I have a workmate with access to a very good IDE. He wants to use Microsoft FrontPage to write his jsps.
I know exactly what I want to say to him, but what would you say? I need a concise reason why a professional web app developer would never consider FrontPage.
It's an unnecessary abstraction for professional web developers, who need very tight control over the HTML and CSS generated.
It would be like rally car drivers using an automatic transmission. They need to know exactly what their car is going to do, and web developers need to know exactly how their code is going to act.
#1 reason:
FrontPage was discontinued in late 2006.
Personally, it bugs me seeing the extra bloat (unnecessary HTML structure, non-semantic use of HTML tags, embedding CSS directly in HTML) that Frontpage generates. I also dislike use of proprietary, non-standard HTML and CSS. Frontpage's code bloat is bad enough to have inspired such programs as Frontpage Code Cleaner. Here's another Stack Overflow question that deals with removing Frontpage bloat: FrontPage tags - Pain in da HTML.
You might also check out Why I do not use Frontpage by Greg Moreno.
Frontpage leads to bad habits for some of the same reasons Sarah Vessels lists. I used to use it myself. I was one of those who liked to design in design mode and refine in HTML. The problem was that switching between "design" and "html" views would cause FrontPage to change my precious HTML. And at some point I got fed up with it destroying my markup (something the newer tools are better about not doing).
When I began hand coding every site I worked on from scratch I learned so much more about HTML and CSS in general and how to make lightweight, efficient pages. And at that point I also realized that the markup FrontPage would generate was really old-fashioned with lots of tables and inline CSS. As I learned to do it right I also learned how to make my sites cross-browser compatible on the first try. In the end this allows me to design and build a better site, faster.
Professional web developers should really avoid Frontpage and use Microsoft Expression Web instead. It's the replacement for Frontpage and is fairly good, actually.
Frontpage itself has been discontinued. Using it simply as an HTML editor with syntax highlighting is a bit silly given how heavyweight it is.
That being said, if he's producing good code and delivering on time, it doesn't really matter what he uses.
It's intentionally dumbed-down
Great web developers build sites that:
Look good in all browsers
Degrade gracefully when Javascript or CSS or a plugin is not available
Have semantic HTML that makes sense to screen readers
Use AJAX, content compression, and caching to minimize bandwidth use
Have lovely, pixel-perfect graphics
If any GUI can do all that reliably, great. But I haven't seen it yet. And by the time you build one, the competition will be hand-coding capabilities that the GUI doesn't know about yet.
For one, FP isn't really supported anymore. The FP extensions honestly suck, they break quite often on the server side. But just as HTML editor, when the latest FP version is used and the settings are right (correct browser version and no server-side FP extensions), it's quite OK.
However (if staying on MS products), I'd rather use Visual Web Developer 2008 (o1 2010 when it gets out), it's free and has more recent technological support.
This is going off topic, but when FrontPage first came out, it was groundbreaking in how easy it was to create websites at a time when the web designer title was nowhere near fruition, but of course, FP has (de)volved into producing bloat.
The original company that created it was named Vermeer, after the Dutch painter and the story of how FP was built and how Vermeer got bought out by Microsoft is an interesting read, giving you insight into startups and Microsoft buyout tactics back then.
The same person who founded the company produced the movie, "No End in Sight", a documentary about the escalation into Iraq. Interesting segue, from software company to documentary movies.
Anyways, I think the name is Charles Ferguson. You can probably find a used version of the book on the cheap in Amazon. Definitely a worthwhile trip in the way back machine.
Because it's supposed to be catered to the crowd that isn't familiar at all with web development, mostly novices. To an experienced web developer it's fairly restrictive and limited, as is any WYSIWYG editor.
I haven't used it lately, but it used to rewrite a file with it's own garbage, even if you didn't save the file.
The same reason a professional artist doesn't use a coloring book. You're being paid to bring your skill and expertise into creating a product — using only FrontPage is essentially shirking that duty. I'm not saying it's never OK to touch it, but you need to take responsibility for the code you ultimately produce.
I personally haven't used Frontpage all that much, but I feel that you should really learn to use HTML and CSS and not rely on an application to do it for you. You really learn how things work and you have more control over what goes on.
It's Microsoft's
...the same company that brought you IE 6. I bet your site will work with IE 6, but will it work with Safari and Firefox and Opera equally well?
And if it doesn't, what are you going to do about it? You didn't want to dig into the code, remember?
Frontpage produces terrible code that won't be maintainable by other developers not using frontpage, meaning almost all web developers with common sense - especially since Frontpage got discontinued.
As mentioned - FrontPage became Expression Web. I hated FrontPage, but I think Expression Web is fantastic. I'm a programmer with deliverables, I don't have time to mess arround writing HTML code myself.
I suppose it depends what market your friend is in. If he wants to make shiny, glossed up websites with custom features & CSS - use a HTML/CSS syntax editor.
If he just wants to make quick, nice looking, clean corporate sites and have a high turn-over of generic sites, Expression Web is great. (The HTML isn't very 'pure' thought - but honestly what client would care?)
Related
Context: Ok so I am building a website for a friend. Hes a designer with a high need to daily include his projects (images and text).
Problem:
Ok so I know pretty much how to code in html/css/javascript a front end responsive website, that is the easy part for me, the hard one is the content page. I've never done it so I don't know the best way.
A page that he goes daily put a new project, new images, formatted text (A like a blog). But since he doesn't know anything about coding and front end, it has to be simple enough for him to understand.
Resources: I made several searches and found some websites that allow custom templates with content, one of them standing is wordPress (haven't used it for years). I am currently abusing tumblr for that matter, but their support is quite bad. Should I use one, should I buy a host like bluehost and create my self one, what you guys recommend? I tried google it but perhaps I am not doing it the right way since I am not finding any answer to my problem.
Look, you've come to a programming website, so the most common suggestion you'll get here, and the option I myself recommend is:
MAKE IT YOURSELF!
It really is a fun and very educational experience.
There are many, many ways to do this. In general you'll want to have a front end that communicates with a back end API.
For the front end, there are a lot of options. From templating engines like Jekyll, to MVC frameworks like Laravel, to full fledged high level abstractions like Angular and React, which are admitedly harder to learn but so, so robust, and useful once you've figured them out.
The selection of tools you can use to make the API that supports the website is just as rich. There is ASP.NET for C# (which some people use for the front end as well but I wouldn't), there is Node.JS for JavaScript, with a myriad of libraries and packages to get you started. Flask is a popular option for Python. The list goes on and on.
Oh and dont forget about Ruby on Rails.
As for the interface which your friend will use to add their work, turning all that complicated back end into a simple, easy to use interface is a fundamental part of UX design and, IMHO, quite satisfying once you get it right. Make it sleek and, most of all, intuitive. One shouldn't have to be taught how to use it. It should be apparent from the first time they open the page. You should always ask for their feedback as you are developing it. Some even opt to create mock ups of the interface, in order to get feedback on both its aesthetics and its intuitiveness before a single line of code has been written.
Now, regarding how you'll actually do it, the answer really depends on the tools you opt to use. In general, you'll want to read up on things like the MVC pattern, or React's component architecture. The former is something you'll come across on a wide variety of platforms. The latter is mostly React specific, but in my opinion, understanding how to properly build a website using component architecture means you're in the right mindset, something that will help you no matter how you choose to build it.
All that being said...
Web development is complicated. Creating dynamic websites is a much larger undertaking that designing a static page, or even making an SPA. Though I do wholeheartedly recommend you do it at some point, starting with your friend's website might not be the best idea. Or, you may simply not have the time to sift through all your options, figure out which is best for you, begin the learning process etc.
In that case, there are plenty of publishing frameworks and tool sets to choose from. Wordpress has become very popular in the recent years, and templates and plugins for it are abundant. Alternatives like Medium and Ghost have also gained some traction.
There are plenty of commercial CMS type frameworks. One I have heard good things about is ExpressionEngine. However, I cannot speak for it with certainty.
If you are looking for a website builder, there are also plenty of options out there such as Weebly, Wix, as well as Squarespace. Google sites is a relative newcomer in that department, but seems promising.
So, in summary,
I wholeheartedly recommend building it from scratch. There are many, many languages, frameworks, and tools out there you can choose from, each with its own patterns, best practices and idiosyncrasies. If you lack the time, or simply don't feel like going through that process of building a dynamic website from scratch, you can use one of many tools available. However, that wouldn't be nearly as much fun, and would likely produce an inferior result.
I work with my professor to implement web-based decision support tools. I am a seasoned programmer, and am at ease with the various web technologies we use. However, my professor isn't, and he usually has to rely upon me to do even the most basic tasks like adding publications and presentations to an existing list. However, he now wants to be able to do these basic tasks by himself since we both feel it will be more efficient that way, and to leave the hard-core tool implementation for me.
He suggested that we purchase Dreamweaver to achieve this. However, I do not have much experience with Dreamweaver since I prefer to work with bare HTML, CSS etc., and Emacs and Eclipse have filled these needs very well for me.
What do you think we should do? Do you think Dreamweaver will be a good tool for this? If not, is there something else we should look at? How far will he be able to get along without knowing much HTML? Do you think I should give him a crash course in HTML? Feel free to opine!
NOTE: The website is not based on any CMS; it is completely bred in-house. We use HTML, CSS, PHP, and JavaScript. However, my professor will most likely dealing only with HTML (no CSS etc.)
For these types, I often (while cringing) reach for WordPress.
If your customers can make a Facebook post, they can edit content in WordPress. Just stay on top of the updates for it, as exploits for WordPress are found with very high frequency. Even with this maintenance, it will still be easier than doing updates for them.
It shouldn't be too hard to convert your site over to a template that you can use within WordPress. If you can't, you can easily embed content from WordPress into your site via feeds, but there is a performance penalty for this.
If you build the site with Dreamweaver, Adobe Contribute is a good option that is pretty much WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), and it is designed to work with Dreamweaver templates.
Basically, it helps prevent novices from screwing up the site too badly by locking users out of template areas (the areas that are supposed to stay the same from page to page, such as navigation).
I use FrontPage for two different tasks; authoring html help and authoring a couple of websites. The websites don't require a lot of stuff -- they are there to disseminate a bit of information to a couple of small audiences.
FrontPage has been quick and easy for these tasks. WYSIWYG is good for these jobs and I like being able to click on links to quickly bring up other pages in the editor.
I've been exploring all sorts of options. tools that work online such as Kompozer make editing the html help difficult (at least, I haven't found a way around) and other html-level tools are just too much work. Tried nVu, Kompozer, Aptama, Komodo, Bluefish and so far, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sold on any of them.
I'm about to take a look at SeaMonkey but wondering if anybody has any recommendations. Or should I go back and look at those other tools again -- maybe I missed something?
Notepad++
I think the natural upgrade path would be Microsoft Expression Web.
People still use FrontPage?
I switched a couple of years back to DreamWeaver and never looked back.
Something to consider is that you could deploy these sites as wikis (which don't have to be publically editable) and edit them directly on the web in your browser. This would give you the ability to click around and do pretty much wysiwyg edits. It would also make it easier to maintain larger collections of data and to make new pages. You also don't really have to do any HTML at all because wikis mostly come pre-HTMLed (and CSSed and Javascripted), you just need to fill in the content.
I should note that this won't work if your webpages are deployed statically on a restrictive shared hosting account, but even most shared hosting supports installing things like wikis these days, so hopefully this is something you can look into.
I should also note that this probably isn't the best way to do local HTML help files, but if the HTML help is online, this is probably still a good choice.
I'm making this community wiki so others can add links to other wikis if they like or add more info on why you might want to or not want to use a wiki for this purpose.
Some wikis to consider:
MediaWiki - The wiki behind wikipedia
MoinMoin - Implemented in Python and popular in that community.
TiddlyWiki - Implemented in Javascript and runs on a single page. This is probably the most different wiki that's out there. Some love it, some hate it.
NVU and Kompozer both are best suited for you. NVU is my personal choice. Choose your poison. :)
FrontPage has been replaced by SharedPoint Designed in the Office suite.
You could also use Microsoft Expression Web if you can have it.
Drewamweaver or MS's Visual Studio/Web Developer Express will do the trick. They're both overkill (especially MS's tools).
I also think MS has (free) HTMLHelp. It's out there, but I don't know if it'll produce the files you need.
It depends on what kind of pages you are designing. If you are using Adobe Flash, Dreamweaver would be the best option but I would recommend "Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express". I am currently using it and totally love it from the bottom of my heart.
I'd say Dreamweaver, but last time I looked there was still bloated code, not as bad as the MX days mind.
Smashing Magazine has a list of WYSIWYG tools that would be worth a look :
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/06/25-wysiwyg-editors-reviewed/
I persuaded my friend to ditch Dreamweaver for NetBeans, took a week or so but I got a pint out of that :)
You might look into Aptana (http://aptana.org) which should provide everything you need. I think it even has a WYSIWYG editor, though I would really recommend learning html instead.
I would use Notepad++ for the simpler things, and Dreamweaver when working with other Adobe products. Notepad++ is simple and has a lot of great features. Dreamweaver is huge and will take some getting used to.
Try dokuwiki. I've implemented a wiki/manual/documentation for my app in a week. It's very simple n easy installing. You just need PHP, no database (mysql), the information is stored on files. Give it a try.
My wiki implemented wiki doku: wiki.vigo.com.br
Microsoft Visual Web Developer Express perhaps? http://www.microsoft.com/express/vwd/
Works well, and it's free!
Something similar to FrontPage is Adobe Contribute. It does cost $199, but if you're looking for something as simple as FrontPage, it may be a good option for you.
A freelancer web designer I work with will setup clients who want to make simple HTML edits to their sites with it and they've all been pretty happy. They're all non-technical people.
Dreamweaver is good, but however using the WYSIWYG may have problems getting consistency when viewing between IE, firefox and safari.
Well, I know a little HTML, and I'm just interested in playing around with it. I was wondering, though, do people usually write websites from scratch, or do they use templates, or do they use WYSIWYG editors?
To me, it seems like writing from scratch is unnecessary, nowadays, with the editors and templates we have, but maybe I'd be better off to try write something from scratch from learning purposes?
So, if I want to learn HTML better than I do, what is the best way to go about it (I have access to a free server) and how do professional website creators do it? Maybe this is an obvious answer but I'm quite new to it. Thanks!
If from scratch means hand-writing the markup, yes, that's the correct way to do it.
WYSIWYG, fully-bloated editors, are not good alternatives if you are serious about writing a web-site -- as most drag-and-drop-and-run systems out there. They might serve their purposes, but they are not general professional solution.
Hand-written markup (HTML, XHTML) and CSS will always provide better cross-browser compatibility, will be much more optimized and easier to maintain.
I really like Aptana Studio. It is an IDE that enables you to easily write the markup (HTML, XHTML), the formatting (CSS), the client-side code (ie, animations, etc, through JavaScript, and it is really well integrated with common JavaScript frameworks) as well as server-side code in a very professional way (PHP, Ruby, and many others). Oh, and it's free.
Aptana is better than, say, Notepad clones, because it is adapted to Web Development: all the time you have context menus popping up containing hints about compatibility, it displays errors on the markup, etc. It understands your code better than most notepad clones do.
I definitely recommend writing from scratch when you are learning. Using a wysiwyg editor can create a lot of extra code that you have no idea how to deal with when something strange happens and you have to edit the HTML itself. Using something like Notepad++ that supports code highlighting can help a lot.
the secret of html is: not writing it. means: keep it as tiny and semantically as possible and thats where all WYSIWYG editors fail. they let you create 403 nested dom elements whit 2 mouseclicks and if you are a beginner you don't even realize how wrong that is.
I agree with others that learning HTML makes sense. But at the same time, you can use WYSIWYG as a learning tool if necessary. I know that when I first started creating websites, margins and padding always seemed hard to properly format (due in part to inconsistencies across various browsers), and using a visual editor did help me figure out how changing certain values affected the view.
My favorite WYSIWYG editor is probably Nvu just because it is free and less bloated than software like Frontpage. But as others have noted, just practice with HTML. Check out w3schools for a nice intro and reference pieces.
Depends on the budget and software adquisition posibilities (yes, the budget).
Assuming you are talking about research, design, development, scripts, flash and everything you need the best option is Adobe Creative Suite for Web Designers.
There´s no powerfull editor in the world than Dreamweaver and that´s a fact.
You should use Notepad, Notepad++, jEdit and whatever you want but if you want to be productive a serious IDE is the best choice and Adobe win by far.
My opinion!
Although I've done programming, I'm not a programmer. I've recently agreed to coordinate getting a Website up for a club. The resources are--me, who has done Web content maintenance (putting content into HTML and ColdFusion templates via a gatekeeper to the site itself; doing simple HTML and XML coding); a serious Web developer who does database programming, ColdFusion, etc., and talks way over the heads of the rest of us; two designers who use Dreamweaver; the guy who created the original (and now badly broken) site in Front Page and wants to use Expression Web; and assorted other club members who are even less technically inclined.
What we need up first is some text and graphics (a gorgeous design has been created in Dreamweaver), some links (including to existing PDF newsletters for download), and maybe hooking up an existing Blogspot blog. Later (or earlier if it's not hard), we may add mouseover menus to the links, a gallery, a calendar, a few Mapquest hotlinks, and so on.
My question--First, is there any real problem with sticking with HTML and jpegs for the initial site? Second, for the "later" part of the site development, what's the simplest we can go with? Third, are there costs in doing this the simple way that will make us regret it down the road? Also, is there a good site/resource where I can learn more about this from a newbie perspective?
If you don't require any dynamic content, heck, if you don't plan on editing the content more than once a week, I'd say stick to basic HTML.
Later, you'd probably want a basic, no-fuss and easily installable CMS. The brand really depends on the platform (most likely PHP/Rails/ASP), but most of them can be found by typing " CMS" into Google. Try prefixing it with "free" or "open source" if you want.
I'm pretty sure you can do all this for absolutely free. Most PHP and Ruby CMS's are free and web hosting is free/extremely cheap if you're not demanding.
And last/best tip: Find someone who has done this before, preferably more than once. He'll probably set you up so you never have to look at anything more complicated than a WYSIWYG editor.
Plain old HTML is fine, just as long as you don't use tags like blink and marquee.
I personally love tools like CityDesk.
And I'm not just plugging Joel. (There are others out there in this class I'm sure.) The point is they make making a static website very easy:
The structure is just a filesystem structure
pages have templates to consolidate formatting
all resources are contained in one file
easy and fast Preview and Publish functions
For a dynamic collaborative site, I would just install one of many open source CMSs available on shared hosting sites.
If you're familiar with html/javascript basics I'd look into a CMS - wordpress, drupal, joomla, nuke, etc. All of these are free. Very often your web hosting company will install one of these by default which takes all of the hard part out of your hands. Next is just learning to customize the system and there's tons of docs out there for any of those systems.
All that being said there is noting wrong with good old fashioned html.
In addition to some of the great content management systems already mentioned, consider cms made simple.
It makes it very easy to turn a static site into a content managed site (which sounds like exactly what you might need to do in the future), and the admin area is very easy to use. Our clients have found it much simpler to use than the likes of Joomla.
It's also free and open source.
Good luck!
There's no reason to not go with plain old HTML and JPGs if you don't know any server side scripting languages. Also, once you want to get more advanced, most cheap hosting services have tools that can be installed with one click, and provide things like blogs, photo galleries, bulletin boards (PHPBB), and even content management tools like Joomla.
I had the same problem myself, I was just looking for something really easy to smash together a website quickly. First I went with just plain old HTML, but then I realised a simple CMS would be better.
I went for Wordpress. Wordpress is mostly known as a blogging platform, but in my opinion it is really great as a deadly simple CMS as well.
why not simply use Google pages?
Here is an example of a website I did, takes about 2 hours, easy to maintain (not that I do (-: ) and FREE.
I think that suggesting you mess with HTML for what you need is crazy!
Plain HTML is great, gives you the most control. If you want to make updating a bit easier though, you could use SSI. Most servers have this enabled. It basically let's you attach one file to many pages.
For example, you could have your menu in navigation.html and every page would include this file. That way you wouldn't have to update this one file on every page each time you need to update.
<!--#include virtual="navigation.html" -->
I agree with the other commenters that a CMS might be useful to you, however as I see it, probably a solution like Webby might do it for you. It generates plain HTML pages based on Templates. Think about it as a "webpage preprocessor" which outputs plain HTML files. It has most of the advantages of using a server-based CMS, but without a lot of load on the server, and making it easy for you to change stuff on any of the templates you might use.
It's fine
Rails (or purchase / use a CMS)
Not unless you start becoming crazy-popular
It really depends on what you go with for 2. Rails has a plethora of tutorials on the net and any product you go with will have its own community etc.
To be perfectly honest though, if the dynamic part is someone elses blog and you move the gallery out into flikr you may find that you can actually live with large parts of it being static HTML for a very long time.
If a to Implement a website With User Profiles/Logins, Extensions, Gallery's etc s a Newbi then a CMS like Joomla, Etc are good , but Else if you presently have only Static Content then Its good to go with Good Old HTML, About JPEG , I though Presently Its better to use PNG or GIF as its Less Bulky.
Also About you Query About Shifting to Server Scripts , When you have Database Driven Material or When you have Other Things that Require Advanced Prog Languages , Just use PHP Scripts inside PHP , and Rename teh File as a PHP, Thats IT, No Loss to you HTML Data.....
Do Go Ahead and Launch you Site ......
Dude, you're talking about HTML, obviously you'll be styling your content with CSS. Wait till you run into IE issues and god forbid your client wants ie6 compatibility.
Go with the HTML for now, I'm sure you guys will hack it through. Our prayers are with you.
Personally, I'd never use JPEG images on a website, mainly because of three reasons:
JPEGs often contains artifacts.
Quality is often proportional
with filesize.
Does not support
alpha transparency.
That said, I'd recommend you to use PNGs for images since it's lossless and a 24-bit palette (meaning full colors + alpha transparency). The only quirk is that IE6 and below does not support native alpha for PNGs, however this could be resolved by running a javascript which would fix this issue.
As for designing a website, there's both pros and cons for this. I suggest you read through:
37 Signal's Why We Skip Photoshop
Jeff Croft's Why We Don't Skip Photoshop
As for newbie resources, I'd recommend you flip through the pages at W3 Schools.