The most popular program for designing of web pages... which one?

[brentcole]

html, php, css, coldfusion? W?H?Y?

Funny thing happened to me on the way to being rich, I became a programmer. I'm 51 and I had hardly any gray hair until I started authoring a web page. I can relate to your problem and have a question/suggestion for solving your problem and mine. My question is this, why not make a complete item by item explanaiton of for HTML and PHP showing all the varied uses for each item and how they relate upon nesting along with defining variable and server information (i.e. $_server). The tutorials I have come across are helpful but in no way come close to defining anything or showing why itmes are used in a particular manner. If any one knows of something along these lines.... HELP!

PS Dreamweaver cs3 is the bomb but the "help" is designed for those already in the know.

 

[David Segall]

I have dreamweaver and don't see where it's any better than any other
decent editor.

It allows you to edit your page using the standard code view that
includes tag completion. Pressing Shift F1 provides the documentation
for the tag. You can also edit the page using the WYSISWYG view so you
can drag and drop elements on the page. Unlike any other editor I know
of you can edit the page using the CSS view so that you can see and
alter all the style properties that affect a particular element even
though they are spread over several files. And, at last, CS4 includes
source code control so you can easily maintain multiple versions of
your web site.

Yeah it has some frills not found elsewhere, but so what?

That's your choice. The accountant where I once worked used Excel to
write letters. He was familiar with Excel and it did everything he
needed. I refrained from pointing out the advantages of Word over
Excel for producing documents because I realized that he would have
been absolutely right in saying "so what?".

Kompozer ain't all that great either.

Agreed, but it is almost the only, maintained, free WYSIWYG HTML
editor I know of. The "almost" in that sentence is only because there
are some WYSIWYG editors buried deep in some free programs that are
aimed at computer software developers. The HTML editor in JDeveloper
<http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/index.html> does not
rival Dreaweaver but is probably better than Kompozer.

 

[C A Upsdell]

You mean no one is able to make a good tool for designing web pages.
Because there is no one great program for web using WYSIWYG.

We have WYSIWYG word processors, graphics tools, printing tools and
nothing good quality for a simple web page.

To make a simple web page you have to learn for years all these tricks
with typing coding and working with all different bugs in different
browsers.

It is a lot better now than it used to be. When Netscape 4 was still in
use, I spent half my time working around its incompatibilities and
inadequacies. Browsers today are a lot more compliant with the
standards (IE5 being the most troublesome), so working with browser
differences is far less of a problem so long as you stay away from the
bleeding edges.

One day someone will show a brilliant idea how web should work and all
this madness hopefully will be gone because this is crazy!

To make box in the middle of page, put some text and couple pics anyone
can make in Photoshop in 3 minute, in Word in 2 minutes, in Excel in 3
minutes, in Adobe Reader 2 minute without any learning.

But to do it in web you have to study few months!

Acrobat, Photoshop, Word, etc. are tools for print media, and with print
media the designer controls everything, and WYSIWYG is possible. Not so
with web pages.

The BIG difference, and the big challenge, in making web pages, is that
WYSIWYG is impossible: a page can, quite correctly, look one way on one
browser on one machine, and look a little bit differently (or even a lot
differently) on another browser on another machine. A single web page
may have to adapt to different users, with different machines (ranging
from high end PCs to small cellphones), different operating systems,
different browsers, different monitor sizes and resolutions, different
fonts, different browser configurations, and even different stylesheets.
What you see may be what you get on *your* PC, but it is not what Jean
Bonhomme gets on his Apple iPhone in Marseille, or what Mary Contrary
gets on her netbook in Tulsa, or what I get in my home office in
Mississauga.

And the fancier you make your pages, and the more control you try to
tale in how they look, the harder it gets.

Think about it.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

hehehe... how many examples do you need of valid HTML not working in IE6?

I don't remember seeing any; there have been no problems with
anything I've written in the last few years. Perhaps I have just
managed to avoid them. Can you give an example (and explain in
what way it "doesn't work")?

 

[C A Upsdell]

I don't remember seeing any; there have been no problems with
anything I've written in the last few years. Perhaps I have just
managed to avoid them. Can you give an example (and explain in
what way it "doesn't work")?

For example, IE6 fails with anything that triggers the peekaboo bugs.
Google on "Internet Explorer" and "peekaboo" for details. (Mostly
fixed, but not completely, in IE7.)

For example, IE6 fails with CSS in which the hover property is used on
anything but an A tag. (Fixed in IE7.)

For example ... well, you can use Google yourself to search for other IE
bugs and violations of standards. We shouldn't have to do it for you.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

For example, IE6 fails with anything that triggers the peekaboo bugs.
Google on "Internet Explorer" and "peekaboo" for details. (Mostly
fixed, but not completely, in IE7.)

That's a CSS bug.

For example, IE6 fails with CSS in which the hover property is used on
anything but an A tag. (Fixed in IE7.)

That's not an HTML bug.

For example ... well, you can use Google yourself to search for other IE
bugs and violations of standards. We shouldn't have to do it for you.

I'm not in any way defending IE6, but I have not found any HTML
problems. There is a plethora of CSS problems.

 

[iwach]

Just exactly what, in your opinion, would be the key features of a good
WYSIWYG? Would it be to be able to put a box into the middle of page,
some text and couple pics in all visual browsers at all the different
text size settings that users use and still be usable? Would the page
mean anything to a blind person? Would it be easy to update for someone
with a different program or no program? Would a thousand things be true?

The fact is that you probably would need to study for a few months
before you could assess whether your efforts with the fancy WYSWIG are
paying off (beyond looking great on your own machine with your eyesight
and settings).

How about... books? Do they care about fonts and... blind?

Here is my idea. Since books are standard in spreading serious
materials. The page in a book has firm size, so fonts are unchangeable.

And that is a standard for books. If someone has bad eye sight, tough
luck - go to optometrist. That's their job making books readable for
every one.

It should be a standard in HTML too. One with with variable hight.

We age making bigger and bigger monitors but the truth is, we're seldom
blowing our browser into full screen.

I've read some article about best fonts and best line length for optimal
reading. That's it!

No need to a lot of deliberation - just look in email programs line
Thunderbird. Length of the line is fixed.

How about ONE WITH WITH VARIABLE HIGHT. Maybe adjustable fonts!

if you have a bigger pic, thumbnail it. Bigger film or... whatever.

If worked for book, will work for a web pages.

The bigger monitors we have, more windows we are opening and these
windows the most of the time are the same size ANYWAY!

In this view, fixed and centered page 1024px wide could be a standard
for every web page.

Or just making a button to change from 800 to 1024.

Liquid pages are pointless IMHO. To many options makes all that mess.

Just my 2c.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2008-12-29, iwach wrote:
....

How about... books? Do they care about fonts and... blind?

Here is my idea. Since books are standard in spreading serious
materials. The page in a book has firm size, so fonts are unchangeable.

And that is a standard for books. If someone has bad eye sight, tough
luck - go to optometrist. That's their job making books readable for
every one. ....
If worked for book, will work for a web pages.

It doesn't work for books. That's why there are large-print
editions.

The bigger monitors we have, more windows we are opening and these
windows the most of the time are the same size ANYWAY!

In this view, fixed and centered page 1024px wide could be a standard
for every web page.

Why would you use a fixed size when a well-coded web page will fit
whatever size window you have?

Or just making a button to change from 800 to 1024.

Liquid pages are pointless IMHO. To many options makes all that mess.

The mess is usually caused by fixed sizes.

 

[dorayme]

Liquid pages are pointless IMHO.

Why is it pointless? Rather than a bit demanding to make? You surely
must know what the point is, it is to be useful to many different people
with different eyesight, different browsers, different monitors,
different senses. If you abstract from all these pointful things,
naturally you will be left with the pointless.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Here is my idea. Since books are standard in spreading serious
materials. The page in a book has firm size, so fonts are unchangeable.

And that is a standard for books. If someone has bad eye sight, tough
luck - go to optometrist. That's their job making books readable for
every one.

Liquid pages are pointless IMHO. To many options makes all that mess.

You really are a very funny fellow. Given your design preferences, I
suggest you seek a career in cuneiform.

 

[Travis Newbury]

If worked for book, will work for a web pages.

Man I am glad I don't do web coding at all any more. (Full time motion
graphics now. Watch the Chick-fil-a bowl to see my current work)
Anyway, after reading a few posts I notice that everyone here has been
arguing the same battles for the last 7 years (probably more, but that
is how long I have been participating)

"Blue is better.... No Red is better... "

Your browser, your tools to create websites, tables or divs, Flash,
video, music, fixed width, what ever...

Personal choice people. Always has been, always will be.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Neredbojias]

Man I am glad I don't do web coding at all any more. (Full time motion
graphics now. Watch the Chick-fil-a bowl to see my current work)
Anyway, after reading a few posts I notice that everyone here has been
arguing the same battles for the last 7 years (probably more, but that
is how long I have been participating)

"Blue is better.... No Red is better... "

Better dead than red, comrade.

 

[Bergamot]

"Blue is better.... No Red is better... "

Nah, green is better.

 

[Will]

Give this person a cigar. This is something almost everybody forgets all
the time. I always start with a design on paper. The one I based my
website houghi.org on is http://houghi.org/images/design02.jpg

That is only the layput as I am a lousy designer (and not a very good
coder) so I just stole a wallpaper, turned that and made it into a
background. More on http://houghi.org/making/

Too many times I see that people who do the design also do the coding
and end up with nothing what they wanted. Sometimes I also see coders
doing the design and it also ends up with nothing they wanted.

The best way I have worked with others in the comapny was that one group
of people came up with papers of how they see the site. This both in
colour and what goes where. Also this is after we made a list of what
everybody wanted.

Then when the colours and so are selected for the different types of
pages, we already have talked about usage and funtionality. When that
part is over, we will see how updates and so on are done.

When everything has been decided, we will start coding. Obviously the
main coder will be invcolved in the whole process to call back the
designers if things get unrealistic.

To me there are three basic things
1) Web design (including usage)
2) Coding
3) Content and content updating

And all should work together.

houghi

I like the design of the layout, not quite so sure about the font choice
or white on black text.

However, one thing which my eye quickly found, was para 5, line 1,
"comfortabel" instead of "comfortable".

 

[houghi]

I like the design of the layout, not quite so sure about the font choice
or white on black text.

Thanks. The site is already some time old and it shows. It was more a
proof of concept then anything else. The next one will most likely be
made via database and colours will be different. I just don't have an
idea yet.

I also hardly ever use the site myself, except for
http://houghi.org/tomtom/

However, one thing which my eye quickly found, was para 5, line 1,
"comfortabel" instead of "comfortable".

Thanks.

houghi

 

[Art Sackett]

Commercial or... free?

Front Page drives me mad!

You'd want Grey Matter Web Pro:

http://www.pagetutor.com/misc/grey.html

Works for me!

 

[Jani]

You'd want Grey Matter Web Pro:

http://www.pagetutor.com/misc/grey.html

Works for me!

Or, if you don't like frames - maybe you like PHP. In this case take a
look at http://www.smarty.net/