Julie Silverman wrote:
> Guess what? We build everything in MS FrontPage.
<snip>
> Here's something to think about. Our customers dig us because once we're
> done building their site, they have the option of taking over as webmaster
> - and it's easy for them to do it with a product like Frontpage.
> It's easy
> from a user standpoint, and it's easy from an ISP tech support standpoint.
The webmaster is a notorious bottleneck. However, from my experience, a site
built outside of FP does not alway translate properly into FP. Code gets out
of whack, especially trickier table nestings. If you start your site in FP
(or at least import it into it), then get it setup the way you want it, then
administer it using FP, the process is smoother.
When I design a new site, I like to use a database to drive as much of it as
I can and use templates to fill the pages. I find this is a very effective
way to plan for expansion of the site. Also, I try to design a web interface
so my customers can manage the text of the pages without having to worry
about screwing up the rest of the code. They find it rather nice. It's less
to learn than you have to learn to use FrontPage, can be done from anywhere.
As they say, "writers write". So I give them an environment where they don't
have to worry about html, too. And they don't have to worry about learning
FrontPage, either.
Now, granted, this still takes some of the control out of the hands of my
clients and still creates a bottleneck when I am backed up and some changes
need to get done, but I have not evaluated the trade-offs. Since I have
tried using FP numerous times and have gone back to my own ways, maybe I
have missed something.
I think that if FP or another wysiwyg tool could write clean code, I would
be more likely to use it, BUT I also find that in the time it takes to click
through various dialog boxes, I could have just written a line of code and
been on with it. Too much mouse action.
> Are we worried about losing design business? No.
> Why? Because even though WYSIWYG editors make it easy for anyone to build
> a web site, it doesn't give them the years of experience we have. We're
> confident enough in our services to allow our customers to do some of the
> work themselves, and to hire us for the "hard stuff".
Absolutely.
> Software, like any tool, is only as good as the mechanic who's using it.
Not true. Some software is better than other software. Given the choice,
some people prefer one thing over another.
> Sure, MS FrontPage like any other authoring tool has it's quirks
> - but some
> of the comments I have been reading on this list suggest a couple of
> things. Either..
>
> A.) a total lack of knowledge of the product
wrong.
> B.) Have only used FrontPage 1.1 or '97, haven't tried FP '98
wrong.
> C.) or more likely an "I'm-cool-because-I'm-anti-microsoft-attitude".
way wrong. Though I know it's stylin to be anti big guy, I use plenty of MS
software. Some of it I have chosen to use because, in my evaluation, it was
better than the other choices.
> Hells-bells (to quote Brent), I like notepad/textpad for editing
> .html too
> - but we'd never meet our customers deadlines, let alone turn
> enough profit
> to meet our payroll if every page we built was 100% virgin .html, created
> in an academic vacuum and hosted on a Linux server.
whoa,......you forgot to start with <rant>
> So, the point is, if you know what the heck you're doing - FrontPage is a
> great editor. So is Homesite, Adobe Pagemill, Net Objects Fusion,
> Dreamweaver, etc. Don't let anyone call you a 'newbie' because you use
> FrontPage.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
