[QuantumDoja]

As the developer of www.psd2html.co.uk I can honestly say I am very happy that someone else out there is doing something similar to me...you might ask why?

When I launched Psd2Html in late 2010, I was unable to get on the front page of HackerNews, or any other website for that matter, I was down-voted to oblivion. I had insulting, slanderous comments posted on the Mac App Store which were untrue.

I was ridiculed by "hand coding only" services like www.psd2html.com, the employee lots of people and don't want to make people redundant, but the problem with this approach is that they will never move forward.

I was certain, and I'm still certain hand-coding will go the way of the Dodo.

So Markupwand, thanks for re-validating the idea, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the idea was worthwhile.

I can see that I need to enhance my service/business model/add relative CSS positioning as an option.

I hope we'll be good competition for each other.

Thanks

Chris

[bpierre]

I can’t tell about hand-coding, but I am certain webdesign in Photoshop will go the way of the Dodo.

This tool is totally inadequate for webdesign, and therefore for code generation: it’s just a tool to manipulate pixels.

[splatcollision]

I can't upvote this enough. I agree so much that I built my own web design tool. See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285083

[jameswyse]

"I was certain, and I'm still certain hand-coding will go the way of the Dodo."

I don't think so. How are you going to handle responsive designs or hell even fluid designs? Or deciding which HTML tag to use? HTML tags are meant to be semantic.

More and more people are moving away from designing in photoshop to designing straight in the browser.

edit: I see the link in the OP uses bootstrap and is well put together, but it's still far from perfect.

[brianfryer]

> HTML tags are meant to be semantic.

I totally agree with this and gave my own detailed explanation of the difference between semantic and non-semantic HTML here --> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4284054

[sopooneo]

I used to hear that a lot. Then everyone went nuts for bootstrap.css, which is very decisively not semantic. Now I don't know what to believe.

[brianfryer]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the heavy usage of Bootstrap that's been going on lately.

Bootstrap not only makes it simple to visualize the construction of a page, but their documentation is really easy to understand (while HTML's documentation can be difficult to go through).

It's great how flexible HTML/CSS is -- it comes pre-built with an existing paradigm (semantic HTML), and tools to create your own (read: <div>s & classes/IDs). Personally, I prefer using the standards already set than creating something new and/or using something different.

[crazygringo]

Hand-coding isn't going to go the way of the dodo, because in practice, web pages are vastly more complex than Photoshop or Word documents.

They need to respond dynamically to window resizing, have rules about which directions text boxes expand in when they overflow with text, how the page operates when a whole section is missing, etc.

Any tool that appropriately allows for all this complexity to be specified, has already become as complex as CSS itself, thus defeating the purpose.

And in my personal front-end experience, 95% of my time is spent on these harder details. Throwing together the basic HTML/CSS skeleton of a page is trivial, and so fast I don't really need a tool to speed it up, especially when that tool is always bound to get something wrong.

[sic1]

You sir, are spot on. You put it perfectly here:

> Any tool that appropriately allows for all this complexity to be specified, has already become as complex as CSS itself, thus defeating the purpose.

This was my immediate issue with CSS Hat. The designers are not trained to set up their photoshop files to be properly evaluated in CSS. They do not know CSS, or how it works. They get their pixels "perfect" (or way off most of the time when doing real math with css), but the fact is to use tools like this they have to get on board 100%. For some designers, this is easier than others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still interested in trying out the tool. Maybe it is magic...

[tluyben2]

Psd2html.com and services like it don't usually do complex stuff; they do the fast cutting for a few $ and that will go the way of the dodo :)

[moconnor]

You might want to check the image magnify links on your home page, Chris: http://www.psd2html.co.uk/screenshots/3.png goes to a css-free html page instead of an image, for example.

Edit: also, the unthemed "Error - Login - Paypal" link from your "Free 3-Day Trial" button probably doesn't convert very well...

[QuantumDoja]

ah! - Thank you! I will get them sorted as soon as I can.

[bobsy]

The output isn't good enough to use straight up and I don't think it ever will be.

Tools like this, which can create good mark up, have a lot of potential to speed up the coding process. If these tools can get the developer 80% there then its great.

I feel this is as far as these tools will take us.

[alanbyrne]

Great post!

P.S I have used (ie paid for) PSD2HMTL and the folks did a magic job. I recommend them to all.

[ricardobeat]

The folks or the machines?

[leejw00t354]

The service provided by http://www.psd2html.com/ seems to be done by humans.

"100% human-coded. 370+ professionals"

[vially]

I think the grandparent was talking about http://www.psd2html.co.uk/