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
Related
I'm wondering if anyone out there knows of a free Web Layout Designer that I could use to play around with the layouts of forms, tables, etc. etc.
I'm thinking more along the lines of Visio style and less like Dreamweaver designer. Something more graphical to simply play with layouts and not something to create a prototype. I would rather code it by hand, but would rather not move things around to see what looks best through code. Since this project is mostly in server side scripting, Dreamweaver designer does not work well.
Sorry if this is vague, but hopefully I got the idea of what I'm looking for across.
Try recently very popular, www.wix.com
I do that kind of playing by constructing the basic HTML, then load it up in Firefox and use Firebug to try what looks nice. Apart from that if it's about the purely graphical element of what looks nice, how about graphics editors with layering such as Paintshop or GIMP?
Try these:
Kompozer
Amaya
BlueFish
Screem
Aptana Studio
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!
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.
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.