Forum Moderators: open
1. SSI. The help index does not seem to have ever heard of SSIs. But, browsing through the various drop down menus I've found that it does exist. (Is this the typical quality of the program's help?)
2. It doesn't see hyperlinks properly. Maybe it's me but if I open a W3C page (not done in FP) and have both code and design views open I can click on the linked text in design view and nothing happens! (In FP it selects the whole text and when you click on the hyperlink button it tells you where the link goes to). If I select the whole link text and click on the button it doesn't recognise that there is already a href and offers me a browse button. If I browse and choose a file it creates another href tag. If I select the whole line in code view (including the href tags etc) and then click the button it still doesn't work properly!
3. Oh, one other thing.... using it on a Windows 98 machine I can use Alt + Tab to switch to another open window but can't use Alt + Tab to get back into DW. I have to shut down all other Windows to get back to DW.
(To be fair this only happens when I have a page open in DW but why do I have to close pages I'm editing just so I can check my email?)
Aaarrgghhhh! Is it me or is this the start of a lot more problems? Do I ditch it now?
What I *would* say though, was that I found Dreamweaver rather oppressive at first - nothing seemed all that obvious.
In time, I developed "my way" of doing things, and I found the tool much more intuitive and flexible once I'd become familiar with bits of it.
All I'd say is that it takes a while to become proficient in it, but now I can do what I want without a second thought, it seems very comfortable to use.
I still remember day one, wondering what on earth it was all for! <grin>
DerekH
>1. ... The help index does not seem to have ever heard of SSIs ...
There is some help for SSI. Hit F1, click Index tab, type "server-side includes". There is more info about ColdFusion as it's MM's approach to dynamic content.
>2. It doesn't see hyperlinks properly.
Below the Code/Split/Design view there's the Properties dock. It may be in collapsed state on your machine. Expand it by clicking it. Click any link. You do not need to select the whole anchor text. The Properties dock shows the href and you can change it for the whole link.
>3. Oh, one other thing
Strange ...
To answer one of your questions, the design view does not function as a browser. You can't click a link. Hit F12 and the page will open in your default browser. (you can hotkey all your browsers for testng if you like)
Hanu,
1. I've found it now but it's weird that the search feature in the help doesn't find either "SSI" or "server side includes". Maybe the search in help just doesn't work properly.
2. That has helped. It's true it's not intuitive and it does require more clicks that the MS way ... but it does the job.
3. Still can't figure this one out.
And I have a couple of new problems. I'll keep plugging at it but can't afford to spend more than a few more hours. If I can't do all that I need to reasonably quickly in DW then I'll have to drop it altogether.
As long as I don't use certain FP specific features I won't need the FP extensions on the server. And that's what I may have to resort to in the end. But, yes, I can see some nice features in DW. It's a pain they didn't make things easier. Even their online "getting started" is a flash. I wanted to read it last night but at 2.00 in the morning didn't fancy turning on my 6.1 speaker set when a nice illustrated html manual would have been more than sufficient!
the layout and ease of use of dw has gone downhill since version 3
... however the added functionality for ddynamic sites since ultradev is fantastic.
good luck with it, dw is a very powerful tool, but it took me quite a while to get used to it.
>>Aaarrgghhhh! Is it me or is this the start of a lot more problems? Do I ditch it now?
if you have time to stick with it and you want to build (asp especially) dynamic sites, then it is absolutely worth sticking with, it is very powerful. personally i don't use the library or template functionality as i don't like the commented code that it produces, also code does need to be tidied up, and annoyingly the interface doesn't show png's properly.
be prepared to put time in, i don't think it is that intuitive
Ah, but I don't want dynamic. It's just a simple static 500 page site I've bought. I'd like it to continue without FP extensions.
For example, many functions have two or three different ways to apply them (right-click, property manager, toolbar) and it depends on what you are most comfortable with or what is best for the particular situation.
The Design View is an equivalent for FP transfer users who want to drag-and-drop and point and click. This is where most of the complaints about DW "writing code" come from.
If you use Code View or Mixed View you will get an idea of what the programme does with the code. It also helps if you have an idea of CSS.
If you are going to throw your hands up after a couple of days, then you probably are better off sticking with something you are comfortable with like FP. I'm not sure why you can't use FP even if you don't want FP extensions - they are not compulsory, are they? ;)
Extensions aren't cumpulsory but if you use FP's SSI ("include" pages) then they won't work without the extensions.
Before XP and with 256Mb of ram I couldn't run DW and fireworks at the same time. As I recall it wasn't even a RAM problem but 'system resources'. This could be problem 3 if you are right on the limit...
...FP2003 is moving away from the server extensions altogether in favor of Microsoft SharePoint Products and Technologies.
Eh - bear in mind that most SharePoint functionality requires ActiveX - so you're limited to IE users only.
'system resources' could mean "free" RAM. Some programs don't release the RAM pages when they are done. After a while the available resources (free RAM) drops below acceptable levels and you have to reboot. There are programs that refresh your RAM... but I'm fairly sure that "resources" is not the issue here.
Eh - bear in mind that most SharePoint functionality requires ActiveX - so you're limited to IE users only.
Only if you're using features that require such functionality, which normally wouldn't be required (or even a good idea) on a public Web site as opposed to a corporate intranet.
However there are some serious hard care FP followers around the forums that not only say but do and create the mustard - so intrinsically it's a choice of style more than ability - and to take it further if you get to the point where the program has a limit - then all of them are limited in some way. If your good become great and if your great - get paid for it!
I'd like it to continue without FP extensions.
Why do you want to continue without FP Extensions? Are you having some problems there?
P.S. I tried making the switch a couple of years ago. I worked with DW for about a week and then decided that FP was more than capable of performing what I needed it to do. To this day, I haven't been able to throw anything at it that it could not handle.
DW and FP are very indistinguishable to a certain level at expert user level (nowadays).
It's so nice to see comments like that. :)
And thanks Macro for the reference.
I've been using FP for years and have found some of the tips in this forum very useful (thanks pageoneresults).
intrinsically it's a choice of style more than ability
Exactly. I've always thought that FrontPage is a much better program for editors and content writers (e.g., people like me who create and maintain editorial sites), while Dreamweaver is more geared to graphic designers (many of whom, like Dreamweaver, come from Macintosh environments). The best way to compare the two programs is to try them out and see which one enhances your productivity--not someone else's, especially when that "someone else" may have very different tastes and needs from your own.
Because of what caine said. I don't like being trapped. Fortunately, I don't use borders, themes etc. But I do use substitutes and one or two features that require the extensions. In retrospect I should not have used those features when I started.
I have to admit I gave up with DW. Maybe it's me; this old dog just isn't that great at learning new tricks.
>>I've always thought that FrontPage is a much better program for editors and content writers (e.g., people like me who create and maintain editorial sites)
I've come to that same conclusion.
After a while I got very frustrated about the ftp interface. Around 6 times out of 10 it would time out and not connect to the server properly. (Never had that problem with Front Page). I sent several emails to Macromedia and received automated replies telling me I wasn't eligible for support or something to that effect.
Having dabbled a bit in the code window through the months and getting grey hairs from the FTP problem, I finally took my super-coder friend's advice and used a text editor instead. The learning curve was a bit steep, but I found out that what I wanted to achieve could be done with 1/3 the code Front Page inserts and 1/2 the code DW inserts. Furthermore, no more scratching my head looking at the designer window wondering why the tables aren't lining up, cells are missing or whatnot. Going the extra mile to actually learn the basics of markup language freed me from the constraints of visual editing.
I haven't looked back since. I adore the image/graphics editor in the Studio package called Fireworks. Just what I need for creating those roll over image buttons. But as far as site layout goes, it's text editor only for me. The best part: My favorite text editor has a simple save to remote/open from remote FTP interface. It comes with all the syntax highlighting I need, and the price is very competitive: $0.00
Oh, it's called Crimson Editor.
Sorry, back to the subject matter..
Not all of us are designers, coders or professional site builders. I maintain our company sites part time and, trust me, I have more than enough other things to do. With the little time I have to spend on the sites it makes sense to just use a WYSIWYG. I suspect others find themselves in the position I'm in.
OK, it won't be W3C compliant. It may have extra code. However, given a choice of concentrating on keeping the site/s updated .... or getting into tweaking the code ...the choice is clear.
One of the neat things about text editors is user macros. I have a few such shortcuts setup. For instance when I click Alt + F1 this get pasted in at my cursor:
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td width="100%"></td>
</tr>
</table>
The idea is simple: Put a table here. Add alignment there. Add a css class in my style sheet - yadayada.
I find myself making webpages at a faster pace (maybe I'm kidding myself) and much more cross browser compliant. Oh, and I am neither a code-pro or designer. I am a music producer :D
You've lost me, amigo :)
