<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
And I'm 100% with Nancy on this one (and if a=b and b=c...) I'd add a
general warning. Take it or leave it as you like. If a client is going
to want their site to be pixel perfect in comparison to their artist's
design (or any other phrase indicating the 'look' is all-important and
the artist is near-deity), and if the artist is not a Drupal themer,
run the other way unless you can up the price, because whether they
give you a CSS file (see below) or you have to take their files and
slice them and generate your own, it's going to be time...time...time.<br>
<br>
Jeff<br>
<br>
On 11/01/2010 10:21 PM, nan wich wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:561992.25530.qm@web180311.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div>I'm 100% with Larry on this one. The site I'm currently working
on was done with not only mockups, but as a sub-site to a Java site.
They gave (as in forced) me their "standard" CSS. I have spent so much
time trying to make Drupal work with it. As time permits, I am now
going back and removing their crap and moving back towards regular
Drupal CSS.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As an example, CKEditor is set up for Drupal CSS and looked
terrible with their CSS. We wasted probably 100 hours trying to get
CKEditor to look something like it would when published. And that
required cloning a good portion of their stuff into a special style
sheet. Had they used normal Drupal CSS, I suspect it would have worked
right out of the box.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In this case, the only good that came from the mockups was in
getting the custom coding right. It was a case of a picture being worth
1000 words.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>