Just like Megan I think 'partually' should have been an option here as well. I use DW for some mouseovers and preloads, the rest I code by hand. I still use HomeSite 4.5 for that (and a sniff of Notepad for some finetuning when HomeSite is not running and I'm too lazy to start it):
-color coded tags
-its free: 30 Days Evaluation Copy runs forever
But I'm thinking of starting to code with another Editor, becasue mostly I have HomeSite 4.5 and Delphi 5 running together, which gives me a lot of 'Access Violation Errors'.
Guess I'll have a look at 1stpage and EditPad (or build my own editor ).
I think a lot of it comes down to what the person is used to, I hate using editors cause I always have to tweak it some how or rather so in the long run hand coding is faster, but I use editpad (text editer) and a small standalone program called typeitin which is like a macro thingy, just type in your tags, press the button when you need it and its there. I reckon using this method could keep up or even beat a WYSIWYG.
like anything, the more you use it, the better and faster you get at it
The Webmistress posted this at 07:27 — 20th July 2002.
I only ever use EditPad for HTML, PHP, ASP, whatever.
Primarily because it allows me to "get to know" my code better.
In fact, I get to know my code so well that a moments notice, I can recite verbally the entire code for my last website. (Ok, maybe not that well, but you get the idea.)
It helps me learn valid code better, because I, and only I, am responsible for altering invalid code. (Note: I use HTML validators, but I still have to change bad code.)
Editability is easier. It's far easier to click once and change say, an image width from "150" to "160", rather than, God forbid, to attempt dragging to exact pixel values, or even clicking through a few too many menus then a dialog, then a field, then an "OK"...
Believe it or not, it is faster for me to build a table from scratch than it is to navigate through those few too many menus, dialogs and buttons. Then fine-tuning is a repeat-process.
And hardware. I run a modest machine. One that is quite grateful for running a text editor, that uses only a small fraction of the resources, when active, that Dreamweaver or Frontpage use when idle.
To use Suzanne's analogy ("under the hood")- I can see how WYSIWYG fans can't understand why someone would rather build a car — engine, body, and all — instead of just using a key to start one. But make no mistake, text editors aren't as inefficient as they may appear.
It might be worthwhile noting that I also have a small library of commonly used HTML code snippets at my side. All it takes is a Ctrl+C, and Ctrl+V, and voila, I have the basic skeleton for a . Also, every new HTML document begins with a code-template of the vital tags , , , . These handy li'l techniques save me around $500 in software that I could've used for the same purpose.
In the context of "projects", I must also mention that EditPad Pro has a Project option that allows the user to save the list of files used in any project.
I guess it all comes down to your needs and what each person is most comfortable with. Maybe îþÐ should say what kind of website he's talking about to get a more specific answer.
Ha, you can always search and replace -- but you're assuming a pattern (random)? In a random pattern, you'd win. Anything with a pattern, we'd be neck and neck.
If I had years of experience with DW, I'd probably not be able to code so well in the raw (seriously). I've seen people seriously lose their skills.
The difference for me is that I'm no longer doing static sites. I can't see the point of static sites, so I use includes or database driven sites. Therefore, most of the stuff I need is snips and pieces, not full on templates. So for me (and I mean this -- there are lots of people who and do use Dreamweaver because they need it), it's not a good tool. It doesn't meet my needs.
You can say whatever you want. The fact here is, I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion! j/k
Seriously, what would have happened if you had lets say 2 years of experience with Dreamweaver? If you knew how to use all its handy features? Do you still think you could have created a complex (lots of tables and maybe even some frames) website as fast as you could have in Dreamweaver? I mean, let's say you've created a table that has about 50 colums all together. You've decided to add CSS style to about 30 of these columns (some here and some there). In Dreamweaver, you simply click on all of them and click once on the CSS style and it's done. How long would that take your way?
PS. There is no unique code for these 30 columns, they're just the same as the other 20 so you can't do search and replace.
For the record -- I've done tests with friends who rely on Dreamweaver (any version). There is no speed benefit.
Over the years I've developed an effective work strategy, which includes code snippets, and also includes in depth knowledge of what's happening "under the hood". I can code a complex table in the same time it takes someone using Dreamweaver to code it, assuming we are talking both the table code and the CSS to control it.
I'm not bragging, just stating that while you may like to drive an SUV, I know all the alleys and backroads and can get there at the same time as you on my bike, without dealing with traffic, or having to lay out so much $$.
I *prefer* biking. You *prefer* driving an SUV. That's your perogative, but it doesn't make your route better than mine, only different. What matters is that we both get there.
I strongly suggested this. Dreamweaver MX is really a huge improvement compared to Dreamweaver 4 in my opinion. MX has all the new codes and tags as well, i.e. $_REQUEST, $_ENV for PHP which was added in version 4.2.x I believe and it uses tags like (instead of ) and (instead of ). Not to mention everything else I've posted about. Very useful tool for making websites.
One thing that I hated about Dreamweaver 4 was that when you pasted links and images between different HTML files, it would use the path file://C/DIR/ if you hadn't defined a site (which I never did) and you had to go change all those every time. MX handles this issue a lot better.
The Webmistress posted this at 15:25 — 19th July 2002.
Hmm, I've been debating on whether to upgrade or not. I downloaded the trail but never really got time to try it out properly. I take it you would suggest it!!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
It is a great tool. I like the non-floating toolbar a lot better as well. In MX you can choose wether you want it or not, so you can switch if ever needed.
[thinking]Hmm.. Macromedia should start paying me for promoting their products so good[/thinking]
That little box with the "make document xhtml compliant" was what I really wanted to know about
I may think about investing in this software in the near future. One of the reasons I haven't used DW very much in the past is because I hate the floating toolbars - always in the way! Thankfully the MX series has found a better way.
You can set it to validate your code against many different things.. Here's a few screenshot:
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw01.gif
This is the validator settings where you can choose if you want your code to be validated against IE 4.0 extensions or maybe NS 3.0 extensions?
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw02.gif
This is when you click to create a new page, you have many different options like HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, ASP, PHP, etc..
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw03.jpg
And here is a BIG screenshot of Dreamweaver MX as I'm working on a new network section for our website. Here you can see what you're missing out on! (as you've probably already noticed, I'm a big DW MX fan )
Does Drewamweaver MX give you an option to write only valid code? Like could I choose to have it code by, say, HTML 4.0 spec or xhtml 1.0 transitional, or whatever? That would be neat.
I actually find that a lot of the time it's faster for me to hand-code. Of course, HTML is sort of second nature for me and Homesite's customizable keyboard shortcuts make that easy. It depends on what I'm doing exactly.
Of course it is up the each person to use whatever they think fits their needs best. I mean, a few years ago, I did all my websites in notepad like many other people, but today with the tools that are available, you can get the job done in much shorter time and with the same quality. I'm talking about using Dreamweaver MX, not 3, not 4 and don't even talk about FrontPage! Dreamweaver MX is far better than the latest Dreamweaver (4) and has a lot of new features that makes life a lot easier for web developers. Now, who has tried this software? If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. If not, I guess then I understand why you feel the way you do although Dreamweaver 4 was pretty good too, but not close to MX.
It's down to personal taste and time. I use DW to create all my sites. I can code by hand but when you have clients banging down the door to get you to do their sites yesterday it is much quicker to build them using a wysiwyg then adjust the code by hand rather than starting from scratch and writing it by hand. There is nothing wrong with either approach or a combination!
I'm sure that, without looking at the source code, you'd be hard pushed to tell a hand coded site from a wysiwyg created one - front page is excluded in this discussion!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
Mark Hensler posted this at 05:50 — 19th July 2002.
I never use WYSIWYG. But, that is probably because I do so little design.
If you use DW, and work in the source code mode, I don't consider that WYSIWYG. It's a gray area. That's like working in notepad with IE attached and updating in real time.
I have a friend who does a lot of design. He initially made a few templates using a text editor. All of them validated. A client asked if they could later edit the templates in a WYSIWYG editor, so my cousin checked them FrontPage and Dreamweaver. He had to remake all the templates. WYSIWYG editors seem to like to do things their way, even when you can write HTML a hundred ways to get the same look.
"WYSIWYG editors are faster"...
maybe, but not for me. Probably because I won't spend the time to become joined at the hip with them.
"People who use WYSIWYG editors are a lower life form"...
IMO, that depends on whether you use WYSIWYG editors as a tool, or rely upon them like a crutch. (i.e. do you know HTML? or do you use M$ Word and "Save As Web Page..."?)
I'm batman! :batman:
Mark Hensler
If there is no answer on Google, then there is no question.
Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne *ahem* no it wouldn't. Well, maybe in Notepad, but certainly not in a text editor.
There are many reasons why that statement is incorrect.
Making a template and using server-side coding is one way where hand coding would be an advantage over WYSIWYG. Ditto validation, though I understand that DreamweaverMX is getting closer and closer to producing valid code. And that WYSIWYG is only as good as the person using it -- any WYSIWYG editor can produce absolute bloated crap if the user doesn't know what s/he is doing.
Using includes is another method of making sites that doesn't require $400+ software.
I have to somewhat disagree with you. Using an editor like Dreamweaver gives you the ability to split the screen to view both the source code and the WYSIWYG editor. Also, Dreamweaver MX has a lot of new features and a lot of PHP functions built in where you don't have to write i.e. $_REQUEST 100 times over. It has syntax highlighting and it lets you save snippets of code for later use. And if you want, you can set it to show source code only. I use it all the time to create PHP projects for myself and clients. However, if I'm writing a scripts that is 90% PHP, I will most likely use EditPlus, but I wouldn't call that "creating a webpage for a client", more like "writing a script for a client". And yes, even dreamweaver does do some bad things at times that I don't like, but those things can be edited by hand in the source code editor. Another big plus for using Dreamweaver is it's CSS creator/editor..
Again, I think that creating a whole website (mainly HTML) using notepad and such is "not very smart" and is very time consuming. Even if you're picky about your HTML tags, you could create a website in Dreamweaver and save 80% time compared to to notepad and then edit the parts you don't like and still have the website completed 70% faster.
Quote: but it would be plain stupid to sit and write a whole site in notepad these days.
*ahem* no it wouldn't. Well, maybe in Notepad, but certainly not in a text editor.
There are many reasons why that statement is incorrect.
Making a template and using server-side coding is one way where hand coding would be an advantage over WYSIWYG. Ditto validation, though I understand that DreamweaverMX is getting closer and closer to producing valid code. And that WYSIWYG is only as good as the person using it -- any WYSIWYG editor can produce absolute bloated crap if the user doesn't know what s/he is doing.
Using includes is another method of making sites that doesn't require $400+ software.
I don't see anything wrong with using a WYSIWYG (Macromedia Dreamweaver MX is my favorite) editor to create a website for a client or anything else. HMTL code is HTML code. You can always hand edit the code to make it exactly like you want it to be before giving it to the client, but it would be plain stupid to sit and write a whole site in notepad these days.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 08:34 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Now that takes "building a car to drive one" to a whole new level.
Jack Michaelson posted this at 08:27 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 1,733 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
Just like Megan I think 'partually' should have been an option here as well. I use DW for some mouseovers and preloads, the rest I code by hand. I still use HomeSite 4.5 for that (and a sniff of Notepad for some finetuning when HomeSite is not running and I'm too lazy to start it):
-color coded tags
-its free: 30 Days Evaluation Copy runs forever
But I'm thinking of starting to code with another Editor, becasue mostly I have HomeSite 4.5 and Delphi 5 running together, which gives me a lot of 'Access Violation Errors'.
).
Guess I'll have a look at 1stpage and EditPad (or build my own editor
Shakespeare: onclick || !(onclick)
Busy posted this at 08:21 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I think a lot of it comes down to what the person is used to, I hate using editors cause I always have to tweak it some how or rather so in the long run hand coding is faster, but I use editpad (text editer) and a small standalone program called typeitin which is like a macro thingy, just type in your tags, press the button when you need it and its there. I reckon using this method could keep up or even beat a WYSIWYG.
like anything, the more you use it, the better and faster you get at it
The Webmistress posted this at 07:27 — 20th July 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I guess a lot of it comes down to what you get used to!
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 07:15 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Alright, my turn.
I only ever use EditPad for HTML, PHP, ASP, whatever.
Primarily because it allows me to "get to know" my code better.
In fact, I get to know my code so well that a moments notice, I can recite verbally the entire code for my last website. (Ok, maybe not that well, but you get the idea.)
It helps me learn valid code better, because I, and only I, am responsible for altering invalid code. (Note: I use HTML validators, but I still have to change bad code.)
Editability is easier. It's far easier to click once and change say, an image width from "150" to "160", rather than, God forbid, to attempt dragging to exact pixel values, or even clicking through a few too many menus then a dialog, then a field, then an "OK"...
Believe it or not, it is faster for me to build a table from scratch than it is to navigate through those few too many menus, dialogs and buttons. Then fine-tuning is a repeat-process.
And hardware. I run a modest machine. One that is quite grateful for running a text editor, that uses only a small fraction of the resources, when active, that Dreamweaver or Frontpage use when idle.
To use Suzanne's analogy ("under the hood")- I can see how WYSIWYG fans can't understand why someone would rather build a car — engine, body, and all — instead of just using a key to start one. But make no mistake, text editors aren't as inefficient as they may appear.
It might be worthwhile noting that I also have a small library of commonly used HTML code snippets at my side. All it takes is a Ctrl+C, and Ctrl+V, and voila, I have the basic skeleton for a .
Also, every new HTML document begins with a code-template of the vital tags , , , . These handy li'l techniques save me around $500 in software that I could've used for the same purpose.
In the context of "projects", I must also mention that EditPad Pro has a Project option that allows the user to save the list of files used in any project.
zollet posted this at 02:41 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
I guess it all comes down to your needs and what each person is most comfortable with. Maybe îþÐ should say what kind of website he's talking about to get a more specific answer.
Suzanne posted this at 01:44 — 20th July 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Ha, you can always search and replace -- but you're assuming a pattern (random)? In a random pattern, you'd win. Anything with a pattern, we'd be neck and neck.
If I had years of experience with DW, I'd probably not be able to code so well in the raw (seriously). I've seen people seriously lose their skills.
The difference for me is that I'm no longer doing static sites. I can't see the point of static sites, so I use includes or database driven sites. Therefore, most of the stuff I need is snips and pieces, not full on templates. So for me (and I mean this -- there are lots of people who and do use Dreamweaver because they need it), it's not a good tool. It doesn't meet my needs.
zollet posted this at 00:21 — 20th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
Suzanne,
You can say whatever you want. The fact here is, I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion!
j/k
Seriously, what would have happened if you had lets say 2 years of experience with Dreamweaver? If you knew how to use all its handy features? Do you still think you could have created a complex (lots of tables and maybe even some frames) website as fast as you could have in Dreamweaver? I mean, let's say you've created a table that has about 50 colums all together. You've decided to add CSS style to about 30 of these columns (some here and some there). In Dreamweaver, you simply click on all of them and click once on the CSS style and it's done. How long would that take your way?
PS. There is no unique code for these 30 columns, they're just the same as the other 20 so you can't do search and replace.
Suzanne posted this at 22:26 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
For the record -- I've done tests with friends who rely on Dreamweaver (any version). There is no speed benefit.
Over the years I've developed an effective work strategy, which includes code snippets, and also includes in depth knowledge of what's happening "under the hood". I can code a complex table in the same time it takes someone using Dreamweaver to code it, assuming we are talking both the table code and the CSS to control it.
I'm not bragging, just stating that while you may like to drive an SUV, I know all the alleys and backroads and can get there at the same time as you on my bike, without dealing with traffic, or having to lay out so much $$.
I *prefer* biking. You *prefer* driving an SUV. That's your perogative, but it doesn't make your route better than mine, only different. What matters is that we both get there.
îþÐ posted this at 17:32 — 19th July 2002.
They have: 37 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
Looks like 1st page is a excellent resource.. no php support though
I might have to download it...
kb posted this at 16:21 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,380 posts
Joined: Feb 2002
all i have to say is: evrsoft.com/1stpage
color coded tags! no cheating needed
zollet posted this at 15:53 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
I strongly suggested this. Dreamweaver MX is really a huge improvement compared to Dreamweaver 4 in my opinion. MX has all the new codes and tags as well, i.e. $_REQUEST, $_ENV for PHP which was added in version 4.2.x I believe and it uses tags like (instead of ) and (instead of ). Not to mention everything else I've posted about. Very useful tool for making websites.
One thing that I hated about Dreamweaver 4 was that when you pasted links and images between different HTML files, it would use the path file://C/DIR/ if you hadn't defined a site (which I never did) and you had to go change all those every time. MX handles this issue a lot better.
The Webmistress posted this at 15:25 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Hmm, I've been debating on whether to upgrade or not. I downloaded the trail but never really got time to try it out properly. I take it you would suggest it!!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
zollet posted this at 14:55 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
It is a great tool. I like the non-floating toolbar a lot better as well. In MX you can choose wether you want it or not, so you can switch if ever needed.
[thinking]Hmm.. Macromedia should start paying me for promoting their products so good[/thinking]
Megan posted this at 14:15 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
That little box with the "make document xhtml compliant" was what I really wanted to know about
I may think about investing in this software in the near future. One of the reasons I haven't used DW very much in the past is because I hate the floating toolbars - always in the way! Thankfully the MX series has found a better way.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
zollet posted this at 13:45 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
You can set it to validate your code against many different things.. Here's a few screenshot:
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw01.gif
This is the validator settings where you can choose if you want your code to be validated against IE 4.0 extensions or maybe NS 3.0 extensions?
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw02.gif
This is when you click to create a new page, you have many different options like HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, ASP, PHP, etc..
http://www.antinetscape.org/temp/dw03.jpg
)
And here is a BIG screenshot of Dreamweaver MX as I'm working on a new network section for our website. Here you can see what you're missing out on! (as you've probably already noticed, I'm a big DW MX fan
Megan posted this at 13:12 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Does Drewamweaver MX give you an option to write only valid code? Like could I choose to have it code by, say, HTML 4.0 spec or xhtml 1.0 transitional, or whatever? That would be neat.
I actually find that a lot of the time it's faster for me to hand-code. Of course, HTML is sort of second nature for me and Homesite's customizable keyboard shortcuts make that easy. It depends on what I'm doing exactly.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
zollet posted this at 12:37 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
Of course it is up the each person to use whatever they think fits their needs best. I mean, a few years ago, I did all my websites in notepad like many other people, but today with the tools that are available, you can get the job done in much shorter time and with the same quality. I'm talking about using Dreamweaver MX, not 3, not 4 and don't even talk about FrontPage! Dreamweaver MX is far better than the latest Dreamweaver (4) and has a lot of new features that makes life a lot easier for web developers. Now, who has tried this software? If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. If not, I guess then I understand why you feel the way you do although Dreamweaver 4 was pretty good too, but not close to MX.
andy206uk posted this at 09:18 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,758 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
Everything is dependent on the person creating the website.
I use dreamweaver, and even tho most of the time the code is satisfactory i often go back and tweak it to get better results!
Theres just certain things you can't do in WYSIWSYG! (like hiding form tags between the tr and td tags so you don't get the stupid space underneath!)
I love dreamweaver, it allows me to get projects completed quickly... it would take 10 times as long to create sites by hand!
Andy
The Webmistress posted this at 06:47 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
It's down to personal taste and time. I use DW to create all my sites. I can code by hand but when you have clients banging down the door to get you to do their sites yesterday it is much quicker to build them using a wysiwyg then adjust the code by hand rather than starting from scratch and writing it by hand. There is nothing wrong with either approach or a combination!
I'm sure that, without looking at the source code, you'd be hard pushed to tell a hand coded site from a wysiwyg created one - front page is excluded in this discussion!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
Mark Hensler posted this at 05:50 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 4,048 posts
Joined: Aug 2000
I never use WYSIWYG. But, that is probably because I do so little design.
If you use DW, and work in the source code mode, I don't consider that WYSIWYG. It's a gray area. That's like working in notepad with IE attached and updating in real time.
I have a friend who does a lot of design. He initially made a few templates using a text editor. All of them validated. A client asked if they could later edit the templates in a WYSIWYG editor, so my cousin checked them FrontPage and Dreamweaver. He had to remake all the templates. WYSIWYG editors seem to like to do things their way, even when you can write HTML a hundred ways to get the same look.
"WYSIWYG editors are faster"...
maybe, but not for me. Probably because I won't spend the time to become joined at the hip with them.
"People who use WYSIWYG editors are a lower life form"...
IMO, that depends on whether you use WYSIWYG editors as a tool, or rely upon them like a crutch. (i.e. do you know HTML? or do you use M$ Word and "Save As Web Page..."?)
I'm batman! :batman:
Mark Hensler
If there is no answer on Google, then there is no question.
îþÐ posted this at 03:03 — 19th July 2002.
They have: 37 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
I like being an instigator... creating nice discussions!
zollet posted this at 02:45 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
I have to somewhat disagree with you. Using an editor like Dreamweaver gives you the ability to split the screen to view both the source code and the WYSIWYG editor. Also, Dreamweaver MX has a lot of new features and a lot of PHP functions built in where you don't have to write i.e. $_REQUEST 100 times over. It has syntax highlighting and it lets you save snippets of code for later use. And if you want, you can set it to show source code only. I use it all the time to create PHP projects for myself and clients. However, if I'm writing a scripts that is 90% PHP, I will most likely use EditPlus, but I wouldn't call that "creating a webpage for a client", more like "writing a script for a client". And yes, even dreamweaver does do some bad things at times that I don't like, but those things can be edited by hand in the source code editor. Another big plus for using Dreamweaver is it's CSS creator/editor..
Again, I think that creating a whole website (mainly HTML) using notepad and such is "not very smart" and is very time consuming. Even if you're picky about your HTML tags, you could create a website in Dreamweaver and save 80% time compared to to notepad and then edit the parts you don't like and still have the website completed 70% faster.
Megan posted this at 01:58 — 19th July 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Need a third option up there - maybe partially. Sometimes I'll do a preliminary mock-up in DW or something, but after that everything is done by hand.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
kb posted this at 00:04 — 19th July 2002.
He has: 1,380 posts
Joined: Feb 2002
i use 1stPage to help create mine...color coded tags and such...i hate WYSIWYG's!
Suzanne posted this at 23:58 — 18th July 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
*ahem* no it wouldn't. Well, maybe in Notepad, but certainly not in a text editor.
There are many reasons why that statement is incorrect.
Making a template and using server-side coding is one way where hand coding would be an advantage over WYSIWYG. Ditto validation, though I understand that DreamweaverMX is getting closer and closer to producing valid code. And that WYSIWYG is only as good as the person using it -- any WYSIWYG editor can produce absolute bloated crap if the user doesn't know what s/he is doing.
Using includes is another method of making sites that doesn't require $400+ software.
zollet posted this at 22:59 — 18th July 2002.
He has: 1,016 posts
Joined: May 2002
I don't see anything wrong with using a WYSIWYG (Macromedia Dreamweaver MX is my favorite) editor to create a website for a client or anything else. HMTL code is HTML code. You can always hand edit the code to make it exactly like you want it to be before giving it to the client, but it would be plain stupid to sit and write a whole site in notepad these days.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.