Forum Moderators: mack
The answer is really very simple: Which works best for you depends entirely on you.
A text editor allows you complete control, and hence requires more work. Some (myself included) demand the full control, and would not dream of using anything less. Many others are delighted to trade in the extra control for the graeter ease of use.
It is a matter of taste, not a right/wrong issue.
I am looking forward to reading the replies to your seemingly innocent question ;)
Is it worth learning HTML and switching to a text editor?
It's worth learning HTML. How you write it - text editor vs. wysiwyg - is up to you. It's the end result that counts. But learning HTML is invaluable IMO.
Pedent, you have started a Holy War posting :( :(...
I am looking forward to reading the replies to your seemingly innocent question ;)
Oops, sorry about that!
I'm off to bed now, but will be interested to see whether this thread is still here eight hours from now, and if so what's in it.
Oh, and having spent two thirds of the day with NoteTab Pro and various HTML / CSS tutorials I'm hoping for better reasons for learning HTML than increased control ... Please guys.
I have been coding HTML for 8 years and to be honest find it difficult enough even with a WYSIWIG editor like DreamWeaver.
Without the ability to name the files and provide simple hierachy directory layout it is difficult to know just where the program has slotted your file.
Without HTML there is no real control over the search engine interface as you need to be aware what each element requires within your individual page and site layout.
Relatively new elements like Flash, JavaScript and good old CSS often present new challenges for not only the search engine spiders but the individual browsers and platforms on the web.
Understaqnding basic HTML can eliminate a great many of these pitfalls that are not obvious until you view your page on another platform under a different browser.
That is my attempt at a short answer!
/Wayne
Hence a reasonable understanding of the HTML elements and the attribute's, is worth while certainly for any text based editor, but also for quality WYSIWYG site creation.
A quick way of learning is to get a current HTML book, say from O'Rielly's and run your site through the validator over @ [http://www.w3c.com]W3C HTML Validation[/url] which will highlight bad code that does not validate. Learn from mistake's, read the book to see why its a problem.
Though others will argue that validation is a non-event. If it become's prime-time regarding the SE's or browser's become more active in parsing validating HTML and penalising or degrading non-validating HTML, then a few thousand(s) so-called web site designers will be very dissapointed with the outcome.
I started with Dreamweaver, then started to analyze the generated pages, learned what was valid and what wasn't needed, then began coding by hand and haven't stopped.
Once in a rare while I will open up Dreamweaver to check a complex table layout that isn't appearing right, but that's very rare these days.
I like TextPad. Best $27 I ever spent on software.
I'm a real hybrid coder. I learned HTML first (by "copying" elements from other sites), then I learned how to use a wysiwyg editor, and now I use the wysiwyg editor to set up things like tables and such, and I hand-code everything else.
Other folks swear by one method or the other ... you can even get people to argue about the best text editors and best wysiwyg editors, if you poke that hornet's nest with a long enough stick. ;) Everyone has different preferences - so Mohamed_E's suggestion is a good one - find what's most comfortable for you and go with it.
TJ
It doesnt matter whether you use WYSIWYG or Notepad, I use DW to view the code and visual side of things at the same time.
If you want to take full advantage of CSS, use dynamic pages or just create quick loading pages then start learning HTML
I am constantly dissapointed by pages which look fine from a visual point of view but are really messy and sloppy underneath.
If you don't know how to create a basic table by hand then you are a Desk Top Publisher and NOT a Web Designer
Just use DW - far easier overall.
You see, the strange thing is, 6 months in you will find you have learned html anyway, whether you want to or not;)
Which also naturally implies file size, though getting specifically into file size - yes its important - certainly for the page without external includes, 5Kb to 15Kb max is desirable. Remember once all the pictures and SSI's and everything else is included it can still be a seriously large page.
Is learning HTML worth the effort?
In my experience to gain a good understanding of Dreamweaver (or whatever WYSIWYG) takes the same amount of effort. (Some of the books on both HTML and WYSIWYG editors seem to be the same thickness!)
Personally I learned HTML first and then got Dreamweaver and view the code and the design at the same time (Like knighty) - switch between the two when editing/creating documents without thinking.
Seriously
Using layers and the free layer2style extension you can produce really tight code.
The most you have to do is dump the css into an external style sheet and tidy it up a little.
As for hand coding - it has been said once and it'll be said time and time again that you only get true control by doing it by hand - Personally I find it takes too long - I get excellent and fast result with DW in split code/layout view + text editor of CSS and Jscript.
--a little off topic --
4eyes
I didn't think that all browsers support layers?
I wondered cos I really like the freedom you get on the page - but have taken them out in place of liquid tables! Do I need to?
ta
Limbo
Limbo, layer2style takes all the <div> tags from the layers and bungs them into a seperate <style> tag at the top of the page, which you can then strip out to a seperate file. So you just end up with a nice clean CSS layout.
I have to say I was amazed at how fast I knocked up my last design this way, and the code for the page is miniscule.
I'd been meaning to look at CSS layouts 'some time', tried this and bang! there was my first css layout built in much less time than it would have taken me to build the same page with tables.
Sounds like an exciting prospect - are you be confident about the browser suport for this? or is this even an issue now?
On the few instances where I bother with Netscape, I leave it till the end and just throw up a basic style sheet that makes the page 'usable but sparse'.
The old blarney about coding by hand taking longer isn't so true. Once you set up a template page, you can then just add stuff to the template - easy peasy. CSS and Includes also make management easy for those of us who like to 'Hand Job' it.
The other thing to remember is that one page coded by one program can not be so easily understood if opened in a different program - because of their different coding methods. Every page is understood by Notepad. Probably only applicable if other people are to have access to your pages.
Code by hand. You know exactly where you are and what's on your page.
So do I.
My code is stripped of everything except the required css.
It can be human-read and edited easily in notepad or any other html editor.
I can hand code, just can't see the point when there is a far more time-efficient way to do things. I've tried both - DW is quicker for me. If you are happy hand coding, or want to save money, do so.
I am not really bothered about winning the wysiwyg v. html battle - each to his or her own - but these 'wysiwyg is bad' myths are misleading and need kicking into touch.
Comments about 'code bloat' or messy html only apply if you don't use DW properly.
No offense intended here, but if you haven't tried using DW, layer2style and external style sheets then you are not in a position to comment on the code bloat or speed issues.
By all means stay with hand coding - but please lets stop the 'code bloat'/'hard to read' stuff, cos it ain't so.
Bloated code is an integral part of DW - especially if you use their roll overs for example. Lines and lines of code in the page when a simple JavaScript - coded in by hand does it all.
As for style sheets and CSS last time we played with them the Mac and PC's saw two different sites under Explorer - we were too frightened to even look at Netscape!
Excuse my ignorance - but what has happened lately to change this? ;)
At the end of the day I honestly believe that once you use DW for any length of time you are forced into learning a bit of HTML to get your pages to sit as you would like them to look. HTML really comes with experience and time - it is like a hang-over - very difficult to avoid!
/Wayne
Bloated code is an integral part of DW
especially if you use their roll overs for example.
As for style sheets and CSS last time we played with them the Mac and PC's saw two different sites under Explorer
... but what has happened lately to change this?
The only place where you may end up with a little bloat is in the external style sheet, as DW's standard css can be improved upon.
It doesn't take much time to fix this manually if you so wish, but mostly I don't bother. The size of my html and style sheet combined doesn't go much outside the 8k-15k range.
I'm not bothered how everyone else codes, I just thought you should be aware that it is really easy to use DW to produce extremely tight code just by using existing features and free extensions.
I had a quick search of the DW exchange and couldn't find any mention of layer2style - so could you be a little more specific as to where I may find this extension?
Thanks;
/Wayne
If you're going to be using some sort of dynamically generated page php/perl etc then you might get bogged down by bloat (as i have witnessed)
I often design the layout on paper and think about the structure and information being represented. Then use a graphics program - photoshop, illustrator, gimp etc to evolve and experiment the design. After that combine the ideas and hand code the site and i dont worry too much if it doesnt look exactly the same. I wouldnt be able to sleep at night if i had 90% bloated code but then i can be quite obsessive and in the end you just have to not take it too seriously and get the job done.
