Do You Hand Code or use WYSWYG editors? [Archive]

USALUG

08-30-2003, 12:23 AM

I learned the old fashioned way. Windows 95 and the simple text editor. Sounds funny, Windows 95 and old fashion, in the same sentence, but that was 5 or 6 years ago and what seems like eons in terms of computing advances. With processors doubling in speed every year or so and WYSWYG editors advancing in capabilities, I'm wondering if I'm a dinosaur already :) Does anyone else code by hand ??

I code by hand. For me that is the fun part anyway. Figuring out how to make obscure looking commands do my bidding ! I run my own web design service as a part time business www.iowawebmasters.com, and only as a hobby. (Critique it if you want, but it's never done ;P ) I don't ever expect to make a living doing web design. But with that in mind, I ENJOY doing the coding and getting the clean design in the code that can only be done by hand.

The majority of the websites I visit seem to use Frontpage, Dreamweaver, or some other code generating program. I don't like the idea of "having" to use the same program that generated the code to update a page, because it's an unreadable scrambled mess. The one exception I find is that Dreamweaver actually creates somewhat elegant code, but it's still bloated and sometimes obscure in what it's actually trying to do. I've tried them, and always get irritated that something isn't just right and end up working from the source code again anyway.

I usually start out designing a template page. Getting the basic layout of the page the way I want. I then decide which parts will be changed often and convert that to some sort of include file so that I can update ONE file to change ALL the pages at once. Usually this is some of the meta tags, and the copyright, and if I don't require css, then the <body > tag is also an include file. Usually a header / body / footer system. More or less, depending on the site.

Then I can just "copy" the template page and get to work on adding content for the site. Seems fast enough to me. Now you know how I do things. Any thoughts on which way is the best? Hand coding or WYSWYG ??

GooMoo

08-30-2003, 01:06 AM

i whole heartedly agree, hand coding is by far superior. you can't find an editor that can make as clean, concise, and quick loading as hand code. i started the very same way in notepad. i do admit to using dreamweaver nowadays, just for the color coding. i follow a similar process to creating my pages, though i start in photoshop and do the complete layout there. then i set guidelines as my cut lines for each seperate image (and define whitespace), and use different layers to create rollovers and such. good luck with your coding!

Narasinha

08-30-2003, 01:34 AM

I've always preferred to write my code with a simple text editor. I actually started writing HTML with a text editor on my Amiga 500 computer. Interestingly enough, I had no graphical web browser in which to view the pages. I would ask friends on IRC to look at a page, then I would make adjustements. I would look at my pages using Lynx to make sure they were navigable.
Later, in '96, when working for a small web design company, I had the experience of "fixing" a site that someone had designed using a WYSIWYG eidtor. I'm not sure if it was an early version of FrontPage, or something on a Mac. Whatever it was, the output was horrendous and bloated. Took me forever to get it to work properly in IE and Netscape and AOL at the same time. All those tiny little table cells, and space-holding graphics... aaarrrgghhh!
These days I look at sites and check the soure and see the same problems. The worst problem I see is that the code never ever validates. These programs still use proprietary and deprecated HTML tags. I strive to have valid HTML and CSS all the time.
People often use the argument that 92 percent of their visitors are using IE5 or IE6, so if it looks good there, they don't care. If you had a brick-and-mortar storefront, would you turn away 8 percent of the people coming to your door because they weren't wearing what you deemed the proper shoes to walk in your store?

Narasinha

jdiben

08-30-2003, 02:10 AM

I learned to design websites by using a text editor. Now I use Dreamweaver to create a quick draft of my websites, save it, then open it in a text editor to clean up the code and add the finishing touches. I save the file as template.htm and create the rest of the pages in the site in the text editor using template.htm. I've done a couple of websites that I needed to use imagemaps and I was thankfull that I had dreamweaver I couldnt imagine plotting all those points by hand.

I use Edit Plus as my text editor. What does everyone else use?

Joe

USALUG

08-30-2003, 02:17 AM

I use BlueFish http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/

It is a great html/text editor for Linux. Very configurable and has a great tabbed interface for multiple page display. A few of it's features include:

# Multiple document interface, easily opens 500+ documents (tested 3500 documents simultaneously)
# Customizable syntax highlighting based on Perl Compatible regular expressions, with subpattern support and default patterns for

* PHP
* HTML
* C
* Java
* XML
* Python
* ColdFusion
* Pascal
* R

# Anti aliased text window
# Multiple encodings support, can convert between different character sets, supports multibyte characters, unicode, UTF8 etc.
# Nice wizards for startup, tables, frames, and others
# Dialogs for many HTML tags, with all their attributes
# HTML toolbar and tearable menu's
# Compliance with the Gnome and KDE user interface guidelines where possible
# User-customizable toolbar for quick access to often used functions
# Open files based on filename patterns and/or content
# Fully featured image insert dialog
# Thumbnail creation and automatically linking of the thumbnail with the original image
# Multi thumbnail generation for easy creation of photo albums or screenshot pages
# Line numbers along the document
# A custom menu, specify your own tags or sets of code, and define your own dialogs
# Custom search and replace pattern support for the Custom menu
# Very powerful search and replace, allowing POSIX and Perl Compatible regular expressions and sub-pattern replacing
# Excellent undo/redo functionality
# Function reference browser, including reference files for PHP and HTML
# Configurable recent documents and recent directories functionality
# Translations in da fr es it ja hu pl no ru sv and de
# User customizable integration of many programs, including weblint, tidy, make, javac etc. etc.

For image maps, I use the gimp under linux. Works great.

twobuck

08-30-2003, 02:21 AM

OK, here I go...splish...that was the sound of a can of worms opening up. Here's my two bits.

I come from the other side of the tracks, I started off as an artist and went into graphic design, then web design. I use Adobe GoLive to build my websites, but I design websites using paper, pencil and photoshop.

I dont think it makes much of a difference to the end user what or how you built your website. If it was poorly designed but coded by hand without any errors, it will still be a poorly designed website. What the customer wants is a nice looking, fast loading website that is relavent to what they are looking for without crashing their machine.

Here's a thought: When you want to manipulate a digital image, do you do it in binary? Or do you use an image manipulation program like photoshop? If you have an easier, convenient, and time saving way to do something, do you use and embrace that program? Or do you continue to do it as its always been done? I haven't heard of very many people today that hand retouches their images for the web.

If it takes you twice as long to code by hand, is it worth it? Does the client notice the difference? Some things I see the need to code by hand, but this isnt one of them. Wouldn't your time be better spent elsewhere?

By the way I can read and edit the html code, but I have so much other work to do I can't justify spending my time writing it all by hand.

USALUG

08-30-2003, 02:50 AM

I see your point twobuck, and I'm not disagreeing at all. I can see what your saying and that your production amount could definately increase, but at the expense of some insignificant stuff no one may ever notice anyway. It makes sense I guess. In almost every business, the need to speed up production many times takes it's toll on quality in some way. That you can edit the html and understand it must be a saving grace for you. I can't imagine NOT being able to read/understand the code and try to design with a WYSWYG editor. I make no claims to being a graphics oriented designer. Like I said, I'm more into making php, perl, and other stuff interact on the web. Graphics is usually my shortcoming, as I'm not blessed with an overly artistic hand !

The more I think about it, the more I think that a mix of the two worlds is needed by the average webdesigner. Knowledge of html and ability to code along with the ability to run Dreamweaver or other WYSWYG editor -- for speedier design. I will probably code by hand for quite awhile, as it is the most fun for me, and my biz is actually more of a hobby, so I'm not under the time constraints some of you might be. When time and production is an issue, I can definately see where a WYSWYG editor would be a requirement in some instances.

Edited for spelling :)

Narasinha

08-30-2003, 04:34 AM

Here's a thought: When you want to manipulate a digital image, do you do it in binary? Or do you use an image manipulation program like photoshop? If you have an easier, convenient, and time saving way to do something, do you use and embrace that program? Or do you continue to do it as its always been done? I haven't heard of very many people today that hand retouches their images for the web.

Hahahaha.. I can just imagine being stuck with MSPaint for all my graphics needs! But can you imagine a graphics program that you simply give a command to like "Give me a logo with a stylized blue upper-case 'A' on a round light-blue background"? Would you get what you wanted? Or would you prefer to use the tools in PhotoShop to create it yourself?

If it takes you twice as long to code by hand, is it worth it? Does the client notice the difference? Some things I see the need to code by hand, but this isnt one of them. Wouldn't your time be better spent elsewhere?

I don't think the client would notice the difference when he looks at the site. I think the difference comes in the operability, updatability (Is that a word?), accessibility, and search engine rankings.

By the way I can read and edit the html code, but I have so much other work to do I can't justify spending my time writing it all by hand.

Well, if you need someone to handle some of your HTML work while you do more graphic-intensive things... :)

Actually, I definitely sympathize with your problem. It does get time-consuming. I'm editing 472 pages of my personal site at the moment, and it's a daunting task. The HTML was generated by my genealogy software, but it isn't HTML 4.01 compliant, and I need to make other changes to conform to the style of my site. I used to simply do a global search-and-replace based on a template, but now I'm making more refined changes. It's a fine line, really. What it really comes down to, I think, is what you mentioned: "Is it worth it?" There's a point where it costs more than it's worth, but where is that point?

carju1

08-30-2003, 08:55 AM

The first commercial site I built was in a DOS text editor (A fancy trick in those days '93/94' was to include an image), I then built a large corporate intranet on a SUN system and used the unix 1 line ED for that.

Since them as things progressed I've tried a variety of WYSIWYG's and now-a-days I tend to bung the first draft together in FrontPage then tidy up the code and get it exactly how I want using notepad. The reason I use Frontpage is I think it puts the least rubbish in.

Julian

GooMoo

08-30-2003, 11:43 AM

Yep that was deffinately a can of worms. I too started as a graphic designer in college before I was a web designer, BUT when I started web design I started coding by hand in notepad. By now I can type HTML, CSS, Javascript, ASP code at 90 wpm because they are "second languages" to me. Using a WYSIWYG editor DOES slow me down. I have my mouse slowed down below normal to do precise graphic imaging and all the point&click and fill out the wizard garbage that an editor presents me is a real pain. All the different windows and things flyin around and half the screen graphics and half code, really makes me quite scatterbrained and I loose track of what I'm doing. When I edit images for the web, no I don't edit them in binary, any more than I would write an email in binary. But yes when I edit my images for the web, I hand edit them in photoshop; I get in there with my air brush and touch up what needs it, apply filters and blends and transform and color manage all that good stuff, before it's cut up and optimized. If I had to say which was more time consuming, I would say the graphical part 90% of the time. It's deffinately worth it though, I know my pages are going to have functional code, but when it looks good, it looks good on me.

Paulo

08-30-2003, 12:01 PM

OSFan

08-30-2003, 12:25 PM

Vim and Notepad all the way!

I actually learnt using Frontpage Express, then when I got rich, I bought Frontpage 2000. It was ok at first, but then I realised the look was unprofessional, and it sometimes rendered badly in Netscape etc...

I then decided to learn to do it by hand, and now I do it all by hand. If I want to play with a look, I sometimes still use frontpage to produce a quick prototype to get an idea, and then I write using notepad or VIM if I happen to be in linux from scratch.

I can also make my HTML valid if I code by hand, and it renders perfect on most browsers, meaning all my users see what I intended them to see.

On my travels I see websites using WYSIWYG editors, you can tell by the source, numerous no break spaces to format the page, and tag overlapping.

One thing I can't understand is web design companies who charge $$$s to make websites in WYSIWYG editors. You can buy these programs for much less than the service charge, and produce the same content yourself.

Moondancer

08-30-2003, 03:15 PM

Started handcoding in Notepad for a couple of years until I found Dreamweaver 3 and 4. DW is good for quick and complex table layouts, then I go back to the code and clean it.

Fireworks exports fully-working complex HTML layouts to DW but throws up a ton of code that is totally long-winded and also needs stripping down.

And then there's HomeSite for those Server Side Includes in a site which the developer hatcheted up so roughly that DW can't read them!

I really don't know what I'd do without coloured code highlighting, couldn't go back to just black & white LOL

This is pretty much me, too... I use Dreamweaver to throw up the pages, clean the code by hand... etc etc... I might also add that I'm a lousy typist.. It's not that I can't do it by hand but sure would take a lot of time finding all the typos...

carbonize

08-30-2003, 03:43 PM

I really don't know what I'd do without coloured code highlighting, couldn't go back to just black & white LOL

This is pretty much me, too... I use Dreamweaver to throw up the pages, clean the code by hand... etc etc... I might also add that I'm a lousy typist.. It's not that I can't do it by hand but sure would take a lot of time finding all the typos...

Since when did coding by hand mean not using a HTML editor with syntax hilighting? Ultraedit (http://www.ultraedit.com) is a plain text editor that offers syntax highlighting and ftp uploading/downloading. Also I personally consider that using a HTML editor with a preview window to be coding by hand as you are still writing the code. Topstyle pro is a good HTML/CSS editor with built in preview window as well as tag suggesting.

USALUG

08-30-2003, 03:57 PM

Agreed, alot of html/text editors have code highlighting features and preview features. NoteTab Pro (www.notetab.com) and I know 1st page 2000 (http://www.evrsoft.com/1stpage2.shtml) both work great when using windows. Bluefish and several other editors do the same for me while running linux.

When I speak of "coding by hand" I mean creating the code and typing it out..... not letting a machine do it for you after you drag-n-dropped your forms/images/and clickable buttons etc. In theory making it possible for someone to NOT know html and create a webpage. Some examples...

Coding by hand....

Notepad
notetabpro
1st page 200

Coding with WYSWYG editors

Dreamweaver
FrontPage

grease

08-30-2003, 04:31 PM

I can write a letter by hand, walk 1km to put in a mailbox, wait 2 days for my friend to read it OR I can write him in an email in 5 minutes and have him read within 10 seconds. Failing to embrace technology means you have less time to focus on what really matters - the content,the design and the time it takes to develop. I know there are exceptions for specific types of sites, but overall denial of the tools that make you a more efficient worker, in the name of 'purism' is simply ignorance. Your client deserves the best - use the tools that make the most sense for the task at hand. And if you would like to program in machine code - please...do this in your free time, not on your clients time.

Grease

carbonize

08-30-2003, 04:47 PM

Wysiwyg editors nearly always make sloppy, non valid, HTML and are nearly always geared towards how the page will appear in Internet Explorer rather than any other browser.

By all means use a wysiwyg editor but only if you know enough about HTML to go through the code afterwards and clean it up.

wizwow

08-30-2003, 08:27 PM

Wysiwyg editors nearly always make sloppy, non valid, HTML and are nearly always geared towards how the page will appear in Internet Explorer rather than any other browser.

In a word. Nope.

I have designed and built over 350 websites. Today I use Dreamweaver, BBEdit, NotePad, and HomeSite.
My sites are almost exclusively built usng Dreamweaver4 and Dreamweaver MX. I simply cannot type fast enough to 'hand code'. The sites I build for my customers are carefully reviewed in at least seven platform / browser configs. Dreamweaver has never let us down (there have been a few minor problems, but easily corrected.) A few times we have had to take a site that was created 'by hand' and re do it. It has been my experience that every one of them were definitely inferior in design and 'code' to the work that DW would have performed.

I have noted in other discussions on WYSIWYG vs handcoding the following similarities of postings...

A. Handcoding is 'cleaner' than DW. What does that mean? Less code (I'll give you that, DW can be very robust.) But is that necessarily 'cleaner? Not in my book. Clean code is neatly arranged on the page, indented for tables, commented out and visually organized to allow further editing. Dw does this beautifully (if you know the tool.)

B. DW creates pages that cannot render correctly. Pleeeeeze... More corporations and high end designers are using DW than handcoding. It is a fact. Programmers take the DW work or Templates into Homesite or somesuch to do the VB or .Net, but the pages are structured by DW.

C. Handcoding is superior to DW because it was handcoded. That is similar to a statement like "Hemingway used a Smith Corona instead of another brand so his books are better." The tool is not important, what is read and seen is.

D. Search engines have problems. No, they do not.

E. That there is a browser rendering problem. Nope.

Another interesting thing I always notice is that the folks who go into the "handcoding is vastly superior" camp usually do not have links to sites that prove the superiority. I would like to see a site that jumped out at me, touched me emotionally, geve me a reason to continue, kept me glued to the content and provided a reason to come back because it was handcoded.

I apologize in advance to any toes that have been damaged here. I have been a photographer, musician and designer and have grown ever more tired of comparing the tools instead of the art.

Cheers all,
Don

Narasinha

08-30-2003, 09:14 PM

A few times we have had to take a site that was created 'by hand' and re do it. It has been my experience that every one of them were definitely inferior in design and 'code' to the work that DW would have performed.

I have noted in other discussions on WYSIWYG vs handcoding the following similarities of postings...

A. Handcoding is 'cleaner' than DW. What does that mean? Less code (I'll give you that, DW can be very robust.) But is that necessarily 'cleaner? Not in my book. Clean code is neatly arranged on the page, indented for tables, commented out and visually organized to allow further editing. Dw does this beautifully (if you know the tool.)

B. DW creates pages that cannot render correctly. Pleeeeeze... More corporations and high end designers are using DW than handcoding. It is a fact. Programmers take the DW work or Templates into Homesite or somesuch to do the VB or .Net, but the pages are structured by DW.

My problem with the WYSIWYG editors is quite simple: standards. The code they produce does not (in my experience) conform to HTML 4.01 specifications. Your own site, steelid.com, is absolutely gorgeous (I'm looking at it in Opera 7)! The text is a bit small on a 1024x768, but opera's magnify function takes care of that. The site functions wonderfully, and I see no problems with it at all on the surface. However, it does not validate. There is no !DOCTYPE specified. When overridden with a 4.01 transitional !DOCTYPE, it still doesn't validate.

Okay, so there are a lot (and I mean a lot!) of site developers and designers who don't care if their pages validate. They don't care about the standards. Personally, it means a lot to me to construct a site with HTML that conforms to current standards. It means a lot to the developers of the newest browser software. Will your site still work in the newest standards-compliant browser? Probably. But what about the next one? What if that one displays an error message that a page cannot display properly because on line 11 the required attribute "type" is not specified in <script language="JavaScript">? If you were writing it as a program in C++, it wouldn't compile with those kinds of errors. And, though I used to do it all the time myself, tables are for tabular data, not page layout.

XHTML and CSS specifications are becoming more robust, and it will be easier to create pages that look and operate the way we want. I just think it will be easier if we get used to using the specs now rather than later after our pages break.

Best Regards,
Narasinha

Paulo

08-30-2003, 09:45 PM

It's not that I can't do it by hand but sure would take a lot of time finding all the typos...
LOL - that's cool, just hit SHFT + f7 for spell check in DW4 (it's the thesaurus in Word though)

Since when did coding by hand mean not using a HTML editor with syntax hilighting?
I'm just reminiscing by saying that I could never go back to using just NotePad :)

When I speak of "coding by hand" I mean creating the code and typing it out..... not letting a machine do it for you after you drag-n-dropped your forms/images/and clickable buttons etc. In theory making it possible for someone to NOT know html and create a webpage. Some examples...

Coding by hand....

Notepad
notetabpro
1st page 200

Coding with WYSWYG editors

Dreamweaver
FrontPage
So does this mean, by definition, I have switch off Dreamweaver and then use NotePad to edit the HTML document when there's a perfectly decent code editor in DW? That's just a complete waste of my time & the client's. I can't recall the last time i ever used drag-and-drop, does DW do that? That'll save some time ;)

There's a middle ground here where we can all get along just fine, so long as we all know how to behave.

Cheers :)

USALUG

08-30-2003, 10:47 PM

Well I don't think anyone needs to get all bent out of shape over this discussion, I'm sure there are more important things in the world to get all bent out of shape over :) and that wasn't my intention in starting it anyway.

I have learned alot already from this though.

Many that code by hand seem to be more "purists", that like to conform to the w3c standards. They like the challenge and the fun of creating the code from scratch.

WYSWYG people are usually more interested in the final product, speed of production, and cost to the client. They tend to be more graphically oriented and aren't as concerned with the "code" itself, but on the way the final product looks.

Nothing totally wrong with EITHER way IMHO. Just depends on what your doing. A mix of both is probably the best bet from my viewpoint. Although since Linux only has one or two WYSWYG editors, that's not an option for me. Both I've tried were inferior products compared to Dreamweaver or Frontpage.

So I guess for now I'm stuck doing it the old fashioned way :)

Moondancer

08-30-2003, 10:54 PM

Paulo wrote:
LOL - that's cool, just hit SHFT + f7 for spell check in DW4 (it's the thesaurus in Word though)

Yeah, in Dreamweaver but not notepad, LOL.. that's what I meant by coding it all by hand.

There were some comments earlier in this thread about using wysywig editors allow people with no HTML knowledge to design websites.. not true, not true.. I posted in design peeves something on that subject that just burns me up... just because they can use an editor does not a great or even good site make... that's where the webmaster/web designer's strength lies.. not in coding their webpages in notepad.

Paulo

08-30-2003, 11:00 PM

LOL Nice one USALUG, I'm intact ;)

I may be off on a slight tangent here and it's just a personal observation, but W3 standards really do seem to be 'the way to go' - they're just not always at the forefront of designers minds. Pick up a DW box off a shelf and it doesn't have a label on the box saying 'hold on, have you read and do you solemnly swear to abide by the W3 standards?'

I've been designing for years but only recently started turning towards standards because nobody told me, nobody showed me the way. I work on my own without an peers being around physically but virtual peers have picked me up...

Anyway, the issue with W3 standards is that, IMHO, they're not particularly user-friendly, or rather accessible to the lay person; what do you reckon?

Moondancer - i agree, there's enough extremism without introducing it into this most splendid of industries - just think, we don't want to end up with any WYSIWYG Luddites... it works for some people, we just gotta respect that and hope that we can help out along the way. 5 years experience and i know that i'm still learning ;)

Moondancer

08-30-2003, 11:01 PM

Afterthoughts.. so far with Dreamwweaver it has accepted any extra code I've typed in without a hiccup... can't do that with frontpage, it will fits or simply act like it's allowing it and do nothing..... i haven't tried any others so I can't comment on them but I'm quite happy with Dreamweaver. It's accepted me changing the code it has put in as well. It also let's me preview the pages in any broswer I care to use... I view the pages in IE,Netscape and Mozilla to make sure they are cross browser compatible.

Don't care if people think it's not the right way to do things.. the code gets cleaned up, works in the 3 main browsers, and I don't have to do all the coding by hand which speeds things up a bit.

USALUG

08-31-2003, 12:09 AM

Another reason I might be more inclined to code by hand is that I spend lots of time coding stuff besides html anyway. PHP, javascript, perl , c++ , and am playing with python and shell scripting. I like the process of coding, and speed is usually not a big issue for me.

moodancer...... that was me ~~ I said in THEORY :)
---

In theory making it possible for someone to NOT know html and create a webpage.
---
In theory... in reality however, I know you are almost REQUIRED to know some html in order to get things to work even using WYSWYG editors. Knowing html to get by and making things w3c standards compliant are two different things entirely. Making code w3c compliant requires a much deeper understanding than alot of designers have time for, or care to know anyway. They feel they have more important things to do, and in some respects that's an entirely acceptable answer. Heck, alot of my hand coded sites don't always pass w3c validations because I just don't take the time ~~~ i know how, but just don't always want to go that extra mile ;)

Another post on this site asked if there should be more regulation in the web design industry.... I answered no. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I don't think we need any more red tape for those just starting out. But following standards is haphazard at best in this self regulated industry, it's much easier to just blow off the w3c standards and not worry about them.

But for any certifications, do you think designers should be required to show you produce consistent w3c standards compatible coded websites? I mean if your gonna brag about your certs, don't you think you should HAVE to create sites that pass w3c validation? Wouldn't this force the makers of Dreamweaver, Frontpage and other WYSWYG editors to produce cleaner code, and more standards compliant code? Which would be a good thing for everyone wouldn't it?

These are just musings on my part folks, don't get flaming mad over a little discussion :) You don't have to agree with each other or me. That would be boring anyway wouldn't it ? :) I just really wanted some insight into how everyone else viewed/used WYSWYG editors and a breakdown of why. I recieved alot of helpful answers, and I thank you all for taking the time to reply to my post.

httpman

08-31-2003, 03:22 AM

Yeah Yeah Yeah...

I use this main brown color thanks to Reece. Reece, if you look at this post, be sure I think to you and to your so difficult words for a non english people like me !

OK, back to the topic. Hand-coding or Wysiwyg ? The result is easy to predict. Most of us are right-handed, so we hand-code our web pages as long as we have seted up our own company, or both hand-code and use a wysiswyg editor when we work for a boss. No Way. The more technic we are, the more hand-coding we do. The more artistic we are supposed to be, the more Adobe products we use.

Who here could say he is an artist, but he never used an Adobe product ?

So what could be the perfect editor?

* Frontpage. Obviously, dedicated to students. Frontpage is cheap, awfull, changes your code to re-arrange it (you're supposed to be an idiot but -- he knows.) With latests versions you have an option : tell him "I'm a human, I bought you and not the opposite so stop changing my code" and he will do so, or don't tell and he will rewrite by himself. From Bill's point of vue, that's probably a feature not a bug.
I think there are 3 main reasons why people should buy Frontpage :

1/ the incredible number of low end, free, student like website templates it offers.
2/ the incredible number of student like free 'buttons', 'scripts', worn Javascript add'ons it offers
3/ hey, that's bill's SW, so will become a standard one day no ?

* Golive. A "rubber repair patch" for people coming from the Apple world = the other world, System 9 or X or whatever, left handed and looking to our so strange PCs as mass merch products. They are different (really, I believe), therefore they have to use different products. I have some MACs here, for compatibility issues, and compared with a PC the main difference I can see is the nb of downtimes : you have to reboot a mac 5 to 10 times a day, while probably 1 time a week with a recent Windows based PC. OK, skilled people will do much better web designs on a Mac, even with Golive, but who can guess how better they could be if they would accept to work on a PC ? But they are different - so, no way.

* Dreamweaver. On a Wintel based PC, there are tenth of Wysiswyg editors. Many of them are almost free (try them, you will understand why they should be 100% free). No one has really impressed me up to now. Dreamweaver is the most famous, has a lot of features. I sometimes use it, when I have to work in a team. As soon as I can work alone or within a dev group, I do of course hand-code, using a wonderfull toy called Ultra Edit (http://www.ultraedit.com). Probably not the best editor in the world, but so convenient...

Finally, here at Net Créateurs we use an object oriented development tool of our own, as probably a lot of them exist around the world. With it we can build very complex templates, and instantly add features to a web site : an e-business catalogue, a CMS solution, a Flash page, a <form> contact page, an e-mail tracking system... When we find a bug in one of its components, it easily propagates the modification to the whole site, just with a mouse click. Saves a lot of time !

Time to conclude.
A long post. Tried to do shorter, failed. I'm a real chatterbox !

Jean-Pierre

Arthurino

09-01-2003, 02:29 AM

Boy, talk about developing an inferiority complex through osmosis! I am not a web-designer in the traditional sense but have created and maintain a site for our family business.

The first site I created (if I may use that word, after all I don't...gasp, gulp...hand code) was with something called HotMetal Pro. I then moved onto FrontPage for our current site.

I have looked at code and it seems like something I could actually learn and make sense of as it appears to be based on the English language and not some form of utterly incomprehensible jibberish. Nonetheless, I used what resources I had to accomplish the end goal...a simple, functioning site for customers interested in our line of (niche) products.

So does that make me a blasphemous heathen not worthy of staking a claim to my humble domain on the world-wide-web? I understand the compliance concerns and such, but there must be a line of distinction involving reason. I read several posts stating that it is not possible to create a site relying solely on a wysiwyg editor without coding...pardon me for my bravado but, despite the fact that many may disagree and claim that my site cannot be considered a true site, I have in fact authored a site which several thousand people visit on a monthly basis...and all without any hand coding. I don't deny the importance of knowing code or the pitfalls of editors such as Frontpgae, but the extremist attitudes which seem to underly the beliefs of the "purists" makes me cringe and wonder if the day will come when those of us who do not know how to code will be barred from creating sites altogether. Sheesh!

Narasinha

09-01-2003, 03:37 AM

So does that make me a blasphemous heathen not worthy of staking a claim to my humble domain on the world-wide-web? I understand the compliance concerns and such, but there must be a line of distinction involving reason. I read several posts stating that it is not possible to create a site relying solely on a wysiwyg editor without coding...pardon me for my bravado but, despite the fact that many may disagree and claim that my site cannot be considered a true site, I have in fact authored a site which several thousand people visit on a monthly basis...and all without any hand coding. I don't deny the importance of knowing code or the pitfalls of editors such as Frontpage, but the extremist attitudes which seem to underly the beliefs of the "purists" makes me cringe and wonder if the day will come when those of us who do not know how to code will be barred from creating sites altogether. Sheesh!

Hahaha.. and I thought I was the blasphemous heathen around here!

Seriously though, your site looks quite good. If it does what you want it to, then really, I guess there's no problem. (I always wondered who made those things!) Like the discussion in another forum here about whether accessibility should be mandated for web sites, as it is for US government sites, I believe this issue will be economically decided for people.

Do you have the time to take away from your other work in order to learn HTML so that you could 'hand-code' if you want? Can you justify the expense of paying someone to make your site HTML 4.01 and Section 508 compliant? Is it possible that some of your customers (or potential customers) are unable to access your site due to some disability?

If you answer no to those questions, then your current site will serve you just fine.

Companies that have a very high volume of paying customers and believe they cannot afford to let disabled customers be shut out of their site will be the first to make sure they meet accessibility requirements, as well as government sites that must do so because of the Section 508 rules. I believe University sites will also fall under this classification.

For myself, my own personal site is mostly taken up with genealogical information. Some of the people viewing it are likely to be elderly, and may have vision problems. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for them to view the information there. For me it's rather a labor of love than one of economics.

If someone starts making a WYSIWYG editor that creates code that is HTML 4.01 compliant, then I'll take a look at it and probably use it. Until then, I'll stick with UltraEdit (with color syntax highlighting) and a few browsers to preview my work.

Keep up the good work!
Narasinha

tertius

09-05-2003, 03:03 PM

Speaking of color-coded hand editing tools, I'm surprised no onw yet has mentioned Arachnophilia (and it's a free "careware" multi=platform download found at: http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/ )

carol

09-05-2003, 05:57 PM

It's really interesting to read all the strong opinions being voiced here - kind of like the "which is better, PC or MAC" question. No, we’re never going to agree on a “right” answer. Personally, I both hand-code (using ColdFusion Studio 4.5, an older but stable product) and I also use Dreamweaver 4. In my opinion, both methods have their strengths (and weaknesses). I don't think you can beat Dreamweaver for speed, even if you can type 90wpm! ;-) I also like to "tinker" around in the code, and I prefer Studio to the Code View in DW, probably because I've been using it for so long. Back in "the early days," I must admit I tried HotDog (Sausage Software) and (gulp!) Frontpage. And yes, Frontpage really bloated up my code. Even more irksome, it changed my code. MS has dramatically improved Frontpage since then, but I don't believe it can compete with Dreamweaver in any area except price (of course). Anyone try to convert a Word 2000+ document to HTML using the MS "save to HTML" option? Talk about bloat!

carbonize

09-09-2003, 07:39 AM

joliettech

09-09-2003, 03:47 PM

drtandem

09-09-2003, 04:50 PM

I too learned the old-fashioned way. I learned HTML and built my first pages on notepad. Today, I use Dreamweaver. It speeds up the design process dramatically. I still go in and tweak things by hand. Yes, Dreamweaver's code can be somewhat bloated, if you do a lot of editing. It has features that can clean up the code and much more.

Just because I know how to code a table by hand doesn't mean that I should. I know how to walk, but for long distances I'll use my car. Many times I'll just open up the page in notepad (or wordpad,if it's large) and make a minor adjustment. Why should I wait for Dreamweaver to load? Why kill a fly with a sledgehammer? In other words, the right tool for the right job.

carbonize

09-09-2003, 05:00 PM

Can’t we all just get along? Whatever you are comfortable with and produces the desired results is what you should use.

Personally, I use FrontPage and a text editor (the HTML view in FrontPage is fine). The reason for using FrontPage is simple, it’s a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) design tool.

Always use a CSS and Validate all pages. Using a style sheet makes it simple to keep everything consistent. Validation ensures that your pages will view on most browsers the way you intended and the accessibility issue is covered. Create a template using FrontPage, get rid of all the crap that isn’t necessary. Use the template to create all your pages.
I have yet to meet anyone that has been making web sites for a while that doesn't think Frontpage produces serious ugly HTML. As for using CSS to ensure consistency that would be nice if it was true. Borders are valid CSS but use a border, of say 3px, and check it in Mozilla/Netscape and IE and you will see a vast difference. I'll stick with using tables to control my layout s IE6's CSS level 2 support is seriously lacking.

Luckenbach

09-25-2003, 10:57 AM

Always have. I try to avoid the newer html commands and keep my code as simple as possible. It seems I can do everything I want to do with the <table> command.
I've had to redesign a couple websites that had been made with Frontpage, and I spent a lot of time deleting code that served no purpose. It was truly amazing how much smaller (and faster loading) I could make a file!
Since I use a LOT of jpeg pictures, I always reduce the size to what I want, and then reduce the colors to 256. Really cuts the file size.
One site I redid that had been done with frontpage specified the picture display size in the img command. This works, but sometimes the picture the author used was 4 to 10 times bigger than the size it was actually displayed at! Very bad, the page would load a 50KB file and just display a 5KB file, big slowdown for nothing. I would resize the picture, cut to 256 colors, remove the size definitions from the img command, and often get the page to load in one TENTH the time.

Kylemp

09-26-2003, 06:07 PM

I find it easy to do my design in somthing like dreamweaver then take the HTML code and put it into a template, but mainly this is because i am doing PHP and i just add blockquote's or echo's, sometimes a function. It gets the job done, but it isnt the cleanest.

ranjan

09-26-2003, 06:36 PM

I am of the opinion that an editor ( from notepad to dreamweaver ) is only as good or as bad as the coder.

If the coder knows his/her stuff, it doesn't really matter whether they use a $0 Notepad of a $400 Dreamweaver.

How much time the tool saves you and how much you can afford to spend hence becomes the criteria for selection of your editor.

ivr

09-26-2003, 07:41 PM

Coding by hand should be known by all web designers,

I use html and swf.files( swish) and place them in tables, with java script or other files and scripts to make the pages, this way I can place the images and text exactally how I want them.

carbonize

09-26-2003, 08:23 PM

a .swf file is actually flash. I assume it stands for ShockWave Flash or something. Swish is just a program used to make the flash file but you could also use firestarter which is another program that makes flash simple. Or you could use the official flash program it's self.

alienzhavelanded

09-29-2003, 01:23 PM

I use all three; Frontpage, Dreamweaver, and Notepad. To me the tool depends on the job. The new Frontpage 2003 has some major improvements as well, including the ability to optimize your code and remove all that famous bloated html. About time huh?

I like Frontpage for it's ease of use and ASP compatibility. I like Dreamweaver for it's power and PHP fun. I like Notepad for the ability to write only the html you want, but then again...I can create text and xml files in the wysiwyg editor =)

HillsCap

09-29-2003, 06:47 PM

httpman:
You said you're using software that allows you to easily administer your site. From your description, it sounds like a great piece of software. Is that commercially available, and if so, where can I get it?

BTW, I only do hand coding, but I do it in DreamWeaver. I like the ability to simultaneously save the file to my hard drive and web server with one click. I have no idea what the other features of DW are, because I've never looked at them. I'm from the old, old school (back in the old Win3.x days) when all you had was Notepad. Old habits die hard. I suppose some day, I'll get around to looking at all the stuff DW can do, and kick myself for waiting so long...

I do all my Javascript programming by hand, as well. But, for Java programming, I use Sun One Studio (Java programming requires a compiler/debugger).

minstrel

09-29-2003, 09:46 PM

Just because I know how to code a table by hand doesn't mean that I should. I know how to walk, but for long distances I'll use my car. Many times I'll just open up the page in notepad (or wordpad,if it's large) and make a minor adjustment. Why should I wait for Dreamweaver to load? Why kill a fly with a sledgehammer? In other words, the right tool for the right job.

Absolutely. My first webpages were created in Notepad. Then I moved up to HomeSite (before it was purchased and the features enlarged by Allaire) which was basically a colour-coded notepad update with certain auto-code features. I used a variety of others before deciding that I liked FrontPage. I do have GoLive and hate it (if you think FrontPage creates complicated code, take a look at the html GoLive generates). If it's a small change, I'll still open a page in Notepad and edit it there. When Frontpage doesn't create the effect I want, I click on HTML mode and do it myself but why go to the trouble for the majority of tasks?

Bottom line: (1) the end-product, i.e., how your website looks and performs, is what counts; and (2) the real advantage of a democratic capitalistic-based society is the choice -- if you hate Chevy cars, you can buy Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or whatever... If you hate Norton, you have a similar variety of choices... it isn't any different when it comes to creating web pages.

myclassy67

09-30-2003, 01:58 AM

I am a newbie at all this, no where near the web designer alot of you are here. I use an editor (coffeecup) plus I can hand code the little bit of html that I know. I didn't want to wait until I "learned" html to get my website going - it's not perfect - and I keep adjusting it as I go. I can use a wizard, see how it works, then do it on my own the next time. If it wasn't for the editor, my site probably wouldn't be - granted it still needs work, but it exists.

Sue
www.lovinghandsboutique.us

carbonize

09-30-2003, 06:14 AM

I'd just like to say at this point that one of my major gripes is people that call themselves "professional" web designers when all they can do is use a program like frontpage. You cannot be a professional if ALL you can do is use a wysiwyg editor. There will always be times when you need to drop into the code to tidy things up or just make small changes on the fly. One of the advantages of actually being able to code by hand is that you can make a webpage on any machine, and if you have access, edit your site from anywhere in the world. People who can only use wysiwyg editors will always require that piece of software to be installed. I'm not against the use of wysiwyg editors, I only code by hand because I went to use Dreamweaver and saw how simple the code was, I just think that to be a professional you should also understand HTML/XHTML and be able to edit the code by hand as well.

ps. Join the League for Originality and say no to "just my 2 cents"

Clay Martin

09-30-2003, 10:40 AM

Wow what an informative topic. This is almost as good as the win-mac or win-linux topics, love to see those battleships lined up and exchanging fire. : )

I was doing all sorts of programming before needing to do it for the web. I started using Multi-Edit (http://www.multieditsoftware.com/) back in the DOS/Win3.1 days doing work with C, ect. As it came time to do web work I just used my existing editor of course! Not that Multi-Edit does not have a bunch of tools for doing web work, but my partner is pushing me to "get more productive". I would not consider FP as it changes your code as already noted. I am curently considering Dream Weaver. After reading this forum, and assurances that you can use DW and still hand code those pesky things I think I am closer to making a choice.

I think in the end that I will end up using both DW and Multi-Edit, as there are some tools in ME that I don't want to give up (like being able to write C-like macros that can read html files in a directory tree and create a multi level index(links)in html of all anchor tags using the anchored text as the low level index entry). So I guess that means I agree with the statements "right tool for right job".

Thanks for the great info,
Clay

carju1

09-30-2003, 06:53 PM

Carbonize whilst I agree with you that :
one of my major gripes is people that call themselves "professional" web designers when all they can do is use a program like frontpage.
However just because someone can perfectly code a page, whilst blindfolded on a laptop with only notepad whilst sitting on top of Mount Everst, doesn't make them a 'professional' web designer either. It makes them a brilliant coder.

Professional web designers have to be able to design page layout (look and feel - not just code), they have to be able to set up great site navigation, they have to be able to write interesting content, they have to make sure search engines, the client and the user will like the page, plus lots of other things.

As of yet I haven't found a package that can write interesting content, I haven't found a package that can intrinsically set up great navigation for a site, I haven't found a package that can tap my creative/artistic thoughts and create great look and feel. I have however found several packages (FP, DW etc.) that can create a good solid foundation of code which only needs a bit of tweaking.

I'll take poor code over poor content or poor design everyday of the week. Why? because most users don't give a darn about the code, they don't view source and check if its W3 compliant, they want nice looking, easy to use good content, that loads fast.

Yes good code is important but in my opinion for a 'professional' web designer it is one of the least important aspects of a web site.

Regards
Julian

mikmik

10-01-2003, 12:55 AM

I'm still in a very early stage of learning but enough along the way to be glad that I learned and still operate in 95% manual, or hand coding.

First off, no matter what I decide to learn, I think it is important to know the rules before you break them, from cooking to coding. I just feel more comfortable knowing how and why what I'm doing works and makes it much easier to broaden my horizons later. I love being able to "view scource" and understand what the designer has done and learn things that way. I don't think I'd know how to nest tables properly, if at all, or be able to use several independent tables so a page loads quicker with code awareness.
I have way more understanding and ability to make small adjustments that can greatly influence the overall presentation. I am able to determine, much more quickly, what is going on later on down the road in order to make changes or additions as well.
I am able to learn other programming code much easier as a result of knowing html, and gives me the freedom to diversify and learn new techniques. I am becoming very comfortable with CSS which not only provides new freedom in applying style, I am able to troubleshoot browser conflicts and improvise (hack!) my way out of trouble, or quickly recognize what is wrong (with the code) if I spot trouble later on.
I have the freedom to use cut'n'paste javascript, java applets and dhtml so that I can configure them properly. I don't know how many times, dozens and dozens at least, the third party code generates errors that I am quickly able to troubleshoot instead of endlessly searching for the right bits elsewhere. I am also able to learn J. and VB script so that I can eventually write my own to do excactly what I want. I don't know much about content management yet but I know writing and reading code is imperative for CFS, perl, PHP, asp, SSI's etc., in fact I can understand things enough to install cgi/perl and PHP scripts.(and use SSI's)

Also, have you ever seen css only layouts in a WYSIWYG? Good luck, in dreanweaver anyways. I was hoping 2004 would be able to render it proper (it is supposed to) but I don't see it. (Again, I am very new and might be unaware of DRMWVR's capabilities.)
But, I do use dreamweaver almost all the time (except for learning script or making quick tweaks - notepad!) for it's abilities to speed up the coding that I do know, with code prompts, snippets, and find and replace and code coloring (Paulo [o; ) and dual view is handy for orienting myself quickly on messy and complicated pages.

I guess because my goal is network programming and web developement I'm biased towards this approach, but I am also a control freak (read insecure!) and or don't work as well with others as I like. However, it makes it difficult to really specialize in logo and page design, for which I admire the talent around here .