On 16 Jan 2001, 14:38, Robert Graf wrote:
> OK, Alan, but would you tell us what you REALLY think <g>.
You asked for it. :-)
(1) I hate frames.
(2) I hate popups.
(3) I hate intro pages.
(4) I hate Flash.
(5) I hate Flash intro pages.
(6) I hate those banner ads that invite you to hit the monkey. :-)
> This reminds of the tube fanatics in alt.guitar.amps.
That's not fanaticism. That's fact. Those old tube amps sounded
fatter and warmer. :-)
> Being a nuts and bolts type person who has taught assembly language
> programming back in the 8085 days, I understand your feelings. If
> your page doesn't turn out the way you wanted it to, you can fix it
> in the html code or it can't be fixed at all. Now, having said that,
> I still believe that a program like dreamweaver is a good tool for
> web pages. I'm not claiming to have the web site programming
> experience that you do, but I like looking at the page as I build it.
> Don't get me wrong, when I encounter a problem, it's straight to the
> html editor - I'm that kind of guy, always will be, most likely. With
> dreamweaver, this is nice and tightly tied to the Allaire HomeSite
> 4.5 html editor. I'm sure there's some quirks I'll have to put up
> with, but it beats the feathers out of entering text in an html
> editor. That being said, the Web Page Construction Kit 4.0 from
> MacMillan Publishing is a great intro to html coding. I got mine for
> 30 bucks at Best Buy after my friend recommended it. Do NOT
> mistakenly believe that the Web Page Construction Kit 5.0 Deluxe is a
> deluxe version of the same thing. It is NOT. It has a graphic
> interface page builder.
I've never used Dreamweaver or the MacMillan, but I have a version of
HomeSite and can attest it is a very good editor. I also have a copy
of the 1st Page editor that Ed mentioned and it too is a good "tool"
editor. Another freeware editor that is good is Arachnophilia:
http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/
But those "tool" editors do require prior knowledge of HTML.
I don't want to mislead anyone. I am not a "expert" at coding HTML. I
am at best, an amateur web page maker. My pages are far from perfect.
I am only a believer in working with the code yourself or at least
having the knowledge in reviewing the output that editors give you.
I used to use WYSIWYG html editors. I would tell my subscribers that
they should make their own page. I would also preach to everyone that
they should design web pages that are accessible to as many people and
browsers as possible, no matter what their situation.
Well, one day I sat down and took a close look at my code for a web
page I was constantly promoting on my list to my subscribers and I was
flat out embarrassed. The coding placed there by various editors was
atrocious. Even with limited knowledge, I could see several errors.
And bad code means that accessibility is limited.
So I reworked that page line-by-line. I broke out HTML books and
studied how to do things that I did not know how to do before and
rewrote the entire page by hand, using only a plain text editor. While
I don't profess that any page I have ever designed in this manner was
perfect, I can attest that I found much more satisfying. The finished
page was a real source of pride for me because I built it myself. I
learned a great deal in writing that page -- far more than I would have
learned had I just let an editor do my thinking for me. You just
cannot substitute for the values you gain in designing a web site from
scratch.
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
