Quark Forums

Actually if you design to the lowest common denominator, as I've suggested, and make a web page of 800 pixels wide (a bit out of date, more users now have larger monitors, but let's be safe) then centering it is much nicer. The user with the wide monitor gets a site placed neatly in the middle of their browser window, and the user with the knackered old 15" CRT can still see the site properly too.

Centering a page isn't hard - well, from a DW, Freeway et al, perspective, using CSS or hell, even tables. Why it's such a faff with Quark I don't know. All the templates I've ever used to base Joomla CMS based sites on centre. Or better yet, depending on the content, the width is fluid and spreads to fit the available browser window width.

Greg

Greg – You can stipulate a variable width for your page in Quark, its just that at the moment it always ranged from the left. As I say, I hope they'll be introducing a centering facility with a future upgrade. I asked for it in the the suggestion box some time ago.

Still, if they get that right I expect you'll find something else to bash them with! :wink:

Sorry KP, you're probably right.

But I'm bashing them for a reason - as I said neither Quark as a DTP package nor a web package excels, but the competitors do.

Get XPress back to an excellent print package, make it a viable alternative for ID, then add web stuff (ideally as an option that can be removed). Constantly adding bits and bobs to something that has a rather large list of problems before fixing them is a bit odd to me.

I'd be chuffed if, in a year or so, agencies were starting to go back to XPress (v8?) because it was great again. That's basically because I don't like Adobe's dominance - just smacks of Microsoft to me.

And lastly I think Quark's got a long, long way to go to make the program a decent web page generator because the differences between the web and print are massive and the skills required, though in some ways complementary, do require different mindsets. Sorry, but I believe websites should be better. You (Royal you, not you personally) can get away with poor print design - it'll look crap, perhaps, but it'll still be useable. But websites are a whole different kettle of fish and boring stuff like the code, compliancy and accessibility do matter. The latter more and more as the law tightens.

Greg
PS I do still see QID as a superb tool though - this is ideal to me. It's an addition, not an embedded part, of XPress. And it's better than anything else around that I've seen or used.

But when exporting Quark Web pages you have the option to write an external CSS sheet. Would that then be difficult to edit and add the page centering?

And I still don't really see any reason where any artist should be be made to feel that he should how to edit code. I reminds me of the transition from Hand made mechanical and film stripping color separation to the DTP world. I come from the days when we worked by hand before computers, so Im speaking from experience. When things first began to change, and employers started to utilize computers, they were always out to hire "Computer Guys." In an interview, if you told them you were learning quark, but you had a traditional background they'd tell you, "Sorry, were looking for Computer Guys." This went on for a few short years, but then employers began to realize that the quality of the work they had to offer really went down, as far as design appeal. Basically, the work just looked bad. So then things really turned around. When interviewing, if you said your knew Quark, but that you had a traditional background, you were a shoe in. Because art requires artists, not Computer Guys. I see things going the same with web, if someone like quark would just step in a pioneer the technology to removing coding from the process.

It is, I would imagine, the wave of the future.

I apologise to the original poster for hijacking his thread. I meant to start a new one, but inadvertently added my question to this one. If Quark's forum admin are able to separate the two I would be most grateful.

Having experimented for a couple of days trying to rebuild my website in Quark, I am very pleased with the way I can make a multi-page site using one file in Quark, using items on the master page which repeat site-wide, which is just what I've always wanted.

However, as some of my pages contain dozens of links to MP3 audio files, I've come to a grinding halt, as Quark requires every hyperlink to be redefined, and the existing pages, whilst their text can be imported, the links are lost.

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't think all web site creators should learn code and do it all manually. No way!

I'm a lazy bugger at heart and will do everything I can the easy way whenever I can, but it has to work and that means, for a website, in all browsers reliably, and that it's usable and accessible. So far I've only seen one Quark generated site that fits the bill and even that could be better.

Point is, as mentioned, Quark is still not great at web stuff but equally it's no longer great at DTP. So what does it want to be? It needs, badly, to be good at something because there are so many other options that are just simply better.

However I'm hopeful - I'd really like to see Quark back up there as a major contender and soon as I dislike the Adobe dominance.

And britsmith - doing templated sites like that in DW is so extremely easy. But then doing a site like that in a CMS is even easier. And in both cases you'll never touch the code.

Greg

thing:

...I can, but it has to work and that means, for a website, in all browsers reliably, and that it's usable and accessible. ..

I can hear where you are coming from, sure. No worries.

However, my web sites currently are personal and aimed towards graphics professionals. I'm really not too concerned with complying with microsoft explorer. the first step into a brave new world I suppose... 8)

Indeed :D And I wish you every success!

But even graphics pros use different browsers - Explorer may be the number 1 browser, though generally hated by Mac users, but then you can't rely on them all using, say, Safari. Some will prefer Firefox (I do) others Mozilla (almost the same, agreed) or iCab, or Navigator (honest, some like it). And all handle stuff like CSS a bit differently, plus some allow certain things, others don't. This is one feature of DW that's invaluable - the ability to find out how a site will behave in different browsers as it can report on potential problems. That's something Quark can't do, I think.

Possibly of use to you is this ... http://browsershots.org/ ... it's a wonderful site that will show you screen shots of your submitted site as they would appear in xyz browser. Great for troubleshooting!

All the best mate,

And as a last hit - to reiterate - I'm not against Quark doing web stuff per se. I'd just like to see it done better, but the core of Quark to be improved first. And I'd like to see the web stuff more modular - perhaps XPress available as two packages, level 1 having no web, level 2 (slightly dearer) with web. You get the idea. To compete I don't only believe Quark has to dramatically improve, I also believe they have to take a long hard look at their prices.

Greg

I tried Joomla. Bag of spanners, just not what I'm looking for at all - and after all that setting up of MySQL and installing in the right folders etc. It's over-blown with all the gizmos already in there, and you have to strip them all out if you want a clean, simple site.

Then I installed the demo version of Freeway Pro, and it's the business. I like it because, like Quark, it allows me to build my pages on master pages, and create and add all my elements, and only at the end does it write the code, so there's no legacy code in there from previous editions, it's all new every time the site is published. Just like Quark does.

So why is Freeway better? One thing only - in my view - its ability to import HTML complete with links, which is what I need in order to convert my existing website into it.

There's one snag though - it will cost me 99 UK pounds (competitive cross-grade price for DW owners) - which is irksome when I already have Dreamweaver - it's a case of horses for courses I guess!

Your post has inspired me to download the trial version of Freeway Pro. The competitive upgrade is $199 for US version. At least they are charging comparable prices (I think) between The US and the UK version. Unlike Adobe from what I've heard.

Yup, their pricing is more reasonable - both Quark and Adobe do the 'swap a dollar sign for a pound sign' thing which is deeply annoying. So much so that a petition against Adobe's horrendous non-US pricing was run last year. It hit of 10,000 signatures and ended up with the petition creator, Danielle Labine, meeting with Adobe chiefs. No sodding change to the gross pricing though. And I've heard all the excuses for it.

Good luck with Freeway - I was very impressed by it but stuck with DW simply because I find it easy to use. Ultimately both are good because they do what they are designed to do, not something that's been added as a 'bonus'.

Greg

Transatlantic pricing policy has always been a bug-bear with me too, but before you guys get diverted by that topic, I should add that if anybody knows of a way to import HTML complete into Quark web pages I'll be interested to know, as after playing around with Freeway last night I'm not over-impressed by its GUI. It's rather clumsy, with poor text rendition, so I will stick with Quark if I can import my existing DW pages into it.

Sorry Greg!

No worries mate.

To get back on topic I don't believe it's possible to get code in to Quark's stuff, period.

I'd take Quark's generated code, open it with a simple editor - my preference is Taco HTML Edit (look for it on Version Tracker, it's free) - and use that.

Good luck mate!

Greg

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure! :?

Are you extracting the Michael out of me? :lol:

Just to make it clear - here's how I work up a website if I'm not using Joomla.

1. Layout in Photoshop or Fireworks.
2. Cut it up in either.
3. Build it in DW. Edit code there as required.
4. Test, test, test. In all browsers, on PC and Mac.
5. Sometimes edit code, in Taco for speed, if some stuff isn't doing precisely what I need.
6. Test lots, again.
7. Get sign off.
8. Publish.
9. Test. Just in case!