incorporating css from third parties

Hello,

Have been using FW since outset and now onto FW 5.
One thing that is almost always a problem for me is how to incorporate css into a FW page, although for the most part I have ‘mastered’ adding javascript as that seems reasonably simple.

Why do I want to do this? Well increasingly it seems we are moving toward css. FW can do a lot of things but there are now many 3rd party sites that can achieve let’s say, a prettier solution!

For instance, creating Web 2 style navigation menus is now becoming popular with third party products (cssmenumaker.com and izzymenu.com). And again with 3rd party gallery makers not to mention footers (the bane of my life).

So, pretty please, for numbskulls like me … is it possible for somebody to do some kind of video tutorial on this ? I understand that css can be imported but not sure exactly where to go from there.

JP


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi JP,

It’s not a video but maybe this will shed a tad bit more light on things until someone does one. If I understand what it is you want then there are a couple ways to do this depending on if you want to import directly into FW or simply reference an external sheet.

  1. If you open the main Styles window and click on the cog icon at the bottom you’ll see an ‘Import’ option. This will allow you to select a locally available stylesheet (assuming you’ve created one). Once imported it will be accessible from the Style Sheet drop-down menu in the Inspector. Apply it to any page(s) as needed.

  2. As another option Walter has a some ESS actions that allow for adding external stylesheets. I haven’t used them so he’ll have to explain the process.

  3. If you want to reference an external stylesheet without using FW to import it as in “1” then go to Menu > Page > HTML Markup > Before and paste this in the field, . Don’t forget to change the path and file name as needed. You can then use the Remote Resources action to include the file for you in the Resources folder or upload it manually to any location you like.

As for creating the actual stylesheet it’s possible to do this within FW but someone will have to explain it since I use an editor instead.

Todd

On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:41 AM, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

So, pretty please, for numbskulls like me … is it possible for somebody to do some kind of video tutorial on this ? I understand that css can be imported but not sure exactly where to go from there.

The ESS actions do two different things. One is to allow you to
change a page into a stylesheet. It does this by removing everything
except the content of the STYLE tag, and then publishing just that.
You have to rename your file from something.html to something.css for
this to work. All you do is put simple examples of your various text
styles on this page, and publish. Freeway will generate the styles
and publish the page as a link.

Then the other Action allows you to specify that page you converted
to a stylesheet as a stylesheet for a different page in your site.
You can also target a separate file (but you have to upload it) using
a manual URL.

Walter

On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Todd wrote:

  1. As another option Walter has a some ESS actions that allow for
    adding external stylesheets. I haven’t used them so he’ll have to
    explain the process.

freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Ok guys thanks for all that advice. I understand now how to use the Styles menu to import css, but that presumably only imports a style?

What I am really after is importing positioning css. My main concern is with the extreme difficulty I am having in actually having a consistent footer on my pages.

I stumbled up this code that looks promising but can’t see how to add it:

  • {
    margin: 0;
    }
    html, body {
    height: 100%;
    }
    .wrapper {
    min-height: 100%;
    height: auto !important;
    height: 100%;
    margin: 0 auto -142px; /* the bottom margin is the negative value of the footer’s height /
    }
    .footer, .push {
    height: 142px; /
    .push must be the same height as .footer */
    }

/*

Sticky Footer by Ryan Fait
http://ryanfait.com/

*/

As I mentioned in another thread, I have a number of pages set up with varying lengths of html text. Now it would be nice to set up a master page and simply apply a footer that will show up on each page. But, I would really like a footer on a master page that sticks to the bottom regardless of the varying height of the page.

Still scratching my head and would be grateful if somebody could give me a definitive yes it will or no it’s not possible with FWY answer.

Thanks in advance!


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 19 Mar. 2008, 12:43 pm, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

Ok guys thanks for all that advice. I understand now how to use the Styles menu to import css, but that presumably only imports a style?

What I am really after is importing positioning css. My main concern is with the extreme difficulty I am having in actually having a consistent footer on my pages.

I stumbled up this code that looks promising but can’t see how to add it:

* {
  margin: 0;
}
html, body {
  height: 100%;
}
.wrapper {
  min-height: 100%;
  height: auto !important;
  height: 100%;
  margin: 0 auto -142px; /* the bottom margin is the negative value of the footer's height */
}
.footer, .push {
    height: 142px; 
}

/*

Sticky Footer by Ryan Fait
http://ryanfait.com/

*/

As I mentioned in another thread, I have a number of pages set up with varying lengths of html text. Now it would be nice to set up a master page and simply apply a footer that will show up on each page. But, I would really like a footer on a master page that sticks to the bottom regardless of the varying height of the page.

Still scratching my head and would be grateful if somebody could give me a definitive yes it will or no it’s not possible with FWY answer.

Thanks in advance!

If you want to add this sort of code (the “star” selector means grab everything), then you want to get this code into the HEAD of the page so it applies to everything on the page.

In Freeway, open Page > HTML Markup and choose either After HEAD or Before /HEAD from the picker in the lower-left corner of the dialog box. Add a style block:

<style type="text/css">
    //paste your code here
</style>

Okay the dialog, and preview in a browser.

By the way, I have experimented with this particular technique, and while it does work – and with a blessed minimum of extraneous HTML markup in the page – it is incredibly fussy to use in a real-world layout, particularly a Freeway layout.

In order to use it without tears, it is pretty much necessary to remove all hint of margin from all elements. Something like this:

html * { margin:0 !important; }

Many many default styles in Freeway will have to be edited using the Extended dialog to move whatever margin they rely on into padding attributes. This is non-trivial!

Walter


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Forgot to add: If you are trying to use external (or even page-head)
css to modify the behavior of a Freeway-drawn object, you will fail.
Unless you use an Action to modify what Freeway does, all positioned
objects on a page have inline style directives that set the geometry
of their container boxes. Inline styles are the last knot on the rope
– you cannot override them from above.

Now if you were to draw a footer box, get it all how you like it from
a content and layout standpoint, and then apply Source Code Snooper
to it, you could edit the generated source code to remove all trace
of style (or at least the positioning part of the style). Then you
could add a classname or just use the ID to attach a basic
positioning rule for that footer from the head of the page or an
external stylesheet. SCS would hijack the Freeway layout code and
your stylesheet would have the last say.

Walter

On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:43 AM, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

What I am really after is importing positioning css. My main
concern is with the extreme difficulty I am having in actually
having a consistent footer on my pages.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

aaargh! - thanks Walt! So I presume that I cannot get a sticky footer at the bottom of my pages unless they are all a similar height ?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 19 Mar. 2008, 1:15 pm, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

aaargh! - thanks Walt! So I presume that I cannot get a sticky footer at the bottom of my pages unless they are all a similar height ?

You can, but you will need to go the Source Code Snooper route if you want to use this particular technique to do it.

Walter


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

John,

Take a look at this link thebigerns.com

I think this may be what you are looking for.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks John.

Interesting, but I am not sure if that is successful in the long run. Putting this on a master and then applying the master to pages with variable lengths just messes everything up.

Which brings me to the point I guess, which is should I be designing pages with a fixed height with any text flowing into a new linked page, or not?

It is surprising that (cough) the competition seems to have the ability to fix a footer (don’t shout at me it is only a cursory glance) but FW struggles.

It is probable that I really don’t know what I am doing anymore - I am not a website designer. I wanted FWY in the very beginning as it provided a low cost way of getting something nice looking onto the internet. Now of course there are many competing offerings where it is possible to do this. Despite css claiming to make things simpler it seems it has really only complicated things - at least for me.

So the BIG question now is do I pay for an upgrade on an increasingly complicated program, or do I admit (tough to do) that I am now out of my depth and either

  1. pay up for a decent third party designer / coder?
  2. dumb it down with a perfectly functional and beautiful looking site on squarespace or some such?

Tough decisions and I am sure I am not the only one here having these.

But what I guess it comes down to is the time spent messing about with all the quirks in FWY. I have come to the conclusion that it is increasingly eating up precious time and may have to go.

Is there a site for designers offering to create sites in FWY?

Maybe it’s time for one?

JP


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I couldn’t agree more with your statement below. I only use Freeway occasionally, so don’t really have the time to learn all of the ‘ins and outs’, so I tend to stick with what I know.

I have however placed my order for FW5 and hope to learn a bit more in the future.

On 20 Mar 2008, at 11:57, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

Despite css claiming to make things simpler it seems it has really only complicated things - at least for me.

Sometime around 20/3/08 (at 07:57 -0400) John-Paul Kernot said:

It is surprising that (cough) the competition seems to have the
ability to fix a footer (don’t shout at me it is only a cursory
glance) but FW struggles.

The competition that you’re thinking of works in a more restrictive,
template-driven way. That is perfectly fine for many people; it can
be absolutely the right way to go.

Freeway is a free-form layout tool that gives its users the tools to
create their own pages from scratch. But this does mean that you
can’t rely on canned solutions - when the layout is not fundamentally
controlled by a template structure, it can be hard to produce certain
kinds of design structures without putting a bit of work into it.

During this last term at college I led some BA students through a
graphic novel design and production assignment. Some asked me where
the speech bubble tool was in InDesign. I explained that this was a
free-form design tool, not something that has canned shapes, and I
showed them how to make their own shapes within InDesign by merging
simple object frames together with the PathFinder features.

They could have used Comic Life to make the pages and had the
specialist features handed to them on a plate, but their designs
would have all looked very similar, and they wouldn’t have learned
much at all.

I think there’s a rough parallel here, although I do sympathise as
the solution for your problem is not as simple as the one I gave the
students.

Despite css claiming to make things simpler it seems it has really
only complicated things - at least for me.

Yep. CSS provides a lot more power, and it is absolutely the way
forward. But easy and simple, it isn’t. You could retreat to the
slightly calmer world of a template-oriented and -driven tool, or you
could stick it out here and learn a bit more with our help. It is a
tough call, and if you decide to get out of the water we’ll
understand.

(Some people tackle this by jumping into the Marianas Trench of all
deep ends; learning how to code all their CSS by hand. By comparison,
we get a lot of power without swimming in the 11km deep end of the
pool. :slight_smile:

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I think the key is here that I am spending more and more time trying to figure out FWY. Time is money. I may as well be paying somebody else to do this. My choice I guess.

I completely disagree that you can’t rely on canned solutions. Canned solutions are an imperative now. Programmers have snippets of code that they use again and again. That is a canned solution.

What we don’t have here is any type of half decent looking template available from any 3rd party designer/ programmer which can even give one a leg up. Templates such as these would be extremely useful. It is apparent though that Dreamweaver has the lions share here and Freeway has been shunned. Yes completely shunned. Even after all these years!

I talked to a friend of mine the other day who owns a multimedia company in the UK with over 40 employees. Never heard of Freeway. I asked him how they put together their intricate and expensive sites for their clients.

Ah! We just take code from our code inventory and add new ideas we develop. It’s all pretty easy - the skins are different though and that’s why we get paid well.

I think FWY would be a lot better if we could work this way. The way it stands there is a too much ground up work going on.

JP


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Part of the template problem is that for it to be a simple and painless process the template really needs to be created with FW. Because the Get HTML feature is of questionable usefulness users are at a real disadvantage when it comes to using the thousands of plain-Jane html templates available to virtually everyone else so people are essentially stuck with what FW has to offer. If FW could properly import any html template and allow editing then that would open things up considerably. As it stands it’s not a viable option.

Todd

On Mar 20, 2008, at 9:08 AM, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

What we don’t have here is any type of half decent looking template available from any 3rd party designer/ programmer which can even give one a leg up. Templates such as these would be extremely useful. It is apparent though that Dreamweaver has the lions share here and Freeway has been shunned. Yes completely shunned. Even after all these years!

On 20 Mar 2008, at 14:31, Todd wrote:

As it stands it’s not a viable option.

Plus, templates created for Pro won’t work in Express. Do you create
what would be effectively hobbled templates that work in Express, but
which also work in Pro but without the extras that Pro can throw into
the mix?

I’ve been tempted to create a range of canned templates for Freeway,
but you know what? It’s really difficult to do and do well. I can’t
spare the time to create properly designed templates when I have
enough on my hands to create new designs for clients.

The option is there for Freewayers to create and share templates, or
even make them to sell. Perhaps the sheer enormity of trying to do it
is what scares us off?

On 20 Mar 2008, at 14:08, John-Paul Kernot wrote:

I talked to a friend of mine the other day who owns a multimedia
company in the UK with over 40 employees. Never heard of Freeway.
I asked him how they put together their intricate and expensive
sites for their clients.

Ah! We just take code from our code inventory and add new ideas we
develop. It’s all pretty easy - the skins are different though and
that’s why we get paid well.

Which explains rather neatly why so many Dreamweaver-built web sites
all look uncannily similar!

=oD

Heather


“Freeway - Web Design for All”


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I completely disagree that you can’t rely on canned solutions.
Canned solutions are an imperative now. Programmers have snippets
of code that they use again and again. That is a canned solution.

It seems to me that the Actions that come with, and are also written
by others for, Freeway are an example of just the sort of snippets
you are talking of .

What we don’t have here is any type of half decent looking template
available from any 3rd party designer/ programmer which can even
give one a leg up. Templates such as these would be extremely
useful. It is apparent though that Dreamweaver has the lions share
here and Freeway has been shunned. Yes completely shunned. Even
after all these years!

Really? Shunned? Not sure it would have got to version 5 if that were
true.

I talked to a friend of mine the other day who owns a multimedia
company in the UK with over 40 employees. Never heard of Freeway.

Is he working in a Windows world? A cross platform Freeway would
definitely change things. Also unfortunately the battle between Go-
Live and Dreamweaver rather gave the impression that they were the
only programmes out there. Now that it is all Adobe their marketing
will continue to emphasise the HTML edit approach.

Ah! We just take code from our code inventory and add new ideas we
develop. It’s all pretty easy - the skins are different though and
that’s why we get paid well.

Again, there are many php scripts etc which can be bolted into
Freeway. It would be interesting to see what exactly your friend used
and see if at least some of those elements weren’t also usable in
Freeway. Freeway is a great skinning tool. You can make templates
pretty easily too. It may be true that because Freeway doesn’t have
so much market penetration it doesn’t attract so many people who just
like to see their designs out there for free. As Heather said though,
it does mean freeway sites tend to be more varied. Not everybody
wants to see a broadly similar design to their own being used by a
rival.

Cheers
pete


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Heather: yes, there is evidently a reason DW is the no 1. Because it’s easier to use? I bet it’s because it’s cross platform.

Pete: agreed over the actions comment - no question about that. But remember where I started at the top of the page. I am just trying to get a footer to stick and I really should not have to spend ANY amount of time trying to do something like that.

I really like FWY apart from the fact that nobody seems to use it much - borne out by the fact that nobody produces any commercial templates at all.

Where DO your sales come from guys?

:slight_smile:

JP


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 20/3/08 (at 11:41 -0400) John-Paul Kernot said:

I really like FWY apart from the fact that nobody seems to use it
much - borne out by the fact that nobody produces any commercial
templates at all.

Where DO your sales come from guys?

:slight_smile:

People who design, rather than people who… no, there’s no verb for
‘template’.

:slight_smile:

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

People who design, rather than people who… no, there’s no verb for ‘template’.

I suspect that your interpretation of design is similar to a mechanic who fixes a car as opposed to the ‘designer’ who creates the spectacular body?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 20/3/08 (at 12:03 -0400) John-Paul Kernot said:

I suspect that your interpretation of design is similar to a
mechanic who fixes a car as opposed to the ‘designer’ who creates
the spectacular body?

Hardly. I’m a practising designer and a design and publishing
lecturer. My background: http://www.thesmallest.com/experience/

I’m pleased to meet you. :slight_smile:

A good designer is both a craftsman AND an artist. A good designer
will be able to design both creatively and appropriately. And to do
that it is important to understand both the tools and the medium.
Without that, it isn’t possible to be a good designer. Lucky,
possibly… good, no.

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options