| 2:29 am on Dec 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
wywiwyg editor is not worth the effort in learning how to use. Put the same amount of effort in learning HTML and you will be far better off. Then you can do anything, and more quickly too. I know that is difficult to believe when you are first starting out or have not bothered to learn HTML properly, but trust me and trust the many other veterans of webmaster world who have learned to code by hand with simple text editors.
I liken it to riding a bicycle with training wheels or learning to ride a bike like an adult. Sure, you can go a little way on training wheels but your are limited as compared to what you can do without them.
| 4:09 am on Dec 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
FrontPage is a good choice cost-wise for the type of WYSIWYG you were interested in. Dreamweaver is good as well, but it costs more. It really depends on the interface you prefer. FrontPage is similar to the Office suite of programs in its appearance and operation. Dreamweaver is a bit more complicated in appearance (but some prefer that.)
Even though hand-coding is a good skill to have, a WYSIWYG program can be a great tool in your webmaster arsenal. I'd much rather save time and use my WYSIWYG to work on complicated lists or tables. Other aspects such as site wide link maintenance and quick use of templates make a WYSIWYG a real time saver over the Notepad purist approach.
That's not to say that learning HTML isn't a good idea. You can learn HTML from a WYSIWYG as well. It's recommended that you look at and validate the code generated.
| 12:28 pm on Dec 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I actually am well versed in HTML. There are just some challenges with complicated tables, etc and insertion of spacers and particular graphics that I thought a WYSIWIG would be helpful in saving time.
| 1:37 pm on Dec 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually, a good WYSIWYG editor like Dreamweaver is worth it. However, coding by hand can be faster depending on what you're working on. I like to create the initial design with Dreamweaver, after that, I turn to hand coding for maintenance and updates.
As for Dreamweaver vs. Front Page. I don't know if this is still true, but Front Page uses lots of proprietary Micr*s*ft tags when it builds a page. It simply adds lots of extra things that make the page load more slowly. Dreamweaver on the other hand is finally past that, leaving just the HTML.
The choice is yours. I would go to a college bookstore if you want a less-expensive version of Dreamweaver.
| 1:17 am on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|but Front Page uses lots of proprietary Microsoft tags when it builds a page. It simply adds lots of extra things that make the page load more slowly. |
That's never really been true. Several long-standing members and I have been generating 100% valid HTML/XHTML sites in FP for years now. This whole "FP generates bad code" FUD that gets brought up in every thread here is a myth. You can generate good or bad code with FP/Dreamweaver/GoLive/ or even Notepad. It's up to the skill of the operator.
| 2:05 am on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I saw NVU recommended...how does that compare to FP/Go Live, etc?
Thanks for everyone's input.
| 2:22 am on Dec 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The latest consensus on nvu here was that it's not quite ready for production use yet. Be careful using that software. Make backups before using it.
| 11:15 pm on Dec 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dreamweaver is a very advanced application that is used by majority of webdesign professionals. It offers more functions and features than what FP is capable of. But I personally prefer FP because it is very user friendly. If you have been using MS applications, FP will make you feel like home very quickly. If you do not need to build extreme complex layout for your web, FP will get the job done very well.
DW on the other hand will require a steep learning curve. Also, it is much more expensive than FP. Be careful if you want to consider DW. There are 2 versions: education and full retail. Program wise is the same, but retail license fee is way higher than educational. Note: you cannot use education to build commerical site (profit driven), because Macromedia periodically check sites randomly to find violators. And they can shut down your site for such violation.
| 11:28 pm on Jan 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|wywiwyg editor is not worth the effort in learning how to use. Put the same amount of effort in learning HTML and you will be far better off. |
And if you're involved in print print publishing, don't fall into the trap of designing pages with a program like Adobe Pagemaker or Quark XPress. You'll be "far better off" writing PostScript output files by hand, assuming that you're paid by the hour. :-)
| 3:25 am on Jan 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I swear I've tried almost every program under the sun- shamefully flubbing many a time with the "It the Super Easiest In the Universe" great WISIWYG's. The good thing is that I have enough self respect to not let my manyafailures ruin my journey.
Then a month ago, and I am still not completely sure of the steps that led me to it completely, I found Namu6.
Utterly simplistic yet a quality, and I mean an authentic quality output.
It is SO easy to work with it is scary. Check out my site <nope> to see why I am high on this program. Of course you may think it is a piece of crap though we just havent heard anything but Attaboys since we launched this new format.
Now the dark side of my WYSIWYG Esctacy:
(and there is some challenges I hope to figure)
*1. No HTML for adding my Metatags/keywords... kinda scary but we have stayed solid pagerank through design change. There is option to export as HTML so I am thinking I can do that and modify in Frontpage or Word Hopefully. Any advise appreciated!
*2. Frames. Some ppl hate them and other love them while others wonder why is anyone griping about something! From my limited knowledge I gather that frames are essentially for page structure... like their are in connection with a house. If frames are what is making example look so consistent page to page and so pretty dispite my artistic compulsions with photo and content... then thank God for the bloody frames... it is the first time since we started 3 years ago that my WYSIWYG actually is a WYSIWYG.
*3. Cannot add email links to the pages but you can use links to other sites.
*4. AS per number one cannot add fancy html addons etc as per no access to Source Level.
*5. Pages are published with an program originated numerical name instead of allowing me to designate it... ie www.example.com/5384 instead of www.example.com.something
Overall, yes I'd love to be able to tackle the Dark Side issues but at the moment they seem almost Chicken Salad Items to be spinnng my wheels about! I am having a blast changing and adding pages virtually daily and the membership has been thrilled and feel it is avery atractive and 'professional' webiste presence,and it feels good to say I Agree for a change.
Sorry if this trails on for you but I felt it responsible to speak up about good and bad and my passion for this particular program is that I like the immediate outcome for a WebWork in Progress like me. I cannot tell you how much time I saved - even compared to using Templates via frontpage that ending publiushed somehow wrong or missing pics or soon to be missing pics - i mean it is truly a pleausure to click publish adn it does it all automatically - i dont even have to fuss round the hosting account AT ALL and the changes are instant!
I truly wondered how I had not known of its existence long ago. I am willing to work by communication with the Namu6 producers to come up with workarounds to my 5 problems. Last Template based Frontpage example.com had 450+++ html errors. I only added pics and links! And it looked normal too.... kinda!
ps - Namu 6 is Free too!
[edited by: jatar_k at 4:59 am (utc) on Jan. 8, 2006]
[edit reason] no personal urls thanks [/edit]
| 3:36 am on Jan 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Arent I the busy body today! But I DID say I have used almost every supposed to be easy program. NVU is one I have tried and you made my day saying it is not production ready - I thought I had a serious Comprehension problem when I tried it with Namu6.... then I figured and hoped that Namu6 was genuinely an easier product and hoped I wasnt the simpleton I bagan to believe! One last good one- Enersoft SiteGenWiz... I just love it! It is actually more sophisticated that Namu I'd say but it is not as pretty an end product(at least the way I used both programs!) The Majority of my new sites will shift to SiteGenWiz as my skill with it improves. Check it out and you will see - great features - just not as user friendly. And the "Pretty thing"..... probably the damn frames!
So still keeping the frames,
[edited by: jatar_k at 4:58 am (utc) on Jan. 8, 2006]
[edit reason] no sigs [/edit]
| 3:37 am on Jan 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I use 1st Page from evrsoft. It's free.
I have been learning HTML as I go. I need some feature done and I don't know how to code - I go look for it as tutorial sites, look at source code of sites that have that feature, or ask around.
I have had no problems with 1st page at all. I do all my own coding by hand and just use the features of that program for odds and ends.
I have never seen Front Page or Dreamweaver at all, so I don't know how 1st Page compares with them.
| 6:25 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have been looking at this forum for 20 min and have decided to try FP out because so many veterans and claiming its just as good as DW and is easier to use....
| 10:00 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|have been looking at this forum for 20 min and have decided to try FP out because so many veterans and claiming its just as good as DW and is easier to use. |
lol! Gotta be careful with that statement. Each program has their strengths and weaknesses. I always tell people this...
If you are an avid user of Microsoft Office products, then you will most likely be more comfortable working with Microsoft FrontPage.
If you are an avid user of Macromedia products, which are mostly designers, then you will most likely be more comfortable working with Macromedia Dreamweaver.
Your going to find more Microsoft Office users who use FrontPage. And on the opposite side, you will find many more graphic designer types who use Dreamweaver.
And then you have those who use a variety of other tools from different resources. I can't comment on those but based on topics I've followed over the years, there are quite a few good ones out there. It's just not FP and DW, there are definitely more players in this (WYSIWYG) space.
| 12:24 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Any open source stuff that people use?
| 10:52 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
NVU as free-be > however if you versed in HTML - i would definetly suggest DW as it gets very powerful compared to the rest - especially if you start to also use flash, fireworks. I would suggest doing all the demo's for all of the WYSIWYGs, to get idea's of what to try - read back over previous requests.