kherrerab,

I changed the TBH files to keep a static layout. I can send them to you if you'd like. Also, maybe someone can put them up on codeplex so they are available to everyone. My mark-up is very rudimentary, any comments and further mods to support all browsers, keep the columns a fixed height, etc., will be greatly appreciated.

Alex

I think it's optimum to have a local copy of SQL Server 2005 and have a hosting service that also supports 2005. But I don't think its absolutely necessary. After all the book assumes you develop in Express and only then deploy in the full product. If the hosting service supports 2005 it should be doable. Just create the database remotely with the free SQL Server Management Studio Express tool.

I'm surprised to hear that hosting services in Denmark charge more for 2005. My hosting service charges essentially the same for ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0, ColdFusion, or PHP with SQL Server 2000, 2005, SQL Serevr 2005 Express, Access, or MySQL.

I had a few glitches with Express so I switched to the full version at the same price. I don't really need a local full copy of SQL Server at all. I only use it for testing and prototyping which I could do well enough with the Express MDF file version.

Pat

http://weboperahouse.com

This is absolutely true. I truly hope no one is being misled into thinking that they need to buy the full version of SQL Server 2005 in order to deploy their site on a remote server that has it. All you need is the express version to test/develop on your home computer. Then you just go through the directions that your host has on uploading your local mdf file. It will then essentially be automatically converted into the full version on the remote server. I haven't seen a host that can't already do this. I use Ultima hosts currently, and it's a fast process to do this using their online SQL Server admin tool.

Yesterday at noon I stopped workng on my Beer House based WebOperaHouse site and switched over to a completely new Beer House descended site targeting technical education. I said I was going to do this as a test of how long it took to develop a site from scratch using a TBH foundation.

The first results are in - it took me about a day to get the graphics converted and I'm not quite finished. My TBH site is rather more elaborate graphically than the average site so I think this is an outside estimate. I spent probably half that time on the main page graphic alone. I use all graphic buttons so it took me a while to go from red-maroon tones to blue-aqua.

One thing I seem to be learning is how to visualize color codes. For example I can picture #bb3466 (kinda tomato red). I don't want to be able to do this - Visual Studio should have a built in right click color visualizer.

ASP.NET 2.0 fragments style files that used to be unified. In ASP.NET 1.1 I had one style file and one images file folder. Cascading logic was simple and consistent. Now I have separate style, skin, and image files for each theme as well a the central images file. Skins don't cascade they override. All this makes formerly simple pages much harder to modify unless you really understand the whole structure.

Of course I make this harder yet in that I use telerik controls each of which which also has its own skins and image folders.

But the point is that when CSS was introduced it was supposed to enable you to convert a whole site's look with just a few simple central edits. That hasn't happened. Housewives used to work 8 or 10 hours a day on housework. A century of "labor saving devices" later and housewives still work 8 or 10 hours a day on housework.

Pat

http://weboperahouse.com

Plb, it seems to me you're somewhat making things harder all on your own...all graphic buttons?

I kind of agree with you on the right-click color visualizer, but if you're editing a CSS file, right click within a style. Click on the menu item that says "Build style" and you'll get what your looking for and more.

And sure, styling is fragmented, but there's SOOO much more flexibility. CSS doesn't have a 1 to 1 ability with skins. To see what I mean, all you have to do is try to write a Gridview that has alternating colors per row (for better readability). Skins are far superior for situations like these. They happen frequently.

As far as housewives...I wouldn't want to check my email using a mainframe :)

What I actually want is a color rollover behavior. Your tip - for which I'm appreciative - still takes three mouse clicks. My copy paste into a color editor method takes fours clicks. I would like no clicks. I would like whenever you have a css file open in VS as the cursor goes over a color code the color appears in a little pop up window like a Tool Tip.

My point about progress and new features is that whenever a piece of technology adds 20% more productivity we don't work less, we increase our expectations by that same 20%. A dozen years ago there was a raging debate among economists if computer and automation investments had any positive ROI. Lester Thurow of Harvard said no. Most now beieve he was wrong but it was not a simple obvious argument.

I made my first eCommerce web site in 1995 (IDC/HTX). It seems to take me just as much time now. Of course there is a lot more in my .NET 2.0 sites but the total hours haven't dropped much.

The reason I bring this up is beacuse I am trying to determine how long it takes me to make up a Beer House based or derived site.

Finally, yes I use some graphic buttons. Mostly I use ASP buttons with a style that defines the grapic file for a template button image. In the forum I use full ASP:Image buttons with a individual custom button images for each function. This takes a some time but that's the forum user expectation these days. I also use simple text links and link buttons. About ten years ago most stylish web pages had a lot of graphic buttons. Today there are more simple text links so as to keep the visual look from being to "heavy". Most of the better sites today mix it up.

The Beer House uses a couple plain gray rectangular buttons - eg. the Vote button for the Polls. This is a design mistake IMHO. Better sites just dont show these industrial looking buttons. Look at the Dell eCommerce site or the Microsoft XP site. They have several different types of links but no square gray buttons (like those in this forum). Marco admits that his forte is not visual design.

Pat





http://weboperahouse.com

PLB,

Oh ok--actually that would be an interesting addition--almost like a kind of intellisense for css.

I also believe I understand your other argument better now. i.e.: Now that we don't have to build a daunting membership system from scratch, we thus spend our new free time doing more work. I am guilty of the same thing. I've learned HTML, Javascript, CSS, and Photoshop to an advanced extent--now I'm spending the time I've saved from speed/effeciency now learning Flash, ASP.NET, etc.

That being said, I will say this:

You did say you're doing much more now, and hours have dropped? Building an ecommerce site in 1995, but with equivalent features as one of the more comprehensive sites you have done recently, used to be understood as a team job in order to be finished in similar time. No matter how little hours dropped, I still call this efficiency especially because you are getting a lot more done, and on your own.

I agree with your design comments. Nobody likes a cluttered page, and people dislike plain pages even more. I'm doing the visual design for www.ourworldmusic.com and I try to make sure buttons and such have some life to them.

I can't wait to see your new site and add it to the list!

i tried to do this with no success... i saved the image from your site to test and changed the css for the loginbox with no success.

is there something else to do?

kherrerab,

Sorry, I probably did not make my instructions clear enough.

Problem
The Beer House header is a 184px high section made of two parts: the big graphic (980px) that sits on the left border (#header in the theme css) and the slice that fills is the header to the right margin (#header2). The LoginBox sits on top of the the right edge of the fixed header graphic and the slice generated header graphic.

This kind of design always fills the user's browser from margin to margin and allocates available space for the site's use. Fixed image designs expand and contract the wasted area of the borders. Fixed image sites are easier to control since they present the same layout irrespective of the user's browser.

The dynamic resizing design works well if:

• The fixed graphic isn't too wide
• The slice has a solid color

If the graphic is too wide then when the user opens the Favorites or the Search Explorer bar in their browser the LoginBox will slide underneath the graphic. This makes the text in the LoginBox very hard to read. Also if you want the header slice to have a pattern (not just a simple solid) then again the LoginBox will be hard to read.

The easy way to solve both problems is to put a solid color behind the LoginBox. I chose to make a simple rounded corner rectangular graphic. This goes in each of the themes Default.css files. The graphic goes in the images folder of each theme.

That's all there is to it.

Pat

http://weboperahouse.com

oooshola,

You chastise me for using simple css graphic buttons when your site uses Flash and a very slick menu system.

That site of course isn't a Beer House or even an ASP.NET site. It does however reinforce my point about style. Our World Music is a very good looking site. If ASP.NET is to hold off the inroads that
LAMP technologies are making in the web development market their sites will have to look better.

OurWorld Music's Flash animation is particularly good. As you no doubt know about half of all the web sites cited in Web Sites That Suck are guilty of Flash excesses.

How is the menu done? Is it a third party product?

Are you part of the development team for this site?

Pat

http://weboperahouse.com