Does ANYONE REALLY CARE how it got there?

Hand coding, html editors, etc...

[Marshall]

In another post, a member inquired about the best way to learn HTML. Of course this went off on a tangent about methods of coding, to which I responded:

"It really does not matter how you code your page. WYSIWYG editors are tools like a pencil and paper. They, in themselves, cannot create anything. It comes down to whether or not you care to take the time to a) learn about the program/editor you are using, b) visually check the coding, and c)validating it in lines with W3C."

I am not one to pass judgement on how someone creates a page. But i am reminded of something a politician once told me when we were discussing decisions of the local municipal council. He said:

"Marshall, no one cares. As long at the streets are plowed, the street lights come one, the water flows, and the s**t goes down the pipe, no ones cares what council does."

That being said, does a site really visitor care what method was used to create a page? After all, if the page does what the visitor expects, is how it got there really matter?

Granted, I am a little obsessive-compulsive about my sites and proper html and cross-browser compatibility, but like .xml, .asp, .cgi, perl, whatever, other than the web designer, or coder if you prefer, as long as the site works and provides the necessary information, who truly cares? i know I don't, do you?

[ogletree]

The best way to make a website is to have a designer make a mock up of the website in photoshop then have a coder put it together. You then need to have an SEO come in and optimize the site. Designer, Coder and SEO are all dedicated disciplines. Each one should specialize in what they do so they can be the best at what they do. You can't be good at all of them. Each one should know what the others do but should never try to do a job they are not qualified to do.

I'm sure there are some triple threats out there but very few people are.

[MatthewHSE]

I would not consider doing the whole site in a hand editor because it would make me slow and inefficient.

That's an interesting perspective - I started in WYSIWYG's (tried several) and eventually switched to nothing but hand coding. When I think about what it would be like to switch back to WYSIWYG, I have the same fears of "slow and inefficient" that you mention above! ;)

[Marshall]

It's all in what you're use to. When I first learned drafting, or as some would say mechanical drawig, it was T-squares, triangles and a scale. When CAD come around, It took me longer, but as my skills improved and I understood the prgram better, i got faster, but not neessarily better I should add.

IMO, I think a major problem with a lot of people and HTML editors is that they don't take the time to learn the programs' capabilities. I always encourage people to "play" and experiment with any new program to see what it has to offer. I've had some programas for years and still, ocassionally go "I didn't know it could do that!"

This leads to the earlier post about a three-team designed site. I consider myself a great "designer" for appearance and funtionality, and I can hand code a page without any problem, but I do not claim to be a "coder." I still get impressed by the capabilities of some web sites and go "how do they do that?"

It is true that people who are artistically inclined are necessarily mechanically inclined and people who are mechanically inclined are necessarily artistic. It's that "left side/right side of the brain" thing.

[pageoneresults]

When I think about what it would be like to switch back to WYSIWYG, I have the same fears of "slow and inefficient" that you mention above!

lol, that's called baiting the Moderators!

I say we have a contest. I'll use FrontPage, and you can do a hand job. We'll have a time limit to produce a specific page mockup. You just let me know when you are ready. ;)

I can knock out a very complex layout in FrontPage in the fraction of the time it would take anyone to do a hand job. Seriously folks, don't fool yourself here. The purpose of WYSIWYG is to minimize the time involved in coding.

I should point out that I have my FrontPage configured to produce HTML 4.01 Strict out of the box. So, I'm going to produce a valid page too. How about you? ;)

And, NO! No one really cares how it got there. Except myself and a handful of others. :)

[MatthewHSE]

I can knock out a very complex layout in FrontPage in the fraction of the time it would take anyone to do a hand job. Seriously folks, don't fool yourself here. The purpose of WYSIWYG is to minimize the time involved in coding.

I won't debate that the layout could be done faster in WYSIWYG - well, at least certain types of layout. I've never seen a really good source-ordered CSS layout that was done in a WYSIWYG editor, and although I'm sure it can be done, I have a feeling the time gap would be drastically reduced or even overcome under these circumstances.

But that aside, once the initial layout and design is finished, I would argue that I can manage the site faster and more effectively in plain text. (I should add that my procedures are a little different than most folks seem to use; when will the public awake to the beauties of WebDrive? ;) )

[pageoneresults]

I would argue that I can manage the site faster and more effectively in plain text.

I'm ready! ;)

I just can't fathom how that would be possible. Unless of course you have all these third party tools that are doing all the things my WYSIWYG is doing.

For example, I can change a file name in FrontPage and it will automatically update all references of that file through the web.

How do you do that with a text editor? Find and Replace? Yuck!

Another example, I can view the hyperlink structure of my web with a few simple clicks.
How do you do that with a text editor?

I can assign specific documents to categories and then assign an Editor.
How do you that with a text editor?

I can drag and drop all sorts of neat stuff into my web pages (if I want to).
How is that done with a text editor?

The list goes on and on. But, I think we are branching off into a separate topic and have hijacked this thread. :)

It still comes down to the fact that most really don't care how it got there. You and I both know how it got there and the hard work it took to make it what it is. The average surfer could care less! View source? What the hell is that? View this!

[MatthewHSE]

I think we are branching off into a separate topic and have hijacked this thread.

Could be. ;) I will agree with you though that "hard work" is what is required to make a good website, regardless of methods or tools. (And I won't debate that FrontPage does have some cool features; our maintenance needs appear to be different however.)

Returning to the topic, I also agree that nobody really cares how a webpage was built. Hey, I'm fairly OCD about the nuances of HTML and CSS, but even I don't care how a site got online, as long as it works and I didn't have to develop it! ;)

However, an interesting point I don't think has been mentioned yet is how much the average client cares how a site is developed. They obviously have much more interest than a casual surfer, if only because they're shelling out their own cash for the site. Given it's their investment, and assuming they know it's possible to design a site either with a WYSIWYG editor or in plain text, would the average client have a preference on how their site was created? Putting it another way, does one method sound or seem better to the average client?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

You can't be good at all of them.

Why not? ;)

I think one of the problems with threads like this is that the people who hand code are not really familiar with modern WYSIWYG editors and perhaps vice versa.

You have to use DW or whatever to its full capability to know what it can and cannot do.