Replacement for FrontPage

Ok Guys, I'm convinced that FrontPage sucks. What replacement programs to you suggest. Dreamweaver seems like overkill and FrontPage is too bloated in many ways. What os YOUR favorite ?? I am hoping for something in betweem those too programs.

Thanks for your thoughts

Nvu -- nvu.com -- I own FrontPage, DreamWeaver, and GoLive, but I've found Nvu to consistently be my first choice over all three. The fact that it's free has no bearing on its goodness, it's just a nice side effect. :-)

I have been using Namo's WebEditor. <namo.com> I'm regularly surpised at its power and capabilitites.

In reply to:

---

Ok Guys, I'm convinced that FrontPage sucks. What replacement programs to you suggest.

---

Any Unicode-compliant text editor. WYSIWYG editors are all evil.

"WYSIWYG editors are all evil" - -that may be true for a html purist, but if a person is trying to make a few dollars crearting websites than WYSIWYG editors are (or can be) a great tool.

In reply to:

---

if a person is trying to make a few dollars crearting websites than WYSIWYG editors are (or can be) a great tool.

---

Even if you have a basic understanding of HTML and CSS, you will find you can achieve more with handcoding a site. Your site will be leaner, faster, and more flexible than a WYSIWYG-sourced equivalent.

If I absolutely had to choose a WYSIWYG editor, I'd probably opt for Nvu, because it was developed by an acquaintance of mine.

I am trying NVU as we speak.
It looks great but it will not let me create tables using % instead of pixels. Besides that - - it DOES look really nice... stil testing

I like NVU as far as WSIWIGs go. But you need to use a FTP client instead of what NVU offers. NVU can't create directores on a remote server, among other things. Aside from that I like it.

Dreamweave is nice for some of the more graphical end of things. You can create Flash sites with the DW MX pakcage - as well as support for layers. Ya sure, you can handcode stuff like this too, but IMO it's more work to hand code entirley visual elements by hand - especially when you have to specify size in pixels.

For instance I allways use a image map program when I need an image map, becuase it's just too much work to be worth it to try and figure out the pixels with a graphics program, and then type them in by hand. I just let a simple program great the HTML for me, and then copy and paste.

One thing I do apprechate about Frontpage is that when you select text or an image in the normal editing view, you can switch over to HTML and that element will be highlighted and on-screen.



-Matttail

In reply to:

---

it will not let me create tables using % instead of pixels

---

Use CSS to control the width of table cells. If you have for equal columns, for example, the CSS will be like this:

th, td {
    width: 25%;
}

---------------
Simon Jessey
Keystone Websites | si-blog

In reply to:

---

WYSIWYG editors are all evil.

---

Now, I know you said that to get a rise out of all of us, and I would have agreed with you back in 1997... but Dreamweaver and GoLive can both be used well, can help one organize large-scale sites, create completely complient code, and both allow one to view either the code or the design. My old school perspective is to stay away from the spacers, built-in javascript libraries, and lazy design features both of these programs make too easy, but that's just me. :-)

I recommend usng CMS or blog engines for many of my clients now. I want them to take control of their online presence. I am determined to put myself out of business :-)

For free, you can't beat Nvu. I recommend it to my students.

My other old school opinion, when using a WYSIWYG editor, is: "Don't write anything you can't read."

In reply to:

---

but Dreamweaver and GoLive can both be used well, can help one organize large-scale sites, create completely complient code, and both allow one to view either the code or the design.

---

Site organization and templating is better handled with good use of server-side includes. I've used Dreamweaver, and although it can be bent into producing compliant code (apart from the way it embeds plugins), it is far from optimized. It is also way too reliant on the use of tables for positioning, despite the excellent input from Eric "CSS" Meyer.

Anyone serious about web design (as a business) will steer clear of WYSIWYG web software. They work well for the amateur market, and perhaps for creating production test pages, but that's about it.

I just can't agree with your logic for most developers. WYSIWYG editors do not force bad coding on users, although, if you don't know what you are doing you can, and will, write messy code with them. But if you don't know what you are doing you're going to write pretty terrible code anyway. Programs can be used well or poorly. Usually, they are used poorly at first and then used for their strengths in time. I have cursed many a crappy Dreamweaver-designed site.

I teach, and it would be unreasonable for me to demand my students write all their code by hand (although I do insist they learn basic HTML and create a multipage site with it before I'll let them use an editor). Why? because the market demands that they understand these programs. Their future clients will probably be using one of them (or something like Contribute) to maintain the site once it is online. Most employers will also insist on proficiency with at least one WYSIWYG editor.

Good creative design, not just lean code or strict W3C complience, is also important. UI issues, layout issues, use of space, good navigation, are all achieved through experience and understanding of design, psychology and communication. No WYSIWYG editor will make one a great designer. Yes, CSS is the best way to achieve good/flexible design. I still write my CSS from scratch because I can't get used to either Dreamweaver or GoLive's CSS editors but I use the programs to call my codes in because it's simply more efficient.

The web is a medium and, thus, is used many ways by many people for many things. There is no "right" answer or "right" way to get online. There are many solutions and one of them is probably just right for each individual user or business.

OP was looking for advice on switching from Frontpage. To say "all WYSIWYG editors are evil" doesn't really address his/her question. For you and your business XHTML and PHP are the way to go, That's awesome. But it's not a solution for many designers and to say programs like Dreamweaver are ok for "amateurs" but not serious web professionals is just good old fashioned snobbery :-) Usually, large-scale websites are a result of a variety of programs and processes, chosen for efficiency, stability and ease of development and maintenence.

Is Photoshop evil because it will also let one create a really poor HTML site? Is Flash evil because it is so annoying most of the time?

In reply to:

---

WYSIWYG editors do not force bad coding on users, although, if you don't know what you are doing you can, and will, write messy code with them.

---

There just isn't a WYSIWYG editor out there that will do high-quality, standards-compliant code right out of the box. WYSIWYG editors must compromise that quality to achieve the results a user is trying to get.

In reply to:

---

I teach, and it would be unreasonable for me to demand my students write all their code by hand (although I do insist they learn basic HTML and create a multipage site with it before I'll let them use an editor). Why? because the market demands that they understand these programs. Their future clients will probably be using one of them (or something like Contribute) to maintain the site once it is online. Most employers will also insist on proficiency with at least one WYSIWYG editor.

---

I couldn't disagree more, and I learned that the hard way when I won my hard-earned Associate Degree in Web Administration. There is very little work out there for the WYSIWYG developer. Almost all serious web design is done with handcoding and compiling Java Server Pages. In big business, the use of a WYSIWYG editor is restricted to the design team that creates mock-ups for management to look at - none of that work makes it to the web.

Serious websites, that are non-Java-based, are database-driven. Dreamweaver simply isn't sophisticated enough to handle that kind of work. It's fine for creating a "Mom & Pop" store, a personal website, or perhaps a photo gallery, but beyond that it simply doesn't have the power. Relying on the myriad of Dreamweaver plugins (and things like ColdFusion plugins) means churning out bloated code - you're right back where you started, without a clue what's going on.

If you really want to give your students what they need, concentrate on HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SQL, and Server-Side Scripting, whether it be ASP or PHP. By all means give them Photoshop, Flash, etc. - these are essential tools for the jobbing "web designer". If you are able, give them a solid grounding in Java Server Pages - that is where most of the work (and most of the money) is.

In reply to:

---

that may be true for a html purist, but if a person is trying to make a few dollars crearting websites than WYSIWYG editors are (or can be) a great tool.

---

you'd be giving your clients non-compliant rubbish, not a website most likely. That's not something that I'm fond of competeing with or trying to explain to a client. As long as they can see it in their browser they don't care if it was built as if it were a printed page instead of a web site. That's pretty shortsighted by the client and the wysiwyg developer.

In reply to:

---

There is no "right" answer or "right" way to get online

---

Absolutely false. "Online" is a medium like paper or vinyl cut signs for example. The methods you use to build files for the "printers" to make you a laserjet printed sign, or a vinyl cut sign would be different by necessity. For example, if printing an entire vinyl banner on an *jet printer you can use a nice subtle drop shadow over two background colors. If you're doing the same banner and typography as vinyl cut outs then there's not going to be any drop shadows involed, or if there is it's going to be very compicated in building the fileS to accomodate that effect in cut vinyl (requiring a hybrid of cut and *jet).

All that to say MEDIUM matters!

Developers building sites exclusively in Dreamweaver's wysiwyg are rarely building for portability the medium affords in my experience, just a buncha tabled layouts (that were likely born in Fireworks minutes before) with copious amounts of MM_javascript thrown around to make menus move.

I've heard (and used long ago) the "wysiwyg's can be used to create compliant/good markup" arguments many times before but the real world "source viewing" of random web sites does not seem to indicate that this is the way they are used!

I defy anyone to show me a site that was built in Dreamweaver or some other wysiwyg that takes full (or heck, even 10%) advantage of the medium.

I'm not as purist as that rant made me sound :) There always business considerations and target market to be considered and those factors should have a huge influence over a project/means to the end. Sometimes a purist has a handicap at the outset as their mindset goes against the business reality, but as a teacher I'd like to see you consider teaching more about the medium and it's possibilities! There's more to the web than WhatYoucanSee on a desktop monitor using a web browser!

jason

In reply to:

---

There's more to the web than WhatYoucanSee on a desktop monitor using a web browser!

---

Absolutely right, and well said. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that using a WYSIWYG tool is bound to make your "site" inaccessible to a significant (and increasingly larger) percentage of users.

WYSIWYG-authored sites make little or no provision for the following user agents:

Text-only browsers
Cellular phones
PDAs
Googlebot (and the bots of other search engines)
Braille browsers
Screen readers
Printers
TVs

Well that all adds up to a pretty big chunk of potential user base. I can't afford to throw away those users, so I don't use WYSIWYGs.

That presumes that someone is trying to design for universal compatability.

I was a graphic designer before I ever heard of the internet, so images and aesthetic are important to me. I still aim to design for the lowest common denominator, but there are limits. For instance, I am no longer losing sleep about users with 640x480 having to scroll right or people on 28.8 modems having to wait for images to load.

I would also point out that it's more likely for someone who is brand new at designing to make a much more unaccessible site using raw HTML than with a WYSIWIG... how many newbies make sure their DOCTYPE is correct or that they've specified what their charset is? Most WYSWIGs out there (even the evil ones) do this for them.

I learned HTML before I tried any WYSIWIG editors (how many people used PageMill?). I am not ashamed to admit that I use Dreamweaver. Do I have to go in and edit the HTML by hand? Sometimes. Do I miss manually creating embedded tables and making sure that all of their code are appropriately indented? Never.

One more thing, on a more philasophical note:

I think it's a great and powerful thing that average people have the ability to go on the internet and publish what they want, regardless of whatever elitist standards some would wish to impose on them. You shouldn't have to be a certified webmaster to have to put out your message. If you want to do your site entirely in Flash, knock yourself out! If you want to do each page as one large jpg, go for it! It's your site, so it should be your rules. I may disagree with you, but it's not my site. If you ask me for feedback, I'll give you my suggestions, but I'm not going to tell you how you HAVE to do your site.

I remember when someone designing a zine on their computer would be criticized because they hadn't observed conventional newspaper layout rules. I didn't like it then, either.

In reply to:

---

That presumes that someone is trying to design for universal compatability.

---

I see where you're coming from but the point is that is you design to standard, universal compatability is within reach by nature! Wouldn't that be a good way to *learn*? I say yes!

Seems you're implying that there's some kind of sacrifice when design this way? Besides the learning what would that be?

But elitist/evangelical purist DWWS Thumpers are irritating aren't they?! :) I just visited a friend's site done in FrontPage and had to absolutely marvel at this:

<img border="0" dynsrc="baby's 1st Bday.mpg" start="mouseover">

That actually worked to load a movie in the page then start it onMouseover! HAR! :) I had to fire up Ie to see it work but by golly it worked! wysiwyg content is worth working a little to get at sometimes!

jason

In reply to:

---

That presumes that someone is trying to design for universal compatability.

---

No, it isn't a question of universal compatibility. It's a question of market reach. My customers want to reach as many people as possible. If I use a WYSIWYG editor, I might be denying anywhere from 10-30% of the target market access to the site. More importantly, I might be making it hard for search engines to index the site, denying my customer a decent search rank.

In reply to:

---

how many newbies make sure their DOCTYPE is correct or that they've specified what their charset is?

---

As far as DTDs are concerned, I have a simple template I work with:

<?php
header("Content-Type: text/html;charset=UTF-8");
?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

  <head>
    <title></title>
  </head>

  <body>
  </body>

</html>

In reply to:

---

Do I miss manually creating embedded tables and making sure that all of their code are appropriately indented? Never.

---

I handcode all my (X)HTML, and I've never had to create embedded tables. Tables are for tabular data, not for layout.

I believe you are making the universal mistake of assuming that your method and experience is the only viable method and that your
"understanding" of the concept of media and medium is complete. I am a communicator and I deal with people who are, primarily, trying to say something, not sell something. So my perception comes from giving voice to people with something to say. I have slogged through many a crappy website by many a powerful thinker to get to the ideas.

Yes, I agree 100% that standards and complience are extremely important and that dynamic websites running on dynamic, complient engines are where the future of web development and design are. And I have little doubt that Macromedia will continue to enhance their product to reflect that as well. In fact, I generally only use my copy of Dreamweaver to check and modify PHP at this point, or to work with students and educators. I need to know these programs because designers do need to know these programs. Believe it or not, sophisticated graphic design is important to a lot of people. Even if, yes, the designer comps and the developer creates code based on those comps, what you have, then, is a team.

I used to be a purist and still am at heart. But I am a realist. You can write clean code with Dreamweaver. You can also write bloated junk with the plugins. Here's an idea. Don't use the plugins! Learn how to write or modify javascript and include it in your sites via the code. This is what I tell my students, who are educators and designers. They don't always listen :-)

Who's influencing the web and society these days? It's the bloggers. Why? Because of CONTENT. And, lucky for most of them, blogging software tends to be complient, dynamic, clean and functional without them having to really learn how it works. So, really, my recommendation to a lot of people just starting out is to use a blogging engine for their site. In time they will learn how to modify the CSS and templates and never go down that non-standard path in the first place. Then, they may begin to understand the PHP or Perl code the engine is built on. But they could still use Dreamweaver, GoLive or Nvu to modify their templates and, in fact, Dreamweaver is used widely for template design.

Different tools for different tasks.

Again, I also think it is important to answer the OP's question. Someone looking for a replacement to Frontpage is probably looking for a WYSIWYG editor. To that person, again, I say Nvu's your product. It's free, compliant and easy to learn.

In reply to:

---

<img border="0" dynsrc="baby's 1st Bday.mpg" start="mouseover">

---

In addition to the nonstandard "dynsrc" atribute and the lack of the required "src" attribute, this code is invalid because spaces are not permitted in URLs unless encoded as % 20 .

-- DanEdited by dtobias on 05/24/05 11:53 AM (server time).

is that space between % and 20 compliant? :D

You got hit by the same bb/html parsing I did when posting that ;)

jason

ElArtGeek! Please forgive me, I'm not picking on you :) I'm enjoying the dialog.

I asked in my previous post "Seems you're implying that there's some kind of sacrifice when design this way? Besides the learning what would that be?" - I thought I was catching the "standards compliant designs are ugly" vibe and this appears to confirm:

In reply to:

---

Believe it or not, sophisticated graphic design is important to a lot of people.

---

Engaging design and standards compliance are not mutually exclusive!

On to something I meant to say earlier... If you want a job as a "web designer" I think you'd do well to learn Dreamweaver. Whenever I check out competition, if it's not a firm that's heavy on app building, but rather informational brochure type stuff (graphic designers, ad agencies, web site designers etc), the sites look to be made with Dreamweaver. If it's a real agency with staff and bills to pay, seems like Dreamwever knocks it out quick and that's what they need to be profitable.

If you want to work in this purist veign you're gonna have a whale of a time finding clients that will suffer your geek talk sales pitch on the benefits. Somedays I think I may as well learn DW and go to work for a big firm and draw the paycheck, go home at 5 etc. Less stress, less forehead contusions from beating your head against the wall :)

There's a thousand ways to skin a cat.

As for the OP's question: maX's HTML Beauty a fine, free, plain text editor with a ton of extremely nice features.

But I use Dreamweaver :D

jason

In reply to:

---

I believe you are making the universal mistake of assuming that your method and experience is the only viable method and that your "understanding" of the concept of media and medium is complete.

---

Of course I'm not making that assumption, but one must face facts, nonetheless. I have also been a teacher (although that was restricted to teaching HTML and CSS), so I am familiar with the concept of communication.

In reply to:

---

Believe it or not, sophisticated graphic design is important to a lot of people.

---

What has Dreamweaver got to do with sophisticated graphic design? Dreamweaver is just a WYSIWYG editor for creating small-scale web applications.

In reply to:

---

You can write clean code with Dreamweaver. You can also write bloated junk with the plugins. Here's an idea. Don't use the plugins! Learn how to write or modify javascript and include it in your sites via the code.

---

You can only write clean code if you eschew the WYSIWYG features of the software. Yes, the code is standards-compliant (apart from embedded media), but it is anything but clean (it's usually festooned with nested tables). And if you do eschew the WYSIWYG features, you might as well be working with a text editor.

In reply to:

---

Who's influencing the web and society these days? It's the bloggers.

---

Bloggers are influencing society, but business is influencing the web.

In reply to:

---

Dreamweaver is used widely for template design

---

As I already said, it biggest role in web development is for producing mockups for websites that will later be handcoded in JSPs. Other than that, it is primarily used for small business websites, most of which are static.

In reply to:

---

Again, I also think it is important to answer the OP's question. Someone looking for a replacement to Frontpage is probably looking for a WYSIWYG editor.

---

I did answer the original question.

In reply to:

---

You can only write clean code if you eschew the WYSIWYG features of the software. Yes, the code is standards-compliant (apart from embedded media), but it is anything but clean (it's usually festooned with nested tables). And if you do eschew the WYSIWYG features, you might as well be working with a text editor.

---

This is how I use Dreamweaver myself, code view 100%. I thouht I was going to purchase it to get to know the interface and utilize the workflow improvement features. I now only use it because I paid good money for it and daggumit, I'ma get my money's worth (apparently not gonna happen.)

That's why I recommend HTML Beauty still, I'd be using it if I hadn't shelled out for DW. Grrr. That's makes me feel so dumb to say this out loud :) I still use Beauty quite a bit for spot editing when I don't wanna consume DW sized chunks of memory, and when DW crashes on a global find and replace, I whip out Beauty to clean up the mess.

Screw it, I'm going back to Beauty. Gah.

jason

I tried hard to avoid this one, as this debate can quickly reach "which text editor do you prefer?" or even "Mac OS or Windows" levels of heated-ness. :>

However, my thoughts:

1. WYSIWYG editors are, in my opinion, typically pretty bad - mostly because they isolate you from your HTML, and generally generate poor mark-up that is not really understood by the creator.

2. While a common reason for recommending such editors has traditionally been that they're "easier", I just don't see it. In my attempts to play with DreamWeaver, I've found the interface cumbersome and hard to wrap my head around. I believe a lot people really overestimate how difficult HTML is, when it really isn't. Despite appearances, it's not even close to learning how to program.

3. I do all of my coding in a text editor. BBEdit on the Mac (an awesome editor), UltraEdit on Windows (not so much).

4. I don't care much for the 'site management' tools bundled into WYSIWYG editors, though in large part it's because most of the so-called sites I work on are actually treated more like programming projects. It's more likely for me to be writing a single PHP script that generates pages on-the-fly from a database than it is for me to be creating a web site with 10-15 pages of content.

5. Similarly, WYSIWYG tools tend to work rather poorly for scripts - even 'embedded' scripting languages like PHP. They seem to encourage a mixture of presentational content (HTML) and programming logic, which is bad bad bad.

6. In general, once you move away from the 'multiple site made up of pages' paradigm and into the 'web application' paradigm, you will increasingly find that having a good knowledge of HTML will help you.

7. When people ask, I usually recommend just buying a good book and plopping down in front of a text editor for some experimentation. If they really want a graphical editor, though, I usually point them toward DreamWeaver (mostly because I've heard that it messes up HTML the least of the major editors) and away from Frontpage.

Just my thoughts. :>

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

> WYSIWYG editors are, in my opinion, typically pretty bad - mostly because they isolate you from your HTML, and generally generate poor mark-up that is not really understood by the creator.

I do like the way Mozilla/NVU editor has click-tabs to go back and forth between Preview and Source views, with ability to edit in either. Seems like best of both worlds.

Cheers,

BobS

scjessy, user1919, Jeff, et al;

I, too, am enjoying the discourse, not trying to start a flame war! I respect your opinions and experience.

// insert multiple emoticons here

It's sort of funny that I am the Dreamweaver apologist here since anyone who knows me knows how much I dislike the program for all of the reasons already laid out in this thread. But, since the EVIL word came up it prompted me to take the role of devil's advocate. Because, I've heard it many times before. My point being, it's easy for serious developers to lose track of the importance of the web as a creative medium for the many, rather than reserved for the few "masters" who can harness its power and make money off it; be they developers, businesses, pundits or governments.

I don't teach software courses, the design department handles that, I teach media theory, digital art and education courses that incorporate software or the Internet. I teach mostly graduate students and professional development for teachers in the field, not always media savvy future designers. So, my perspective is different because of who my audience generally is.

I am quite old in Internet years. I began using SGML in the late 1980s and have been working on online content projects since 1990 (for AOL, pre-Internet days) -- I've been a graphic designer since 1976 (so CSS is a natural for me, since it's similar to old-fashioned type-spec'ing). So, I am coming from a long view perspective. When I started developing for the graphical web, there were no WYSIWYG editors. BBedit became the only useful "time saving" editor available and was the only thing I used until Adobe bought GoLive Cyberstudio and renvisioned it as an extension of their digital studio package. Still, I generally spend much of my time in the code view. I prefer GoLive to Dreamweaver, personally -- I think encourages better coding and understanding than Dreamweaver -- and, as part of the creative suite, it's a better buy. Dreamweaver has only, in my opinion, become a viable tool with the latest version. Of course, as an educator, I (and my students) can get a significant discount on the software. Apx $350 for the Adobe CS or Macromedia Studio MX is a pretty sweet deal.

You are correct that most people use these tools poorly and that the programs do encourage lazy practices and a disassociation with the code. But, there are designers and developers using these programs intelligently and using them to streamline their design process. You just don't see it because there is not any tell-tale crap code in their work. And there are many artists, educators and thinkers using these programs, and CMS/Blogging tools, to connect, collaborate and express themselves via new media. And that is a good thing.

In reply to:

---

But, since the EVIL word came up it prompted me to take the role of devil's advocate.

---

In fairness to Macromedia, we are talking about a much milder form of evil than that of things like Microsoft FrontPage, frames, and the lack of a Skip Intro link.

God bless the skip intro link (DHSOTMers take note!)

jason

In reply to:

---

4. I don't care much for the 'site management' tools bundled into WYSIWYG editors, though in large part it's because most of the so-called sites I work on are actually treated more like programming projects. It's more likely for me to be writing a single PHP script that generates pages on-the-fly from a database than it is for me to be creating a web site with 10-15 pages of content.

---

By "on the fly" do you mean once to create the 10-15 pages, or as visitors request pages? Why do this? If the former, is it to have increased reliability of static pages, and not rely on database functioning 24/7, while having benefits of using databases?

In reply to:

---

5. Similarly, WYSIWYG tools tend to work rather poorly for scripts - even 'embedded' scripting languages like PHP. They seem to encourage a mixture of presentational content (HTML) and programming logic, which is bad bad bad.

---

Why is this so bad bad bad?

Regards,

BobS

> By "on the fly" do you mean once to create the 10-15 pages, or
> as visitors request pages? Why do this? If the former, is it to
> have increased reliability of static pages, and not rely on
> database functioning 24/7, while having benefits of using
> databases?

Well, most of my 'sites' these days are actually web applications, and are far more likely to have just a few people using them at a time than a bunch. So, saving database connections is, for the most part, not a huge concern. Obviously if I were to re-write these scripts for use on a high profile production site I might make different design decisions.

In fact, there probably isn't much I could even do that would benefit from writing static files, as most of the pages involve adding or deleting stuff from databases in the first place. When pretty much everything results in what would need to be a dynamic page, there's only so much you can do statically.

One exception to this is a script I've developed (for a personal project) that is essentially an editor for a single static web site I've been working on. I wanted the ability to make changes via the web from anywhere - even a random web browser somewhere. You do all of the editing in the CMS, then run a little Perl script and it outputs everything as static HTML pages.

> Why is this so bad bad bad?

The biggest reason is maintainability. Mixing presentation with code on a small script usually isn't a problem at all, but once your script is measured in thousands of lines it becomes a problem. Long tracts of intermixed code and HTML make it harder to get an overall view of what is being done (both programmatically and visually), or to make changes.

It gets even worse for large projects wherein visual changes may need to be do-able by non-programmers. Having all of the HTML in a single place with no code in it makes this possible without scaring them (some Perl code in particular can be pretty scary!).

Some people further break this down into a Model/View/Controller (MVC)paradigm, though I'm honestly not 100% sold on the need for that in all cases. However, for any project of a significant size I'd sooner take a boot to the head than deal with a heavily mixed presentation/logic script ("spaghetti code").

Some more on these concepts:

http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=309
http://www.paragoncorporation.com/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVC

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin

Just want to put in my 2 cents worth! Being an average small business owner/artist for the past 6 years with self taught internet skills (always learning), I could not have gained an internet presence without WYSIWYG in any kind of a timely fashion on a low budget. Besides, I'd rather be sculpting... but how many customers am I not reaching?

Reading this discussion pointed out some issues I had no idea I should be concerned with and found it fascinating and also a bit intimidating!!

Wish I had heard about Nvu before shelling my hard earned dollars to DW which took me a week just to learn the basics. I read somewhere DW was more flexible then Frontpage in what it can do and able to customize. It certainly is faster and easier to upload and publish .... once I figured that out a day and a half later! :-)

www.thebearhollow.com is created with frontpage
www.hiddenhillhollow.com using DW (just the basics are up)

My thoughts now on web design .... I should save up more dollars and let the professionals do it the right way!! It sure was fun ... the creative process and end product is a natural high... when it works out!

In reply to:

---

I read somewhere DW was more flexible then Frontpage in what it can do and able to customize. It certainly is faster and easier to upload and publish

---

Macromedia's Dreamweaver is an excellent WYSIWYG tool - the best of the bunch you pay for, but like all such pieces of software it suffers from the same Achilles Heel of mixing up content with presentation, behavior, and logic.

Another factor to consider is this: Dreamweaver is $399. That's getting awfully close to the cost of a basic website from a reputable web designer. My basic fee, for example, is $650, although few clients ever actually pay that much in this day and age, and you get quite a lot of bang for those bucks.

Both of the sites you have are fairly simple static sites. I probably would've charged around $1,000 for a site like those, and it would have been hand-coded XHTML and CSS that would be accessible in any web browser (even cell phones).

In reply to:

---

I should save up more dollars and let the professionals do it the right way!

---

If you were to engage a professional web designer to build your site, you would be able to concentrate on the content of the site, instead of the mechanics of putting it together. I tell you what - send me an email and I'll be able to help you to figure out whether or not you can get it done professionally within your existing budget. You'd be surprised what good value for money you can get from a web designer.

Two thoughts:

One:
DianneMayne- congratulations on teaching yourself to have an internet presence. The debate over Frontpage versus Dreamweaver has a very good illustration in your sites: the HiddenHill site has much cleaner HTML code than the Bear Hollow site. Keep working at it and learning, especially since you've already invested your time and money into software and education. If you do decide to go with a professional, shop around and find someone you feel comfortable with.

Two:
Simon- I think it's very inappropriate to solicit business on an open forum discussion. I would wager that a large percentage of participants here are web professionals or semi-professionals. If we all begin down the road of trying to sell our services to everyone who comes here to register an opinion or ask a question, it will become a shoot-out at the OK Corral and result in a place that I wouldn't want to frequent. My opinion is that promoting your business with your sig is fine, but none of us should be doing it with our postings.

Thanks so much for the replies and posts and food for thought!

Edited to add:... My post might have sounded like I was soliciting quotes and I apologize for that .... I was just joining in on the conversation and acknowledging the skills necessary for web design ... you all sound like a very talented group!

...goin' back to reading my books and attacking my todo list, but I will be back for some more inspiration! Edited by DianneMayne on 06/24/05 09:05 AM (server time).

In reply to:

---

Simon- I think it's very inappropriate to solicit business on an open forum discussion.

---

At no time in my post did I promote my services above any other web professional. I suggested that Dianne email me to discuss what it might cost to do a site, but I think it is clear that I was offering free advice that was specific to her needs, not my services as a web professional. I reasoned that a discussion about a specific site was best conducted in email, rather than in the forum.

That said, I do not completely agree with your point of view regarding business solicitation on the forum. I do agree that it is unwelcome, for the reasons that you suggest, but I do not agree that it is "inappropriate", since there is nothing prohibiting the activity in the forum guidelines.

In reply to:

---

At no time in my post did I promote my services above any other web professional.

---

The content of your posting linked to a pricing/service page on your commercial site and you recommended to DianneMayne that she take her public posting to a private conversation with you. Whether you meant to or not, this gives the appearance of trying to drum up business.

In reply to:

---

I do not completely agree with your point of view regarding business solicitation on the forum. I do agree that it is unwelcome, for the reasons that you suggest, but I do not agree that it is "inappropriate", since there is nothing prohibiting the activity in the forum guidelines.

---

Please note that I said "inappropriate," not "prohibited." The difference is the former is not suitable; the latter is not allowed. That being said...

DianneMayne did not anywhere in her posting ask for a web professional or solicit help finding one. Your unsolicited promotional pitch could be considered a violation of one of the few rules here:

In reply to:

---

Spamming or illegal activity will not be tolerated, and violators will be reported.

---

Allow me to clarify: I am not accusing you of spamming, but I think your posting went over a line, which is why I said something. I've been a member of this community for over 4 years and I feel it's important we police ourselves. Your contribution to this community and the wiki is noteworthy, but I think your posting (regardless of intent) was out of place.

In reply to:

---

The content of your posting linked to a pricing/service page on your commercial site

---

I was using it as an example, nothing more.

In reply to:

---

Your unsolicited promotional pitch could be considered a violation of one of the few rules

---

It was not an "unsolicited promotional pitch". It was an offer of assistance.

In reply to:

---

I am not accusing you of spamming

---

Perhaps not, but you say I'm in violation of "Spamming or illegal activity will not be tolerated, and violators will be reported."

It is not my fault that you misconstrued the meaning of my post. If you feel that any of my posts are inappropriate, whether or not they violate the official guidelines, then I suggest you report them to the forum moderator where that matter can be dealt with appropriately, instead of publically berating me.

Like I said, we generally police ourselves here. I'd rather have the Dreamhost staff keep the support queue low than regulate discussion.

I have no doubt that your posting was well intentioned, but I think the way it was put together crossed a line, so I called you on it.

If me telling you I think you made a mistake is berating you, I apologize, but I think I was fully in bounds and I would do it again to any other user who posted similarly.

In reply to:

---

If me telling you I think you made a mistake is berating you, I apologize, but I think I was fully in bounds and I would do it again to any other user who posted similarly.

---

Okay, that's fair enough. I don't want to make a big deal about it. I've "kicked forum butt" for similar things before, so I guess it is only fair that I should get some payback from time to time. If I have come across as a salesman-type, then I apologize. I can assure you that it was never my intention to do so.

Jumping back into this fray only because I've found myself helping an artist friend with her new website and I thought you might get a kick out of it. I hasten to make fun of this, because I respect the artists, but this is no website. And, unfortunately, I run across sites like this this a lot and find it sort of infuriating.

http://cosmic-trigger.com

Look under the hood and weep, or laugh, or both...

There is not one scrap of actual text or one alt tag in the entire thing. It was made using Dreamweaver, probably with Fireworks. No thought went into creating an underlying grid (with tables OR CSS) or to creating anything a non-expert could possibly maintain.

My colleague originally asked me about adding metatags to her site, because her designer said it would cost "thousands" to have that added. I replied nonsense, that it was easy to do and I'd be glad to help her out over a glass of wine. However, after looking through her site I realized that metatags were the least of her worries.

In this case, if I end up working on this, I'd only want the original collages and text files and would build this entire thing again from scratch.

This, I believe is what you are railing about re:WYSIWYG editors. I see this in a lot of student work too, and my beef is with the instructors who -- when it comes to design for the web -- teach software (Dreamweaver) rather than interface design, not with the software itself, which I still maintain can be used effectively.

Your post about your prices/methods wasn't out of line, I don't think, because you were talking about your process.

Many folks have been burned by "web designers" who create unsustainable messes like the code behind the above linked site.

In reply to:

---

http://cosmic-trigger.com

---

That is what I like to call a slice 'n' dice website - a Photoshop whizz has sliced up some graphics and thrown them together in a WYSIWYG. Very 1997.

In reply to:

---

I see this in a lot of student work too, and my beef is with the instructors who -- when it comes to design for the web -- teach software (Dreamweaver) rather than interface design, not with the software itself, which I still maintain can be used effectively.

---

The best way to teach web design is with a text editor. WYSIWYG tools have their place, but they should only be brought into a web design course at the end, once the students have mastered how to do it properly.

I use Dreamweaver for creating site mock-ups for clients, sometimes. I don't use it for anything else, though.

And the web designers own site is done just the same way,
only has somewhat confusing nav...

Not a character of text in sight!

Ho hum

Matt

conspicuous,

Simon has gone from favoring banning affiliate links in the forum to pushing the limits of usual practice, in only a couple months. So I think you were right to call him on it.

BobS

In reply to:

---

Simon has gone from favoring banning affiliate links in the forum to pushing the limits of usual practice, in only a couple months. So I think you were right to call him on it.

---

Ardco, I really don't know what your problem is. What possible use can your post serve to anyone? I did nothing wrong - my intentions were simply misconstrued. I even apologized to those who mistook my intentions, including sending a personal email to the original poster. You seem to be going out of your way to send flames in my direction, which is far more undesirable than a suggestion of self-promotion.

As for the post you are referring to, it indicated that I thought referral links were unwise because they didn't seem fair on DreamHost; however, since it transpired that most people disagreed, I decided it was better to simply do what everyone else was doing.

I suggest, given your own relentless pursuit of referral goodness, that you refrain from firing any further flames in my direction concerning this matter. If it will make you feel better, you may send flames to me by using the contact forms on either of my listed websites.

In reply to:

---

Ardco, I really don't know what your problem is. What possible use can your post serve to anyone? ...

---

Simon, At least I didn't tell anyone they have a problem. What good did that do?

I simply expressed my opinion in support of someone else's comment on the appropriateness of your post.

In reply to:

---

I decided it was better to simply do what everyone else was doing.

---

That's ok, of course, but you've just gone on to set a new example, beyond what everyone else was doing (and you got called on it).

In reply to:

---

I suggest...

---

"Simon says" doesn't set the rules here.

BobS

In reply to:

---

you've just gone on to set a new example, beyond what everyone else was doing (and you got called on it).

---

As I originally explained, I only linked to one of my pages to show an example of the sort of costs involved. I could've linked to a different designer's webpage that accomplished the same thing, but I wasn't prepared to waste my time looking for one. How many different ways do I have to say I wasn't touting for business?

In reply to:

---

"Simon says" doesn't set the rules here.

---

Like I said, if you're going to flame someone it is better to do it off the forum. You're only going to make yourself look more foolish if you continue.

> How many different ways do I have to say I wasn't touting for business?

Feel free to stop any time. A couple of us thought it had a different appearance.

> make yourself look more foolish if you continue.

Ditto's. :-)

BobS

In reply to:

---

A couple of us thought it had a different appearance.

---

Like I said, it is not my fault if you misunderstood. I can't be held reponsible for the intellect (or lack thereof) of others.

> it is not my fault...

Goodwin's Law.

Cheers,

BobS

Okay, I'm putting an end to this thread, for obvious reasons.

1. Soliciting design business in this forum, while perhaps not as blatant as the term connotes, still falls under the realm of 'spamming'. I have a lot of respect for all of the regular posters in this thread and recognize that they make significant contributions to this forum and elsewhere, but rules are rules.

If you all would like to see a special place for soliciting/selling of services, I might be amenable to adding one - if there is significant demand.

2. I've been seeing a lot more 'sniping' back and forth between forum regulars lately, and it's getting a bit old. I'm not going to point fingers at this point as it will probably only fuel arguments, but suffice to say this is not the place for it. If you want to do that sort of thing, keep it to private correspondence (if you think the perceived offense is bad enough to warrant action on my part, let me know privately).

- Jeff @ DreamHost
- DH Discussion Forum Admin