What's an easy yet good WYSIWYG html editor to use

[Amus]

Don't want anything to complicated, but I need some fexability.

[N30]

I hate to admit it but Frontpage is actually quite good as a WYSIWYG editor but I would really try to get started with Dreamweaver.

[carbonize]

I hate to admit it but Frontpage is actually quite good as a WYSIWYG editor but I would really try to get started with Dreamweaver.

Ever looked at the code produced by Frontpage?

[Sualdam]

Yes, but the question was about easy to use wysiwyg editors - and in that respect Frontpage fits the bill.

It is also 'good' - certainly good enough - in the context used here if the massive user base is anything to go by.

[carbonize]

So long as he remembers to try and avoid using the frontpage extensions unless his host supports them.

And lets be honest, just because a lot of people use something doesn't mean it is good, it just means it is either supplied with the computer or the most advertised.

[Sualdam]

That's true, but it is fair to say that if a lot of people use it - given its longevity, number of incarnations, etc. - it isn't automatically bad, either ;)

[minstrel]

So long as he remembers to try and avoid using the frontpage extensions unless his host supports them.

Yes but that's pretty easy to check...


And lets be honest, just because a lot of people use something doesn't mean it is good, it just means it is either supplied with the computer or the most advertised.

It's possible, but I've never seen a computer that came with FrontPage (or Dreamweaver... or Adobe GoLive... or any other such program) pre-installed, unless the customer specifically requested that software. It's also possible that Dreamweaver may be superior in some respects to FrontPage but it's also a heck of a lot more expensive.

And if you think that FrontPage code is a problem, have you ever looked at the code generated by Go-Live? Now that's jes plain hidjus... :-)

[starrwriter]

Namo WebEditor -- powerful, yet simple to use.
http://www.namo.com

[Sualdam]

It's also possible that Dreamweaver may be superior in some respects to FrontPage but it's also a heck of a lot more expensive.
And the 'easy to use' appellation goes out the window - with DW you need to know what you are doing. ;)

[Kingsley]

Hi there,

How about Net Objects Fusion, I started with this and had no clue but managed to get a site up. New version is out now so you can pick upthe older one (7.0) really cheap.

Regards

Kingsley

[Mr Fudge]

This will cause some upset maybe - try
www.baby-toys.co.uk
just built with Coolpage - around £50 from 3dize
I'd just love to get my head around Dreamweaver but when you have to pay £350 and another £100 for a book and a video to teach you how to work it I'm going to stick with an idiot's programme!
Bit like a camera really - £3,000 will not get you a good picture if you don't know where to point it . .
...I'm ducking!

[Sualdam]

No, I think you have a valid point.

I personally wouldn't use something like that - but I know how to use Dreamweaver.

I was going to disagree with you about the £100 for a book and video - but then I remembered that a lot of people don't have the technical background to jump into Dreamweaver or anything else and get results quickly, so they need to buy educational packages... and even then, it may still not be enough.

And like the discussion in Design Peeves is covering at the moment, many people want a functional site that gives them a financial return quickly. They simply don't have the time or inclination to get into the technical depths.

The only thing I would say is that if people had a little more confidence in themselves they might achieve more if they just tried the apparently more difficult route. That's because one thing those simple utilities often don't have is flexibility.

(Incidentally, that site looks very nice. I know you weren't asking for a site review, but the only comment I'd make is that it has an horrendously long homepage. It is 15 scrolls on a 1600x1200 monitor (or 30+ scrolls on an 800x600). You might want to think about breaking it up. But otherwise it is very tidy indeed).

[Mr Fudge]

Sualdam
Thanks for this - I know your're right - guess I'm just an impatient soul!
I'm hoping the long index page will be a plentiful supply of food for spiders - it's all jolly interesting stuff - hence also the nursery rhymes on the product detail pages. That's the beauty of Coolpage - so quick - the whole site's only taken me 6 weeks :-( Perhaps I'll take another look at Macromedia . . . !
Steve
www.baby-toys.co.uk

[Sualdam]

I don't think you need that much text for the spiders :) Have you looked in the Search Engine forum for placement tips?

I'm not preaching, but ask yourself: is my customer imnportant? Stupid question, I know ;)

There are over 7,200 words on the homepage and that would daunt most people. If someone reads at say 200 words a minute, it'd take them over half an hour to do that page. You might lose them. ;)

I'll shut up about it now, I promise. I know you didn't ask for a site review :)

[softwaresubmit]

I think this is not what you expected to hear, but... this is my opinion. And I think I am not alone here.

WYSIWYG in web design can be defined as What You See Is What You WONT Get. I think there is no alternative to the HTML+CSS+whatever-else-you-use approach when designing a professional web page. It is enough to look at the HTML "code" those WYSIWYG tools generate...

[Sualdam]

You surely don't mean Dreamweaver...?!!?

[softwaresubmit]

I mean all of them, including Dreamweaver. I do not believe in WYSIWYG in web world. This is my subjective opinion.

Maybe I am a purist, and this may be due to the fact, that I am a professional developer and I want to be in control of all my code.

[Sualdam]

Well, I'm surprised that you think a site designed in Dreamweaver (I'm interpreting what you said) won't be professional.

Dreamweaver is a professional tool, and there are a great many professional sites designed using it and various other WYSIWYG packages.

It was always my impression (and my experience) that DW produced clean and compliant code (although hand coding most certainly carries no guarantee of clean or compliant code).

[AlanMCSD]

It isn't wysiwyg, but it sure is easy to use.

Plus, it won't bury your real intentions behind thousands of meaningless tags.

LOL

Also, the editor in .Net is sweeeeeeet!

[Mr Fudge]

Sualdm
Appreciate your further comments on www.baby-toys.co.uk
I realise the text is in excess - it was my hope that the visitor would click away to the more interesting areas of the site before they hit this.
"baby toys" is a highly competitive search term, so my thoughts were that the content needed to be rich to stand any chance.
Did something right as we hit the first page of MSN UK in a couple of days!
I am currently puzzling over an issue with Google's page ranking system - I've posted this up in the Google Search Engine forum area under "Page Ranking"
perhaps you'd care to take a look.
Steve

[alienzhavelanded]

Check out FP 2003, it has the ability to clean it's own code.

The Martian

[carbonize]

Check out FP 2003, it has the ability to clean it's own code.

The Martian

Shouldn't of made it a mess in the first place.

[alienzhavelanded]

True, but the new version is a major improvement over any before it!

The Martian

[spronger]

I mean all of them, including Dreamweaver. I do not believe in WYSIWYG in web world. This is my subjective opinion.



I've seen this discussion on the virtues (or otherwise) of WYSIWYG many times before. My advice is don't view your site from a developer's point of view. View it from your customer's perspective. Fact is, most people who view your site will not care whether it was created with FP, DW or hand coded. It makes no difference what tool you use as long as your site achieves the objective you set for it.

The "purists" may may not like to hear it, but there are PLENTY of WYSIWYG websites out there that enjoy good traffic and sales, and they do that because the designers were more concerned about the effect on the customer than the tools they used to create the site.

[minstrel]

Check out FP 2003, it has the ability to clean it's own code.


Shouldn't have made it a mess in the first place.

LOL... carbonize: the ultimate cynic... lock and load, bro...

:-)

[jam14online]

In my opinion, WYSIWYG editors are for people who either can't be bothered to learn HTML or don't have the time.

I feel pretty confident with both HTML and CSS. I reckon I could make an exact 1:1 copy of any web page using just Notepad and Paint Shop Pro!

Are there any challengers?

:-D

[sijpie]

Have a look at the offerings by WebMechanics: WebDwarf (a freeware WYSIWYG) and SiteSpinner (extended version).

I have used them often to get started on my lay-out, then handcoding the details later. Initially I thought they produced rubish code, but recently I've learned that is CSS! So once you have set up the pages, you can move all the class information into .css, and your left with decent code.

[minstrel]

In my opinion, WYSIWYG editors are for people who either can't be bothered to learn HTML or don't have the time.
First, that's just not true - many if not most site designers now use one of the WYSIWYG editors (DreamWeaver, FrontPage, and GoLove being the major ones). It certainly helps to know something about HTML and scripting to modify what the editors are doing but it has little or nothing to do with laziness and certainly nothing to do with ignorance.

Second, that wasn't the question...

[eightfifteen]

This might be more than what you need, but I use Adobe GoLive, and have for years. I really enoy it.

[paulhiles]

I don't normally use WYSIWYG editors... I don't like giving over control to a piece of software (some philistine me, eh?). I have occasionally used Dreamweaver for certain effects, such as hiding/showing div layers, etc and the "Clean Up HTML" is a nice feature.. but generally I don't like the interface.. it's not the most intuitive for the novice.

I would always give Dreamweaver a higher recommendation than FrontPage.. even though that's actually the first HTML editor I ever used. FrontPage Express if I remember correctly! I recall a particularly horrific experience of a JavaScript being over-written.. eek.. gives me shivers just thinking about it! Give me TextPad or Ultra-Edit any day of the week! :o)

Paul

[SAFE1]

Hi guys-n-girls, this is from SAFE1 or rather SAFEfounder of safelifestyles.com. Am only a newbie years plus, but FREE "Composer" coming with Netscape browser will enable you to get up a usable site without overmuch headache. Other than image placements within text :(...still usable tho. FREE!
Now I'd like to offer all you pros opportunity to join a site-design contest for use by Area-Directors of SAFElifestyles Friendship Networks. Look for CONTEST link at above site.
You won't regret helping this effort to make a diff
and slow hiv spread. Maybe http://safelifestyles.com/ComeBuild.html is better site entry... opinions please!?!?
Kindly don't rail me for unprofessionalism. I'm just a disabled dad-n-grandad trying to make WORLD SAFEr to raise our children. :-) Chuckies baaack.

~~~~~My Signature:~~~~~~
SAFEfounders' Mission Slows HIV spread!
? ie: [url]Hiv Tests = Tax-Free Dollars!
TOP hits 2-SAFE via "safelifestyles"

Fate is not set in granite; nor out of your control.
Instead like a child, it needs nurtured by you.
If you diligently seek success...you will succeed!

[eightfifteen]

I recently wrote extensively on hand-codong vs. WYSIWYG design. You folks might find it interesting:

http://digitalartsgroup.org/Read-me/Digital-Rant-04-04.pdf