Does anyone have any examples of regular websites that they’ve upgraded to responsive using FP?
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
All my responsive sites are built as inflow/inline construction. So by
‘regular’ if you mean something else, my opinion is that would be
impossible. Your layout (and to some extent, content) must be flexible
before it can be responsive.
–
Ernie Simpson
Does anyone have any examples of regular websites that they’ve upgraded to
responsive using FP?
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
No, what I mean are examples of standard “non-responsive” websites that FP users have upgraded to “responsive” designs. Sort of a before and after thing.
I really want to dive into this whole responsive thing, but every responsive site I’ve seen that’s been built with FP seems to have a very similar look and feel.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I’m also interested to find out how difficult it is to convert an existing FP inline constructed website to a FP responsive website. Are we talking a “from the ground up” rebuild or can the existing site be easily adapted?
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I really want to dive into this whole responsive thing, but every
responsive site I’ve seen that’s been built with FP seems to have a very
similar look and feel.
Well, all I’m gonna say is that FWP makes HTML and CSS. If a site “looks” a
certain way, that has nothing to do with FWP and everything to do with the
user. I might say that all the sites I’ve seen you make with FWP have a
similar look and feel – that’s nothing to do with Freeway.
Inflow or flexible sites are easier to make responsive, otherwise I think
you’re left creating site versions for each breakpoint and finding ways to
serve that to the user. Not impossible, but not practical either. Once you
have a flexible site, mostly all you need are css values for each
breakpoint and media queries to serve them. Adding the CSS into Freeway
isn’t hard, but to develop them it will require that you spend time outside
of FWP.
So, dive in. 
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Similar comments have been made about inline construction as well: they all look the same. Assuming you understand how to translate your ideas/designs into a particular method of construction neither method imposes a standard “look”. That’s all on the designer. It just requires more thought and planning and sometimes cleverness to pull it off compared to randomly drawing boxes on a canvas.
Todd
I really want to dive into this whole responsive thing, but every
responsive site I’ve seen that’s been built with FP seems to have a very
similar look and feel.Well, all I’m gonna say is that FWP makes HTML and CSS. If a site “looks” a
certain way, that has nothing to do with FWP and everything to do with the
user. I might say that all the sites I’ve seen you make with FWP have a
similar look and feel – that’s nothing to do with Freeway.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Similar comments have been made about inline construction as well: they
all look the same.
Which I will still insist has nothing to do with a) Freeway Pro, or b)
inline construction. It’s almost like saying houses made with bricks all
look the same. Rubbish!
Many of the sites I’ve been making with inline construction have that
“layered” look, something that people ask for here all the time… it’s
popular. Should boxy “page” styles make a comeback, I’d have no problem
achieving that look without changing my construction method.
My point is that FWP just makes HTML/CSS. Any responsive site that uses
HTML/CSS - regardless of what it “looks” like - can be built with Freeway
Pro. I keep suggesting inline construction because my opinion is that’s the
easy way for FWP users to “dive” into responsive design. Once you have some
experience, then by all means - swim further out to sea and discover what
you can do design-wise. However, some people want to bypass that learning
process and go straight to the deep water. Bad idea.
It’s like the guy bitching about FWP6 earlier… there’s nothing wrong with
it, he just waited too long to “dive” into it, expecting he’d not have to
learn anything new, and ignoring all the forum advice to the opposite,
applied it to a massive existing project then made that his impossible
learning experience. Now he’s sulking back to 5.5 complaining how bad 6 is,
when 6 is actually a huge improvement.
–
Ernie Simpson
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
[Laughs] Oh, I agree.
So Kelly, don’t get caught up in thinking that ubiquitous look you’re seeing is a limitation of a responsive (or inline) technique. As Ernie suggests, dive in and keep developing your technical skills.
Todd
http://xiiro.com
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
In reality, you can create just about any layout through inline construction that you can though absolute positioning (just dragging boxes on the page). However, it will take more forethought and planning, and an understanding of things like floats, clears, and how margins work.
I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but if you build websites for $$$, you owe it to your clients to be able to write good (semantic, clean, and fast) HTML and CSS, without the help of a program like FW.
This is not to say that FW it bad, or that you shouldn’t use it. Rather, it will “unlock” Freeway for you, as you will understand the logic that it uses, and be able to leverage that to create much better websites than before.
If you want to create responsive websites in FW without a crutch (Backdraft), I would say that being able to write HTML and CSS is a necessity. There are lots of great resources out there for learning this: Codecademy (free, but not the best IMHO), Codeschool (very detailed and professional courses), and Treehouse (gigantic library and very popular, but feels immature to me), just to name a few.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 23 Sep 2013, 5:40 am, The Big Erns wrote:
I might say that all the sites I’ve seen you make with FWP have a similar look and feel – that’s nothing to do with Freeway.
LOL. Touche my friend and you are right. Different designers do have a tendency to have a certain look and feel, unless you are really good or working as part of a team. Same holds true for movies, music, fine art, etc.
When you get really good you can mix things up a bit, but I’m not quite there yet.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 23 Sep 2013, 6:41 am, Todd wrote:
[Laughs] Oh, I agree.
So Kelly, don’t get caught up in thinking that ubiquitous look you’re seeing is a limitation of a responsive (or inline) technique. As Ernie suggests, dive in and keep developing your technical skills.
Todd
http://xiiro.com
Okay, will do. But you and Ernie better be ready with that life preserver.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 23 Sep 2013, 6:06 pm, Caleb Grove wrote:
I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but if you build websites for $$$, you owe it to your clients to be able to write good (semantic, clean, and fast) HTML and CSS, without the help of a program like FW.
I totally agree, but the problem is dividing your time between work (income) and training (expense). Sure wish I learned this stuff in college when my parents were footing the costs and when I didn’t have to worry about making my mortgage payment, car payment, etc. LOL
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I think most people can appreciate where you’re at, and it’s a legitimate concern. But I would suggest looking at the situation in this way: If you’re really serious about designing/developing websites and are in it for the long haul (meaning you’re not a weekend warrior) then can you afford to not find the time to educate yourself? When I want to I’m great at finding reasons to not do something but the truth is I can always find an hour (or more) a day to learn something new. Of course, whether I choose to do so is another matter.
Todd
the problem is dividing your time between work (income) and training (expense).
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options