Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

[Dan]

I, personally, have no problem with FP, and have said so elsewhere. In
fact, I added a page to my site because of all the negativity(sp)
produced by some of the posters on this site. (See
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml.)

That page comes out as a horrendous mess in my browser (Mozilla
SeaMonkey), with pieces of the page overlapping others, and some of the
text going off the right edge of the screen so I can't read it (there's
no horizontal scroll bar). While the HTML validates, the CSS gives
some errors and warnings.

 

[Vrajesh]

Hi Scott,

in FP you will seem to be controlled by its interface.

I personlly use Dreamweaver. It gives me lots of freedom and clear
errorless W3C standard html codings.

Regards,

Vrajesh

http://www.clipartweb.info
Really Nice graphics for free

 

[Ed Mullen]

That page comes out as a horrendous mess in my browser (Mozilla
SeaMonkey), with pieces of the page overlapping others, and some of the
text going off the right edge of the screen so I can't read it (there's
no horizontal scroll bar). While the HTML validates, the CSS gives
some errors and warnings.

Really. Using SeaMonkey on a 1280 x 1024 screen I still had to scroll
horizontally with the browser maximized and no sidebar showing. Screen
capture at: http://edmullen.net/temp/cap1.jpg

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

That page comes out as a horrendous mess in my browser (Mozilla
SeaMonkey), with pieces of the page overlapping others, and some of the
text going off the right edge of the screen so I can't read it (there's
no horizontal scroll bar).

In my browser (FF 1.5.0.7) there is a scroll bar, but even with it
moved all the way to the right, some of the text is still off the
screen.

I think he has provided more ammunition for the anti-FP forces.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

By the time you've finished testing your page in all current browsers
(Firefox 1.5, IE 6, ELinks 0.11, Safari 2, Opera 9, Konqueror 3.5, W3M
1.5, JAWS 7, many others), the next generation will be out and your
page won't work anymore.

Only if you do it by not following the standards. Future browsers
will adhere more closely to the standards; a well-made page will
always work.

 

[bigdaddybs]

In my browser (FF 1.5.0.7) there is a scroll bar, but even with it
moved all the way to the right, some of the text is still off the
screen.

I think he has provided more ammunition for the anti-FP forces.

Uh... That had nothing to do with FrontPage. That has more to do with
my (mis)understanding of div widths. Therefore, it is in the CSS, and
has NOTHING to do with my use of FP! It DOES however, point to the fact
that I didn't really test well in FF (the only other browser I
currently have access to.) For that I apologize.

I currently use 100% on multiple divs, and, apparently, this works in
IE6 Quirks mode (I DO state I used transitional, and why.) However,
since it IS CSS, can anyone tell me which div (outer or inner or both)
should be defined differently and how? My full page div (container) is
defined as 100% wide, and a number of internal divs are defined at 100%
wide (because they are to take up the width allowed by the container.)
Obviously at least one of those is wrong... Instead of trying to come
up with why FP is bad (especially when it wasn't to blame for the
problem), I'm sure you have run up against this before, somewhere...
How 'bout a clue?

As for the "overlapping", it is the bottom of page linkbar. I noticed
that in FF, but hadn't looked after other changes. (Sorry.) I put the
linkbar and copyright in a page-bottom div. It's defined at 100%, too.
Why would the copyright stay where it belongs, and the linkbar not?

I'm VERY loathe to ask, because then someone, I'm sure, will complain
about my HTML or CSS, but, to fix the problem, I need answers.

And you can't expect me to believe that you, who are so standards
compliant, do NOT have to "fix" things to work in
non-standards-compliant browsers. If you are professional, which I
believe at least many of you are, you would HAVE to. That also means
you have copies of these other browsers around. So, if you were
interested in the article, rather than trying to find things wrong with
my HTML or CSS (I DID "buck the trend" of complaining about FP), you
COULD read it.

Oh... And the statement "While the HTML validates, the CSS gives some
errors and warnings.", is explained on each and every page (see the
bottom), where it states: "NOTE: All CSS validates except the "New
Window Buttons" - Their CSS includes some invalid code (ie: hacks)
and warnings for using transparent backgrounds when color foregrounds
defined." Those hacks are the ONLY things that don't validate in my CSS
(underscore hacks). I'm working on another idea for those
pseudo-buttons. As for the warnings about the background colors, can
you explain why anything but "transparent" would be needed? And why
it's necessary at all?

Thanks, in advance, for any HELP. Believe it or not, I really do
appreciate it.
BigDaddyBS

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Only if you do it by not following the standards. Future browsers
will adhere more closely to the standards; a well-made page will
always work.

Right, but we're talking about Frontpage here.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Right, but we're talking about Frontpage here.

which is an editor just like any other...

 

[Andy Dingley]

which is an editor just like any other...

No it isn't. It's a "smart" editor, only it's not very smart.

An editor does what I tell it to. Frontpage changes my content in ways
that it thinks are right, and it's frequently wrong too.

 

[John Hosking]

Hello Bill

I currently use 100% on multiple divs, and, apparently, this works in
IE6 Quirks mode

When you say, "works in Quirks mode," do you mean "operates" in quirks
mode, or "functions" in quirks mode? Because "operates," I would
believe. But "functions" is misleading, because what do you mean by
"works?" You don't know *what* you're going to get with a different box
model (and you're setting margins and padding all over the place).

(I DO state I used transitional, and why.)

I missed seeing your rationale for this. Is your reasoning that these
pages are so ancient and numerous, you haven't gone STRICT yet?

However,
since it IS CSS, can anyone tell me which div (outer or inner or both)
should be defined differently and how? My full page div (container) is
defined as 100% wide, and a number of internal divs are defined at 100%
wide (because they are to take up the width allowed by the container.)
Obviously at least one of those is wrong... Instead of trying to come
up with why FP is bad (especially when it wasn't to blame for the
problem), I'm sure you have run up against this before, somewhere...
How 'bout a clue?

A clue or two is all I can offer you because (1) I'm no expert, not
nearly, and (2) your CSS is so convoluted I don't know what all's going
on. Fortunately I can delete vast chunks of it in the Edit CSS function
of FF Web Developer extension, and localize some likely suspects. YOU
will have to check and test and verify the usefulness of these clues.

I notice:
#full-page { position:absolute; top:10px; left:5px; width: 100%; }

If I get rid of the width:100%, the horizontal scroll bar vanishes.
Further, I notice no other effects. I suspect therefore, you don't need
this at all. Or maybe 90% or something would be better.

But just because the scroll bar is gone doesn't mean that the text is
visible; it's still hanging off the right side of the viewport. So look:

#main-page {
margin-left: 130px;
padding: 5px;
width: 100%;
background-color: #f0fff0;
}

Here, you're saying your want the content to be as wide as the viewport
(or wait, I think I mean _containing block_, but in your case I think
it's pretty much the same). But you've also said to start the 100%-wide
block to start 130 pixels to the right (give or take the 5). So it's no
surprise that the right edge is about 130 pixels off to the right.

You might want to adjust the width and/or margin values accordingly.

I am almost certainly overlooking something. With your opaque CSS and my
lack of experience, there's bound to be something else you ought to look
at too. But at the rates I'm charging you, maybe this is good enough. ;-)

I'm VERY loathe to ask, because then someone, I'm sure, will complain
about my HTML or CSS, but, to fix the problem, I need answers.

Well, I'm not the guy to point out all the bad things in either part,
but in summary, I can't easily read and understand your code. Maybe
*you* know what .hbbqrff, .hbbqrffw, and #wntbl ol ol ol all mean, but I
certainly can't tell what styles are cascading and inheriting on your
page. I'm sure both your HTML and CSS could be much simpler, you'd then
have fewer problems with it, and whatever problems you did have would be
quicker to understand and solve.

As for the warnings about the background colors, can
you explain why anything but "transparent" would be needed? And why
it's necessary at all?

Ohh! Ohh! Pick me! I *know* this one! er, I think...
Suppose I have set my browser to use a default black background (for
whatever reason), and your site specifies dark green text, and no (i.e.,
your "transparent") background. I see: darkness. A textless muddle of
mud. And as goofy as this example sounds, it's simply that if you're
going to commandeer the foreground (or bg) color, you'd better specify
the background (or fg) color, too. It's so important (and so often
forgotten) that the W3C includes it in the validation.

Thanks, in advance, for any HELP. Believe it or not, I really do
appreciate it.

My pleasure. Hope it helps.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No it isn't. It's a "smart" editor, only it's not very smart.

Smart? It is an editor. It is not "smart" Maybe it's the user?

An editor does what I tell it to. Frontpage changes my content in ways
that it thinks are right, and it's frequently wrong too.

Sounds like user error to me...

 

[Els]

Andy Dingley wrote:

Sounds like user error to me...

It is. It's the user's error to use FP... (scnr ;-) )

 

[Peter]

(There are other, free, wysiwyg HTML proggies that are arguably better
than FP. Go to http://www.nvu.com for one of them.)

I was told to use NVU in an introductory computer class, and I thought
it was aweful. I would rather use notepad than nvu.

-Peter-

 

[Peter]

Interesting how you want to blame an inanimate object for a humans
shortcomings.

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

Yea, I am sure that is the exact words they used in the planning
meeting... FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It is. It's the user's error to use FP... (scnr ;-) )

Well apparently wit is not hereditary...

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

Aha. Therein lies the key. FrontPage is rarely used by those with any
real degree of competency.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other tool when used
by some one that is competent.

All tools are equal? According to that logic, Notepad is no better than
a text editor which ignores every third keypress. Do you really believe
that?

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Yea, I am sure that is the exact words they used in the planning
meeting... FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

People who are competent at something choose tools that make their work
easier, not harder. They may be better at fixing garbage produced by
inferior tools, but their preference will be not to use the inferior
tools in the first place.

A master craftsman may be able to do a better job building cabinetry
with a hand saw than a home hobbyist, but he is also less likely to use
a hand saw at all, preferring to have a table saw, at mitre saw, a
biscuit cutter, a dovetailer, a router, etc.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

Were you taking the minutes?

And WTF did they say when they designed(sic) M$ Orifice's version of
HTML(sic) ?!