When you use a designer that is a WYSIWYG to build a web page, which are the things that you preffer? Also, which is the best WYSIWYG for you or, if you dont have one, why? *I am asking because im trying to develope a WYSIWYG software for windows desktop computers. Thanks in advance for any answer.
For them to no longer EXIST as they are a blight upon the Internet tricking people who have no business building websites into thinking they can. By their very nature they generate broken, inaccessible, outdated PRESENTATIONAL markup, resulting in websites that are accessibility train wrecks. I am not convinced you could EVER build one otherwise, since starting out 'designing' your page for screen layout skips the important step of generating your markup properly BEFORE you think design. The entire POINT of HTML (unless you have your head wedged between the years 1996 and 1997) is to say what things ARE, NOT what they look like -- which is why in writing your HTML you have no damned business even THINKING layout, and why working from a WYSIWYG is BULLSHIT! -- I cannot and will not word that politely! It is the same half-assed idiocy as crapping out pretty pictures in Photoshop and then having the cojónes to call oneself a 'designer'... when generally speaking suck individuals don't know enough HTML, CSS or accessibility to be designing JACK! The very notion of a WYSIWYG for web design is the antithesis of accessible design and proper use of the technologies for building sites; to the point that I would very much enjoy introducing my fist to the faces of people promoting the mere notion of it; with sufficient force a proctologist may be needed to separate the two.
But what about a WYSIWYG designer that let you first build the layout and then to build your site in the top of a good layout?
Re-read what I said -- that is EXACTLY what I was saying is wrong. Building A layout before you have semantic markup is back-assward, since content should dictate the markup, and markup should be done FIRST -- before layout -- WITHOUT any concern for what it's going to look like. This is because HTML's job is to say what things are, NOT what they look like!!! Much less that in this day and age you shouldn't have one crappy visual layout, you should have multiple layouts that switch/configure using media queries -- aka responsive layout... you should be able to leverage media targets so print isn't getting your screen design, handheld is properly modified, etc, etc. LayoutS (YES, PLURAL) come AFTER markup... designing one crappy screen layout in a WYSIWYG is the antithesis of that. You cannot drag and drop crap around and create your design visually and have anything remotely resembling semantic markup, logical heading orders, logical document structure, or proper graceful degradation, because you started the process from the middle or end instead of from the beginning. Maybe, MAYBE if you made it so the first step was selecting semantic markup, and could somehow make it maintain separation of presentation (CSS) from content (HTML), without once using the STYLE tag or the STYLE attribute, without resorting to tables for layout, without using any deprecated tags, with valid HTML 4.01 and/or XHTML 1.0, without the presentational use of classes and ID's... then maybe you'd be on to something. Of course, that's the antithesis of how a WYSIWYG works.
Ok thanks for your opinion. Im not trying to make a discussion about WYSIWYG yes or WYSIWYG no, im trying to figure out what does people that likes WYSIWYG want from one WYSIWYG software.