Need a good designer to design a myspace-like site

[Myst]

Ibido.com
hit me up on icq 298-523-037 with a quote and other examples please =)

[Myst]

bump bump

[Myst]

to the top!

[Myst]

one more bump
the site im making is like myspace, and here are a few more for ideas

xp eeps.com
friendster.com
hi5.com
adultspace.com
myyearbook.com

I just need the main page (template) designed, preferably in css

[Myst]

one more bump
the site im making is like myspace, and here are a few more for ideas

xp eeps.com
friendster.com
hi5.com
adultspace.com
myyearbook.com

I just need the main page (template) designed, preferably in css

[potter]

So you just need a layout done, no implimenting into a cms? I work soley in CSS, so you'd be getting a 100% css / w3c valid design. Hit me up on icq and we can chat a little more.

icq: 258045697

[BlueDesignStudios]

www.bluedesignstudios.com

drop me an email if you like our work

[Nookster]

Originally Posted by potter

So you just need a layout done, no implimenting into a cms? I work soley in CSS, so you'd be getting a 100% css / w3c valid design. Hit me up on icq and we can chat a little more.

icq: 258045697

100% css is impossible. div, map, br...all are html tags.

[testpie]

Originally Posted by Nookster

100% css is impossible. div, map, br...all are html tags.

I thought the same. It's nice to see web designers trying to bullshit people that they believe don't know anything on the subject. In fact, that's the reason i don't do mainstream webdesign anymore - i always believed in charging honest prices, and couldn't compete with other companies who were charging £5,000 per page because i was seen to be too cheap.

[XWS Negotiator]

You can give us a try!...

[RazorSharpe]

You have a reading comprehension problem .... the man said it was 100% css / w3c VALID. That means the CSS will be 100% valid not that the site is 100% CSS.

Also, a site can be 100% CSS and when designers say this, they don't mean there will not be any html, that is just a retarded conclusion to come to given the fact that CSS is suppose to separate content and style. So a site done in 100% CSS would mean that is uses CSS as a total means to achieving style.

Originally Posted by Nookster

100% css is impossible. div, map, br...all are html tags.

[testcase]

Hit me up: 272351380

I got something for ya.

[shuki]

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

You have a reading comprehension problem .... the man said it was 100% css / w3c VALID. That means the CSS will be 100% valid not that the site is 100% CSS.

Also, a site can be 100% CSS and when designers say this, they don't mean there will not be any html, that is just a retarded conclusion to come to given the fact that CSS is suppose to separate content and style. So a site done in 100% CSS would mean that is uses CSS as a total means to achieving style.

Bingo!

Someone knows what they are talking about.

[shuki]

You have a backend?

What is it coded in?

What is the focus? Niche?

[testpie]

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

You have a reading comprehension problem .... the man said it was 100% css / w3c VALID. That means the CSS will be 100% valid not that the site is 100% CSS.

Also, a site can be 100% CSS and when designers say this, they don't mean there will not be any html, that is just a retarded conclusion to come to given the fact that CSS is suppose to separate content and style. So a site done in 100% CSS would mean that is uses CSS as a total means to achieving style.

A site can never achieve 100% CSS styling because a part of the CSS is always dependant on the layout of the HTML you have used.

[RazorSharpe]

You are misinformed. It is possible and widely employed. There are sites that do not reply on HTML at all for their layout and use CSS to achieve this in its entirety. This is best parctice designing as it allows you to change the entire look of your site by simply changing the CSS rather than changing the html markup.

...

Originally Posted by testpie

A site can never achieve 100% CSS styling because a part of the CSS is always dependant on the layout of the HTML you have used.

[Barefootsies]

[testpie]

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

You are misinformed. It is possible and widely employed. There are sites that do not reply on HTML at all for their layout and use CSS to achieve this in its entirety. This is best parctice designing as it allows you to change the entire look of your site by simply changing the CSS rather than changing the html markup.

...

I never said sites have to rely on HTML for their layouts, and indeed myself i try to employ HTML/CSS layouts wherever possible. My argument is with you saying that changing the CSS can change every aspect of the design - that's bullshit. Some aspects of the design (for instance, the way objects are laid out) are inherent in the ordering of the HTML. For instance, if for some bizarre reason i wanted to swap the header bar and the copyright bar around, are you honestly telling me that all you'd have to change is the CSS and not have to touch the HTML to achieve a cross-browser compatible website? You wouldn't even change the ordering of the DIV tags in the HTML?

[RazorSharpe]

My post should have read, "There are sites that do not RELY on HTML at all for their layout and use CSS to achieve this in its entirety."

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

You are misinformed. It is possible and widely employed. There are sites that do not reply on HTML at all for their layout and use CSS to achieve this in its entirety. This is best parctice designing as it allows you to change the entire look of your site by simply changing the CSS rather than changing the html markup.

...

[RazorSharpe]

What exactly do you mean by "swap the header bar and the copyright bar around"? Do you mean making the copyright div the header div and vice versa? If that is your question, then yes, this too can be achieved via CSS.

When you reference "objects" are you speaking literally and mean stuff like flash? If so, then yes these too could be placed differently if they have their own divs and these divs form part of your CSS.

Just because the scope of CSS design is beyond you does not make me a bullshitter, surely!

Incidentally, you DID say that sites cannot totally rely on CSS for layouts, which to any personal with basic reading skills would translate to sites have to rely on HTML to some degree for layouts.

Originally Posted by testpie

A site can never achieve 100% CSS styling because a part of the CSS is always dependant on the layout of the HTML you have used.

Originally Posted by testpie

I never said sites have to rely on HTML for their layouts, and indeed myself i try to employ HTML/CSS layouts wherever possible. My argument is with you saying that changing the CSS can change every aspect of the design - that's bullshit. Some aspects of the design (for instance, the way objects are laid out) are inherent in the ordering of the HTML. For instance, if for some bizarre reason i wanted to swap the header bar and the copyright bar around, are you honestly telling me that all you'd have to change is the CSS and not have to touch this to achieve a cross-browser compatible website? You wouldn't even change the ordering of the DIV tags in the HTML?

[testpie]

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

What exactly do you mean by "swap the header bar and the copyright bar around"? Do you mean making the copyright div the header div and vice versa? If that is your question, then yes, this too can be achieved via CSS.

That is exactly what i mean, and if you are telling me that you could do this, purely by changing the CSS and not even touching the HTML, and have it work in every browser (and that includes text-mode browsers and older versions of browsers which lack CSS support, and hence will show an ordered version of the HTML without any styling) then you are bullshitting.

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

When you reference "objects" are you speaking literally and mean stuff like flash? If so, then yes these too could be placed differently if they have their own divs and these divs form part of your CSS.

My reference to "objects" related mainly to DIV elements.

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

Just because the scope of CSS design is beyond you does not make me a bullshitter, surely!

The scope of CSS is not beyond me, but thanks for the insult - always greatly appreciated. What is beyond me is how you can say that it is possible, purely be modifying just the CSS, of making a cross-browser compatible change to the positioning of two elements which, in the HTML, are ordered from top to bottom.

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

Incidentally, you DID say that sites cannot totally rely on CSS for layouts, which to any personal with basic reading skills would translate to sites have to rely on HTML to some degree for layouts.

Always having a go at the reading skills, eh? In case you hadn't noticed, English is a diverse language with many ways of interpreting and constructing clauses - most meaning being derived from the "deep structure" (Noam Chomsky) of a sentence, which is an innate ideology in each person.

Maybe i did make a cock-up there by confusing myself - fuck me for not being as perfect as you obviously are then. Just to clarify for you, if you can understand my (by your implication) pre-basic language usage (it might be a challenge for you in your post-holophrasistic universe, but give it a go):

Sites rely on both HTML and CSS - to say that a site's design can be completely changed by altering just the CSS is bullshit.

[RazorSharpe]

I'm not perfect and if you were totally honest with yourself you'd agree there is no "deep structure" to the sentence that was my point of contention.

Additionally, I made no mention of you having failings in your writing / typing skills, although I would like to point out that the word is "holophrastic" ...

In anycase, CSS "positioning" has been a design method for many designers for quite some time and is cross browser compatible. Given, some browsers did need special CSS hacks for the designers to realise their designs across browsers.

You can see CSS positioning at work on the csszengarden site: http:www.csszengarden.com - basically, the site uses the same "markup" (what you call html) and loads different stylesheets to change the ENTIRE look AND structure of the site. I would honestly not waste as much time as I have in this thread did I not believe what I was saying.

Originally Posted by testpie

That is exactly what i mean, and if you are telling me that you could do this, purely by changing the CSS and not even touching the HTML, and have it work in every browser (and that includes text-mode browsers and older versions of browsers which lack CSS support, and hence will show an ordered version of the HTML without any styling) then you are bullshitting.


My reference to "objects" related mainly to DIV elements.


The scope of CSS is not beyond me, but thanks for the insult - always greatly appreciated. What is beyond me is how you can say that it is possible, purely be modifying just the CSS, of making a cross-browser compatible change to the positioning of two elements which, in the HTML, are ordered from top to bottom.


Always having a go at the reading skills, eh? In case you hadn't noticed, English is a diverse language with many ways of interpreting and constructing clauses - most meaning being derived from the "deep structure" (Noam Chomsky) of a sentence, which is an innate ideology in each person.

Maybe i did make a cock-up there by confusing myself - fuck me for not being as perfect as you obviously are then. Just to clarify for you, if you can understand my (by your implication) pre-basic language usage (it might be a challenge for you in your post-holophrasistic universe, but give it a go):

Sites rely on both HTML and CSS - to say that a site's design can be completely changed by altering just the CSS is bullshit.

[testpie]

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

I'm not perfect and if you were totally honest with yourself you'd agree there is no "deep structure" to the sentence that was my point of contention.

I made my point about the "deep structure" of the sentence and stick by it - indeed, it's proven by the fact that myself and another forum member both "misinterpreted" the phrase in the same way.

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

Additionally, I made no mention of you having failings in your writing / typing skills, although I would like to point out that the word is "holophrastic" ...

Congratulations on proving me wrong - my self-esteem just died, thanks.

Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

In anycase, CSS "positioning" has been a design method for many designers for quite some time and is cross browser compatible. Given, some browsers did need special CSS hacks for the designers to realise their designs across browsers.

You can see CSS positioning at work on the csszengarden site: http:www.csszengarden.com - basically, the site uses the same "markup" (what you call html) and loads different stylesheets to change the ENTIRE look AND structure of the site. I would honestly not waste as much time as I have in this thread did I not believe what I was saying.

I would be very interested in looking at this, and am taking the time to look at it now, because as far as my years of working with CSS and HTML have proven, i have never been able to successfully reposition DIV elements which are at the top and bottom of the unformatted HTML without having to change the actual HTML.

By the way, there's no need to bother arguing back - i'm most likely wrong; i always am. It would be nice to be able to win an argument, but life isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.

[lucas131]

contact me