Which editor should I use? DW or FP 2003? I want HTML compliant code

[chopin2256]

I have used Frontpage 2002 for awhile. The program worked well for me. I realized though that FP 2002 has a hard time making graphics, javascript, and has a hard time making a website look professional. I recently tried out DW and after about 2 days of fooling around, I find myself semi-comfortable with the interface. However I recently discovered FP 2003 was on the market, and I am thinking it should have basically the same features as DW, such as layers, javascript, dhtml menus, grahpics, etc. I don't need something too advanced, but having javascript features, layers, menu building, and built in graphics are very useful.

Now another question:

Is having HTML compliant code a benfit for the search engines? I am big on search engine optimization and that is more important to me than a good looking website. However I do want a professional looking website.

So, if HTML compliant code is essential for SEO'ing, will the newer FP 2003 help make html compliant code, such as dreamweaver?

Which editor should I use finally, from knowing the things I want stated above?

[kiwibrit]

Good HTML is important for search engines. MSN advise that you should use only well-formed HTML code in your pages. And that's the consensus for other search engines, too. Personally, I like the way DW works as part of the Macromedia suite, and I have become very comfortable with it. I have found that the only thing its file validation seems to miss, but which the W3 validator picks up, is lack of alt tags on images.

That said, I did not find starting in DW intuitive, and had a 2-day course from a professional, tailored to my needs. But it's more than possible you may be brighter than I.

If you are conmfortable with FP, and the W3 validator shows you are producing clean clode, you might want to stick with it.

[Corey Bryant]

No WYSIWYG editor is going to help you produce compliant code.

DW is horrible with those JS rollovers. FP 2002 added a lot of bloated coding. FP 2003 did get better somewhat, but if you do not know HTML and what to look for / delete, you are still in the same boat

-Corey

[mikec]

macromedia's (formerly Allaire's) Homesite is pretty good.

[tbear]

It'll not take you long to learn HTML and produce your own compliant code.....

Then you can decide on what compromise to take, if any... ;)

[treeline]

My vote is with Dreamweaver.

[europeforvisitors]

Is having HTML compliant code a benfit for the search engines?

Even if it is (which is doubtful), it's probably far less important than having an easy-to-crawl site that provides search-engine crawlers with "spider food" in the form of descriptive titles, headlines, anchor text, etc. See Google's Webmaster Guidelines, which (unless I missed something) make no mention of compliant code:

[google.com...]

IMHO, it wouldn't make sense for a search engine to be too picky about HTML code, because a search engine's job isn't to monitor the quality of a site's code: The search engine's only job is to deliver relevant results to the user.

Side note: If you're looking for a WYSIWYG authoring tool, think about what you're trying to accomplish. FrontPage has a very "editorial" feel and is a great choice for sites that consist mostly of articles and other text-heavy content. (I use it to build and maintain an editorial travel-planning site that currently has about 4,200 pages.) DreamWeaver is more of a Web designer's tool that started out on the Macintosh platform; it may be a better choice if you approach sitebuilding from an art director's point of view.

Unless you have a specific reason for choosing a specific program (e.g., working for a client who prefers a certain application), pick the one that you feel most comfortable with. Buying an HTML editor or authoring tool is like buying a car or truck: You'll be spending a lot of time in it, so why make a decision based on someone else's preference?

[matt_foster]

Well said europeforvisitors. Chopin2256, it sounds like you prefer the WYSIWYG format, as I do. Learn some html, as others have suggested, and you should find you can tweak the FP code as needed.

I like FP2003 mostly because it obvioulsy has the 'office' feel and it's easy for me to use. If I were a professional webmaster I would imagine I would want to be familiar with several of the most popular authoring tools. Since I am not, FP has been a good solution for me because I haven't had to spend a lot of time learning a new software.