Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
joined:Oct 27, 2001
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.
I have no objection to anyone building a site any way they like...but please...just because you find a WYSIWYG to be faster don't assume that everyone else is the same...after all even with a WYSIWYG the amount of time spent actually generating mark up is a tiny part of the process...or at least it should be
But ... it does not mean that we would not correct if there's an error as it generates the codes. it does not give us an alibi that our site is created with the best WYSIWYG tool and there would be no errors in it.
Assuming ... that there is a Perfect WYSIWYG tool, that could generate a site which is viewable with all browsers in the world ... could you imagine how would its code look like? ... hmmmm ...
And that is when ... Internet Standards came into the picture ...
back to the question again ...
"designer needs code to publish the design (ur WYSIWG tool do this for us), and coder needs a design (in ur head ... imagination is better that knowledge - a. einstein) to be able to write ur code."
Hopefully this sum up and end the debate of the theory of relativity between code/r and design/er.