Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Hey everyone I just bought the master cs5 suite mostly for design purposes, and now I have a lot of peoPle telling me I should start using DW instead of hand coding my HTML/CSS because it will speed up my production and it's what all design shops use and is an industry standard . I was curious if this is accurate and how much would it really speed things up?
I (personally) disagree. I use DW in CS5 for code editing view only (it has the best markup/code highlighting I've found); the generated markup is not great, so I don't use it, nor am I highly trained in the workflow it entails. A lot of designers will not understand hand coding markup, but that's usually because they don't understand how to or don't care to do so because it's not what they get paid to do.
However, if you're working on (a) lower level, you have a better understanding of your markup/styles/code. It may take slightly/significantly more effort (depending on your abilities hand coding), but I personally think it's worth the effort in many cases. However, I am not a piece worker nor am I paid on deadlines.
There are other reasons I use DW (WebDAV support, searching capabilities), but I will likely never use it to author my markup. Also note I don't pay for it.
Used unwisely it won't speed it up at all. You'll spend more time pulling out DW's extraneous code. Use parts of DW that will make you faster like snippets (for storing snippets of code you use frequently) and find and replace (using f&r with regex is a very useful skill). I use it to cram in table markup quickly (for data tables). Dragging files over for internal links is quite nice and the keyboard shortcuts help (you can create custom ones).
That said, I like the product at work. Check in and check out has been very helpful there with multiple coders/designers.
So, there are plenty of parts in DW that will speed up your hand coding. Root them out.
Dreamweaver CS5.5 made a lot of improvements over previous versions. As a designer you may appreciate Live Preview and the design integration's. As a coding IDE, it's still considered sub-standard and many developers choose to go another route. I use PHPdesinger 7 for ~$70, its got in-line xdebug integration and pretty good intellisense for PHP, CI, and jQuery. I use DW5.5 and PHPdesigner and I find it's far less bloated then Dreamweaver for what I use it for, coding with PHP/Jquery and web API's. I also feel that it's closer to how I worked before using advanced IDE's like this, coding on my Macbook with Coda. But if your designing web pages you may like Dreamweaver better.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've downloaded the source code of my favourite program.
At school they taught us that the entry point is the main.c(pp) and then follow the headers, but I realise that is not always the case. In some cases there isn't a main or It deep buried somewhere where I can find it.
And the documentation in most cases describes only how to compile, what deps you need and etc.
Bottom line, you've downloaded the code, untar'ed it.. now what?
I don't have any particular example to ask (help) for, so if you have any example to help me it's welcome
Reading code is often more cumbersome than writing code. This inquiry does not have a single answer and you should explore multiple opinions and see which works best for you. One practice you shouldn't engage in is reading the code start to finish. This will lead to eye bleeding and mind-numbing frustration. So don't approach it like a book, since reading it like one, cover to cover, is very inefficient. Reading is not learning. Applying what you read is learning. One key point to remember is don't get discouraged. You will be hard pressed to find a programmer that can quickly pick up on a foreign, large base of code quickly.
The best 'book speed readers' skim through something they are about to read a form an outline in their head. They take mental notes of logical sections and paint a thin picture about what to expect. When your brain has seen something before, it is more likely to be engaged with the material. I would skim the header files as a way to form this outline. If there are no header files, then try to skim quickly though class interfaces and take note of which are connected and what is their general purpose.
Make a second pass through the sections of code that interested you. Try to identify a subsystem of the code and make a second, more detailed pass through it. I personally would look for connected components for identifying the subsystems (look at imports). Jot down some of the data structures used and associated algorithms and design patterns. Make associations between them and try to understand why they were used.
Lastly, don't be content with just reading the code. Since you are looking at open source, challenge yourself to add a feature. Take one of the subsystems you were intrigued with and add on to it. If this still intimidates you, take the last bullet a step further. Make a quick flow chart detailing the flow of the code. Bust out your favorite IDE and leverage breakpoints around areas you don't understand the flow. Try to put yourself in the mind of the designer and think why he made certain decisions as your stepping through the breakpoints. Bottom line: It is easy read something and think you understand it. But, doing is where the real learning takes place. You will find yourself asking more questions and researching more into the code when adding a new feature. Having this direction is all it takes sometimes.
If the source code leverages an OOP solution, I would strongly recommend studying a Design Patterns book. I was going to include Design Patterns as a bullet, but I didn't know if the source code you are viewing uses an OOP approach.
Hope this helps! This was the approach I undertook when learning to code a couple years ago.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to get in the habit of designing the interfaces to my websites at the very beginning before I do any actual coding. I've read "Getting Real" by 37 signals and they recommend doing the interface first, before any actual code is produced.
What exactly is meant by that? Does that mean use pure HTML and CSS to design the site and add php, js logic to page afterwards, or is it okay to sprinkle in the php, js from the beginning?
What if your using a framework, should I set up empty controllers that simply call the views, or should the early stages be solely html, css?
Also, what do you guys think about design first vs later?
EDIT I'm talking about AFTER I have sketched everything with pen and paper.. I'm taslking solely about the html mockups. And I'm not too sure about using extra tools that I would need to learn to do this
I think that the majority of the benefit of designing the interface first has been achieved after you are done your paper sketches. Basically, you are just ensuring that you have a design in your head and that your coding process is somewhat end-user driven. You are also trying not to waste time on needless documentation.
Getting the HTML in place (or the skeletons of the Views in an MVC app) makes some sense and this is the main thrust of what 37signals says. I would certainly not do anything beyond this that is just going to be thrown away.
I think if you have a proper design, it is immaterial if you next move on to writing the back-end code after the HTML or if you do the CSS and JavaScript. The CSS and the code should not even need to be aware of each other.
Do whatever gets you excited and motivated. Do whatever gets you thinking more deeply about how the app will actually work so you can catch any flaws in your original thinking. I like to code before CSS but that is just me. You might find it important to get the CSS further along before the app takes shape in your head.
Joel Spolsky likes Balsamiq as a mocking tool. I think that 37signals uses Draft (an iPhone app). I use a Sharpie. The key is not getting too detailed though.
Opinions vary, but I believe that JavaScript should come last. I believe most sites should be designed so that they work 100% without JavaScript and then have JavaScript added for polish.
Learn more about Unobtrusive JavaScript
So (for me):
Quick and dirty sketches of views
Get some HTML in place
Maybe some basic CSS for layout (or more if I need to impress somebody early)
Write the core logic
Add support for web services and AJAx calls
Pretty it all up with snazzy CSS
Write some JavaScript to add the sizzle
Let me ask you this. Do you paint a car before or after you have made the working parts? Maybe you have chosen which paint but ultimately it cannot go on until the car is finished. Maybe you don't agree with this analogy but I think coding will bring out issues that cannot be understood before a site is designed. Code first, design second.
Get a pad of paper. Each page represents one page of your site.
Sketch the interface. What controls go on each page? What controls are the same on each page? What forms are there and on which pages? What happens when user clicks on item x? Item y?
This will help you solidify your plan of both the content and behaviour of your site.
If you just start blindly coding you will end up with burnt spaghetti.
The user interface is what the users of the website will see. Before coding you probably start with some very basic sketches of the site that are not code, to identify page navigation, general placement of content and interaction with the site.
But the earlier you can show and discuss a working UI, the easier it is for the users/client to get an idea of the final product. So quickly move to the HTML, CSS, JavaScript and things like images, to identify:
The data presented on the page (HTML)
The representation of the data (CSS)
The interaction with the data (JavaScript)
Doing so helps to gradually develop an actual working UI that you can discuss with the client. This keeps them involved from early in the project. It forces them to think about the site, and make decisions about content, look and interaction.
Getting such feedback early in the project reduces the risk of building a product that needs to be changed later on. And making changes early in the project is easier/cheaper, then later in the project.
While the UI is being developed you can already start looking into data structures, software components and integrations with other systems to drive the site. But that's not what users/clients are interested in, they want to see and use the product.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
It's well-known among teachers that some people can program and some can't. They just don't have mindset for that. In a nut-shell, I want to ask if the same is true about web-design.
I have a friend who is a good designer in general and can produce reasonably good-looking sites with WYSIWYG editor like Dreamweaver. But, since we're starting a common project, I'd like someone who can 'get hands dirty': work with html and css code directly. For many reasons, I'm sure you understand.
Now I'm thinking to incite him to learn, but not sure what're the chances of success.
So, do you also need some 'programming abilities' to profess css and html, or it's just a matter of training for regular designer?
I would especially like to hear particular experience from web designers.
PS I intentionally leave out JavaScript, let's keep it simple
The best web designers I have worked with know a small amount of html but don't use it when they are designing the sites. They do their work in PhotoShop (a minority will use GIMP). The reality is that I would rather they concentrate on laying out eye catching websites instead of trying to code it and lay the site out on the fly.
A web designer is absolutely not the same person as a front end web developer. That person has a skillset aimed towards converting the designers work into a set of working html/css templates.
Let me be clear that I am not saying that there is no cross-over between the two skillsets, but rather that very few people will be excellent at both design and development. If you are willing to settle for less than stellar results, at least be sure you go into the project with your eyes open.
Not at all. HTML is not a programming language, it's a markup language.
It shouldn't take you long to figure it out; I did it when I was 12. I personally think you need to be a better, how do I put it... artist to design websites than a programmer.
Of course websites nowadays are a lot more interactive, and for that you'll need some sort of server scripting (PHP, ASP, etc) and Javascript - and these are real programming languages.
A web designer who can't hand code HTML/CSS is not a web designer. The lack of such skills shows more of an aptitude problem(wanting to improve one's self). the graphic designer + front end developer combo doesn't always work well, because chances are the developer doesn't have the eye for the details in the design, such as margin, line-height, text kerning etc etc. Also it's hard to convert the interactive elements as well.
edit: this topic has been debated within the web design community on and off for a while now. You may find some interesting links in the blog post I wrote regarding this issue.
you are much better to know how to code a website HTML / CSS / Javascript before you go saying your amazing with a WYSIWYG editor. Sure you can use software to create a nice looking site but when it comes down to it how do you solve cross browser issues? How do you add dynamic content (even without server side) a WYSIWYG editor is just like designing a website in powerpoint or word but a lot more smarts. Though without the backing knowledge you are not going to go far.
As for learning plain HTML / CSS is fairly simple its an easy markup to get the understanding of. But then with that comes more, learning how to SEO plain HTML for example. There is always more to a site than HTML / CSS for it to be successfull.
This seems like a life question; I suspect it is true about almost anything. I think it can be hard to guage someone's aptitude for programming without seeing them actually try to program for awhile, however. Many people need to struggle with it for awhile before an "AHA!" moment is reached.
Nevertheless, I don't think design skills and abaility to work with CSS and HTML necessarily correlate to an aptitude for programming, per se. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive,
It is not important for the designer to be able to program/markup/code in HTML or CSS. However, it is important for the designer to be aware of the current constraints imposed by HTML/CSS. With things becoming more dynamic, it is also important for the designer to understand how things are going to interact with each other. For example, you cannot become a real architect, without being aware of the constraints imposed by civil engineering.
But that's it. It is not important for a good designer to even know Dreamweaver or Photoshop or some other software :)
I am a university teacher, and I have also written both computer programs and HTML. Although I teach math, I understand the point about teaching computer programming. Although it might seem like there is no gray area between being able to program and not, I would say that writing in a markup language is one. You shouldn't divide the world into "cans" and "can'ts" with a question like this.
If he's a generally bright guy, yes you should encourage him to learn HTML and CSS. I wouldn't propagandize it as the thing that real men do or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Rather my argument would be to have a more complete perspective of what, after all, he's already been doing. Just as a racecar driver shouldn't necessarily need to pick up a wrench, but knowing what to do with one is useful for a deeper understanding. If you offer your friend a positive sell, the worst that can happen is that he'll say no and not take your advice. And who knows, he might even like it.
A lot of people either can't program or just wouldn't enjoy it, but don't mind writing in markup all that much. Most research mathematicians these days write their papers directly in a markup language, TeX/LaTeX, that in some ways looks a lot like HTML. Some mathematicians also like to write computer programs, but most of them don't. If they did like it, there is a good chance that they would have ended up in Silicon Valley. In fact in my profession, the whole question of can or can't write markup, or can or can't write programs, is stale. We're long used to a continuous range of abilities.
In my opinion, you can't have enough knowledge about this sort of stuff when doing any type of computer design or software implementation.
The more you know about the underlying technology, the better you will be at working with the high-level frameworks and constraints you live in.
Even if you work only in Photoshop in order to design a website, having the knowledge about what works and what will be more difficult in HTML/CSS/Whatever will give you an edge when designing that website over someone who doesn't know those details.
Of course, with knowledge comes constraints, which might be bad in and of themselves. Some of the best new technologies out there was built by people who didn't know that almost everyone else thought that what they tried to do was impossible.
But I still hold that more knowledge = Good Thing™
Web site creation especially a commercial website involves a LOT of different skill sets.
Back-end requires:
System Administration, Database Administration,
Web Applications development (anytime a website becomes interactive) requires server side programming skills and knowing various tools like (PHP, Java, ASP, Perl, C, C#, pick-flavour-of-the-month-server-side-language) and client side programming requires knowledge of browser behaviours mark-up languages and browser-side layout systems (HTML, javascript, CSS...)
Web Design requires artistic visual skills and related tools (Graphics programs)
Web Content requires language skills (Knowing how to proof read, translate, etc.).
Site Optimization requires knowledge of how to make sites appeal to various readers and audiences (both human and robotic)
A professional website involves several folks working in-tandem to bring all of the above together in various quantities.
If you are going to pursue something as a career, you need to know a bit about all aspects of that space and then follow in on what really excites you. So if someone is good at creating visually appealing content they should simply plan the content, and collaborate with someone to "program" their vision into the site.
Learning tools, and knowing about various components, is good as it tells you the boundaries and the playing field scope, but you don't need to know all of it to achieve professional competence in one specialization.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
For design websites is it better to do it your self by learning HTML/CSS or using web design programs? and why?
I've bounced back and forth between hand coding and Dreamweaver in my history as a web developer.
I originally started out hand coding HTML. This was back in the day when table layout was king, and editing nested tables became a real headache. Couple this with a lack of good tools for visualizing hidden elements and this quickly became a nightmare.
I started using Dreamweaver primarily to speed up my table design workflow. Soon, however, Dreamweaver's templating system became a godsent when I started producing static websites that had no server backend. Being able to update one template and have it propagate across the entire static site cut down my cross-page inconsistencies to nearly zero.
More recently, the whole web 2.0 push has got me, and almost everyone else, back into the hand coding game. I found Dreamweaver wasn't really suitable for the compliant designs, since it was heavily table-centric. I find that most of the HTML I write these days is so straightforward and simple there's little need for an editor. Additionally, all my development is now dynamic once again, so there's no need for a static html generating template system anymore.
Learn for yourself so you can figure out how to do things exactly how you want them to be done, and not have to rely on some sort of program to figure it out for you.
Like anything else in technology, learn the core concepts first, and then use a tool to automate the things you have mastered. By doing so, you will gain a better understanding of how everything works together, and you be able to easily tell when something goes wrong. In this way you will not be bound to any one design tool, and can use whatever works best because you understand the core concepts.
In the words of Richard Feynman,
"That which I cannot create, I do not
understand."
They really serve two purposes, and either one is "better" for it's purpose.
If you learn to do it by hand, you will:
Have more control over exactly what is happening
Have less extraneous code
Be able to maintain your code more easily
If you use a program, you will:
Be able to design visually
Possibly be able to design more quickly
Not have to learn to write CSS by hand
It really depends on what your goal is.
I prefer HTML/CSS by hand because you have the most control over the code. Most design programs will add additional markup that is not required. Even simple WYSIWYG JavaScript editors add extra markup. Although, not a huge difference in file size, the additional markup will add up over time. I would also argue that its easier to maintain code when you know what went into its creation.
Additionally, you'll learn a lot more by taking the time to do it by hand.
Personally, I always edit my HTML/CSS by hand using editors with auto-completion if I can, because that always makes life easier. You should definitely always learn a language as much as you can before you start relying on any program to generate code for you, because most of the time you end up fixing what they gave you.
I tend to do it all by hand.
Doesn't matter what IDE or
server-side language I'm using.
Mark up is markup. Being able to do
it rapidly by hand is valuable.
More often then not, you'll have to
edit some markup manually. By
writing it from scratch, you're
already very familiar with the structure of the markup.
You don't have to spend any time
orienting yourself to the
designer-generated markup.
Although not necessarily a rule,
those who live in the designer I've
found to be less sharp in their
markup and code craftsmanship.
I prefer the by hand approach. That way you know exactly what you're getting. Plus I haven't found an editor that produces HTML/CSS that doesn't need some tweaking especially if you are targeting multiple browsers.
Doing it by hand. Using design programs tends to insert a lot of extra markup you don't really need, which will just complicate your ability to learn.
If you do it by hand you at least know what was inserted where, and why. Plus there are a lot of good websites out there that can walk you through the basics.
IMO you will still learn using web design programs like Dreamweaver, since you have to look at the source and make it fit your exact desires,and its quicker. But doing it by hand will give you the more you write the more you learn type of thing that I agree with 100%
This is a bit vague.
I think that "better" (qualitatively) depends greatly on (1) the competency of the designer, and (2) the sophistication of the application.
Regarding "better" (as in "advisable"): using an application can be a crutch that may fail to save you in all cases. Knowing how to "raw code" html and css is valuable in understanding the limitations of the application and working around those limitations. For that reason alone I suggest knowing how to do it by hand and then keep a sharp eye on the output generated by the application, should you choose to use one.
The absolute best is when you understand what you are doing - you can only do this by coding by hand.
If you don't know HTML or CSS and you use a WYSIWYG editor then how can you be sure everything is right? You can't!
If you have a good understanding of HTML and CSS why would you use a WYSIWYG editor? They make things harder because you can't see the code and extra tags and rules get inserted without you knowing.
Coding by hand is always the best.
Why should you know about xhtml/css ?
Here is some reasons:
Respect semantics meaning
DOM compliant (you know the javascript mess)
Easier to maintain
Search Engine Optimization
You still think it takes a longer time to design/integrate a website ?
Think of use vi, eclipse, quanta, and probably some others...
By hand is the obvious answer, because your website/application will be, well, better. (And also because, if you use JavaScript, it's good to traverse through the DOM of a document you've written yourself, versus a generated one that you have to examine beforehand.) But that's mostly only because the visual tools that exist today really suck (I'm thinking of Dreamweaver). It's definitely possible to create a good visual editing (WYSIWYG) program that actually generates good HTML/CSS/JavaScript, but nothing even close has come up yet, so right now hand-coding is much, much better.
I'm not going to read the responses, so its quite possible someone has already said this, but oh well.
First and foremost, you should always write out your HTML / CSS by hand. The reason for this is that no matter how advanced an HTML editor is, it will never be as good as it could / should be. For "good" html / css, you will actually end up writing your page in a different order than what you see.
For example, a page that is displayed like:
________________
|logo |
|----menu------|
|..............|
|...content....|
|..............|
|....footer....|
----------------
"should" actually flow as follows:
<h1>title of site</h1>
<div id="content">.....</div>
<ul id="menu">....</ul>
<div id="footer">...</div>
which an HTML editor would simply throw a hissy fit if you did it through the nice pretty gui. What may be advantageous is to use Web Expression 2 or Visual Studio for its intellisense. It may help speed up (or maybe slow down) your learning curb.
I really recommend Transcending CSS Design if you are already familiar with HTML / CSS. Otherwise grab a CSS book first even over an HTML book. Styling through CSS will teach you proper semantic HTML (or should,anyway).
I like to code by hand because i can keep my code clean and tidy that way. HTML is not very hard anyway.
If you decide to code by hand you will need an editor that supports syntax highlight, and you will need to validate your code as often as possible to avoid errors (this is good practice anyway). This extension for Firefox will ease your work a lot: users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm supposed to do a presentation for my co-workers on a web framework I evaluated. These people are developers and hate long and boring PowerPoint stuff, so I got lots of little code snippets. I also put together a small sample application. My question is, how do I present the code so people can follow?
Some things I thought of:
Put the code on PowerPoint slides, looks pretty bad and unless it's an image I can't get syntax highlighting to work. Having my code in images is a pain and doesn't scale well to different resolutions.
I played around with the S5 XHTML presentation format and integrated a JavaScript syntax highlighter. It's a bit clunky but workable (I'll get some grief for ignoring the company's CI for presentations since I wouldn't use their templates. Don't even ask...)
I could put together a script (notes) and "live-code" in front of my audience. I don't like this so much because it keeps me so busy that it's hard for me to give a good explanation while I write. And there's also a high chance of me causing errors and make them wait.
A screencast? But then I wouldn't have to be there... Maybe narrate it?
So what would you do?
I could put together a script and
"live-code" in front of my audience. I
don't like this so much because it
keeps me so busy that it's hard for me
to give a good explanation while I
write. And there's also a high chance
of me causing errors and make them
wait.
I like this option, if you can get your demo streamlined to the point of not holding up the audience. You can do what TV cooks do when the recipe takes more time than they have; start the coding, then jump ahead to one that's 90% or 100% done.
If you have a colleague you can get up to speed, you can have them do the coding while you talk and point out what they're doing.
You can use your IDE, which will give the syntax highlighting and show your audience how to compile, deploy, test, etc. I would recommend using an oversized font though, just for the session, so that everyone can see.
Does your IDE allow opening/closing regions or code segments? In Visual Studio you can create code regions that you can expand or collapse. If your IDE has the ability to do this you could create your code samples as regions and then open/close them as you go through your presentation. You could switch back and forth between your presentation and code samples in the IDE, but wouldn't have to code on the fly. Using open/close allows you to hide the code you're not referencing to keep things less cluttered.
I actually saw this done at Agile 2008 and it seemed to work pretty well.
You can only fit so much information on a PowerPoint slide but that's actually a good thing: people can only look at a certain amount of information and get something meaningful from it.
So if you can't fit it on a PowerPoint slide, you need to rethink your approach.
Code snippets are good. They don't need to be highlighted. Just put them in Courier New (or some other fixed width font) and it'll come across as code. Code snippets don't have to be complete either. Just boil them down to the essential concepts (using comments or ellipses to indicate missing code).
Programmers being programmers, they'll probably ask questions when it gets to the technical, which is good.
Also, if the programmers are familiar with something similar try and relate all the concepts back to what they know. It makes it easier to grasp. Like if you're explaining Spring MVC and they know Struts, explain the Struts equivalents. It can be useful to put that sort of thing in table form (even as a handout).
That's what I did for exactly that (a Spring MVC primer for Struts programmers).
If you want your audience to see a lot of code snippets, especially lengthy ones, you could print them out as handouts or provide them as notes in PDF or text files (people can follow along on their laptops).
Actual presentation slides should contain the smallest amount of text (including code) necessary to convey your ideas. If there's a lot to read from a distance, your audience will get tired after awhile and might have trouble following along. Let people read the full code sections on their own laptops or handouts, while calling attention to just the critical parts in your presentation slides or script.
If they don't like Powerpoint, don't use use it. We use Camtasia screen recording to record 'live' demos for presentation to customers (live in quotes since it doesn't have the disadvantage of crashing halfway through your presentation :-). They always prefer to see it in action rather than what they think is fudged functionality.
It's pause-able like your Powerpoint slides and has the advantage of syntax coloring since you just record bringing your up in your favorite editor. It's also dynamic which is much better than Powerpoint (although I've seen some people do crude animation with multiple Powerpoint slides, always funny to watch in action).
This basically maps to your screencast idea but, if you want a reason to be there, do a large number of small screencasts to show interspersed between your real presentation, narrating (in person, not on the screencast) if necessary.
Personally, I'd prefer to send a fully narrated Camtasia off to the target audience but that's because I'm not totally over my early-career phobia of public speaking :-).
In a pinch, you could do a real live demo since your audience (is videance the equivalent for video presentations?) are programmers and will understand any problems you have.
I had this done to me, and thought that it was the best possible solution:
Get another person to help you out. While you are talking about the code, let the helper type the code. This way everyone in the room will be looking at the code, while listening to you explain it.
This of course involves finding someone who can help out, and understand the code just as well as you do. But the results can be great.
If you could do it all in a screencast and you wouldn't have to be there, then do a screencast and don't be there. Nobody complains when a meeting gets canceled. Just distribute the video, maybe with an accompanying report with notes or links so people can read more about the tools you're demonstrating.
And you'll get more credit later as your co-workers and managers talk to other people: "Hey, did you see the presentation Bibac did? No? You should; I'll send you the address after lunch."
If you're demonstrating code in the presentation, then also consider having the finished project available so people can try it for themselves.
When I give presentations involving Visual Studio I put code snippets on the general tab of the toolbox. During the presentation I drop/drag these code snippets into a code file, markup page, etc.