Using Word as an HTML editor

[Edwin van der Vaart]

I'd suggest (having personally taught
"community access web design courses") that they need the cash they
would have wasted on buying it a lot more!

Following a course... Hmmm... I taught my self by studying form the
bible series of Bryan Pfaffenberger and Bill Karow.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Edwin's persoonlijke web site
Explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers, onlinemarketingtoday,
24help.info, issociate.de, velocityreviews, umailcampaign.com,
gthelp.com, webfrustration.com, excip.com and many other to duplicate
this post.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If beginners begin with Dreamweaver then they'll find it very difficult
to learn to do things properly.

DW perpetuates two huge myths:
- HTML is hard
- HTML needs expensive tools.
Neither of these has any justification.

Dramweaver is a poor tool. It teaches lots iof mis-truths, it
encourages poor coding and it discourages good CSS use. It's often
advocated as "a powerful tool for commercial use on short timescales",
which might have had some justification for 3.2 <table> code in the
last century, but is no longer the case.

I agree, in fact I would expand that to encompass all 'WYSIWYG' editors
including the better ones like NVu. Even when used for quick mockups
since at best they embed inline CSS, or worse presentational markup that
after you remove I find easier to just hand-code in the first place.

It's also advocated that "poor naive little users" _need_ the
hand-holding of Dreamweaver because their little heads will explode if
we ask them to work in a smarter manner, even though this is admittedly
a little more thought. I'd suggest (having personally taught
"community access web design courses") that they need the cash they
would have wasted on buying it a lot more!

The HTML is really very simple, rules are few and simple. Mostly only a
handful of of elements are commonly used. The CSS part can be a bit
daunting for the the beginner, but one would hope that it will improve
as A) CSS evolves, B) more browsers (I'll be kind) comply. c) modern
practices of web design start taking advantages of A & B so beginners
can see more valid real world examples.

 

[Andy Dingley]

The HTML is really very simple, rules are few and simple. Mostly only a
handful of of elements are commonly used. The CSS part can be a bit
daunting for the the beginner,

That's the approach I've taken - CSS _is_ hard and you either just
stick with the templates you've been given, or you come back for the
next course.

One of my core aims was that (nearly) everyone should understand
everything they've been taught, right from the beginning. I teach a
very partial course, and I don't teach dancing penguins. But what they
have covered, they've covered well and accurately.

I _know_ that my students all snuck off with a copy of frontpage and
stuck <blink> or ActiveXs everywhere afterwards. But at least they did
understand the fundamentals properly. I don't need to talk about the
pointless gewgaws, they'll find those soon enough on their own.

 

[verity]

Hope springs eternal....

Now Faith was a pretty lass, pert smile and bright eyes, while
her sister charity was a bytch...

Oooops wrong page...

actually, both Hope and Faith are within you, and I think you
have demonstrated that..

Charity, now... No, it can be as rare as trust, and grudging
charity is a bitter brew indeed.

Do you mean grudging to be charitable?
I think it's a really nice feeling to give but whether it's a 'good'
thing to give depends on the W's - what who when where and why.

 

[David Segall]

If beginners begin with Dreamweaver then they'll find it very difficult
to learn to do things properly.

This is roughly equivalent to saying that if beginners use Microsoft
Word to produce a brochure they'll find it difficult to do things
properly. They won't know that their document has embedded strings
that cause the font to change, a table to look like a table or an
image to be aligned on the left of the page.

The overwhelming majority of people only want to produce a document
that looks as they think it should. A tiny minority may need to ensure
that all the documents produced by an organisation will have a similar
appearance and/or that the appearance should be easy to change. They
will need to learn about style sheets for Word or for [X]HTML.

 

[Andy Dingley]

This is roughly equivalent to saying that if beginners use Microsoft
Word to produce a brochure they'll find it difficult to do things
properly.

What's a "brochure" ? A one-off document that's printed and then
mailed out as static paper?
-- that's the difference. The web doesn't work that way. Good web
design (and good tools) recognise this, DW doesn't.

 

[verity]

Following a course... Hmmm... I taught my self by studying form the
bible series of Bryan Pfaffenberger and Bill Karow.

And on the eigth day....

 

[oldwetdog]

Do you mean grudging to be charitable?
I think it's a really nice feeling to give but whether it's a 'good'
thing to give depends on the W's - what who when where and why.

I was referring to 'some' people being grudging when you are the
one who need charity. Charity seems to be used two ways, the old
way and the "deductible" way, and if it aint deductible you don't
get any. Then too, when someone is obviously displeased at having
to supply charity, they include bitterness and guilt with their
gift, like adding vinegar in you tea.


from reading your posts, I expect you have all three in your soul
-- Faith, Hope and Charity of the old type...

About the "W"s, Agreed - mostly, except sometimes it is good for
the giver to give, no matter the who-why of the receiver.

 

[Edwin van der Vaart]

And on the eigth day....

It isn't that bible. But the bible of html 4.01. Jeeez.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Edwin's persoonlijke web site
Explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers, onlinemarketingtoday,
24help.info, issociate.de, velocityreviews, umailcampaign.com,
gthelp.com, webfrustration.com, excip.com and many other to duplicate
this post.

 

[David Segall]

What's a "brochure" ? A one-off document that's printed and then
mailed out as static paper?
-- that's the difference. The web doesn't work that way. Good web
design (and good tools) recognise this, DW doesn't.

What sort of distinction are you trying to draw? Are you saying that a
web page is substantially different from a brochure because a brochure
might last forever but a web page can be changed tomorrow?

Dreamweaver attempts to produce a document that contains the embedded
strings that are required to satisfy the visual requirements of the
user in exactly the same way that Word does. Dreamweaver goes further
because it tries to produce a document that is standards compliant and
cross-browser compatible. If that is not enough it provides direct
access to the underlying strings that control the format of the
document. It will even tell you exactly what CSS statements control
the format of a particular word or image in your document. Why do you
want less?

 

[Michael Laplante]

Michael Laplante wrote:

What's the point when there are far better text editors that have
*automatic* syntax highlighting.

http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html

For beginners who are intimidated by learning a new program, they may be
more comfortable with a program where they are familiar with all the
functions and their locations. Most people have Word or a similarly powered
word processor on their computer.

You can "particularize" the highlighting to suit your needs. Most dedicated
html editors let you play with the syntax highlighting colour (sometimes)
but it's all or nothing. Sometimes for debugging purposes it's helpful to
use different colours for different "subsections" of the page. Word has the
ability to search by style as well as expressions, so that can be useful at
times.

I generally use Notetab Pro or HTML-Kit but there are times I revert to Word
for reasons such as mentioned previously.

It's a suggestion.


M

 

[Michael Laplante]

Secondly, your claims of "good editing features", "search and replace"
etc. aren't a patch on freeware or very cheap editors like TextPad or
jEdit. Word really just isn't a good choice here, however you call it.

Can't speak for later versions of Word. I'm also not suggesting Word is the
only word processor capable of this trick. It's the principle. . . use your
own sophisticated word processor of choice and put it to work. You'll find a
good word processor has all the tools necessary and most people already have
one on their machines.

M

 

[verity]

I was referring to 'some' people being grudging when you are the
one who need charity. Charity seems to be used two ways, the old
way and the "deductible" way, and if it aint deductible you don't
get any. Then too, when someone is obviously displeased at having
to supply charity, they include bitterness and guilt with their
gift, like adding vinegar in you tea.


from reading your posts, I expect you have all three in your soul
-- Faith, Hope and Charity of the old type...

About the "W"s, Agreed - mostly, except sometimes it is good for
the giver to give, no matter the who-why of the receiver.

Yes, that's what I meant about it not always being good, eg when it is
given in a way that demeans the reciever.
Or worse when the receiver is later made to feel uncomfortable; this is
/not/ charity IMO.
The best charity is to facilitate someone helping themselves, self
respect is important.

 

[oldwetdog]

Yes, that's what I meant about it not always being good, eg when it is
given in a way that demeans the reciever.
Or worse when the receiver is later made to feel uncomfortable; this is
/not/ charity IMO.
The best charity is to facilitate someone helping themselves, self
respect is important.

perhaps that is the only definition of Charity -- to Help
someone. That is, if the gift does not result in the recipient
being 'better' or 'improved' in a way that is meaningful to them,
then they were not Helped.

I also think, IMHO, that the 'gift' of charity must have value to
the giver to be of value to both the giver and the recipient. If
the 'gift' is trash and worthless to the giver, even if the
recipient does benefit, the giver does not. Unless, of course, we
consider emptying the garbage a 'benefit.'

 

[verity]

perhaps that is the only definition of Charity -- to Help
someone. That is, if the gift does not result in the recipient
being 'better' or 'improved' in a way that is meaningful to them,
then they were not Helped.

I also think, IMHO, that the 'gift' of charity must have value to
the giver to be of value to both the giver and the recipient. If
the 'gift' is trash and worthless to the giver, even if the
recipient does benefit, the giver does not. Unless, of course, we
consider emptying the garbage a 'benefit.'

I totally agree with that & the way you have expressed it.
BTW your nic is interesting.
I have been working on my first webpage all in html (have done using
frontpage years ago) & my mind is spinning a bit, could be those two
glasses of red wine )

I'm glad I got the advice not to buy Dreamweaver, this is so much more
fun (I think).

 

[oldwetdog]

I totally agree with that & the way you have expressed it.
BTW your nic is interesting.
I have been working on my first webpage all in html (have done using
frontpage years ago) & my mind is spinning a bit, could be those two
glasses of red wine )

I'm glad I got the advice not to buy Dreamweaver, this is so much more
fun (I think).

the nic is a long story ;-)

I've found writing HTML/CSS to be both fun and satisfying, and
frustrating to the point of kbd smashing hysterics ;-)

Although it may not be so much the HTML as that the browsers
render it differently.

Wine is better shared.

 

[verity]

the nic is a long story ;-)

I've found writing HTML/CSS to be both fun and satisfying, and
frustrating to the point of kbd smashing hysterics ;-)

Although it may not be so much the HTML as that the browsers
render it differently.

Wine is better shared.

Don't blame the kbd, poor thing gets bashed enough.
I suppose it depends if the browser is in a strop with you.
I shared the wine with Edith Piaf
Singing along with her - 'Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien'

 

[Andy Dingley]

"Andy Dingley <[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
wrote:

What sort of distinction are you trying to draw?

A printed document has already been rendered, but a web document is
still only a potential document and could be rendered by any user
agent. Printed documents only have one rendering because they've
_already_ been rendered - web documents have potentially many, and
potentially with variations.

Are you saying that a
web page is substantially different from a brochure because a brochure
might last forever but a web page can be changed tomorrow?

No, not that at all.

Dreamweaver attempts to produce a document that contains the embedded
strings that are required to satisfy the visual requirements of the
user in exactly the same way that Word does.

That's its problem -- and it doesn't even emphasise this "embedded
strings" aspect as much as it ought. Word is targetting a single
printed rendering and DW takes a very similar view. They see the
endpoint as one targetted rendering, and they see it as only one
rendering.

If you author a _good_ web document instead, then you target a
potentiality of different web clients, from desktops to printers and to
mobile phones, and you address them all simultaneously. If your design
goals are modest and your skills adequate, this is an entirely
reasonable target to achieve.

 

[oldwetdog]

Don't blame the kbd, poor thing gets bashed enough.
I suppose it depends if the browser is in a strop with you.
I shared the wine with Edith Piaf
Singing along with her - 'Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien'

:-( I had to look it up...

"No regrets" "describing the singer's defiant attitude towards
the past," like"Frank Sinatra's similarly unrepentant 'My Way.'"

I don't remember hearing "No, I regret nothing," but am familiar
with "My Way," and have always thought it a little too self
centered. It seems to me that the better way is to compromise a
little with life, rather than to attempt to impose one's own will
upon life.

The example which comes first to mind is your 25 year
imprisonment in a relationship with a person who demanded
absolute control over you.

I hope you have not found it necessary to become what you escaped
from; on the one hand, yet relieved that you can go on with your
live without suffering the unnecessary baggage of regret.

so,
light a candle, sip fine wine, listen to beautiful music, watch
the clouds drift across a starry night...be happy,
enjoying your life is the best revenge (especially if you do not
do it as revenge)

 

[jussij]

Hope this helps someone looking for a good HTML text editor. . .

And if you used something like the Zeus for Windows IDE:

http://www.zeusedit.com/features.html
Note: Zeus is shareware (45 day trial).

you get the same set of basic text editing features as Word,
but also get features like HTML syntax highlighting, code
folding, ftp/sftp editing, project/workspace management,
integrated version control, code templates, macros etc.

Zeus can even check your HTML for W3C conformance using
the Tidy HTML utility:

http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194

Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows