SteveMann - 2:38 pm on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0)
WYSIWYG Web Builder is not - *NOT* - an HTML editor. If the generated site passes the Wc3 compatibility test and works in every tested browser, WHO CARES what the underlying code looks like?
"I'd be surprised if anyone can hold their breath long enough to identify (let alone fix) that tangled mess "
Fix? What's broken? No, it isn't pretty, but most HTML code isn't. When you create a Word document, do you analyze what the underlying code looks like or do you just want the Word document to look good?
Before I got into video production about ten years ago, I was a software engineer in Silicon Valley (for 25-years). I see no difference from the "real" programmers then belittling the 'lite' programmers that simply used GUI apps to create the same results versus today - those who learned the nuts and bolts of creating fantastic web sites using nothing but notepad belittling those who take the shortcut that WYSIWYG programs provide.
Websites are not my primary line of business. The less time I spend on my sites provides me more time to spend on my work of choice - video production. I can manage my website or any aspect of it in minutes using WWB. Why should I spend hundreds of dollars and tons of unproductive time just to satisfy the ego of the "real" programmers?
Seriously, If I want to add a new page with a demo video and a few paragraphs of editorial on my site with a few links, I can do it in WWB in less than five minutes. How long would that take in your favorite HTML editor?