things in a different way” learning curve, but it is nicely integrated with Photoshop’s layer sets and layer comps. I’d rate it far higher than a mediocre 3 stars. I look forward to the release of SiteGrinder Pro.
I think that sitegrinder is a great tool in that it lets people who feel very comfortable with photoshop build sites that look great with the minimal amount of work. This is of course not an end all program at all and i still spend a lot of time in dreamweaver for more complex sites. Site grinder definately fills a big nitche IMO by letting me build very graphic looking sites quickly for such things as portfolio or personal sites.
I hate code. Thats all theres to it. I am an Artist, and always will be. When I first started learning Macromedia’s Director, I loved it. Relatively simple to use, no code, predetermined behaviors that I could drag and drop. Then flash came out. I though it was cool until I realized that I had to learn Actionscript. Why? I want to animate, not code. Why should I have to choose between art of code, or split my time between both of them? Thats like drawing pictures on a commodore 64 in basic using coordinate lines. Sure, impressive giant pixels you say, but the process demoralizes the muse of this artist. Then I got a hold of Swishmax which helped me make sense of flash. Again, cause it was all visual and no code. I know what I want to see, and I want it with the tools I work with. Sure I could do my designs the old fashion way with cutting paper, paint, cardboard, glue and film; but why when theres Photoshop? I want to save time, not slave over learning a language thats more occult than Aramaic.
The same goes for web creation. Something simplified, easy to use. Learning curve? Barely. There are so many video tutorials and lessons a monkey with a banana in its ear could learn them. I had a site running in fifteen literal minutes (basic of course), but with the graphics I wanted and definitely easier than fireworks or dreamweaver (again, I’m not a coder and don’t want to be). A coder is rarely a good graphic artist, and so vice versa. So, in my humble designer opinion, what MediaLabs has done is a near 5 stars. Thank you Sitegrinder, because I am no longer a slave to the code.
“A coder is rarely a good graphic artist, and so vice versa.” How right you are Jonas.. I suck when it comes to graphic design. Certain things must be done, however – just try explaining “I know it’s all text based, but LOOK at the functionality” and still escaping with your payment.
I have to say though, I enjoy the design process, and even more so with SG.
I’m a ColdFusion Web App developer by trade - no escaping code. For me, it’s a good thing, I don’t mind spending weeks coding – hell, it was a hobby before it was a job.
What I don’t enjoy though, is the tedium of photoshopping an interface, hacking it up manually (IR is a waste of coffee time) and then putting a standards compliant template of said design together.
As far as editing content goes - not an issue, ALL of my content comes from a database.
With SG, I have no need to do anything other with the interface than throw a couple of calls to custom tags where the content should be.
EXCELLENT! I can chuck a design together, grab the template, rip the dummy text out (while saving the nicely formatted CSS) and get on with the actual work of slaving a database to it.
Nice review Mr. Schultz, but, I’m curious: Were words like: “textâ€, “linkâ€, and “scroll†(etc) not previously in your vocabulary? What is this learning curve you speak of?
SG seems to reward logic in the naming of layers and such, what could possibly be more natural ?
Fatal errors don’t sound cool though - could just be a mac thing ;)
First bit of industry software I have felt truly deserved the brass in a good 8 years or more..
Simplicity itself - Ta very much, Media Lab Inc. Consider your collective arses well and truly kissed.
I’m following this thread with much interest.
With no prior experience in Photoshop and Dreamweaver, I built my first website last year. It’s a simple site that has its issues, but on completion, I thought I accomplished something.
The learning curve with Dreamweaver to do the simplest tasks was mind numbing - and that was following an excellent book, “Dreamweaver, the Missing Manual”, as my only guide. The frustration of learning to use that program, and to understand the ideas behind CSS was so painful and tedious. Being an artist, trying to make my site with Dreamweaver was just slugging hard work. However, given the alternative of not having Dreamweaver - I cannot imagine learning to do the code from the ground up.
Now along comes SiteGrinder. I’ve just downloaded the trial version to see if it translates simple pages and navigation from within Photoshop. It’s been almost a year since using Dreamweaver. I tried to do a little experiement last week and realized how much I’ve forgotten, and how I would have to go back and relearn everything using Dreamweaver. When I looked into how I would have to insert code into the HTML to center my pages in CSS, I started to feel depressed at all the hours that would be wasted trying to figure stuff like this out.
If SiteGrinder can help relieve me of this kind of drudgery to do a simple site, I will be so pleased. So far the concepts of how to make a site translate from a Photoshop file seem straight forward.
From what I’ve seen from their site and the example websites - there could be hope.
Mike
This thread has been great for me ~ my only experience with making websites has been with godaddy, and I use their Website Tonight feature (don’t laugh). While it doesn’t let me have much creative control over my layouts, it does allow super easy website creation. I had a site up and running in just a few minutes and I love to go in and tweak it. I’m ready to try my hand at making a beet site, but I don’t have PS, nor do I know how to use it proficiently.
I can’t be the only novice reading this thread who is looking for practical advice on what programs are sufficient for making creative yet functional websites - without spending months learning to use the programs or write code.
Really what I’d like is a program that lets me use CSS or XTHML templates I can download so I don’t have to design in PS myself. I also want to be able to go in and change the site content and features without too much hassle. Any suggestions for us newbies?
Thanks for any input,
Lynn
Lynn, for my clients who want to manage content without handling code or images (PS), I usually build the site for them and set them up with a simple content editor. Adobe offers InContext Editing, which I’ve successfully implemented for my clients as a free content editor. Larger websites sometimes require a full-blown content management system.
DESIGNORATI
This is the greatest most informative blog/post thing I’ve ever read!! I usually don’t read every thread nor write in these things so that’s huge!! I haven’t tried SiteGrinder yet, I wanted to do some research and look at reviews for this product before I decided to purchase. This review definitely tipped the scales for me! I’ve been using photoshop since the 2.0 days and would like to consider myself somewhat of an expert. What I love is the potential for Sitegrinder to just put up the code for your site and you at least have code and CSS to work with and you can take it later into Dreamweaver and personalize and tweak the code with the help of CSS forums, etc. I’m so excited now!
My plan is to use SiteGrinder to get the design into something recognizable and later format for Wordpress to make a more interactive site. I’ll post more after working with it and give you my feedback. Thanks so much Jeremy!!! Nice job keeping a post open for over 3 years.
SG sure is a liberating force for any designer. Adobe was clever placing postscript behind the scene enabling us to concentrate on what we do best: design. I dread the thought of what would it be to write code each time I need to print a document. I wonder why when it comes to web design Adobe tools are still too complicated for the average designer who wish to have full control for his creation. SG is our only hope making the 2nd decade of web design much more designer friendly. The more people use it, the more powerfull it will get.
I build my mock ups in Photoshop and go through the hell of dealing with Dreamweaver and the initial front page template.
The thought of pushing a button and having a working HTML copy of the PSD is…. well.. euphoric.
The only thing that bugs me is the style sheets. I try to pride myself on clean non redundant css and what I see is not that hot. After taking a peek at the source HTML i notice that every table has a unique class. I wish ID was used more often. In order to accomplish this the SiteGridner software would have to recognize all similar parameters and group them under each ID. I guess this would require astronomical time to pull off.
Yep I checked SiteGrinder 3 and the issue is still there. Ah the heck with it, I’m still buying it.
A lot of these comments sound suspiciously similar, like all of the individiuals who wrote them work at Medialab, like they were all written by the same person. But that’s just my 2 cents. In fact I think I’ll give it 7 stars for suspicious!