Is it okay to start the layout of a website with a photoshop mockup?_问答_开发者

This is a best-practice topic.

I saw it as a prefer method for some web developers. Instead of doing the CSS layout from scratch, they start a photoshop mock开发者_Python百科up first and then decode it into CSS.

What do you think about this approach?

Best to all,

Mockups are great, but I don't know if photoshop is the very first thing you'd want to try for the purpose -- at the very start, when you're just trying to get a logical layout for the various pages of the site (before refining it in terms of looks &c), a whiteboard with dry-erase markers and post-it notes affords for very fast, repeated mock-up rearrangements for the early brainstorming. Once there is some reasonable agreement on one (or a very few) possible arrangements of information, then visually more accurate tools enter into play.

BTW, just don't forget to photograph the whiteboard before changing it (any decent cellphone will do, you're not trying for high quality here;-) any time there are ideas or suggestions you may want to revisit or ponder in the future!

It is fast. This is why i always use this method. You don't want to spend the time building cross-browser CSS until you are actually set on a layout.

Most webdesign graphic artists work this way.

Many programmers simply find it a waste of time.

It has advantages, and disadvantages.

Advantages:

Many graphic artists grok photoshop/illustrator more than they do dreamweaver.
Customer gets a preview of the final product that works everywhere: mac, pc, firefox, ie, safari, whatever. Sending an html preview in early stages of production with developers using firefox and customer using MSIE always stirs up trouble.

And don't think to be on the smart side, scribbling MSIE driven html. Starting with non-standard html and converting to standard is more painful than doing it the other way.
There's one more catch: many web site customers tend to have a Mac and use Safari. Web committents tend to have a stronger taste for graphics than the average, so the chance to bump into Mac maniacs is higher in this sector than in others.
More design alternatives can be prepared spending less time on each one. This could be a dramatic advantage while dealing with murky clouds of executives with no designated decision-makers on the customer side. Alternative mockups will be passing hand-to-hand until general consensus is reached on one design or the other.

Disadvantages:

"Cutting" the graphic design into html becomes an additional work and it's not clear who's gonna pay for that extra time.
It favours graphic-centric, and rigid, design workflows. Customers agree pre-emptively on a given preview and that's what they get by contract. Every graphic modification means money, behaviour and programming instead tend not to be well defined, or worst, ill defined by the mockup.
The quest for pixel perfect cross-browser adherence to the mockup may drive you insane. If you agreed on a given rigid design with the customer, that could become a dire issue to pursue.
Dirty CSS tricks shoe in into your design. Using an HTML mockup, the customer would have approved a design driven by code with less tricks in place.

Anyway, I wouldn't suggest photoshop for a mockup, but inkscape. (or illustrator, if you worship adobe by burning piles of money into magic circles at midnight)

A scribbling stage is good too, while discussing the contract live with the customer.

I prefer pencil and paper to felt-tips, and I webcam shoot ideas for archiving and email forwarding. When it comes to scribbling, anyone does what feels more natural.

Not doing any and rely onto sample site examples and screenshots for graphical reference is always an option.

If you're productive that way, why not? Not everybody manages to envision their Web site perfectly as they're typing in a bunch of angle brackets.

More seriously put: It's your job, so it's your responsibility to do it in a way that allows you to do it effectively.

When prototyping, it's important to choose the right fidelity. This article from BoxesAndArrows provides a nice introduction to the various options and their uses.

I particularly like this line by Bill Buxton which the article quotes:

There is no such thing as high or low fidelity, only appropriate fidelity.

In this TechTalk by the Facebook Design Team, they mention how they use Photoshop in their design process (IIRC it's somewhere midway through, but I can't seem to forward through the video).

I am a web programmer who knows html and css fairly well. I can use a graphic program for it's basic functionality, but desinging a complete graphical web site is not my thing.

I let a graphic designer use his or hers graphic program to create a nice looking layout, and than code the website by hand in html and css.

It works for me, and gives my customers a design they like (cause a graphical designer will always make a much more nice looking design than most web programmers).

Agile methodology would suggest something easily modified in consultation with the customer. Dave Thomas in Agile Web Development with Rails suggests scribbling on paper. But anything has got to be better than chipping away directly at handmade CSS unless you really know what you want.

I was thinking about saying "scribbling might not cut it for a formal presentation" but the awesome SO crowd beat me to it in the comments...

Personally, and at every webdev firm I've worked at, I've always mocked-up in photoshop first. Jumping straight into CSS and markup is more of a bottom-up approach and makes sense to a lot of programmers but in web development you have to keep in mind that there are aesthetics to consider and a creative direction to follow. It's not enough that your product is functional, it needs the input of a professional creative-director/graphic-designer in order to make the product pleasant to look at and use.

In my experience, the problem has always been wrestling with inflexibility of team-members. Graphic designers who are aesthetics focussed and refuse to compromise their design integrity; which sometimes results in impossible or extremely difficult and un-semantic layouts. Developers who flatly refuse to compromise the integrity of their code where there is a workable solution - which might be a little less elegant. The key is to have a creative team who is intimately familiar with CSS and what is and isn't possible and an engineering team who have an appreciation of the importance of design and aesthetics.

In my freelance life (having had the benefit of working in both camps) I find it much easier to mock-up in photoshop first because I know what I can and can't do. And photoshop mockups are a lot easier to change on client feedback than are CSS and markup. Also, if you can show your client a mock-up, they feel more secure because they know that their money is going into a well planned project with a definate direction.

Hope this helps!