Woz - 3:16 pm on Mar 25, 2001 (gmt 0)

I think we need to clarify a few points here folks.

First of all, let me say that I use FrontPage all the time. That is a fact I am neither proud of nor ashamed of, it is simply a fact.

I use FrontPage because it does what I need it to do. I understand HTML code enough to read it and fix any major problems, but I don't have the knowledge and skill to code a website from scratch by hand. For those that can I have the utmost admiration, but I cannot. I have a seriously heavy workload for the next twelve months or so and FP allows me to do the work I have to do quickly, efficiently and cleanly. If I had to devote time to learning and practicing hand coding then nothing would get done.

There seems to be a lot of talk here about the value and worthiness of FrontPage which I think is worth evaluating again. The question really is "how do we judge FP"? As the primary focus for this site is optimisation, the temptation is to judge the program solely on that issue. However, there are so many side issues to optimisation that we deal with every day that to judge FP on that basis alone is not fair and equitable.

The criteria for judging whether FP is a good tool or not is whether FP does what the owner wants it to do.

I have a screwdriver at home. It has rounded and burred edges with a notch in the blade. Absolutely useless for screwing screws, but absolutely fantastic for gently moving piano strings along the bridge whilst they are still under strain. You see, I purposely burred the edges and notched the end to produce the result I wanted because a new and sharp screwdriver would snap the string and probably take my eye out along the way. Anyone else looking at my modified screwdriver would probably throw it out as rubbish without understanding its true worth.

The true worth of Front Page is as a site building tool, not as an SEO tool, and so it should not be harshly judged as something it is not.

There are many people out there who have a lot to contribute to the Internet community and who know nothing about html code let alone hand coding. WYSISYG programs help those people get their thoughts up on the web to share with the rest of us. Without these sorts of programs then there would be a lot less content on the web, good, bad or otherwise.

In particular, I know that there are thousands (probably millions) of people in China who use Chinese FP to code pages because the interface is in a language they understand - Chinese. They cannot hand code because html is in English!

Can any of you imagine if we all had to code web pages in Japanese Characters?

So really, we need to view FP as the tool its user requires it to be, not our interpretation of what we think it should be.

FP is built in such a way that you can use what parts of it you need. And if you use it carefully and wisely, as you would do with any tool, you can produce quality results.

There are two main parts to FP, the html generator, and the site programming bots and functions. It is these bots and functions that create the problems.

It is a widely accepted tenet that FP produces html that does not conform to the W3C standards. However, that tenet is untrue, and I have proved it.

I have written pages in FrontPage that pass through the W3c validator with flying colours without editing the raw code.

I would speculate that many of the statements made about the validity of FP code are based on assumptions and heresay. Has anyone here run clean FP html through a validator lately?

As I mentioned above, there are two parts to FP, the html generator, and the site programming bots and functions. It is these bots and functions that create the problems. If you avoid them then the html is clean.

I am not debating whether it could be better, chances are it could but I will leave that up to the experts in hand coding who obviously have a better handle on code that I do. But the clean code it produces does conform to the W3c standards, period.

Also, which version of FP are we talking about - FP97, FP98 or FP2000? As I understand the situation, the code produced by FP97 & FP98 was not as clean as it should be; en error that was recognised by Microsoft and corrected in FP2000. So most of the problems people are complaining about could have been produced by the earlier versions of the program.

Remember that FP is not a tool for SEO any more than Notepad is. Everyone is talking about how good Notepad is at producing clean code but in actual fact Notepad produces no code whatsoever; it simply records the code input to it by the programmer and so the accolades should go to the programmer not the program.

My background is in music. One thing I have learned is that the very best of instruments can produce rubbish, whilst instruments of lesser quality can be made to sing. It all depends on the operator.

Anyone can sit down at a piano and run their fingers up and down the keys to produce noise and sound. But it takes a talented and practiced musician to press just the right keys at just the right time, with just the right force, and in just the right order to produce that which we call music.

Equally, I have listened to street musicians around the world producing absolutely stunning music with nothing more that a cardboard box, a few old cans, a broken guitar, a violin with strings missing, ... well you get the idea.

Both Notepad and FP are simply instruments to record the ideas of the user. And, with both programs, if the user inputs garbage, either through inexperience or lack of talent, then the output will likewise be garbage; garbage in - garbage out.

But in the hands of skilled and talented operators, both programs can produce quality results.

FP is a program with which it is easy to produce acceptable on-screen results using the inbuilt bots and helpers without really understanding the consequences and therein lies the problem.

I disagree that FP is only for non-professionals and not for professionals doing compatible work. For one thing, that would mean that I am out of a job. But seriously, any program is a bad choice if it is used incorrectly. Just the same as an empty Notepad would be a bad choice in my hands yes?

You see, there are levels, and there are levels. I am not at the top, I am not at the bottom, but I am not about to give up simply because of the program I choose to use.

Tedster is the only one who has alluded to the fact that the problem may be not in the program itself, but in the market targeting and subsequent misuse of the program. And someone put the icing on the cake talking about the Dreamweaver user mangling a site despite warnings about FP users. Well, I rest my case your honour! It is not necessarily the tool but more probably the operator.

I am not a FrontPage evangelist so don't worry, I am not about to go around these fora suggesting people use FP all the time, but I do feel I need to come to the defence in this case.

So what's the bottom line with Frontpage?

1. If you are going to use FP then get version 2000, it is the cleanest.

2. Stay away from the bots as much as possible as they will cloud the code. Infact the only bot I use is the include page bot and then only sparingly. (Yes I know I can do the same thing with SSI or ASP includes but I choose not to.)

3. If you are going to use bots then be prepared to find a server with FP extensions. Otherwise clean FP code is fine on any *nix server. I have done it many times.

4. Don't use themes and borders as they will muddy the code more than the bots.

5. Be happy with your choices and remember it is possible to write acceptable and clean code with FP as long as you are careful.

Whilst this site is focused on SEO topics we will try to help with programming problems where we can from an SEO point of view. As to more detailed help about FP, well as you know, normally URLs are frowned upon in these fora, but the one that has sneaked into this discussion seems to have quite a few good tips.

Linda, thanks for your help, I hope you can throw a few more moments of help to Fpers should the need arise.

Onya
Woz