|
| |
|
|
caz
Posts: 3520
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
 |
Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 13:10:32
"I fully expect FrontPage 2003 to create exactly the kind of markup that it always has done - proprietary, MS-oriented markup that breaks in all manner of wonderful ways in any browser other than Internet Explorer. We shall see ..."
How many times have you read or heard this type of remark? As users of FP and members of this forum we usually shrug our shoulders and carry on designing our own sites that are standards compliant, with clean code, and are cross browser viewable; heck, some of us even attempt to make them accessible.
Usually we concentrate on the fact that it is the user, not the tools used that is responsible for the end product-
To quote pageoneresults in WebmasterWorld forums,
" Arrrggghhh! Smell an FP site a mile away? I take offense to that. You must like the smell of Sterling Silver Roses because that is what my FP sites smell like! ;)
Nah, I can't bash either program, or any of the others that are in use today. It all comes down to the user, not the program. FP does have less of a learning curve than DW but, it all depends on what type of programs you are used to working with. As it has been mentioned above, if you are an MS Office user, than FP will be more familiar than DW. If you are a Macintosh user and utilize Macromedia products, than DW is going to be more familiar.
Yes, you can work on aspx sites using FP. The preferred editor for aspx is Visual Studio.Net or NotePad (Hehe). If you know the full power of FP, you can use it on any site. Add a plugin called PHP Rocket and viola, you can edit and develop in php.
If your authoring team is MS based, then you will probably want to explore an MS product as it will offer seamless integration. There are all sorts of plugins that you can add that give FP more functionality. And, FP 2003 is a force to be reckoned with in the right hands. Just as any editor is. Pssst, MS has this neat little backend called SharePoint Team Services, great little tool. "
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum46/347-2-10.htm
This usually earns some kind of patronising reply, just repeating that Frontpage generates bloat and often based on their last aquaintance with the program, which was probably FP98 at the height of the browser wars. Many academics and a surprising amount of fora moderators perpetuate this urban legend either from lazy research or just parroting what they have been told elsewhere. Even more are just biased against anything MS, or those who think that they are being clever.
There has been a comparison of wsyiwyg html editors on their ability to create clean code in .Net, May 2005. (sold as Web Builder in the US.). Five design agencies tested all four and the results provide an objective, up to date assessment - not outdated, received opinion. Their results may surprise a number of people:
1.Dreamweaver MX2004
2.FP2003,
3.Golive CS
4.Netobjects Fusion 8
They conclude that with all editors drag and drop functionality is not enough to build a decent website. If the user does not have a solid knowledge of how the software generates code, then unnecessary and erroneous code can be produced. Even with the almighty Dreamweaver...manual checks will still be necessary.
This article may be available before long at http://www.netmag.co.uk/
This updates an onsite opinion by giomannach http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-192823/key-html%252Ceditors/tm.htm#192828
From abbeyvet, sometime ago but still valid,
"I believe that the principal objection that the 'professional' web design community have to FP is that it allows anyone who takes the time to learn how to use it and has a modicum of visual aptitude to make a very nice web site. They are threatened by it. It proves the very thing they do not want proved, that making decent websites is not rocket science or brain surgery, anyone can do it."
http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-21743/key-frontpage%252Cbloat/tm.htm#21751
Other useful references are,
Using FP to produce accessible websites
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frontpage/
WYSIWYG Editor comparison chart.
http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.html
It's important to remember that most people new to wysiwyg software tend to do their work in design view and rarely look at pages in code view - whatever package they are using. If giving advice on choosing editors it would be wise to remember this: a higher price does not necessarily mean cleaner code.
Just redressing the balance a little,
Carol
_____________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard.
Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk
I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 13:38:03
quote:
"I believe that the principal objection that the 'professional' web design community have to FP is that it allows anyone who takes the time to learn how to use it and has a modicum of visual aptitude to make a very nice web site. They are threatened by it. It proves the very thing they do not want proved, that making decent websites is not rocket science or brain surgery, anyone can do it." good quote and good post, Carol. another thing that adds to the fp image problem is that it allows people with zero experience to make a first ..very mediocre site..and then gives them confidence to proclaimthemselves web developers. those are the sites that give fp a bad name - ive seen many great sites on here created 100% with fp but a tool must be held by an experienced hand to do great work.
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6046
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 13:57:22
All these WYSIWYG packages are just tools - there's no real point in slating them out of hand - they all have their little quirks. If you know what you're doing then it's perfectly possible to create a beautiful, valid, accessible site in FP - and it's a damn site easier to use than DW.
A friend approached me yesterday asking what they should do as they want to create a fun personal website - they don't have the inclination to learn HTML from scratch either. They wanted to know if DW was the way to go (actually I think they just wanted me to say "yes go buy Dreamweaver" because they'd heard it was really fancy) I told them to buy FrontPage instead - cheaper and easier to use.
It's not what you've got it's how you use it!
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
Kitka
Posts: 2515
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 19:18:35
quote:
It's not what you've got it's how you use it!
So true. I've heard it said that you can purchase the very best paints, paint brushes and canvas - but they will rarely make someone into a Van Gogh or Picasso.
_____________________________
Kitka
**It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.**
| |
|
|
|
mar0364
Posts: 3092
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Florida, US
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:06:35
I've created really good work with FP and NotePad. I've also created crap with Notepad and with FP.
A carpenter shouldn't blame his tools.
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:10:14
quote:
A carpenter shouldn't blame his tools. ..but he can and should assign blame to:
1. his helper
2. his client
3. his spouse
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
mar0364
Posts: 3092
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Florida, US
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:17:32
Now for the folks that just edit the sites I give them FP for that. They still cut and paste out of Word which if done in Office 2003 without the formatting is not bad.
I digress:
My favorite tool is Homesite. I know it's nothing but Notepad on steroids. I get to see and feel the code and I control it! I've tried DW twice and can't seem to get the hang of it. It took me while to get used to FP. (which my company forced me to do)
How many folks just use Notepad when you really want to get at the code?? I still do!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tailslide
They wanted to know if DW was the way to go (actually I think they just wanted me to say "yes go buy Dreamweaver" because they'd heard it was really fancy) I told them to buy FrontPage instead - cheaper and easier to use.
| |
|
|
|
mar0364
Posts: 3092
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Florida, US
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:19:56
I'm going to catch Hell for this one. But I used to work for this old carpenter that blamed everything on his wife. I always remember him telling me. "beer is good and women are evil" never forget that son.
LOL
He was a trip!
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:25:36
and I know you accepted the first and rejected the second, Rich. smart man
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Spooky
Posts: 26599
Joined: 11/11/1998
From: Middle Earth
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:46:56
Off topic
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5456
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/25/2005 20:49:07
quote:
It all comes down to the user, not the program.
From years of use, I have noticed FP2003 produce code much cleaner than its previous versions. You can say it depends on the user, but it also depends a LOT on the program too. I guess FP depends on the user to manually edit their HTML to become valid, that's why it will always depend on the user AND tool used.
The http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.html article is missing quite a bit of FrontPage 2002 info. I know just offhand that FP2002 supports FTP, also, FP 02/03 both support Flash Elements too.
quote:
Many academics and a surprising amount of fora moderators perpetuate this urban legend either from lazy research or just parroting what they have been told elsewhere. Even more are just biased against anything MS, or those who think that they are being clever.
- When is the last time you took a look at a FrontPage03 site? And this "urban legand" was and still is true that FP has produced horrible code in the past, and despite efforts to clean it up, still produces pretty bad code. However, FP03 has improved quite a bit.
quote:
and then gives them confidence to proclaimthemselves web developers. those are the sites that give fp a bad name - ive seen many great sites on here created 100% with fp but a tool must be held by an experienced hand to do great work.
- It's funny that you can make a site in FrontPage and your client is happy, but a different person, and same client, could spend countless hours doing the same thing in another WYSIWYG editor, and take a lot more time.
It really comes down to each project. I did a project awhile back that consisted of 200 or so pages, that only took a few hours to complete. I know for sure that it would have taken a lot more time in DW, even as an experienced DW user. I love FP, but I have began to use DW a lot more for when I need my websites to validate correctly. I really doubt you can blame that on the user, and not the tool- I feel I am a pretty good expert in FrontPage, and more than decent in DW.
Has anyone else noticed the design view of tableless designs in DW looking very messed up when compared to the design view of FP?
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6046
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/26/2005 3:39:29
quote:
ORIGINAL: mar0364
How many folks just use Notepad when you really want to get at the code?? I still do!
I learnt in Notepad - seriously, I did. Notepad and Sams "Teach Yourself HTML in 24 hours"!!
I still use Notepad when I want to change something on a single page very fast.
I progressed from Notepad to Netscape Composer when I did a Open University course - now that's a WYSIWYG programme that generates truly horrible horrible code - and it's very untidy about it too!
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
BobbyDouglas
Posts: 5456
Joined: 5/15/2003
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/26/2005 13:40:30
I think we dev would be much slower if it wasn't for notepad. FF's copy as plain text has also increased my speed too. I never tried out that Sams book, but I have heard about it for ages!
_____________________________
Arizona Web Design - Mr Bobs Web Design in Arizona
The Arizona Web Hosting Challenge
| |
|
|
|
skrile
Posts: 59
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Novi MI USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/29/2005 13:11:50
Well, I do a lot of web development that deals with database integration. As soon as I weened myself off FPs Database Result Wizard I have been very happy with the tool. In fact, the less FP automation I use, the happier I am. FP does a great job of displaying my pages while I'm developing using CSS. As with most HTML developers, over time, I've come to use the code view much more than any other.
_____________________________
Steve Krile
Ergonomist posing as web developer - or visa versa
| |
|
|
|
cdwise
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/16/2005
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/29/2005 23:05:36
quote:
ORIGINAL: BobbyDouglas
The http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.html article is missing quite a bit of FrontPage 2002 info. I know just offhand that FP2002 supports FTP, also, FP 02/03 both support Flash Elements too.
The FTP client in FrontPage 2002 is not reliable on all web servers which is why I did not include it in the list. Also, if you would care to point out where Flash Elements are supported in either FrontPage 2002 or 2003 I will be happy to update the chart at http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.html
The ability to insert Flash in FrontPage 2003 is noted as "Macromedia Flash MX Integration - For Embedding". There are third party add-ons for FrontPage that will allow you to create Flash inside FrontPage but there is no native support for creating Flash Elements like there is for Flash based buttons in Dreamweaver.
Note that the chart gets updated if I am notified of an error. I did update a bit after one of the Macromedia developer's posted a link on his blog and one of the comments pointed out an error. I'm in the process of trying out GoLive CS 2 and it will be replacing GoLive 6 in the chart when I'm done. FWIW, the review is not going to be favorable. If you want to talk about bloat and a steep learning curve. The 'in progress' review is at http://cheryldwise.com
Cheryl D Wise
MS FrontPage MVP
| |
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67
Joined: 2/6/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/30/2005 7:11:53
Agree with everything here. Most of what's said about FP is either second-hand, out of date or part of the "Evil Empire that is MS" mindset.
Two things I would add - although both have been suggested many times before - concerning tools are, firstly, Note Tab Pro; you have to have this editor. It's free, kept up to date, reliable, easy to use, powerful etc etc. Because it's free (the Light version) I try to plug it whenever I can.
The second tip is for those copying material to a web page they've originated or worked on in MS Word. Use the Save As Web Page Filtered option (even if you don't want to keep a copy) before cutting and pasting the text etc into the webpage. This will eliminate a lot of unecessary html and make the material much easier to work on within FP or other editors.
| |
|
|
|
caz
Posts: 3520
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/30/2005 7:54:59
Thanks briesmith, excellent advice there concerning Notetab and Word.
_____________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard.
Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk
I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic.
| |
|
|
|
caz
Posts: 3520
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
|
RE: Code bloat, myths and wysiwyg editors - 6/30/2005 11:05:49
Thanks for the clarification on your tools review Cheryl, it's good to have the methodology behind the article explained so that there is no confusion. I started this thread having read the article in .Net and being pleasantly surprised to find an objective review of the tools concerned and not as mentioned above, "second hand" views. So I did a literature search on the net to find other quality comparisons and as you can guess the hits were there, but the quality was questionable. There are subjective comments a-plenty, but very few have quality methodology to back them up.
_____________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard.
Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk
I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic.
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
..I did exactly the same! Sam's books are pretty darn good as a starting point. I then went to FP andthen took a few html/css courses but I started the same. cool
at what point do most people realize the limitations of FrontPage with clean code? It seems a lot of people have not used FrontPage enough to see that. Or used FrontPage with their own code, and simply made very few changes to it.
