Microsoft Frontpage – is it any good as a Website builder

[SCOBAHCAN]

First off all let me say how good the replies have been – I am very impressed – Thank all very much .

Now onto my latest question ………

All of software links you all have been so kindly sending me are (I’m embarresed) are too expensive for me at this time & so I will have to find less expensive software .

I was given Microsoft Frontpage 2002 as a gift .

How would you compare Microsoft Frontpage to other Web design soft ware – would it be good for a beginner ???

When I build a website using one Web design software – could I transfer whatever I had done so far onto another Web design software if I wanted to at a later date .

When I first got it I played around with it but whenever I tried to save my work it would
Save it for a few days & then it would disappear – was I not doing something right ???

Thanks SCOBAHCAN

[bj]

Though it is possible to make a working website with Microsoft Front Page, it isn't the best way to go about it. FP creates pretty awful code, can't easily be updated in other programs and only functions well in one particular browser (can you guess which one???)

There are other inexpensive or free options, but they will require a bit of learning on your part, since they're not wysiwyg editors (and in my mind that's a good thing since wysiwyg often produces less than perfect code.)

TSW Webcoder is shareware, which is a free trial, then 20 bucks US if you want to buy it when the trial is over. It's a pretty darn good editor. Though I don't use it I did test drive it and it gives a lot of the base functionality that Dreamweaver does without the bloat. It has a good css editor too.

Crimson editor is a freeware program. I haven't tried it but it repeatedly gets recommendations on a few newsgroups I'm on.

There are others- HTMLKit, CoffeeCup, HotDog, Arachnophilia . . .

But the truth is that you don't really NEED any of them. Though they may save you keystrokes, if you learn to code properly you can do it on a piece of paper with a pencil, or using notepad in windows.

[onelife]

Hi there,

As a long term Frontpage wizzywig user and recently converted hand coder, I have to agree with bj in that frontpage produces poor bloated code. Much of this admittedly can be removed or lessened through the design of your site. But none the less the thing does produce extra tags that aren't required half the time.

For example; In one page alone I removed nearly 300 lines of html giberish. From 40kb to 10kb and the page looks better and loads faster and the SE's can now read it a little better - hopefully!

The good thing about frontpage though is the split view so you can type in your code and see how it looks on screen and all very quickly. It is also a quite nice working environment with little obscuring of the working environment. When working with code I like to colour coding; it works well for me.

So if you have been given a copy, use it. But try and write your own code and leave frontpage to upload your work to the web.

Cheers!

[bj]

I know people love to see what they're doing. Though the TSR editor is not quite wysiwyg in that dreamweaver or FP way, it does have a preview function so you can immediately see the results of a change in a browser, and, even better, allows you to preview in both mozilla and IE. When coding using css you want to code for the good browsers then fix for IE so this is a very good thing.

I know we love wysiwyg, I got used to dreamweaver for that same reason, but since I find that these days I use it almost exclusively in codeview, and toggle to design view only when I'm setting color (wysiwyg doesn't show what you really see so it really isn't wysiwyg anymore, is it?) it becomes moot. You HAVE to test in browsers anyway.

[dharrison]

I started off my web design career using FrontPage and although it was OK to start with, after a while when I found my feet, I took the time to learn XHTML and CSS and now I haven't looked back.

There are still things that I have yet to learn (and I daresay I won't ever stop learning). But for a beginner or to create/maintain a quick website, by all means use FrontPage, but learn basic HTML and go through it by hand. A handy tool to get to grips with the basics is "Reveal Tags" on the "View" toolbar.

Another thing: Don't rely on all the bells and whistles in FrontPage either. Some of the FrontPage functions (eg scrolling marquees, page transition) is only supported by IE and may not work in other browsers. And lets face it, some of the Microsoft effects just look plain tacky.

HTH

[MuNKyonline]

Simple answer - no. I have Frontpage and Dreamweaver so I'm not just bashing FP for the hell of it. Frontpage's interface looks awkward and is not as userfriendly as DW. The code produced by both can be a bit crap at times, more so in FP though. That is why I always make the page in code view in Dreamweaver and then check it using the design view.

You can set multiple browsers to check from when you preview from DW, so I use IE and Firefox. I actually
prefer DW MX more than the 2004 version as that was a right pain when it came to creating styles when I used the properties box. It kept creating a new style in numerical order everytime I changed a property even if the same one already existed! It then took extra time to correct it. This was what made me learn css and to not use it at all!

As dharrison said, it's best to learn the code. Then you can see where the program is messing up. Use the program as more of a tool to speed the production up, not to create the whole thing for you.

The good thing about frontpage though is the split view so you can type in your code and see how it looks on screen and all very quickly. It is also a quite nice working environment with little obscuring of the working environment. When working with code I like to colour coding; it works well for me.

You can also do this in Dreamweaver =)

[Chris]

in the world of html WYSIWYG programs, there is dreamweaver and then all the rest. macromedia's editor is head and shoulders above even their closest competitor.

[dharrison]

I'm sure Dreamweaver is the best WYSIWYG Editor, but with any visual software, you can always tell which package was used to create a particular website. Although Dreamweaver sites generally have quite a dynamic appearance, they can be samey. FrontPage websites are definitely the worst. The more you rely on FrontPage features, the more pants the site appears.

I still think that hand coding is the best. That and creative genius ;)

BTW I am glad to hear from you Chris :-). Read abut the tornado that hit Indiana/Kentucky. Did it affect anyone in the office?

[Chris]

hey deb. we are all fine at the office. the tornado hit evansville, indiana the hardest and apparently crushed a mobile home park in the process. :-/

from what i gather from the newswires, it seems to have hit a horse park in KY, but no residential areas, fortunately.

thanks a bunch for the concern. ;)

as for drmwvr, i also learned how to hand-code first, but once macromedia unleashed their power over me, i was an instant convert. drmwvr is SOOOOO powerful.

[dharrison]

I am very glad to hear that you're all OK at WPW :)

But I digress (again!):

I use Globalscape CuteHTML for programming and this too has a preview function to monitor the appearance of your page as you go along. Its not hideously expensive either.

I have yet to be convinced to use Dreamweaver. Maybe when I have enough time to scratch my eye, I might look, but at the mo I'm learning Actinic and am half-way through Web CEO course.

[MuNKyonline]

I think the reason that Dreamweaver is so powerful is due to the way that it integrates so well with the rest of the studio programs. I love working with Fireworks and it's so easy to create navigation menus and graphics that can be exported and imported into Dreamweaver quite seamlessly. There's also Macromedia Contribute and other programs that all work with Dreamweaver and so it's due to it's adaptability for why it far exceeds anything else on the market.

[bj]

Geez, this is tough. I'm a Dreamweaver user just because I've been using it for so long that it's tough to get used to anything else. I've got all those shortcut keys DOWN, honey! And my library of well-used code snippets is way long.

But the truth is that these days I don't even TOUCH their bells and whistles, and work almost exclusively in codeview. Why? Because if you're designing truly innovative css layouts Dreamweaver is FAR from wysiwyg. It screws up the presentation of my sites worse than IE does, so I end up only using splitscreen for color setting, and work 95% of the time in codeview.

The other reason I don't use DW bells and whistles is because most of what DW does with dozens of lines of inline javascript I can do with css and a few lines of code.

So though I'm a DW user and use it almost exclusively, if you code with xhtml/css it is NOT the best way to build a website-- unless, of course, you're doing the work yourself instead of leaving it to the program. If I had it to do over, I'd be using the program recommended earlier, TSW. But old habits are hard to break, and I've been using DW since version 2.

By the way, none of the sites I design look like "DW sites" either. I guess learning which tools are the ones worthwhile to learn is key. I've chosen to learn xhtml/css as my tools of choice, rather than being dependent on software to generate it for me.

[darren13]

"...I've chosen to learn xhtml/css as my tools of choice, rather than being dependent on software to generate it for me..."

Hi bj,

Where did you first start to get to grips with xhtml/css and hand-coding? I've got a major over-haul of some sites coming up (at least seems major for me at the moment) and think I may have to go the route of xhtml and css, but have been using Dreamweaver 3 and 4 for quite a few years now.

I love Dreamweaver to use, seems to be so quick for someone like me (I don't develop sites all the time, it's a pretty major part of my job, but not the sole focus.

I am pretty familiar with html and css but am unsure about which path to pursue at present. How difficult is it to make a page comply with W3C xhtml? Can you use the same basic template once you have some code and go from there?

Thanks, Darren

[bj]

Where did you first start to get to grips with xhtml/css and hand-coding? I've got a major over-haul of some sites coming up (at least seems major for me at the moment) and think I may have to go the route of xhtml and css, but have been using Dreamweaver 3 and 4 for quite a few years now.

Truth is I started coding in notepad before I ever discovered DW, so I've always checked to see what code the program was producing. Truth is I tweaked DW code from the beginning since, though it does produce fairly compliant code, it's always been known for ubergross code bloat. DW and FP share that failing, though FP's code is nowhere near compliant in any way, shape, or form.

I am pretty familiar with html and css but am unsure about which path to pursue at present. How difficult is it to make a page comply with W3C xhtml? Can you use the same basic template once you have some code and go from there?

It isn't difficult making a page compliant. It is difficult making a page compliant and doing what you want it to in all browsers, but the truth is that tables are a thing of the past for layout purposes, access to the web is no longer through just desktop and laptop computers and table layouts will never work well in small devices, and xhtml/css as a codeform and artform has matured to the point where you don't need tables for layout anymore. Those who say you can't get pages working in all browsers without tables haven't bothered to take the time to learn how, or found the learning curve too difficult and steep. Make no mistake, it is steep. But xhtml and css is so much more versatile and fun I for one will never look back. The problems have been, for the most part, solved. You can build cross-browser compliant sites in xhtml/css. I do it all the time.

I started learning xhtml/css around 14 months ago, and though I still occasionally stumble over some weird problem, I can get it to do pretty much anything I want it to do. Turnaround for me was around 5 or 6 months ago, where I finally started to feel comfortable using xhtml/css and things were coming to me automatically instead of being a struggle.

One other thing that I might mention re software tools-- The web is moving more and more toward dynamic content generation and templating (now 100% of my work as a designer.) DW just plain does not handle that OR css floated layouts in design view. Also, the DW template system, which used to be so useful for me, is something I don't use anymore at all. Can you use it with xhtml/css? Of course you can, I used it on the last fully static site I designed. But it's totally useless for dynamically generated sites, which I predict will be the vast majority of sites in 5 years' time. Why would any webdev choose to develop a static html site and be tied to the boring chore of data entry when updates are required, when that webdev can just throw the site up in a content management system and let the client do his or her own updating? Now, that's just my opinion, but a lot of people share it these days.

I hope that answers your questions. It isn't an easy decision for you, to decide to invest the time in a steep learning curve that could open up fabulous new worlds of design for you, or outsource to someone like me who eats, drinks, and sleeps this stuff . . .

[darren13]

Hi bj,

That's great, thanks. So is there no 'user group' or website which has tips and a starting point for xhtml and css? I know you get a lot of them for Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, that sort of thing.

Just taken a look through your site now - not sure how you did it, but I like the text wrapping around images, would you tell me what css property that involves please - I've got a few pages on my site (http://www.halcyonholidaycottages.co.uk/uplay.htm) which I think I might be able to apply this sort of css to. If it's something easy to start with, it seems like a good practical first step to me, or would I have to start from the ground up?

Regards,
Darren.

[darren13]

Originally Posted by darren13

Hi bj,
...Just taken a look through your site now -

http://kickasswebdesign.com/webdesignportfolio.htm

Sorry - forgot to include that - that's the page I mean.

Darren

[bj]

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...&highlight=css

See above topic for some advice on where to find xhtml/css help.

For technique I use for images, see here:

http://wellstyled.com/css-photo-cards.html

But you REALLYREALLYREALLY need to start from the beginning. Table layout and xhtml/css layout are two completely different animals. You're going to have to relearn a lotta stuff.

[darren13]

Originally Posted by bj

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...&highlight=css

But you REALLYREALLYREALLY need to start from the beginning. Table layout and xhtml/css layout are two completely different animals.

bj - thanks - would I be able to start from the ground up on a new page (just one) which I could work on until I was at least happy with the basic principles? That way I wouldn't have to rework the entire site whilst learning (and making mistakes, as will be the case I'm sure). And do I need to change all the .html files to .xhtml or is xhtml just a reference at the start of the document for browsers?
Ta, D.

[bj]

The doctype at the top of documents tells the parser which language the document is written in and how to interpret it. If the document isn't IN that language then errors can occur in the way the document is interpreted.

I suggest you do some reading at http://w3.org. The specs for both html and xhtml are there for you to read and compare.

If you're not ready or willing to put the time in to learning this stuff from the references I've already pointed you toward, I'd be happy to quote you on doing the job for you.

[onelife]

Hi Darren,

I started coding by hand around 2 weeks ago using the 'html in easy steps books' and within an hour I could write my first page. Since then I read the books on css, javascript and xhtml by the same people; all just as good.

Have a look at http://www.ineasysteps.com/ to see what i'm on about and then get them from Amazon for a better price.

I still use Frontpage or Dreamweaver but do everything by hand without problems - with these books by my side. The code is cleaner, faster loading and above all I did it not a program; which makes me proud.

Give'em a look mate and see what you think.

[darren13]

Originally Posted by onelife

Hi Darren,

I started coding by hand around 2 weeks ago using the 'html in easy steps books' and within an hour I could write my first page.

Give'em a look mate and see what you think.

Cheers onelife, I'll give them a quick butchers and see what I think.
D.

[Webnauts]

A good and free WYSIWYG editor: http://www.nvu.com/index.php

[Paul B]

What you should be aware of with FrontPage is that it produces code that is exclusive to FrontPage and will only work on servers with 'FrontPage Extensions' activated.

This may make hosting slightly more expensive. On the plus side it does make forms for example easier to set up. On the minus side it means that site build in FP are committed to FP (which is probably what MS wants) and considerable re-writing might be necessary to get a FP site to run without FP Extensions (where used).

If you are starting from new today, though a free copy of FP is tempting (how legal is that anyway?), I feel it is not the long-term direction to go. If you only ever want to build one site, then OK. But far better to look at something like TopStyle Pro, which will send you in the direction CSS XHTML, which is the future, rather than the past which might have been FP.

By the way I don't believe that you can tell at all whether a site was built with FP or DW without looking at the code: in other words, unless you use the naff FP templates, as site can look just as good, or bad, using either...

[bj]

Ah, but that's not necessarily true-- many times if you look at a site in Firefox or Opera and it doesn't work right it's a pretty good guess that it was designed in FrontPage. :)

[Tim]

I'm definitely with Webnauts. I don't use it but a comprehensive run through NVU tells me this program is a must for people who want a wysiwyg program and who also want to produce valid and accessible sites. It is completely free, supports the latest technologies and is the biggest reason yet why no-one ever needs to use the awful FrontPage or FrontPage Express ever again.

[hawkwind dave]

regardless of which editor you choose to use, leaning basic html and css is a) free, and b) priceless!

I learnt html a couple of years ago, I do use DW, but still tend to hand type the html (except the roll-over buttons).

I got into css about 6 months ago, and after the initial fear of the unknown, it's more a case of forgetting half the html i learnt. So these days it pretty much <div class=x> and <p class=y>. Everything else is on the style sheet.

if you bookmark w3c's css & html examples sections, you realy cant go wrong.

[dharrison]

I read on Microsoft's site that they're pulling he plug on FrontPage and replacing it with something else.

I will look for the link when I have got time.

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by Paul B

What you should be aware of with FrontPage is that it produces code that is exclusive to FrontPage and will only work on servers with 'FrontPage Extensions' activated.

This may make hosting slightly more expensive. On the plus side it does make forms for example easier to set up. On the minus side it means that site build in FP are committed to FP (which is probably what MS wants) and considerable re-writing might be necessary to get a FP site to run without FP Extensions (where used).

If you are starting from new today, though a free copy of FP is tempting (how legal is that anyway?), I feel it is not the long-term direction to go. If you only ever want to build one site, then OK. But far better to look at something like TopStyle Pro, which will send you in the direction CSS XHTML, which is the future, rather than the past which might have been FP.

By the way I don't believe that you can tell at all whether a site was built with FP or DW without looking at the code: in other words, unless you use the naff FP templates, as site can look just as good, or bad, using either...

I would agree with nearly everyone about FP in the past, but I don't agree now. I'm one of those people who tends to work in the most user friendly package [user friendly to me of course!] for the job I'm doing - so I tend to use both FP and Dreamweaver.

The latest versions of FP are MUCH better than the older versions, and provided you don't use any of the FP Extensions or themes - and you don't have to use them - but use it as a straightforward WYSIWYG editor it generates perfectly good clean code, as compliant as any on the market, including Dreamweaver.

Where I think its weak is in its CSS tools, with Dreamweaver being my preferred tool of choice there.

For a professional website designer who knows what bits not to use, FP's a perfectly good package, and as for all those clunky "not quite right" FP sites you see out there, don't blame the tools for the bad workmanship!

[hawkwind dave]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

for all those clunky "not quite right" FP sites you see out there, don't blame the tools for the bad workmanship!

Good point well put. At the end of the day, good design is good design.

[Dcrux]

Question: Are you seeing CMS systems being pushed as a kind of online FrontPage, mostly by web designers?

[bj]

CMS systems aren't being pushed by web designers (at least not by this one.) They're being chosen by clients, and then web designers are picked based on expertise in the CMS that the client has chosen.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

...don't blame the tools for the bad workmanship!

actually, i can because it took them so long to get the package working anywhere near as optimal as it should have been.

the fact that you had to wait almost 10 years for the those code issues to be addressed speaks volumes. during that timeframe, i've pretty much mastered Dreamweaver, a program that runs absolute circles around Microsoft's offering. this begs the question that even if FP does run more like a WYSIWYG web developer suite should, why switch now?

now if you are a new player to the game, i'd recommend coffee cup's web editor much sooner than i would FP...

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by Dcrux

Question: Are you seeing CMS systems being pushed as a kind of online FrontPage, mostly by web designers?

I do promote CMS in the right circumstances, for example where the client wants to update and add content without having to come back to us - for some of our clients, giving access to third parties, such as their PR agency, service engineers etc, to allow them to maintain their own content is important - it allows the site to grow organically, and ensures that the content is up to more date.

Certainly wouldn't see it as an "online FrontPage" though.

The decision at the end of the day as to which option we'll propose depends on the requirements of the client, and there's a balance to be struck between design/coding and practicability.

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by Chris

actually, i can because it took them so long to get the package working anywhere near as optimal as it should have been.

the fact that you had to wait almost 10 years for the those code issues to be addressed speaks volumes. during that timeframe, i've pretty much mastered Dreamweaver, a program that runs absolute circles around Microsoft's offering. this begs the question that even if FP does run more like a WYSIWYG web developer suite should, why switch now?

now if you are a new player to the game, i'd recommend coffee cup's web editor much sooner than i would FP...

I'd agree that it shouldn't have taken them 10 years (although 10 years ago they were all a bit clunky). And I also didn't sit around waiting for them to get it right! Learned Dreamweaver, got a grounding in hand coding, and marvelled at quite how Adobe managed to create something so counter-intuitive as Go Live...

Just that in the last year working on site at a client was reaquainted with FP, and was very pleasantly surprised at how much it had improved, and how user friendly it was for non-professionals used to the other MS Office products.