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!
Related
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.
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?)
I am building advanced HTML tables with lots of CSS in them, what are the best tools out there for building advanced HTML CSS tables that could include dynamic elements like AJAX driven features (jQuery). I use Dreamweaver and Eclipse but they just touch the surface of having a really great tool set to build with. If you use a great tool let me know about it:-)
Seriously, the closer to the metal you get, the better off you'll be. On the Mac, I use TextMate for doing the HTML and Javascript, and CSSEdit for editing the CSS.
Best tool ever, either Textpad or Notepad++.
Both support syntax highlighting for a variety of languages, tabbed interface, etc.
Stay away from frontpage / dreamweaver.
Also if I may ask, why as you making HTML tables, I am hoping not for a layout?
I'll second Notepad++. How about an Express edition of Visual Studio 200x? You get some great design tools, great syntax highlighting, and it's free.
If you want a good free Mac editor, I go with WordWrangler. But if you want something that will cover EVERYTHING for web design, go with Coda.
For PC, I use notepad++. Not as slick as the ones for Mac, but it does allow for editing straight from the server.
But as far as CSS for tables specifically, you are going to want to do as much of it on your own, as tables are the worst when it comes to accessibility and semantic mark up, and that can only be dealt with by hand. Things like scope, colgroups, etc are never going to be WYSIWYG, you have to fine tune it.
Here's a good starting point:
http://www.noupe.com/css/21-fresh-ajax-css-tables.html
What are the pros and cons of using a WYSIWYG editor for web page development vs hand coding?
With the exception of just not knowing how to create something by hand coding is there any reasons to use WYSIWYG?
I handcode, but I prefer to work with a wysiwyg editor in tow, and for that reason I'm still using Dreamweaver as an editor. What I'm doing 95% of the time is handcoding inside the Source editor and viewing the results in the preview. Occasionally I'll drop into the wysiwyg editor to move blocks around directly though and when I do I find it invaluable. I never use any of Dreamweavers wizards or generated code and I clean up the html manually too.
I see nothing wrong with this approach, it strikes me as the HTML design equivalent of an IDE prompting to complete functions etc. (intellisense or whatever your IDE may call it)
I also always use a templating system of one form or another so my scripting code is totally separate from html.
The combination with Dreamweaver of the occasional wysiwyg edit (invaluable I find when laying things out or making 'macro' layout changes) and the one click preview has kept me with it despite looking at better tools - Aptana, NetBeans etc. Indeed I would dearly like to move to another system - see this question - preferably something that runs on Ubuntu and strips out the crud in Dreamweaver leaving just the wysiwyg features and possibly an intelligent Javascript editor, but I'm yet to find anything. KompoZer is starting to look promising though.
There are a variety of reasons to use a WYSIWYG editor when creating HTML.
Allows for quick prototyping
Allows designer-y people to be actively involved in front end development
Some WYSIWYG tools will set you up with a clean base to be modified (Dreamweaver's CSS layouts are actually pretty good)
I think the important thing to remember is that after you get it into approximate shape, you should dig into the code and make sure there's nothing weird going on. Nested spans, odd absolute positioning, and (lord almighty) table based layouts count as weird things. Even if you use a WYSIWYG to start with, you should always check that the code is valid and looks the way you would expect it to.
WYSIWYG can be handy if you don't know HTML or just want to whip something together extremely fast. You're not going to get clean code, though. Most WSYIWIG editors still throw out a bunch of unneeded dirty HTML instead of clean solid markup.
Anyone familiar with HTML can usually whip up something just as fast by hand in an HTML editor. And it will be clean, xhtml compliant semantic markup instead of thrown together templates with extraneous crud.
If you set up the template and css properly, you can probably be faster with hand coding than a WSYIWYG editor, as those work against you when you're trying to create properly abstracted css with degradable semantic markup.
If the design isn't terribly important and you're just throwing a website together there's nothing wrong with using a WYSIWYG. Or if you're trying to create a marginally functional mock up for a client it's a good way to get something built quickly.
I develop in ASP.net most of the time, so I'm in VS2008 most of the time; however whenever possible (which is most of the time) I still-hand code....but I do it in VS2008's source mode. When working with ASP.net, theres always somewhat bloated code which you just sort of have to accept (to a point).
However, in my free time, I also do php development, and like hell will I ever not hand-code with php. Plus, its not like VS with the drag and drop stuff.
If you want to be really good at what you do, as in Guru like good, drop the WYSIWYG stuff and start hand coding. The learning curve is steeper, but it makes you better at what you do in a meaningful way.
It comes down to maintainability and changeability. It is usually much easier to change a GUI layout in a GUI editor than by hand.
"Oh you want to move that JTable from this position to this other completely unrelated position". If you have handcoded it, it basically turns out to be a programming job (which for non-trivial layouts might actually be HARD), but if it is in a good GUI editor, it is probably just a matter of point-click-move-release.
People who handcode probably never have had to do that kind of changes :)
The advantages of using a WYSIWYG editor for web development are pretty obvious. Development is much simpler and faster even if you know how to code web since web development requires to know many different languages and can get messy when trying to get them to work together as planned. Real WYSIWYG designers should be able to solve those complexities by allowing you to visually develop on one form in one layer.
The disadvantages of this kind of development paradigms can be that it sometimes limits you, meaning that you are usually constrained within a predefined framework.
Therefore it is important to find a framework that on top of its WYSIWYG development experience is open to extension and customization. Take a look at http://www.visualwebgui.com/.
This is the same type of thing as Glade versus hand coding your Gtk code. I think that you add a level of obfuscation and things that might break when you hand edit your code. However, as Spencer said, if you need to do it and it needs to work; usualy WYSI wil work pretty well and reliably. If you're doing something that you're going to be keeping up to date and be managing for years to come; you should know every piece of code that is in that application/web page.
Really it comes down to your job function. If you're primarily a designer, WYSIWYG editors can be very handy for creating mock-ups for clients, or prototypes that can be handed to developers to code against.
If you're a developer, you'll probably prefer to hand-code.
Most WYSIWYG editors offer a code view and design view which enables you to switch back and forth pretty easily.
My suggestion is to try and learn how to hand-code your site. After years of web development, I find that hand-coding is faster for me than attempting to use a designer. Moreover, as you gain a better understanding of how HTML and CSS work together you'll find that there's very little that can't be done gracefully.
It can be frustrating to learn, but you'll find that you're better for it in the long run.