Uh... I never wrote that.Roja wrote:foobar wrote:Frontpage isn't designed to make complient code (although I bet it could - I'm going to try when I get home) - it's designed to easily make websites that work well for ~90% of people on the web.
Frontpage discussion
Moderator: General Moderators
No. I did.
And Web Designers don't need to know HTML - that's used by Web Developers.
Also - you called my mum stupid.
Dreamweaver messes with your code too, unless you tell it not to. Just like Frontpage.The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Unless you know html, and are using a WYSIWYG that does not mess with anything you're doing (Dreamweaver) you shouldn't even be messing with web design.
And Web Designers don't need to know HTML - that's used by Web Developers.
Also - you called my mum stupid.
LOL sorry... I guess that is a little exreme, but it just irritates me that people think web design is so simple. It isn't. I am talking about people who think they'll be able to make a professional site with frontpage and paypal.Grim... wrote:No. I did.
Dreamweaver messes with your code too, unless you tell it not to. Just like Frontpage.The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Unless you know html, and are using a WYSIWYG that does not mess with anything you're doing (Dreamweaver) you shouldn't even be messing with web design.
And Web Designers don't need to know HTML - that's used by Web Developers.
Also - you called my mum stupid.
Dreamweaver mx 2004 does not mess with my code.
- trukfixer
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Hmm, but seriously, what's wrong with that website??The Ninja Space Goat wrote: Man... I don't care what you say WYSIWYG editors (in general) suck. Unless you know html, and are using a WYSIWYG that does not mess with anything you're doing (Dreamweaver) you shouldn't even be messing with web design. This results in websites like this...
http://www.paradisesoccer.com/
It's clean, it's HTML compliant (with the exception of a single unrecognized character) , and decently informative..
I dont see what's so bad about "websites like that" ??
unless you meant it as an example of a "pretty good website"
Maybe I'm just a little old fashioned, but I actually honestly like websites with a simple design (plain black and white is fine by me) and that also contain the information I'd be looking for, in a sensible order..
Well I am probably talking to the wrong crowd. I am a web designer. You are all programmers.trukfixer wrote:Hmm, but seriously, what's wrong with that website??The Ninja Space Goat wrote: Man... I don't care what you say WYSIWYG editors (in general) suck. Unless you know html, and are using a WYSIWYG that does not mess with anything you're doing (Dreamweaver) you shouldn't even be messing with web design. This results in websites like this...
http://www.paradisesoccer.com/
It's clean, it's HTML compliant (with the exception of a single unrecognized character) , and decently informative..
I dont see what's so bad about "websites like that" ??
unless you meant it as an example of a "pretty good website"
Maybe I'm just a little old fashioned, but I actually honestly like websites with a simple design (plain black and white is fine by me) and that also contain the information I'd be looking for, in a sensible order..
My training is in Graphic Design too. I'm not a "programmer." But I agree with Trukfixer to some extent. A site doesn't have to have any color at all to be a good design. The purpose of design in the end is to communicate not necessarily to impress with color. If what is being communicated is the written word (which is most of the web) why can't a simple design be implemented? The format for books hasn't changed for centuries because the design works.
- John Cartwright
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11470
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
I've done both, and you really don't know the background of every person on the forums or this thread. Even I'm not arrogant enough to think I do.The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Well I am probably talking to the wrong crowd. I am a web designer. You are all programmers.
You complain that FP messes with your html - but it doesnt if you configure it not to. You then hold up dreamweaver as the alternative - which does the same thing if not configured correctly.
You complain that people think its easy to create a website, but its not. We definitely disagree. With the advances in HTML, its easy in a WYSIWYG editor. Now, a fair comment would be that the curve from "Crap" to "Good" and then to "Excellent" is definitely linear, and its even more fair to say that *no editor* creates an excellent design - only people USING them do. But that excellent designer can use frontpage just as easy as dreamweaver, or notepad. Its not the tool producing poor results, so stop knocking the tool because of the most common user of the tool.
Your complaints about *people* and *users* have nothing to do with Frontpage. And frankly, they are elitist, and not accurate. There was definitely a time when "using a computer" was not something the average person could do. However, my friends' 6 year old can open folders, navigate, delete files, execute programs, and more. Its not challenging anymore. I don't just think so - I see it every day.
I think all of your arguments boil down to the same thing in the end - you think people are stupid, and that the majority couldn't do what you do. I've been consistently shown the exact opposite.
But that doesn't change the fact that Frontpage, configured properly, is a well-designed web editor that produces perfectly acceptable code. If it doesn't, its your fault for not configuring it properly.
[update]
I went back to look at some of your examples of pages you've done:
viewtopic.php?t=41151 - invalid html
viewtopic.php?t=40401 - invalid html
viewtopic.php?t=40209 - invalid xhtml (wont even render in some browsers!)
I see a bunch of tag-soup! You might wanna look at using frontpage to improve your design work!
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
I used to use a bit of Netscape Composer back in the day. I currently stick with a text editor. Now not being a pro web designer it seems to me that many PHP developers will have above par skills in the area (unless I'm wrong in what PHP does...).
I see nothing wrong with a WYSIWYG editor. Everyone's going to have to start in HTML somewhere and a visual editor is neat stepping stone (and future design tool) to start with.
Unless FP completely misleads the user...I see few issues. Can't be as bad as Composer surely...
And I could still manage some decent web pages on that one. Of course I have literally never opened up FP - I'm a fan of editing html directly from an editor...
I see nothing wrong with a WYSIWYG editor. Everyone's going to have to start in HTML somewhere and a visual editor is neat stepping stone (and future design tool) to start with.
Unless FP completely misleads the user...I see few issues. Can't be as bad as Composer surely...
I hated Frontpage when I first tried to design a webpage with it, some time in 1998 - Frontpage 1.0. PHP was Pretty Homepage Parser back then was very young and I designed and online shop in Javascript. Frontpage overwrote everything it dind't know (and it didn't know a lot of things). It did pretty much everything Ninja Space Goat complained about (the facts, not the opinions) and back then, there was no option of preserving HTML. Back then, the browser-wars between IE and Netscape were hot and Frontpage was one weapon in MS' arsenal to use against Netscape (i.e. Frontpage extensions, seamless integration into other MS Office products, etc.)
That was back in 1998. Frontpage has come a long way, as well as Dreamweaver and others. Even Dreamweaver, which always had the default setting of preserving existing code, produces standard-compliant HTML since its latest version (released 3 or 4 months ago or so).
The last time I looked at Frontpage (think it was some time in 2002) it was a decent tool to do some WYSIWYG layouting in and most of the major issues from earlier were addressed. There are no browser wars anymore, FF is here to stay, but will never become the mainstream Desktop browser as long as over 90% of computers run Windows as OS.
If you're using Frontpage to edit your PHP-files, it is, as Roja said, your own fault. Same goes for Dreamweaver or, indeed, any WYSIWYG editor.
With regards to HTML: who cares? That's peanuts. In a couple of years from now, the largest majority of websites will be mostly parsed XML.
If you want to program PHP or other languages, get the editor you're most comfortable working with and do it. Be it Zend, Komodo, vim, PHPEdit, scythe or whatever rocks your boat. There is no editor that fits all - and that's good.
That was back in 1998. Frontpage has come a long way, as well as Dreamweaver and others. Even Dreamweaver, which always had the default setting of preserving existing code, produces standard-compliant HTML since its latest version (released 3 or 4 months ago or so).
The last time I looked at Frontpage (think it was some time in 2002) it was a decent tool to do some WYSIWYG layouting in and most of the major issues from earlier were addressed. There are no browser wars anymore, FF is here to stay, but will never become the mainstream Desktop browser as long as over 90% of computers run Windows as OS.
If you're using Frontpage to edit your PHP-files, it is, as Roja said, your own fault. Same goes for Dreamweaver or, indeed, any WYSIWYG editor.
With regards to HTML: who cares? That's peanuts. In a couple of years from now, the largest majority of websites will be mostly parsed XML.
If you want to program PHP or other languages, get the editor you're most comfortable working with and do it. Be it Zend, Komodo, vim, PHPEdit, scythe or whatever rocks your boat. There is no editor that fits all - and that's good.
Roja wrote:I've done both, and you really don't know the background of every person on the forums or this thread. Even I'm not arrogant enough to think I do.The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Well I am probably talking to the wrong crowd. I am a web designer. You are all programmers.
You complain that FP messes with your html - but it doesnt if you configure it not to. You then hold up dreamweaver as the alternative - which does the same thing if not configured correctly.
You complain that people think its easy to create a website, but its not. We definitely disagree. With the advances in HTML, its easy in a WYSIWYG editor. Now, a fair comment would be that the curve from "Crap" to "Good" and then to "Excellent" is definitely linear, and its even more fair to say that *no editor* creates an excellent design - only people USING them do. But that excellent designer can use frontpage just as easy as dreamweaver, or notepad. Its not the tool producing poor results, so stop knocking the tool because of the most common user of the tool.
Your complaints about *people* and *users* have nothing to do with Frontpage. And frankly, they are elitist, and not accurate. There was definitely a time when "using a computer" was not something the average person could do. However, my friends' 6 year old can open folders, navigate, delete files, execute programs, and more. Its not challenging anymore. I don't just think so - I see it every day.
I think all of your arguments boil down to the same thing in the end - you think people are stupid, and that the majority couldn't do what you do. I've been consistently shown the exact opposite.
But that doesn't change the fact that Frontpage, configured properly, is a well-designed web editor that produces perfectly acceptable code. If it doesn't, its your fault for not configuring it properly.
[update]
I went back to look at some of your examples of pages you've done:
viewtopic.php?t=41151 - invalid html
viewtopic.php?t=40401 - invalid html
viewtopic.php?t=40209 - invalid xhtml (wont even render in some browsers!)
I see a bunch of tag-soup! You might wanna look at using frontpage to improve your design work!