1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Dreamweaver or FrontPage?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by scylla, Feb 22, 2006.

?

Dreamweaver or FrontPage?

  1. Dreamweaver

    87.5%
  2. FrontPage

    12.5%
  1. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #41
    1. compared to what? (p.s. FP2003 is a significant improvement over FP2002).
    SEMrush
    2. were you starting a sample page fromm scratch or converting? I have yet to see a converter that doesn't mess things up when switching between two formats...

    3. what exactly was messy?

    My point is not to convert people to FrontPage from whatever is their current preference. The original poster here asked a question about FrontPage and, as usual, all of the "code bloat" copycats came running to recite the usual BS about FP. I have, as mentioned, recently switched to DW8 and I do prefer several things about it over FP2003. That doesn't make FP a "POS", as one poster so eloquently put it. I can create pages with anything, even Notepad, just like most other people. At the moment, my first choice is DW8. That doesn't mean that many other people wouldn't prefer FP. Hell, I understand there are even people who prefer GoLive, although for the life of me I can't figure out why... :eek:
     
    minstrel, Feb 23, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. iowadawg

    iowadawg Prominent Member

    Messages:
    10,919
    Likes Received:
    811
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #42
    Have used frontpage from the day it came out.
    Prior I had a simple editor that did okay for the day.

    Son has been after me for ages to use DW.
    So he is sending me, finally, my new computer and it will have DW on it instead of frontpage (well, no ms office suite at all, will stick with openoffice).
    So next week, will be learning all about DW.
     
    iowadawg, Feb 23, 2006 IP
  3. Oak Aged

    Oak Aged Peon

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    I can't argue with your statements about software I know nothing about, so sure, I'll buy the idea that Emacs is as good or better a text editor as DW.

    Again I'll take your word for it - you seem to know more about such things than I. However I have no intertest whatsoever in complying with standards that have no effect on my site, my visitors or my business. Most people use IE, POS or not, and whether my site might contain a flaw that only an irrelevant agent might find is a non issue.


    Awe, dude! Way to blow your debate with a needless emotional slam. Don't be ridiculous. You can't really believe that the world visits my site with Firefox, finds some non-compliant code, and then switches to IER to make it look right. Nope, they visit my site with IE. That's what comes with Windows.

    Yup, that's standard in business - the companies you're working with don't tend to upgrade until they have to, and they are slow to realise that they have to.

    Oh? Any good text editor should give me Internet-specific context-sensitive shortcuts, CSS tie-in, and a good built-in FTP client? Now THAT's what I call bloatware! Why would I want all that to edit text with? And no, I'm not "married" to DW - I'll leave it when it fails me or I find a reason to switch to something else. And sure, all of its functions are available as individual freeware apps. So the real issue is that DW costs money. And for that money you get all the functionality in one convenient package with a great interface.

    Anyway... I think the horse is dead. The person who started the thread didn't specify how compliant s/he wants to be or with what. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my Dreamweaver out to dinner and a movie.
     
    Oak Aged, Feb 23, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  4. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #44

    Yes I have Front Page 2002, Dreamweaver MX and 8, Note Pad, Programmers note Pad and Note Pad 2. Out of all of them Front Page has to be the worst. Although even Dreamweaver does add pointless code to your pages too.

    Also yes I know your main site was not made with front page cos you can tell which pages are made with Front Page and which arnt, I pointed out the coding in your site though cos by the look of that coding, you would not no that Front Page uses excessive amounts of code because you do the same.

    But anyways by the look of all these messages I am not the only one who thinks this either. But I am no copycat I have my own opinion of things if I though Front Page was good I would say so but it is not. In fact the latest thing to say about this topic if your a copycat is to say that Dreamweaver is naf and you should not use any WYSIWYG programs at all as they all codeup pages incorrectly(Unless it is Amaya). But I dissagree with this as I like using Dreamweaver in code veiw and dont see the problem with it(But hey each to there own). This link will show you what I mean.
    Linky link

    Have you ever tryed to make a page the is true HTYML or XHTML?

    You use the font tag a lot dont you?

    As this tag is now depeciated it should not even be used anymore, this is the same with most styles tags styles should be in an external styles sheet preferably.

    I see you also use tables same again tables should not be used layout CSS should be used. Tables are for tabular data.
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  5. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #45

    As for the first bit if you dont cater for all browsers it may only be a small percentage of the market but you will lose out on a percentage of the market.

    As for the second statment that is also just not true more and more people are using diffrent browsers (Like Forefox and Opera and so on) to veiw the web and it is easy enough to make it so your sites are compatiable with all browsers, So why not?
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  6. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #46
    That's where I thought this was heading :rolleyes: The same old tired W3C "deprecated" crap that every web snob keeps trotting out over and over again. What utter BS.

    I have no interest in so-called "W3C compliance". That doesn't mean my pages don't display correctly in all major browsers including Opera.
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  7. iowadawg

    iowadawg Prominent Member

    Messages:
    10,919
    Likes Received:
    811
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #47
    With Minstrel.
    Too many times, I have had people tell me that my site is not w3c compliant, that it does not meet web standards, etc.
    Who cares if less than 5% of web browsers can not see my site?
    Who care if my site is right oriented? Or centered?

    So far, not one person has told me who set these so called web standards for the look and feel of a website.

    SNOBS all!
     
    iowadawg, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  8. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #48
    Fine your right then Front Page codes pages perfectly fella.

    There is no point in even talking about this if that is the kind of attitude your going to take.

    You just keep coding page slike we did 10 years ago.

    But that is what people mean when they say Front Page uses exssesive amounts of code.
    Why say font face color and so on for every peice of text in the page when you can control it by the use of CSS?
    Same with all styles for your pages their is just no need for it in your coding it should be in a seperate CSS file.
    Saving download times,bandwidth and making it easyer to fault find in your coding.

    And being a snob means to do a job propley thank you.
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  9. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    Us "snobs" promote W3C compliance because 1) your pages will work in all major browsers plus that other 5%, which works out to millions of people, and 2) having the layout defined in a single place makes future maintenance much easier, rather than having the layout hard-coded into every page with tables. All the major visual browsers support style sheets well enough to do everything you would want, and style sheets degrade gracefully for legacy browsers. There are plenty of benefits and no drawbacks, except for having to learn a new skill.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #50
    1. That's not FrontPage issue. I already told you that.

    2. Show me a single browser (beyond Netscape 4) that can't display the pages properly.
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #51
    Can you show me a browser where my pages fail?
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  12. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #52

    W3C set the standards they are not so much as standards though really more just a guideline for browser makes to try and keep to. So that we dont have loads of diffrent browsers all using diffrent coding(like in the past).

    In my opinion these standards are a good thing making life easyer for people who make web pages, if you know what coding should be used that can only be a good thing carnt it?

    Also you should care about 5% of the market though (If your in sales anyways).

    As for it only being 5% that figure is constantly rising even more so now people use other methods to veiw the web such as mobile phone.

    But I dont mind if you dont want that 5%, I will have it ta dude.
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  13. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #53
    What 5%? And for the third time, can you show me a browser that doesn't display my pages properly?

    I would also note:

    1. W3C validation does not guarantee that a page will display the same in all browsers - of course, when it doesn't, W3C fans blame the browser :rolleyes:

    2. using CSS does not guarantee that a page will display the same in all browsers - of course, when it doesn't, CSS fans blame the browser :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  14. iowadawg

    iowadawg Prominent Member

    Messages:
    10,919
    Likes Received:
    811
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #54
    Notice how snobs say things like "keep coding like 10 years ago"
    Snobs want everyone to do it their way or they thumb their bent noses at us.
    If I want my page to be MY way, I do not need some snob to tell me "oh guy, you are like 10 years behind!!".
    And as far as sales, I am doing okay with my businesses, thank you very much!

    But all this may be moot to me as once I get DW and learn it, may switch everything over from frontpage.
    But dammit, will still create pages the way I want them, not the way some snobs want them.

    You Might Be A Texan If...

    You use "fix" as a verb.
    Example: I am fixing to go to the store.

    So as a true Texan (albeit in Iowa now), I am fixing to leave this thread alone.
     
    iowadawg, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  15. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #55

    I already told you I know that the site was not made in Front Page.

    But if that is the coding you use you would not understand what I am saying about code bloating anyways cos you code exssesivly too.

    As for your pages working in all browsers it is hardley a complex layout though is it?

    And it would take a mojor overhaul inorder to make it work on portable devices such as mobile phones.

    Where as if you had used compliant code it would be easy to make it compatiable with such devices.
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  16. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #56
    I am not saying you carnt make your pages however you like.

    I am just explaing what I think are the benifts of doing it the way I do.
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  17. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #57
    LMAO @ mobile phones! :D :D

    You're right - I'm dooooooomed! :D
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  18. johneva

    johneva Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    45
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #58
    Same again if your not intrested in that part of the market thats fine.

    Anyways this is not what the debate was really about this all came abouut from the comment that was made saying Front Page doesa not suffer from code bloating.

    But by having styles in you coding and repaeting over and over the same thing this must count as code bloating does it not?
     
    johneva, Feb 24, 2006 IP
  19. SiteExpress

    SiteExpress Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #59
    All of this is generally useless arguement.

    I think it is up to the designer to use whatever way he chooses. My grandpa use to say "As long as it works, why change it?"

    That said, I choose to use as much hand coding as time allows, plus I use CSS and SSI for all my sites that I build now.

    The reason? Well, it was not because I was afraid of not being W3C compliant, nor was it because 5% of the visitors might see something a little different.

    The reason I use CSS, and as little html as possible is that it makes my job much much easier.

    I tend to keep in close contact with many of my past web design clients. Many times they ask me to do things for them, such as, change background colors, or text styles, and so on. using CSS makes this so much easier, as I only have to edit a single text file to control their entire site.

    Do I look differently on people that choose to not use it? Nope not at all. If they want to design a certain way, then by all means, do what you do best, and design the way you know how. I would suggest learning CSS, as it is simple to learn and will make life a lot easier in the future, but as long as a page works, why fool with it.

    :cool:
     
    SiteExpress, Feb 24, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  20. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #60
    You don't listen very well, do you? Haven't I already said - repeatedly - that the pages in question were not created by FrontPage?

    I couldn't agree more!
     
    minstrel, Feb 24, 2006 IP