homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.238.60
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors Forum

This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 63 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Are You designer or coder?
Are 99% of people here coders, not designers?
FlashLady2




msg:938410
 12:10 am on Jun 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

Am I right in thinking that 99% of people who participate in the forums here at Webmasterworld are coders (hand-coders at that), and are not designers?
The reason I ask is because I recently participated in a thread about Pixelsurgeon.com, and literally everyone in there was slagging off their design - yet they are one of the biggest success stories of the web-design portal world. Every other site Board I have seen on the 'net that has spoken about Pixelsurgeon has almost always had mostly positive things to say about Pixelsurgeon, so I was just wondering why Webmasterworld is so different. Admittedly, as I am a designer and not a coder, I do tend to visit the design-boards, and not the coder-boards.

 

papabaer




msg:938440
 4:54 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm one of those "code slashing, CSS loving, artsy-fartsy, do-it-my-own-way types" who strongly believes content is King! ;)

martinibuster




msg:938441
 5:02 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Designer. Burn me at the stake, but I would like for my code to validate, but I prefer it to look good...

Ok, you can light the fire now...

stever




msg:938442
 7:34 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm one of those "code slashing, CSS loving, artsy-fartsy, do-it-my-own-way types" who strongly believes content is King!

Oh yes, yes, yes, papabaer. Many more professional sites (the majority?) are badly written and marketed than are badly coded or badly designed. Geeks or artists? What about content providers?

But to be serious, it's a mix of all three, with the content ruling the other two...

martinibuster




msg:938443
 7:37 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

stever and papabear,
I agree with you, great content will always rock me better than how good a web site looks. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm not a hand coder, but I VERY RARELY like flash unless it's in an entertainment site or in a SMALL corner someplace where the animated gif used to be.

That's my personal opinion, and I don't represent it as the truth or the last word in any way.

[edited by: martinibuster at 7:45 am (utc) on June 25, 2002]

dcheney




msg:938444
 7:42 am on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Count me in the content school as well. All too often "design" seems to focus on "how many more ads can I put between the user and the content he's looking for".

moonbiter




msg:938445
 4:49 pm on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm a designer by background, a coder by necessity, and a believer that content is the only reason for a web site to exist (whether it be text or what have you).

I became a coder because the WYSIWYG tools available did not allow me to get the results I wanted. I found that I could visualize a layout and hand code it to get those results easier than I could achieve them by looking in the innaccurately-rendered environment of a WYSIWYG tool.

This is still true -- I have yet to see a WSYIWYG tool that can get (for example) non-absolute CSS positioning right. Dreamweaver ain't Quark, and it should not try to be. But hell, it should at least be able to display CSS styling in editing mode, shouldn't it?

WYSIWIG tools still have a long way to go.

EliteWeb




msg:938446
 5:19 pm on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

When I use a visual WYSIWYg editor does that take away my title as a code and move me into a designer? Or if I use notepad does that take away my designer status? I use the two together simutaniously making a well designed yet properly coded pages and programs (:

Hawkgirl




msg:938447
 10:27 pm on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm a marketer turned product manager turned web designer turned SEO person. I'm self-taught in code (our web guy quit, I was the only one who could pick up the slack), I'm great at layout but horrible at design ... so I hired a designer who is so-so at coding. Together we make one hell of a layout, design and HTML person.

:)

OhMyPixel




msg:938448
 11:20 pm on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

I think websites can be broken down into three categories (1)Art/Experimentation, (2)Practical, (3) Crap.

(1) Art/Experimentation (associated w/ designers) - includes all those sites that efforts are not targeted at the common denominator. Lack of respect/care for browser compatability, site size, etc.

(2) Pratical (associated w/ coders) - the common denominator site that was designed with the everyday visitor in mind. Application to a large audience is a main concern.

(3) Crap - title says enough.

I would say that I do have a strong eye for design so I find myself leaning to #1. But I'm able to catch myself from over doing #1 and work for a happy medium between #1 & #2. I think pixelsurgeon as FlashLady pointed out is oriented towards #1 although it does maintain some aspects of #2.

copongcopong




msg:938449
 11:51 pm on Jun 25, 2002 (gmt 0)

Just remember that the WYSIWYG tool/software was designed to assist or help designers/coders and not to be a slave to it. If it writes a bad code, should'nt you try to tweak it yourself?

And I agree ... content is king!

but ... for the design/layout ... first impression/s last ...?!?

and usability also falls under good design. =)

FlashLady2




msg:938450
 12:07 am on Jun 26, 2002 (gmt 0)


I became a coder because the WYSIWYG tools available did not allow me to get the results I wanted. I found that I could visualize a layout and hand code it to get those results easier than I could achieve them by looking in the innaccurately-rendered environment of a WYSIWYG tool.

It may sound surprising to a lot of people here, but I've found the exact opposite to be true. And if we can just skip how important "CONTENT" is to the success of a website the reason being I think we all know that as being obvious and "debate" :) the pros and cons of WYSIWYG vs. hand-coding:
I know hand-coding perfectly well enough to be able to create all my websites that way, but I prefer to use a WYSIWYG layout tool purely because, as a designer, I try and make my site designs really interesting and different from the norm, or "grid-layout". But, and I stress this to avoid responses to the contrary, I still ensure that my designs are perfectly useable for my target audience.
If I have a particularly complex design in my head that I know I want to unswervingly stick to, I find hand-coding too "limiting" most of the time to be able to turn these ideas into workable websites. My WYSIWYG layout programme gives me the creative licence to be able to be able to do whatever I wish. A response I get all too often is "but look at all the extra code it generates", and all I have to say to that really is, "yeah so what of it?" So it generates a few extra (unecessary?) lines of code sometimes, but the point is: IT WORKS. It creates pages that render consistently across all browsers and platforms (I work the application to make sure it does). That's my "pro" or "plus-point" for WYSIWYGing and I personally (others may differ on this one) don't see extra code as being a "con" or "minus-point", because even on a particularly busy day using a basic 56K modem, I don't see these extra lines of code slowing down the loading of a page - it adds a couple of K at the most - what is more likely to slow page load times will be graphics, not a few extra lines of code.

Another "plus-point" for WYSIWYGing is that it's just so much faster: just drag-and-drop. Change your mind about that picture on the right? No problem: look at the page, and drag the object over to the left side of the page no messing about trying to find the offending line of code, cutting it out, and then trying to find the two lines of code it should now sit between.

And just to wrap up, yes, sometimes occasionally my WYSIWYG page layout DOES show something different to how it renders in IE or whatever, but if it does, then I just go back and shuffle an element or two about on the page, and fix the problem. If that doesn't work, THEN I go into the code and tweak it.
Sometimes I think of it as; why use Photoshop to create your graphics when you can just use WindowPaint (or whatever it's called sorry, Mac user here :) ) to individually hand-colour each pixel one by one? I mean, you'll still end up with the finished graphic looking exactly the same it's just that it's gonna take you a heck of a lot longer to do it, it's gonna be really frustrating, and it makes it that much more difficult to edit it at a later stage.
Bit of an extreeeeeme example there with the hand-painted pixels, I know, but you get my point.

What are everyone's views on all THAT lot? :)

chew




msg:938451
 8:26 am on Jun 26, 2002 (gmt 0)

I've always considered myself a designer, but I was first introduced to web design by handcoding my first html page. ?? Now i'm confused.

This is like categorizing someone's sexual orientation.. . So, by being able to code AND design websites, would my web orientation be a bi-webmaster?

Just a thought... ;)

papabaer




msg:938452
 9:41 am on Jun 26, 2002 (gmt 0)

I paint, I sculpt, I am also a photographer and writer; for me, a WYSIWYG would be like using robotic arms to mold clay or put a brush to canvas.

When I hand code, I feel the page taking shape and I know where each element fits, and why. Hand coding let's me get my hands dirty without any barriers between me and my code.

I started with Front Page, moved over to Dreamweaver, haven't used either for a year and a half. I downloaded Dreamweaver MX, opened it... closed and deleted it. Did the same with Flash MX. Neither are the direction I want to go....

FlashLady2




msg:938453
 10:32 am on Jun 26, 2002 (gmt 0)

I paint for me, a WYSIWYG would be like using robotic arms to put a brush to canvas. When I hand code, I feel the page taking shape and I know where each element fits, and why. Hand coding let's me get my hands dirty without any barriers between me and my code.

I was actually going to use the artist analogy myself in my last post, because I too am a bit of an artist. But the way I was going to say it was that for me, hand-coding is like putting paint to canvas whilst my eyes are closed, and then opening my eyes every now and then to see if it's turning out how I am expecting. When WYSIWYGing, I can see what I'm doing as I'm doing it painting with my eyes open.

Your analogy of saying that when you WYSIWYG, you feel like you're using robotic arms, and saying that you feel there are barriers, sounds to me like you feel you're being restricted as to what you can do... I can perfectly understand that if you started out with Front Page, as you say you did, because that's a very restrictive programme (it prods and pokes you into turning out template pages). But if we're talking GoLive or Dreamweaver, then that's got to be a different story, especially if we're talking modern releases. There's not a thing you can't do with these WYSIWYGers. If you find that statement to be untrue, then it's just a case of you still have to learn more about the programme, and how to use it to its full capabilities. But once you've got it all sussed, then it's plain sailing.
You say tomayto, I say tomarto, let's call the whole thing off :)

This is like categorizing someone's sexual orientation.. . So, by being able to code AND design websites, would my web orientation be a bi-webmaster?

No, as just about everyone dabbles a bit in both it's not a case of whether you CAN do both, it's a case of which you prefer.

gcross




msg:938454
 2:03 am on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Flashlady, re Mac vs Windows. I think one reason why few Windows designers test their material in Macs is more due to cold hard numbers. PCs outnumber Macs by some yet to be identified number so PC users have less access to Macs than Mac users have to PCs. I, for one, never touched a Mac until a recent class at my community college. And I did not particularly like the Mac, mostly because I had to do all my coding via telnet because anything I created on the Mac I could not figure out how to save into a format my Windows machines could read. My brother, a professional designer/troubleshooter, by contrast has told me that the more he learns about Windows, the more he appreciates Macs. Aside from that, I've heard of simulators that enable one to use Linux or Mac programs on Windows and vice versa. I'd like to find out more about those but so far I haven't had the time to pursue that option.

bigjohnt




msg:938455
 2:24 am on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I am neither. I'm a marketing dude with a penchant for SEO. I couldn't hand code a page if it would save my life. But I can read and analyze code, and I can sure use a bunch of software to sell a lot of widgets :)

Reminds me of when I was in print publishing. I could barely run Pagemaker, but I was "The Publisher", AKA "King of Content, Copy, Subscriptions and Ad sales!"

When Desktop Publishing came around, all the programmers tediously working and hand coding their PostScript files thought it was the end...
It was really a beginning of a LOT of really ugly paper. Lots of people became "publishers" - most had no design sense, and very few could write copy. WYSIWYG software did the same for the web.

Even a "coder" must be somewhat of a designer to be effective. A designer may or may not know code. (But if they don't know at least SOME code, they need an SEO!)

FlashLady2




msg:938456
 2:30 pm on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Even a "coder" must be somewhat of a designer to be effective.

Extremely profound statement I couldn't agree more but unfortunately in my experience of working with coders who put together websites on their own (ie: not working to a designer's layouts), too many of them have no knowledge of design whatsoever, and churn out websites that look like Jakob Nielsen designed them.

Sorry to generalise, and apologies to any "coders" out there who feel differently, but this is just my experience.

Eric_Jarvis




msg:938457
 4:47 pm on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

coming back to Flash Lady 2's point about WYSIWYG editors

it is very obvious that to you the web is entirely visual...this isn't the case for me, or for many others...I have some intermittent sight problems and I'm learning to use text to speech browsers in case they get worse (as they are liable to do eventually)...what a WYSIWYG produces is, to me, often a complete incoherent mess...it may look beautiful, but it is only accessible visually

for me to be happy with it, a site must be conceptually elegant as well as look good...that quite simply cannot be done with a WYSIWYG

as a tool to create ideas for design I'm sure they have a place...and as a way of managing a large site I can also see that Dreamweaver can be useful...but there IS a difference between the mark up they produce and the mark up a human brain can produce...it isn't simply a question of choosing one production technique over another...it is a question of whether a site is solely visual or if it is more than that

FlashLady2




msg:938458
 5:15 pm on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

what a WYSIWYG produces is, to me, often a complete incoherent mess...it may look beautiful, but it is only accessible visually... for me to be happy with it, a site must be conceptually elegant as well as look good...that quite simply cannot be done with a WYSIWYG

That doesn't make sense. Regardless of whether I am creating a visually-rich website for entertainment purposes, or a "dull" grid-based site for information-solely purposes, I will use my WYSIWYG editor. In both instances, the code it produces will vary greatly. But either way, it is STILL just generating HTML code, and you cannot simply say that it works on a visual-only basis.

You say "a site must be conceptually elegant as well as look good", which is a very good thing obviously, but it is the DESIGN of the site that will make this work or not NOT how the code is produced (by hand or WYSIWYG). I feel you are missing the point of what I started out saying.

And when you say that for me the web is entirely visual, well, yes and no. I will never sacrifice usability over visual appearance, that's just crazy, but I don't think that the two have to be seperated, as so many people do. The two can always go together, NO MATTER WHAT the theme or intent or purpose of the site is.

Take a look at these two examples: [useit.com...] and [websitesthatsuck.com...] if we are to take the purposes of these two sites at their very basic, they are talking about the same thing: designing for usability. They both "work" equally well in so much as they deliver the information to you with no hassle, but now tell me, which one would you rather work through useit, with its reams and reams of uninterupted text, or websitesthatsuck, a much more visually-impressive site?

Knowles




msg:938459
 5:23 pm on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Your 2 site example you gave... honestly I would take useit. I surf with no images on at work due to system drain it causes. Pluse the websitesthatsuck url you gave me took 2 clicks simply to get to the website. One was some sort of spash page proving that spash pages suck and then a redirect link to actually get to the content. I thought it was to give examples of websites that are made that suck? Not to make one that sucks to prove a point.

mivox




msg:938460
 5:43 pm on Jun 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

a site must be conceptually elegant as well as look good...that quite simply cannot be done with a WYSIWYG

Any good WYSIWYG editor will give the user 100% access to and control over their code... and then, if the edited/handwritten code is valid, will allow the designer to continue working through the WYSIWYG interface after they've edited their code to suit their needs and/or preferences.

Saying you simply cannot design a "conceptually elegant" site with a WYSIWYG editor is as bad as saying you simply cannot design a visually attractive site with a text editor. Both 100% untrue.

Whether a site is conceptually elegant, visually attractive, fundamentally usable or the HTML equivalent of a train wreck depends 100% on the site creator, not their tools.

If a site creator does not know how to create proper code using their chosen tools, it doesn't matter what software they're using... it will end up horrible (in more ways than one) no matter what. If the site creator understands HTML markup, and uses their chosen tools properly, it also doesn't matter what software they use... the site will work (in more ways than one) no matter what.

kastro




msg:938461
 7:47 pm on Jun 28, 2002 (gmt 0)

I am actually more of a hand coder then a designer. I am very much more concerned with the speed and efficency of dynamic code, database interface and that sort of stuff rather then the look of a page. But I am trying to learn how to build better interfaces. I haven't taken the plunge into Flash yet either. I don't think the web as a whole is ready for a flash site. Not every 1 has a broadband.

FlashLady2




msg:938462
 12:12 am on Jun 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I don't think the web as a whole is ready for a flash site. Not every 1 has a broadband.

Flash sites don't have to be large in file size quite the opposite in fact: intelligent Flash coding and structuring of the Flash site will stream the site so that it delivers to the user what has already loaded, so that the user can interact with the "front part" of the site, whilst the rest of the site loads in the background.
So for example, if the entire site weighs in at, say, 100K, the user can access it after just 10K has loaded. If an equivalent 10-page HTML site weighs in at the same 100K (10K per page), you'd still have to wait for the 10K to load before you can access the page, but then when you click on "next page", you have to wait again, for the next 10K to load. In the Flash site example, after you've interacted with "page 1" (scene 1, in Flash terms), and you want to move on to "page 2", there's no waiting / load time, as it has already loaded in the background whilst you were looking at page 1.
Plus, when you consider Flash's use of vector-based graphics, it all adds up to small file sizes and fast load times.

That's what annoys me when people slag off Flash: they are slagging off the work of people who use Flash badly, and who have not created an efficient site. In the right hands, Flash is a very powerful tool (not just for "entertainment" sites, but for ANY kind of site, even corporatey, texty, informationy-based ones), and it's the bad Flash designer who should be blamed, not the application. Blame the workman, not the tool.
Trust me, I'm the Flash Lady! :)

pat_s




msg:938463
 2:11 am on Jun 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I know that's true about Flash, but way too many Flash sites aren't done well. They do load slowly, they even crash browsers and they're often hard to navigate. But in any case, any Flash site needs to offer an HTML alternative for every page.

My most recent case in point - Just the other night I was on IMs with a friend and she wanted to check the location of show on a musician's site. I mean..she wanted to go to the show. She's not a newbie, she's been online for years and years and she spends lots of time and money online and uses the web for researching purchases, travel and all kinds of things. She's a very desirable visitor to any site. She's on AOL because she travels a lot, and has homes in two areas, neither of which offer great connection speeds so she doesn't even bother to keep up with all the latest plugins and couldn't load the musician's Flash site. So, I went and checked the date for her and found that he was playing a lot of dates in her area. Unfortunately, I couldn't copy and paste the information and send it to her, because it was all Flash. She'll probably get those dates and see some of the shows, but not with any help from his website. So all I'm saying is Flash it up if you want to, but please don't assume that all the visitors who "matter" have that technology or want to use it for that matter.

FlashLady2




msg:938464
 10:29 pm on Jun 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I know that's true about Flash, but way too many Flash sites aren't done well. They do load slowly, they even crash browsers and they're often hard to navigate. But in any case, any Flash site needs to offer an HTML alternative for every page.

I agree that if it is not known that all the target audeince has the Flash plug-in, then an HTML alternative should be accessible, but the rest of the comments (quoted above) just aren't true. You cannot simply say that "way too many Flash sites aren't done well". There are also millions of HTML sites out there that "aren't done well" too a higher proportion / ratio as well, I'd bet, but this is impossible to back up with evidence, as no records of "good sites" vs "bad sites" exists.

As for the comment "they do load slowly" see my previous post, I have addressed this already: "intelligent Flash coding and structuring of the Flash site will stream the site so that it delivers to the user what has already loaded" and "Plus, when you consider Flash's use of vector-based graphics, it all adds up to small file sizes and fast load times". Please re-read my above post.

"they even crash browsers" what evidence do you have to support the fact that they crash browsers? Trust me, if this was a problem, Macromedia would have addressed the issue ages ago in an updated plug-in.

"they're often hard to navigate" AGAIN, this has got nothing to do with Flash. Navigation through a site is determined by the design of the site, NOT by the tools used to create it, or the format in which it is presented. If you are having trouble navigating through a particular Flash site, an HTML version of the site would present you with just the same problems.

I will say it again, purely because too many people are falling into the same old trap of not understanding the problem:
That's what annoys me when people slag off Flash: they are slagging off the work of people who use Flash badly, and who have not created an efficient site. In the right hands, Flash is a very powerful tool (not just for "entertainment" sites, but for ANY kind of site, even corporatey, texty, informationy-based ones), and it's the bad Flash designer who should be blamed, not the application. Blame the workman, not the tool.

FlashLady2




msg:938465
 2:37 am on Jun 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

I seem to have lost the button that allows me to edit my own posts... Webmaster?

Anyway, one more thing I forgot to add Where you said:

Unfortunately, I couldn't copy and paste the information and send it to her, because it was all Flash.

AGAIN, that's not the fault of the application, because Flash allows you to make your text selectable. If you could not copy the text, then it's because the creator of that site did not choose to allow you to do so.
Bad designer, not bad application.

brotherhood of LAN




msg:938466
 3:08 am on Jun 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

FlashLady2, you cannot edit a post after X amount of minutes to keep the flow of the thread. Its one of those on/off mechanisms.....

....it looks like flash can get around each problem stated one way or another, which I'm sure everyone agrees is a good thing. Flash will find its place and get credit where its due no doubt :)

But for me, it's another "thing" to learn...one, IMO, that's lower in priority than validation, rankings etc....

it seems the inexperienced flash users are not aware as some ;) I would look forward to the day that flash is in everyday use.......

One thing is for sure, if people are made awarer of the pro's/con's and also the perceived (and wrong) pro's con's then maybe in a years time we will all be flash avid users..... :)

pat_s




msg:938467
 5:09 am on Jun 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Flashlady, i had no idea Flash text could be made selectable. That would be because I've never seen it, but I do have to admit that I tend to run away from Flash sites if I possibly can, so probably have missed portions of some very good ones. It's better now that I have cable, but I did develop an attitude problem about it a while back. It has crashed browsers on me. There's no question about that. It's a browser based technology and if you're low on resources, you can crash.

I've never had as much trouble navigating professionally designed HTML sites as some professionally designed Flash sites. That's not as bad these days now that Vince Flanders has made Mystery Meat navigation a bad word, but earlier on, the things that Flash could do seemed to entice some designers into being tricky and clever instead of clear and simple.

I imagine your Flash sites are great and I'd love to see one. I think the problem is that Flash has attracted a lot of graphic designers who really didn't start out with web design as a base, and so created great looking but badly functioning sites. So, there's still a feeling among some people of "Oh no, it's Flash." when you come upon it. I'm afraid I'm one of those, but with broadband and better Flash sites, not as much so.

victor




msg:938468
 9:16 am on Jun 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Flash does have some support for screen readers and the visually disabled:

http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/features/flash/overview/player/

It's an additional download and, ironically:


"Before downloading Macromedia Flash Player 6, assistive technology users need to use the HTML version of the Macromedia website."

Macromedia also offer some advice to designers on usability and accessibility:

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/productinfo/usability/tips/

What the Flash world seems to lack is any tools for validating Flash usability and accessibility -- the HTML world has many such things from Bobby to Vischeck.

With such tools a Flash designer (or their client) could quickly produce a list of issues which they can then address if appropriate for their site

europeforvisitors




msg:938469
 12:42 pm on Jul 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm probably in the minority here, but:

I'm not a designer or a coder. I'm a writer, editor, and publisher.

Design is something I do as part of the editorial process, and coding--whether by hand or with WYSIWYG tools--is just a necessary evil (like typesetting and page layout in the print world).

europeforvisitors




msg:938470
 12:50 pm on Jul 2, 2002 (gmt 0)

Another "plus-point" for WYSIWYGing is that it's just so much faster...

Exactly. Without a WYSIWYG authoring tool, there's no way I could produce and maintain an editorial site of more than 2,500 pages all by myself. Hand coding of Web pages is fine if that's your hobby, if you're a contract coder who's being paid by the hour, or if you can afford to trade productivity for payroll expense. Otherwise, it makes about as much sense as hand-coding PostScript files.

This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 63 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved