NOT "The Isaerli Government believes they need a 'Firefox Version'!"

[David Segall]

mmm... that's interesting. The problem here is the meaning of "the
problem" in your last sentence.

Agreed. I was not clear. Someone who wants a simple amateur web site
has a choice of learning to write error-free CSS/HTML, using a WYSYWIG
editor to write error-free CSS/HTML or hiring someone to write error
free CSS/HTML. Given the roughly equal uncertainty of reaching the
goal with any of these methods I would choose the program as the most
cost effective and the most fun.

 

[David Segall]

The way I actually started, but it had a major down-side where I later
learned what poor examples my "mentors" had been. Much time was spent
since to unlearn bad methods and relearn better ones. Far better to
start out "right" from the start.

Both of you went on to discover the intricacies of web page design. I
believe that is partly because the tools provided an early reward and
you could see the potential of both the medium and your talent. I
wonder if you would have persisted if you were not permitted to create
a web page until you knew how to get it "right".

I'm all in favour of acquiring a "full and actual knowledge of the
discipline". I just don't think that is a reasonable expectation of
amateur web page designers and I also think that quality tools like
Dreamweaver assist the process.

 

[dorayme]

Agreed. I was not clear. Someone who wants a simple amateur web site
has a choice of learning to write error-free CSS/HTML, using a WYSYWIG
editor to write error-free CSS/HTML or hiring someone to write error
free CSS/HTML. Given the roughly equal uncertainty of reaching the
goal with any of these methods I would choose the program as the most
cost effective and the most fun.

Well, now the problem shifts to the exact meaning of "cost effective"
and "most fun" and "error-free CSS/HTML"

Here is a confession sent to me privately by someone who has been at
alt.html a while:

"I would not trade the fun I have had for all the toys in China. I used
to be noticeably miserable whenever I opened DW. I would shut it quickly
again as someone might with a cupboard door when he or she sees a dead
rat inside.

"I wanted to know what it was trying to save me the trouble of doing
more directly and so I came here and found out and, in the process, got
the added benefit of getting treated worse than a terrorist suspect sent
to Egypt by the US. This ill-treatment saved me from a life of
mollycoddling by DW. I felt like someone who had refused to stay
watching shadows in Plato's Cave and been helped to at least glimpse the
Forms themselves."

So, perhaps we need to factor in personality types.

One thing this character mentioned too - talking about fun - was the
whole world of writing HTML and CSS, playing with elements and rules,
comparing it with a photographer who prefers to use a dark room rather
then the chemist (or outside lab), who grows to enjoy the process and
even the smell of the chemicals. I must say, this struck a chord with
me. Ever seen the mediocre results from chemist produced prints?

This business of "error-free CSS/HTML" is one thing in respect to
validity, but there is a whole world of hard to quantify standards in
this business that DW probably cannot help a great deal in (unless its
latest developments make this a lie?). I mean, human usability. Now, if
you are going to learn to get on top of all this stuff, you might as
well learn a fair bit of HTML/CSS independently of DW.

Having said this, there are some professional website makers who uses DW
effectively but only because it provides them with shortcuts and
facilities that they expertly can do without. I would rather think that
it might better come into its own for those who do know what they are
doing rather than the beginner.

But I take your point that a bit of early success in results is a great
boost to the learner. This is where personality and the consumer society
comes into it. Some people want instant gratification over too much too
quickly.

Please do not encourage newbies to use DW. They will be asked about this
when they get to the Gates of St Peter. He will ask them tricky
questions and they will fail and go to hell.

(Btw, fellow film buff, don't believe the reviews on Slum Dog
Millionaire, it was about as ghastly a film as I have ever seen. Full of
horrible things at too high a volume. But do believe some good reviews
of 'I Have Loved You So Long', a rare perfect beauty of a movie.)

 

[Neredbojias]

Both of you went on to discover the intricacies of web page design. I
believe that is partly because the tools provided an early reward and
you could see the potential of both the medium and your talent. I
wonder if you would have persisted if you were not permitted to
create a web page until you knew how to get it "right".

Excellent point. In my own case - I don't know... Maybe not. It did
help to preview what _could be_ done before actually being able to do
it yourself, -I'll grant that.

I'm all in favour of acquiring a "full and actual knowledge of the
discipline". I just don't think that is a reasonable expectation of
amateur web page designers and I also think that quality tools like
Dreamweaver assist the process.

Mmm, I don't know. Other posters have given some compelling reasons
for learning html well rather than relying entirely on a prog like DW,
and I tend to agree with them. Dw et al may have value as an assisting
device, yeah, but I still think one should know what one is doing when
making something. There's a difference between just starting out and
persistently endeavoring in the mainstream of a craft or skill.

 

[David Segall]

Well, now the problem shifts to the exact meaning of "cost effective"
and "most fun" and "error-free CSS/HTML"

Here is a confession sent to me privately by someone who has been at
alt.html a while:

"I would not trade the fun I have had for all the toys in China. I used
to be noticeably miserable whenever I opened DW. I would shut it quickly
again as someone might with a cupboard door when he or she sees a dead
rat inside.

"I wanted to know what it was trying to save me the trouble of doing
more directly and so I came here and found out and, in the process, got
the added benefit of getting treated worse than a terrorist suspect sent
to Egypt by the US. This ill-treatment saved me from a life of
mollycoddling by DW. I felt like someone who had refused to stay
watching shadows in Plato's Cave and been helped to at least glimpse the
Forms themselves."

So, perhaps we need to factor in personality types.

One thing this character mentioned too - talking about fun - was the
whole world of writing HTML and CSS, playing with elements and rules,
comparing it with a photographer who prefers to use a dark room rather
then the chemist (or outside lab), who grows to enjoy the process and
even the smell of the chemicals. I must say, this struck a chord with
me. Ever seen the mediocre results from chemist produced prints?

This business of "error-free CSS/HTML" is one thing in respect to
validity, but there is a whole world of hard to quantify standards in
this business that DW probably cannot help a great deal in (unless its
latest developments make this a lie?). I mean, human usability. Now, if
you are going to learn to get on top of all this stuff, you might as
well learn a fair bit of HTML/CSS independently of DW.

Having said this, there are some professional website makers who uses DW
effectively but only because it provides them with shortcuts and
facilities that they expertly can do without. I would rather think that
it might better come into its own for those who do know what they are
doing rather than the beginner.

But I take your point that a bit of early success in results is a great
boost to the learner. This is where personality and the consumer society
comes into it. Some people want instant gratification over too much too
quickly.

Please do not encourage newbies to use DW. They will be asked about this
when they get to the Gates of St Peter. He will ask them tricky
questions and they will fail and go to hell.

I think I can agree with most of your post and acknowledge that "cost
effective", "most fun" and "error-free CSS/HTML" are subject to
definition. However, I am confident that Dreamweaver users will pass
into heaven based on their innocence. On the other hand, imagine St
Peter's wrath when someone presents with a "full and actual knowledge
of the discipline" and has deliberately chosen the wrong side in the
HTML v XHTML debate.[OT]
Be warned, gentle reader, the following is really, really off-topic.

(Btw, fellow film buff, don't believe the reviews on Slum Dog
Millionaire, it was about as ghastly a film as I have ever seen. Full of
horrible things at too high a volume. But do believe some good reviews
of 'I Have Loved You So Long', a rare perfect beauty of a movie.)

By reading between the lines of the reviews I decided to give "Slum
Dog Millionaire" a miss. Thank you for strengthening my resolve in
case my companions advocate seeing it.

I almost totally agree with your view of "I've Loved You So Long"
<http://films.profectus.com.au>. The "almost" is because both the
director and I see Kristin Scott-Thomas as stunningly beautiful and I
thought that Philipe Claudel over indulged our view with an excessive
use of lingering close ups.

 

[dorayme]

....


I think I can agree with most of your post and acknowledge that "cost
effective", "most fun" and "error-free CSS/HTML" are subject to
definition. However, I am confident that Dreamweaver users will pass
into heaven based on their innocence.

Good point! But those who have been here and continue to refuse to
attend to the basics will not be considered so innocent. St Peter is not
some namby pamby simpleton sort of a guy, he is forensic in his
questioning, more pointed than Helen Mirren when she was Inspector Jane
Tennison in Prime Suspect.

[OT]
Be warned, gentle reader, the following is really, really off-topic.

(Btw, fellow film buff, don't believe the reviews on Slum Dog
Millionaire, it was about as ghastly a film as I have ever seen. Full of
horrible things at too high a volume. But do believe some good reviews
of 'I Have Loved You So Long', a rare perfect beauty of a movie.)

By reading between the lines of the reviews I decided to give "Slum
Dog Millionaire" a miss. Thank you for strengthening my resolve in
case my companions advocate seeing it.

I almost totally agree with your view of "I've Loved You So Long"
<http://films.profectus.com.au>. The "almost" is because both the
director and I see Kristin Scott-Thomas as stunningly beautiful and I
thought that Philipe Claudel over indulged our view with an excessive
use of lingering close ups.

Fair enough, I get this feeling about close-ups with many films, but in
this case, I found it simply fascinating.

I have been considering the frequent criticism being made of the film
about the revelation towards the end. At the time I thought it fine but
perhaps the critics have a point and it could have been handled more
subtly. (I was not concerned because of a terrible bias I have for happy
endings and for heroes to not leave too bad a taste...)