On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:08, Steve Bell wrote: > To me, trying to code a visually stimulating website in HTML compares to > trying to code a glossy brochure layout.
That's because you're not a programmer :) > > That "unnecessary" html that DW sticks in is necessary for one reason: To > make the web (web design) accessible to Joe Average, like me. I can certainly agree there - for most people who want to do an amature website, DW is a good tool, and things like it (Frontpage as another example, but don't anyone dare name MSWord, ugh ;) make web publishing accessable to a lot more people. This is a good thing. However, what I object to (and I'm sorry Steve, I don't think it was even you who suggested this in the first place) is the notion of "professional" web sites being created with these tools. And the notion that a web page has to have big flashing (distracting) animations all over it, often required to view the actual content, when a simple static html page could have conveyed the same information in about a 1/10th the load time. > > Heck, sorry I'm still continuing this OT debate. I'll shut up now. Me too, sorry. > > Peace > Steve Peace man :) Gareth
