Current time: 04-19-2014, 03:06 PM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Replacement for FrontPage
05-24-2005, 11:51 AM
Post: #21
Replacement for FrontPage
Quote:<img border="0" dynsrc="baby's 1st Bday.mpg" start="mouseover">
In addition to the nonstandard "dynsrc" atribute and the lack of the required "src" attribute, this code is invalid because spaces are not permitted in URLs unless encoded as % 20 .

-- Dan
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
05-24-2005, 12:24 PM
Post: #22
Replacement for FrontPage
is that space between % and 20 compliant? Big Grin

You got hit by the same bb/html parsing I did when posting that Wink

jason
Find all posts by this user
05-24-2005, 12:45 PM
Post: #23
Replacement for FrontPage
ElArtGeek! Please forgive me, I'm not picking on you Smile I'm enjoying the dialog.

I asked in my previous post "Seems you're implying that there's some kind of sacrifice when design this way? Besides the learning what would that be?" - I thought I was catching the "standards compliant designs are ugly" vibe and this appears to confirm:

Quote:Believe it or not, sophisticated graphic design is important to a lot of people.
Engaging design and standards compliance are not mutually exclusive!

On to something I meant to say earlier... If you want a job as a "web designer" I think you'd do well to learn Dreamweaver. Whenever I check out competition, if it's not a firm that's heavy on app building, but rather informational brochure type stuff (graphic designers, ad agencies, web site designers etc), the sites look to be made with Dreamweaver. If it's a real agency with staff and bills to pay, seems like Dreamwever knocks it out quick and that's what they need to be profitable.

If you want to work in this purist veign you're gonna have a whale of a time finding clients that will suffer your geek talk sales pitch on the benefits. Somedays I think I may as well learn DW and go to work for a big firm and draw the paycheck, go home at 5 etc. Less stress, less forehead contusions from beating your head against the wall Smile

There's a thousand ways to skin a cat.

As for the OP's question: maX's HTML Beauty a fine, free, plain text editor with a ton of extremely nice features.

But I use Dreamweaver Big Grin

jason
Find all posts by this user
05-24-2005, 12:58 PM
Post: #24
Replacement for FrontPage
Quote:I believe you are making the universal mistake of assuming that your method and experience is the only viable method and that your "understanding" of the concept of media and medium is complete.
Of course I'm not making that assumption, but one must face facts, nonetheless. I have also been a teacher (although that was restricted to teaching HTML and CSS), so I am familiar with the concept of communication.

Quote:Believe it or not, sophisticated graphic design is important to a lot of people.
What has Dreamweaver got to do with sophisticated graphic design? Dreamweaver is just a WYSIWYG editor for creating small-scale web applications.

Quote:You can write clean code with Dreamweaver. You can also write bloated junk with the plugins. Here's an idea. Don't use the plugins! Learn how to write or modify javascript and include it in your sites via the code.
You can only write clean code if you eschew the WYSIWYG features of the software. Yes, the code is standards-compliant (apart from embedded media), but it is anything but clean (it's usually festooned with nested tables). And if you do eschew the WYSIWYG features, you might as well be working with a text editor.

Quote:Who's influencing the web and society these days? It's the bloggers.
Bloggers are influencing society, but business is influencing the web.

Quote:Dreamweaver is used widely for template design
As I already said, it biggest role in web development is for producing mockups for websites that will later be handcoded in JSPs. Other than that, it is primarily used for small business websites, most of which are static.

Quote:Again, I also think it is important to answer the OP's question. Someone looking for a replacement to Frontpage is probably looking for a WYSIWYG editor.
I did answer the original question.

---------------
Simon Jessey
Keystone Websites | si-blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
05-24-2005, 04:46 PM
Post: #25
Replacement for FrontPage
Quote:You can only write clean code if you eschew the WYSIWYG features of the software. Yes, the code is standards-compliant (apart from embedded media), but it is anything but clean (it's usually festooned with nested tables). And if you do eschew the WYSIWYG features, you might as well be working with a text editor.
This is how I use Dreamweaver myself, code view 100%. I thouht I was going to purchase it to get to know the interface and utilize the workflow improvement features. I now only use it because I paid good money for it and daggumit, I'ma get my money's worth (apparently not gonna happen.)

That's why I recommend HTML Beauty still, I'd be using it if I hadn't shelled out for DW. Grrr. That's makes me feel so dumb to say this out loud Smile I still use Beauty quite a bit for spot editing when I don't wanna consume DW sized chunks of memory, and when DW crashes on a global find and replace, I whip out Beauty to clean up the mess.

Screw it, I'm going back to Beauty. Gah.

jason
Find all posts by this user
05-24-2005, 07:02 PM
Post: #26
Replacement for FrontPage
I tried hard to avoid this one, as this debate can quickly reach "which text editor do you prefer?" or even "Mac OS or Windows" levels of heated-ness. :>

However, my thoughts:

1. WYSIWYG editors are, in my opinion, typically pretty bad - mostly because they isolate you from your HTML, and generally generate poor mark-up that is not really understood by the creator.

2. While a common reason for recommending such editors has traditionally been that they're "easier", I just don't see it. In my attempts to play with DreamWeaver, I've found the interface cumbersome and hard to wrap my head around. I believe a lot people really overestimate how difficult HTML is, when it really isn't. Despite appearances, it's not even close to learning how to program.

3. I do all of my coding in a text editor. BBEdit on the Mac (an awesome editor), UltraEdit on Windows (not so much).

4. I don't care much for the 'site management' tools bundled into WYSIWYG editors, though in large part it's because most of the so-called sites I work on are actually treated more like programming projects. It's more likely for me to be writing a single PHP script that generates pages on-the-fly from a database than it is for me to be creating a web site with 10-15 pages of content.

5. Similarly, WYSIWYG tools tend to work rather poorly for scripts - even 'embedded' scripting languages like PHP. They seem to encourage a mixture of presentational content (HTML) and programming logic, which is bad bad bad.

6. In general, once you move away from the 'multiple site made up of pages' paradigm and into the 'web application' paradigm, you will increasingly find that having a good knowledge of HTML will help you.

7. When people ask, I usually recommend just buying a good book and plopping down in front of a text editor for some experimentation. If they really want a graphical editor, though, I usually point them toward DreamWeaver (mostly because I've heard that it messes up HTML the least of the major editors) and away from Frontpage.

Just my thoughts. :>

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
05-25-2005, 10:39 AM
Post: #27
Replacement for FrontPage
scjessy, user1919, Jeff, et al;

I, too, am enjoying the discourse, not trying to start a flame war! I respect your opinions and experience.

// insert multiple emoticons here

It's sort of funny that I am the Dreamweaver apologist here since anyone who knows me knows how much I dislike the program for all of the reasons already laid out in this thread. But, since the EVIL word came up it prompted me to take the role of devil's advocate. Because, I've heard it many times before. My point being, it's easy for serious developers to lose track of the importance of the web as a creative medium for the many, rather than reserved for the few "masters" who can harness its power and make money off it; be they developers, businesses, pundits or governments.

I don't teach software courses, the design department handles that, I teach media theory, digital art and education courses that incorporate software or the Internet. I teach mostly graduate students and professional development for teachers in the field, not always media savvy future designers. So, my perspective is different because of who my audience generally is.

I am quite old in Internet years. I began using SGML in the late 1980s and have been working on online content projects since 1990 (for AOL, pre-Internet days) -- I've been a graphic designer since 1976 (so CSS is a natural for me, since it's similar to old-fashioned type-spec'ing). So, I am coming from a long view perspective. When I started developing for the graphical web, there were no WYSIWYG editors. BBedit became the only useful "time saving" editor available and was the only thing I used until Adobe bought GoLive Cyberstudio and renvisioned it as an extension of their digital studio package. Still, I generally spend much of my time in the code view. I prefer GoLive to Dreamweaver, personally -- I think encourages better coding and understanding than Dreamweaver -- and, as part of the creative suite, it's a better buy. Dreamweaver has only, in my opinion, become a viable tool with the latest version. Of course, as an educator, I (and my students) can get a significant discount on the software. Apx $350 for the Adobe CS or Macromedia Studio MX is a pretty sweet deal.

You are correct that most people use these tools poorly and that the programs do encourage lazy practices and a disassociation with the code. But, there are designers and developers using these programs intelligently and using them to streamline their design process. You just don't see it because there is not any tell-tale crap code in their work. And there are many artists, educators and thinkers using these programs, and CMS/Blogging tools, to connect, collaborate and express themselves via new media. And that is a good thing.
Find all posts by this user
05-25-2005, 02:11 PM
Post: #28
Replacement for FrontPage
Quote:But, since the EVIL word came up it prompted me to take the role of devil's advocate.
In fairness to Macromedia, we are talking about a much milder form of evil than that of things like Microsoft FrontPage, frames, and the lack of a Skip Intro link.

---------------
Simon Jessey
Keystone Websites | si-blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
05-25-2005, 05:40 PM
Post: #29
Replacement for FrontPage
God bless the skip intro link (DHSOTMers take note!)

jason
Find all posts by this user
06-22-2005, 05:17 PM
Post: #30
Replacement for FrontPage
Quote:By "on the fly" do you mean once to create the 10-15 pages, or
as visitors request pages? Why do this? If the former, is it to
have increased reliability of static pages, and not rely on
database functioning 24/7, while having benefits of using
databases?

Well, most of my 'sites' these days are actually web applications, and are far more likely to have just a few people using them at a time than a bunch. So, saving database connections is, for the most part, not a huge concern. Obviously if I were to re-write these scripts for use on a high profile production site I might make different design decisions.

In fact, there probably isn't much I could even do that would benefit from writing static files, as most of the pages involve adding or deleting stuff from databases in the first place. When pretty much everything results in what would need to be a dynamic page, there's only so much you can do statically.

One exception to this is a script I've developed (for a personal project) that is essentially an editor for a single static web site I've been working on. I wanted the ability to make changes via the web from anywhere - even a random web browser somewhere. You do all of the editing in the CMS, then run a little Perl script and it outputs everything as static HTML pages.

Quote:Why is this so bad bad bad?

The biggest reason is maintainability. Mixing presentation with code on a small script usually isn't a problem at all, but once your script is measured in thousands of lines it becomes a problem. Long tracts of intermixed code and HTML make it harder to get an overall view of what is being done (both programmatically and visually), or to make changes.

It gets even worse for large projects wherein visual changes may need to be do-able by non-programmers. Having all of the HTML in a single place with no code in it makes this possible without scaring them (some Perl code in particular can be pretty scary!).

Some people further break this down into a Model/View/Controller (MVC)paradigm, though I'm honestly not 100% sold on the need for that in all cases. However, for any project of a significant size I'd sooner take a boot to the head than deal with a heavily mixed presentation/logic script ("spaghetti code").

Some more on these concepts:

http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=...&idnum=309
http://www.paragoncorporation.com/Articl...ticleID=21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVC

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 


Forum Jump: