evil Frontpage explanation?

[Eric B. Bednarz]

i remember way back last century that if you didn't have/use DW you
couldn't be considered a "professional" or "webmaster".

<AOL/>

Add Photoshop, Illustrator (very silly to buy those for screened media
purposes, but they have that nice ring to them), Fireworks and Flash.

the hype still seems to be around but not to such a great extent. it
still sucks in the newbie.

Certainly; all tools that are supposed to take RTFM responsibility away
from $author do that. Judging on the local book shop's amount of
literature on the issue, DW and FP must be harder to learn than
compiling your own kernel of the week edition.

kind of "i need DW to be able to do this so
its professional"

That's how it's supposed to work, and true for all Macromedia/Adobe/M$
software. As well, that's why it is so easy to crack them or find
cracked versions. It supports their idea of market share (I mean,
really, even some text editors that cost $20 are better protected).

 

[Woolly Mittens]

Anybody got a link to a page that explains exactly why FrontPage sucks? I'd
rather send him to a webpage than write an explanation to him in an email;
he will probably believe it more if it comes from another source.

Whatever you tell the idiot, he'll never believe YOU anyway. Better wait
until they produce anything, then start pouring in complaints in the name of
accessability (which is a law in the US).

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?brucie?=]

<AOL/>
Add Photoshop, Illustrator

i forgot about those two!

Fireworks and Flash.

and everyone had to use them on any site they did. it didn't matter
what just as long as there was some there.

That's how it's supposed to work, and true for all Macromedia/Adobe/M$
software.

DW is the best so ergo anything i do is going to be better than what
people can do who don't use it.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Anybody got a link to a page that explains exactly why FrontPage
sucks?

- There is no relation between editor and quality of a site. Compare it with
a camera: a professional makes better pictures with a cheap camera than you
or me with a Nikon F5
BTW look at the page of that camera
(http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=6&productNr=1795N
AS) I'm sure even a newbie can do that better with FrontPage.
- When used properly, there is no better editor than FP

Regards, Nico

 

[Isofarro]

I have a feeling that will be an appropriate phrase a ways down the
line...

I'm not out for revenge...he is not a bad guy & it wasn't a big account -
I just feel bad because I know what's in store for him.

He's paying for your expertise. You've given him your expertise. He's
decided not to benefit from your expertise.

 

[EightNineThree]

Whatever you tell the idiot, he'll never believe YOU anyway. Better wait
until they produce anything, then start pouring in complaints in the name of
accessability (which is a law in the US).

It is only "Law" in the US for US Government agencies. Not private
enterprise or even Government contractors.

 

[Denise Enck]

- There is no relation between editor and quality of a site.

I see your point, but in this case there is a relation. This particular
editor creates extraneous & invalid code which does impact the quality of a
site.

It may be possible to create a quality page with FrontPage, but most
professional webdesigners would prefer to use a quality tool, rather than
create a page in FrontPage and then go through the lengthy process of
"fixing" the screwed-up code.

cheers ~
Denise

 

[EightNineThree]

I see your point, but in this case there is a relation. This particular
editor creates extraneous & invalid code which does impact the quality of a
site.

I'm starting to doubt *your* level of knowledge on this.
Else, you're just unwilling to accept that others here haven't validated
your opinion. It is as if you came looking for someone to prove you right -
to vindicate you.

It _does_not_matter_ what tool someone uses. If shit goes in, shit will
come out. This goes for Dreamweaver MX 2004 as much as it does for FrontPage
Express 98 or NetObject Fusion.

What does it matter if 80% or 50% of the markup is shit? Its still shit!

I hate the position this conversation puts me in. I'm certainly no apologist
for FP, but if anything drives my point home, its the fact that your own
site(s) - purportedly made from "better tools" leave a little to be desired
in the markup...

 

[Whitecrest]

If my memory serves me, that would be VBA. As far as authoring tools
are concerned, I frankly don't give a shit about proprietary technology,
elisp doesn't seem to work in VIM either.

Well since 80% of the surfers out there all use the technology. It
really doesn't matter if you personally like it or not. It is out
there, and it is not likely to go away. So use it, don't use it, the
choice is yours and there are consequences to both options.

 

[Whitecrest]

It is only "Law" in the US for US Government agencies. Not private
enterprise or even Government contractors.

Actually it is only the law for them if they can not show a reason they
have to use the technology. For example the DOE has multiple pages that
only viewable with Flash and direct connect. They are allowed to have
these pages because there is not an equivalent text method of displaying
the content. (They are flash educational games if anyone needs to know)

Even the Australian Army uses Macromedia Director Shockwave Studio to
develop and deliver realistic skills-based training. And L-3
Communications used Macromedia Dreamweaver UltraDev to develop a Section
508 conformant readiness guide for the U.S. Army Research Institute.

They are called tools and there are a lot of them out there. Use the
ones that make you most effective.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt wrote

I see your point, but in this case there is a relation. This
particular editor creates extraneous & invalid code which does impact
the quality of a site.

Never had such problems. FP has a good integration with the stylesheet. So,
the only thing I have to do is type text (or paste it from another
application) and apply the appropriate CSS-style.

It may be possible to create a quality page with FrontPage, but most
professional webdesigners would prefer to use a quality tool, rather
than create a page in FrontPage and then go through the lengthy
process of "fixing" the screwed-up code.

Again, I don't have such problems. In fact the tool is very efficient:
- Change paragraphs into list and vice versa
- Insert pictures; Resize until they have the right size; Change it in the
picture editor and refresh.
- Create tables; Easy to insert/delete rows columns and cells
- Very good preview in WYSIWYG mode
- Easy to switch between WYSIWYG and html
- Spell checker
- Tools for testing on broken links etc etc
Result: sites like
www.cartal.nl
www.michellippens.nl
www.leaseleed.nl
....
Cheers, Nico

 

[Kevin Scholl]

DW is the best so ergo anything i do is going to be better than what
people can do who don't use it.

Well, in all honesty, of all the HTML generators, Dreamweaver is
generally considered the best of the lot.

But what a lot of people forget is that all these apps are nothing more
than tools -- it's the operator's understanding of, and skills with, the
underlying technologies that really matter.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:40:59 GMT, "Denise Enck"


[...]

I don't think I've heard the last from him - he actually asked me, "Can we
access the website with FrontPage? Because we'll need to update the pages"
and "What is CSS?" eek.

Before you answer him any questions, be sure to quote him your hourly
consulting rate, billed in 15 minute increments.

Nick

 

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Anybody got a link to a page that explains exactly why FrontPage sucks? I'd
rather send him to a webpage than write an explanation to him in an email;
he will probably believe it more if it comes from another source.

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?brucie?=]

Well, in all honesty, of all the HTML generators, Dreamweaver is
generally considered the best of the lot.

considered best != actual best

if you've going by the ability to generate valid HTML/CSS ibm
websphere homepage builder is the best. apart from a few proprietary
attributes[1] its wysinwyg doesn't do invalid markup no matter how
much you chop and change and fiddle about and if you're authoring by
hand it wont let you write invalid markup unless you ignore the errors
it keeps popping up at you or turn off the error notification (thats
on by default).

WHB has managed to generate valid html/css since its release in 1999
(was called toppage) and costs $70USD. can dreamweaver do it yet?

[1] allows height on <table>, backgrounds on <table> and <td> and uses
deprecated language="javascript". probably more but i haven't noticed

 

[Denise Enck]

in message

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

gracias, Dan.

But I think I'll just let it go.

Already this morning I've had 4 emails from my former client who asks things
such as:

"the lady who will be doing updates cant acess my account. she says she uses
front page and cant get into account. i dont understand whats going on and
need to know how to proceed."

and,
"what is ftp?"

and, later:
"Are the languages and procedures you used to create this web site standard
or are they something particular to your own designs -- i obviously need to
know this as this is hindering my ability to move on. if i need to create
another site because of this i need to know now"

My answers are being billed at my hourly rate....

best,
Denise