| 9:06 am on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Therein lies the major challenge with WYSIWYG, the user! |
Thank you P1R. ^That sounds like as good a way as any to wind things up on this one.
| 9:20 am on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
P1R got nearly all of it right. No argument there. Just an add ala WYSIWYG: the newbies get code that works because it looks okay. And maybe, over time, grow. The "next" out there could be a'borning.
After all, it isn't code that makes us special, it is the content and presentation (and for all those seeking income) that does. And how we code there isn't the biggie.
| 9:35 am on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|After all, it isn't code that makes us special |
Some people in here would probably dispute this. ;)
| 7:25 pm on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If asking for evidence that so-called WYSIWYGs are used to design, build and maintain sites that are accessible and maintainable equates to "dissin'", then so be it
|To you folks dissin' WYSIWYG... |
Yes, and yes
|... are you up for a challenge? Do you think you can handle the truth? ;) |
Can you provide evidence that so-called WYSIWYGs are used to design, build and maintain sites that are accessible and maintainable?
| 8:18 pm on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Why do you persist in asking this silly question? Are you accusing us of lying?
All you are doing is confirming that you no nothing about DW.
| 8:52 pm on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Because I want an answer
|Why do you persist in asking this silly question? |
Please note that - although validation is undeniably an exceedingly important tool - there is much, much more to designing, building and maintaining sites that are accessible and maintainable
Is validation some kind of quality control? Does "valid" mean "quality approved by W3C"? [validator.w3.org]
| 9:09 pm on Jun 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The only true evidence would be a link, right? And we're not going to offer that opportunity here - we don't do site reviews.
However, it's safe to assume that some of the members who defend the use of WYSIWYG here have done exactly that, and I know that it's the case. Of course the WYSIWYG user first needs to know what accessibility and usability ARE - and that's not the point of a WYSIWYG tool.
| 1:39 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I started out by learning HTML by hand and still do it because of the code bloat and lousy css implementation of WYSIWYGs. Also about 90% of the sites I've redesigned were originally built with WYSIWYGs run by operators not knowing how to change the defaults or implement better CSS control which caused ranking problems due to duplicate titles, descriptions, etc.
Now that Google has implemented download speed as an important ranking factor (all other factors being equal)designing sites with clean code is more important than ever.
| 8:44 am on Jun 8, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Ah, another comment from someone with preconceived ideas based on an experience with WYSYWIG years ago no doubt.
You guys just don't get it do you. WYSYWIGS are tools. They do not produce code bloat, their users do and sorry, to blame them for duplicate titles and descriptions is errant nonsense. Please give some thought to what you are saying.
| 10:02 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm with John_Keates on this one. In the age of broadband connections, it's easy to forget that optimizing a site still matters - a lot. especially with the expanding mobile internet share of total surf time. Testing a site that loads fine, and "fast enough" on a dev. server is one thing, but even a line or two of unnecessary code here and there soon add up to a whole lot. Never underestimate the power of an optimized (read: slim) site to better meet needs and expectations both of the site owner and the site visitors.
| 10:29 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|but even a line or two of unnecessary code here and there soon add up to a whole lot/ |
I would seriously question if this would make any noticeable difference to load time but that's beside the point. There is no need to include unnecessary code whether using WYSYWIG or anything else.
| 11:58 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The point JK made that I was referring to was the server load from extra code multiplied by the number of times is simultaneously serving it up - even a couple of KO of code isn't going to make a big difference to a page load with an average connection, but if there are 100, 1000 people accessing a server, then it starts adding up to a significant additional load, for nothing (when it'd only take a minute or two to clean up most pages).
| 12:15 pm on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I started with VTI which was then purchased by Microsoft and renamed FrontPage. I've progressed through all versions and now use EWD (Expression Web Design). |
Tried that DreamWeaver thing, it's OK but I got more nightmare than dream.
Code bloat - who cares.
If someone's connection is so poor the extra few hundred bytes makes a difference, they'll never make it through my graphics laden site in the first place.
| 5:17 pm on Jul 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I look at this the other way.
HTML is not hard to learn, and non-WYSIWIG HTML editors are pretty productive, as are well set-up text editors.
So what are the advantages of WYSIWIG?
Furthermore, HTML is not WYSIWIG (because of different screen sizes, browser settings, etc.). HTML and CSS have lots of features specifically deal with the fact that it is not WYSIWIG (ALT tags, display:inline-block, different style sheets for different media, different ways of specifying widths and heights, etc.).
I am sure things have improved since I last used a WYSIWIG editor, so tell me:
How do you deal with all the above in a WYSIWIG editor? AI How well WYSIWIG editors interact with various CMS's and frameworks template languages?
| This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 74 ( 1 2  ) |