OT: Dreamweaver... the saga continues...
Steve Carroll
Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me, spot
the glaring flaws in it?
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to disagree with
the comment that Static web pages are dead.
I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants come to
mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages. Certainly some go
beyond that with added frills but most of your local ones, are looking to
present a few pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or in
need of constant updating like some sites.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
2/23/10 4:39 AM:
> In article <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
>>
>> Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me, spot
>> the glaring flaws in it?
>
> While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to disagree
> with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
Perhaps you worded this incorrectly, being that below you refute it quit
well!
> I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants come to
> mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages. Certainly some go
> beyond that with added frills but most of your local ones, are looking to
> present a few pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
> perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or
> in need of constant updating like some sites.
My goodness... you actually made a valid point here. Yes, many sites have
no desire or need for blogs and the like. Maybe a comment area, though,
frankly, many do not want to even dig through that.
But even if they do, it is not as though Dreamweaver cannot be used on such
sites. And used well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
<teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article
> <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
> >
> > Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me,
> > spot the glaring flaws in it?
>
> While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to
> disagree with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
>
> I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants
> come to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages.
> Certainly some go beyond that with added frills but most of your
> local ones, are looking to present a few pictures, a look at the
> menu, a brief history, directions, and perhaps a page with some
> customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or in need of
> constant updating like some sites.
This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice. The thing is, though, if
his site is done by an outside party (i.e. he contracts a professional
web developer), he's probably going to want *some* way to make changes
on his own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if some menu item
changes, he doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to tweak a line
of text.
There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
employ one on such a project.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Steve Carroll
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06393023022...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964-95ff-8695dfa50...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
>
> > > Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me,
> > > spot the glaring flaws in it?
>
> > While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to
> > disagree with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
>
> > I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants
> > come to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages.
> > Certainly some go beyond that with added frills but most of your
> > local ones, are looking to present a few pictures, a look at the
> > menu, a brief history, directions, and perhaps a page with some
> > customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or in need of
> > constant updating like some sites.
>
> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
> house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice. The thing is, though, if
> his site is done by an outside party (i.e. he contracts a professional
> web developer), he's probably going to want *some* way to make changes
> on his own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if some menu item
> changes, he doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to tweak a line
> of text.
>
> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
> for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
> think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
> employ one on such a project.
No question. This is essentially what I do right now, that, and
building Php (non-CMS) based sites... and I'm no developer.
Snit
2/23/10 10:36 AM:
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
>>>
>>> Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me,
>>> spot the glaring flaws in it?
>>
>> While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to disagree
>> with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
>>
>> I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants come to
>> mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages. Certainly some go
>> beyond that with added frills but most of your local ones, are looking to
>> present a few pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
>> perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or
>> in need of constant updating like some sites.
>>
> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
> house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice.
You expect the average restaurant owner to not only be an expert in the
restaurant business but also be able to make their own effective website.
Sure, some might have skills in both areas, but as a rule that is just
absurd.
You claim to be a pro web developer - and I tend to believe you - but then
how could you make such a claim? You think just average Joe can figure out
not just the art of making a web page, but also understand the the
importance of making valid code (or having it be invalid in ways they
understand), how to do effective SEO, how to do good food photography (a
rather specialized skill), know how to work with images correctly,
understand effective use of meta tags and titles, get the importance of alt
text for images, understand color theory, be able to think through the way
different customers will view the site on different systems, ... and on and
on and on.
Frankly, ZnU, I suspect you know better. Much better. You are just making
claims now in an effort to not admit you have been proved wrong.
> The thing is, though, if his site is done by an outside party (i.e. he
> contracts a professional web developer), he's probably going to want *some*
> way to make changes on his own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if
> some menu item changes, he doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to
> tweak a line of text.
And you think if his web developer uses Dreamweaver he will have to?
Really? Do you really think this?
> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed for
> precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I think it would
> be routine these days for most pro web developers to employ one on such a
> project.
I do not doubt you think this... but do you have any *evidence* to support
it? By the way: <http://www.adobe.com/products/contribute/>
------
DID YOU KNOW�
You can edit within your browser
The new full-featured in-browser editor in Contribute CS4
provides a powerful yet familiar interface for editing and
publishing web pages within your browser.
------
Learn more about it here:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/contribute/features/?view=topnew>
Now you know. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ZnU stated in post znu-640442.12364223022...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> > Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964-95ff-8695dfa50...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
i don't think anyone expects the average restauranteur to be able to
do all that- but it's not at all obvious that the pros using
dreamweaver that you pointed to can do that either! and what i
*would* expect is that a restauranteur serious about his craft would
know a better food photographer than the average web-designer-on-the-
side, and is likely to have better acuity of visual design.
<snip>
Snit
e658a7ca-dd40-4899...@z39g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
11:26 AM:
Right: not even ZnU who claimed to think they might just pick up DW and make
a site "in house".
> but it's not at all obvious that the pros using dreamweaver that you pointed
> to can do that either!
The fact that some "pros" are not good at their job is not relevant. This
is true of any profession... even those with much more stringent entry
requirements such as doctors and teachers. Are you thinking I am claiming
that all pros are good and do what they should?
> and what i *would* expect is that a restauranteur serious about his craft
> would know a better food photographer than the average web-designer-on-the-
> side, and is likely to have better acuity of visual design.
Well, a restaurateur might know a good food photographer and a good web
designer... sure. And they likely would hire them... but not full time and
being them "in house" unless it was a decent sized chain of restaurants.
Look around the web and see if you can find any help-wanted ads where
someone is looking for:
* Dishwasher
* Cook
* Bus Boys
* Food Photographer
* Web Developer
Or anything even close. Just silly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
> house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice. The thing is, though, if
> his site is done by an outside party (i.e. he contracts a professional
> web developer), he's probably going to want *some* way to make changes
> on his own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if some menu item
> changes, he doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to tweak a line
> of text.
>
> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
> for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
> think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
> employ one on such a project.
Wordpress or squarespace has a rich set of content modules that would
fit the bill perfectly. And if the restaurant really want to do it
themselves of the web space of their ISP, using heavy template
applications would probably be better. iWeb shines here, as does
RapidWeaver.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
2/23/10 11:40 AM:
You do realize that iWeb is not designed for business sites... for a reason.
In any case, it is interesting that you think a pre-canned pre-made template
based website is as good as what a pro is likely to come up with. Says a
lot about you view of yourself as a pro.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> Sandman stated in post mr-33B077.19401723022...@News.Individual.NET on
> > In article <znu-640442.12364223022...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
it's pretty obvious he's separating himself from the $500 types sites,
and in those cases, yeah, i think a well designed precanned template
can easily be better than what a low-end pro could do.
i.e. this site:
http://11mystics.com/demos/italian-tile/Welcome.html
uses a iweb template (that costs all of $19.95) that is well designed
and professional looking, and (imho) looks a lot better, more
professional, and less "templatey" than sites from many pros-
including yours:
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web_design.html
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/portfolio.html
Steve Carroll
I agree... but Snit's site looks fine for what he's doing (though, I'd
like to see it a bit wider and center itself). It beats the pants off
the dancing chicken site he used to strut around;)
Snit
fddaa2ac-9a18-40f0...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
12:14 PM:
Frankly not that interested in debating the merits of my work, Sandman's,
ZnU's, yours or anyone else's. I have noted that ZnU does not wish to share
his work, and I have stated I understand why.
What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
hophead
m...@sandman.net says...
I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
static web pages were all that existed.
I am most definitely not a professional web developer, nor do I have any
time to keep up with the latest technologies, nor does the society have
the resources to hire a professional. This is purely done on a volunteer
basis, and I find that Dreamweaver is certainly adequate for our needs.
However, I am interested in some of the other options you folks have
been discussing: the time will come when I want to hand this over to
someone, and it would be nice if it's easy for that someone to pick up
and maintain the site without any great difficulties.
Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
cash-strapped organization.
Snit
2/23/10 2:03 PM:
> In article <mr-33B077.19...@News.Individual.NET>,
> m...@sandman.net says...
>> In article <znu-640442.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
>>> for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
>>> think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
>>> employ one on such a project.
>>
>> Wordpress or squarespace has a rich set of content modules that would
>> fit the bill perfectly. And if the restaurant really want to do it
>> themselves of the web space of their ISP, using heavy template
>> applications would probably be better. iWeb shines here, as does
>> RapidWeaver.
>
> I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
> for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
> Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
> static web pages were all that existed.
>
> I am most definitely not a professional web developer, nor do I have any
> time to keep up with the latest technologies, nor does the society have
> the resources to hire a professional. This is purely done on a volunteer
> basis, and I find that Dreamweaver is certainly adequate for our needs.
I think that ZnU would agree it works well there. I know I do.
> However, I am interested in some of the other options you folks have
> been discussing: the time will come when I want to hand this over to
> someone, and it would be nice if it's easy for that someone to pick up
> and maintain the site without any great difficulties.
>
> Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
> but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
> designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
> cash-strapped organization.
Yes, there are many folks who use Dreamweaver that way. I can be used well
by *relative* novices and by experts in the field.
I suspect ZnU's biggest complaint against DW is that it does make what would
otherwise take a lot of knowledge much easier - and that there are quite a
few people who are not full time pros who make use of it (myself included -
while I do web design, I certainly do not do so 40 hours a week). So ZnU
sees non-pros using it and he sees some not doing things as well as he
likely would. And he also has some fear about people being able to do what
he does... in some ways analogous to main frame proponents fearing the rise
of the desktop.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
hophead <al...@dev.nul> wrote:
> > > There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
> > > for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
> > > think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
> > > employ one on such a project.
> >
> > Wordpress or squarespace has a rich set of content modules that would
> > fit the bill perfectly. And if the restaurant really want to do it
> > themselves of the web space of their ISP, using heavy template
> > applications would probably be better. iWeb shines here, as does
> > RapidWeaver.
>
> I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
> for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
> Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
> static web pages were all that existed.
That was quite some time ago, then :)
> I am most definitely not a professional web developer, nor do I have any
> time to keep up with the latest technologies, nor does the society have
> the resources to hire a professional. This is purely done on a volunteer
> basis, and I find that Dreamweaver is certainly adequate for our needs.
I have no doubts about that.
> However, I am interested in some of the other options you folks have
> been discussing: the time will come when I want to hand this over to
> someone, and it would be nice if it's easy for that someone to pick up
> and maintain the site without any great difficulties.
You really should look into services such as wordpress or squarespace.
They offer hosting plans and with wordpress you can install it on a
local server (I suspect that that's too much work for you guys though).
Squarespace has these prices:
http://www.squarespace.com/pricing/
You should at least go for the "Pro" deal for $14/month. Wordpress
features can be seen here:
http://en.wordpress.com/features/
http://en.wordpress.com/products/
They both offer an easy to use CMS for your data and almost totally
freedom in terms of layout and design.
> Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
> but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
> designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
> cash-strapped organization.
I'd say the majority is in that category, yes. Problem with desktop
application solutions is that you tie your entire web solution to
mostly one person. Using online services enables more to work with and
take responsibility for the web.
I.e. a desktop application (DreamWeaver, iWeb, RapidWeaver, whatever)
is most certainly "adequate", but in most cases far from a smart
long-term solution.
The great thing with online services like squarespace and wordpress is
that there is no middle man. No web developer that holds the keys.
Sure, you're stuck with the feature set of the service, but they have
become so extensive so it's not a problem for most cases.
--
Sandman[.net]
ed
> ed stated in post
<snip>
> >> You do realize that iWeb is not designed for business sites... for a reason.
> >> In any case, it is interesting that you think a pre-canned pre-made template
> >> based website is as good as what a pro is likely to come up with. Says a
> >> lot about you view of yourself as a pro.
>
> > it's pretty obvious he's separating himself from the $500 types sites,
> > and in those cases, yeah, i think a well designed precanned template
> > can easily be better than what a low-end pro could do.
>
> > i.e. this site:
> > http://11mystics.com/demos/italian-tile/Welcome.html
> > uses a iweb template (that costs all of $19.95) that is well designed
> > and professional looking, and (imho) looks a lot better, more
> > professional, and less "templatey" than sites from many pros-
> > including yours:
> > http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web_design.html
> > http://prescottcomputerguy.com/portfolio.html
>
> Frankly not that interested in debating the merits of my work, Sandman's,
> ZnU's, yours or anyone else's.
but you made the insinuation that a premade template wouldn't be as
good as the work of a pro. clearly this is not the case, depending on
the template and the pro.
> I have noted that ZnU does not wish to share
> his work, and I have stated I understand why.
>
> What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
> make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
> no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
if you think that's what's in debate, you're being nonsensical - i
challenge you to find any one person with all those attributes. the
vast majority of professional web designers are not going to have
those skills either, so your list of attributes is meaningless as a
point of comparison.
-hh
> hophead <al...@dev.nul> wrote:
> >
> > I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
> > for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
> > Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
> > static web pages were all that existed.
>
> That was quite some time ago, then :)
I'd revise that to more along the lines of: "...all that existed from
the perspective of the skills of the prior volunteer..."
> > However, I am interested in some of the other options you folks have
> > been discussing: the time will come when I want to hand this over to
> > someone, and it would be nice if it's easy for that someone to pick up
> > and maintain the site without any great difficulties.
>
> You really should look into services such as wordpress or squarespace.
There's really two approaches to this question IMO. The one is to
look at it from the perspective of a knowledgable SME who can provide
some (free) guidance, such as the above. The other is from the
perspective of who you get as the future volunteer maintainer - - you
go with whatever he's comfortable with.
To a certain degree, the latter is the pragmatic "you get what you pay
for", where it is known upfront that you're effectively going to be
paying (virtually) nothing: if the volunteer wants to do them in
iWeb, then that's that: what's more important than the question of
which tool is the fact that you have the volunteer.
-hh
hophead
m...@sandman.net says...
> > I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
> > for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
> > Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
> > static web pages were all that existed.
>
> That was quite some time ago, then :)
Oh yes - I've been doing this for far too long!!
Time to hand this over to someone with fewer gray hairs than myself ;-)
[good stuff snipped...]
> I.e. a desktop application (DreamWeaver, iWeb, RapidWeaver, whatever)
> is most certainly "adequate", but in most cases far from a smart
> long-term solution.
>
> The great thing with online services like squarespace and wordpress is
> that there is no middle man. No web developer that holds the keys.
> Sure, you're stuck with the feature set of the service, but they have
> become so extensive so it's not a problem for most cases.
Excellent information - thank-you very much.
I think I am going to wind down some of my volunteer responsibilities,
but want to leave the society in a good situation before I do. I'll
explore some of these services: I had never even considered an on-line
service before, but that makes quite a bit of sense.
Snit
2/23/10 2:31 PM:
>> Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
>> but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
>> designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
>> cash-strapped organization.
>
> I'd say the majority is in that category, yes. Problem with desktop
> application solutions is that you tie your entire web solution to
> mostly one person. Using online services enables more to work with and
> take responsibility for the web.
OK, so you have no idea about Dreamweaver's collaborate features. No idea
of its web editor nor its check-in and check-out features.
Do you know anything about the product?
> I.e. a desktop application (DreamWeaver, iWeb, RapidWeaver, whatever)
> is most certainly "adequate", but in most cases far from a smart
> long-term solution.
You place all of those in the same category. Amazing.
> The great thing with online services like squarespace and wordpress is
> that there is no middle man. No web developer that holds the keys.
> Sure, you're stuck with the feature set of the service, but they have
> become so extensive so it's not a problem for most cases.
And they can be a good choice for some. But, heck, even if you use them,
chances are DW may be a part of your workflow. Maybe not... it is a valid
choice though.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
c73e4104-21a0-4ca4...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
2:42 PM:
...
>> I have noted that ZnU does not wish to share
>> his work, and I have stated I understand why.
>>
>> What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
>> make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
>> no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
>
> if you think that's what's in debate, you're being nonsensical - i
> challenge you to find any one person with all those attributes. the
> vast majority of professional web designers are not going to have
> those skills either, so your list of attributes is meaningless as a
> point of comparison.
What skills do you think they will not have or not use? Remember, it need
not be one person, but a team or a person who subcontracts when needed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
heck, go with godaddy- it'll cost you $57/year for hosting (which also
includes wordpress hosting, and a lot more if you decide on something
else:
http://hostingconnection.godaddy.com/AllApplications.aspx?prog_id=GoDaddy).
<snip>
Sandman
<b19694f0-1a9c-4a04...@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > Squarespace has these prices:
> >
> > http://www.squarespace.com/pricing/
> >
> > You should at least go for the "Pro" deal for $14/month.
>
> heck, go with godaddy- it'll cost you $57/year for hosting (which also
> includes wordpress hosting, and a lot more if you decide on something
> else:
> http://hostingconnection.godaddy.com/AllApplications.aspx?prog_id=GoDaddy).
Ah, cool.
--
Sandman[.net]
hophead
40f9c0...@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
recscub...@huntzinger.com says...
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > hophead <al...@dev.nul> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm finding this discussion pretty interesting. I maintain a web site
> > > for a non-profit society of which I'm a member, and I use Dreamweaver.
> > > Well, in truth, I inherited the job some time ago, and at that time,
> > > static web pages were all that existed.
> >
> > That was quite some time ago, then :)
>
> I'd revise that to more along the lines of: "...all that existed from
> the perspective of the skills of the prior volunteer..."
You are correct I'm sure. Let me just say that a good portion of what
passed for web sites were static then -- I took over in 2001. Hard to
believe I've been doing this for 9 years!
ed
> >> his work, and I have stated I understand why.
>
> >> What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
> >> make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
> >> no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
>
> > if you think that's what's in debate, you're being nonsensical - i
> > challenge you to find any one person with all those attributes. the
> > vast majority of professional web designers are not going to have
> > those skills either, so your list of attributes is meaningless as a
> > point of comparison.
>
> What skills do you think they will not have or not use? Remember, it need
> not be one person, but a team or a person who subcontracts when needed.
even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
(very specialized). secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work
with images "correctly")- there are many sites done by technically
competent people that are just f'in ugly.
Steve Carroll
> hophead stated in post MPG.25ede2717868d0ca989...@news.giganews.com on
> 2/23/10 2:03 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <mr-33B077.19401723022...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > m...@sandman.net says...
> >> In article <znu-640442.12364223022...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
Not a "full time pro" (another hint at a definition of the word "pro"
where you don't actually define what you mean by it)?
> who make use of it (myself included -
So you consider yourself a "pro", just not a "full time" one?
Hmmm... I've taught both my boys how to make a contact form and hook
it in with MySQL or a text-file using nothing but phpMyAdmin, Taco,
html, css, php and MySQL statements. By looking at the form on your
site I'd say you don't know how to do that, though, I could be
mistaken. By the way, you should consider getting captcha working on
your form: http://www.captcha.net/
I've also taught them how to create a database, yank data out of it
and display it. They keep a db of over 500 potential music clients...
and they can add to it with a form they created. It's very limited but
it works for what they need. I wonder if my boys are "pros", just not
"full time" ones...
> while I do web design, I certainly do not do so 40 hours a week). So ZnU
> sees non-pros using it and he sees some not doing things as well as he
> likely would. And he also has some fear about people being able to do what
> he does... in some ways analogous to main frame proponents fearing the rise
> of the desktop.
I always find it interesting how easily you can tell people what other
people think, feel, believe, fear, etc. You really put a lot of stock
into your "psych degree" don't you? This statement by you is a pretty
good indicator that you have little, to no, clue what ZnU is talking
about when it comes to modern website design done at the professional
level. Go look into the files involved in, say, a Wordpress
install... and then come back and tell me that the average "non-pro"
DW user could even comprehend how it all works, much less create
something like it on their own. Yeah... I'm sure people like Sandman
and ZnU are just sitting there shitting in their pants about people
like that... worrying about all the business they're losing to them
<eyeroll>.
Snit
f8ffae94-c5d0-4173...@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
2:59 PM:
> On Feb 23, 1:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
>>>> I have noted that ZnU does not wish to share
>>>> his work, and I have stated I understand why.
>>
>>>> What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
>>>> make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
>>>> no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
>>
>>> if you think that's what's in debate, you're being nonsensical - i
>>> challenge you to find any one person with all those attributes. the
>>> vast majority of professional web designers are not going to have
>>> those skills either, so your list of attributes is meaningless as a
>>> point of comparison.
>>
>> What skills do you think they will not have or not use? Remember, it need
>> not be one person, but a team or a person who subcontracts when needed.
>
> even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
> contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
> (very specialized).
I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
decent lay person in the area.
> secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work with images "correctly")-
> there are many sites done by technically competent people that are just f'in
> ugly.
I was in reference to basic color theory (something I could improve with,
and I have studied it to some extent), etc. and also the mechanical aspects
of compression and the like.
To assume a general restaurant owner is likely to have all of these skills,
even at a moderate level, is just silly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
b19694f0-1a9c-4a04...@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
2:52 PM:
>> You really should look into services such as wordpress or squarespace.
>> They offer hosting plans and with wordpress you can install it on a
>> local server (I suspect that that's too much work for you guys though).
>>
>> Squarespace has these prices:
>>
>> http://www.squarespace.com/pricing/
>>
>> You should at least go for the "Pro" deal for $14/month.
>
> heck, go with godaddy- it'll cost you $57/year for hosting (which also
> includes wordpress hosting, and a lot more if you decide on something
> else:
> http://hostingconnection.godaddy.com/AllApplications.aspx?prog_id=GoDaddy).
I second the GoDaddy suggestion. They have *excellent* tech support,
applications are installed pretty much with one-click ease (ok, and
answering a few basic questions), and their prices are very reasonable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ed stated in post
> > On Feb 23, 1:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> ed stated in post
> >>>> I have noted that ZnU does not wish to share
> >>>> his work, and I have stated I understand why.
>
> >>>> What is in debate is if a general restaurant owner has the skills needed to
> >>>> make a website with the attributes I listed - and more. And the answer is
> >>>> no, they do not. Sure, there are exceptions but it is not the norm.
>
> >>> if you think that's what's in debate, you're being nonsensical - i
> >>> challenge you to find any one person with all those attributes. the
> >>> vast majority of professional web designers are not going to have
> >>> those skills either, so your list of attributes is meaningless as a
> >>> point of comparison.
>
> >> What skills do you think they will not have or not use? Remember, it need
> >> not be one person, but a team or a person who subcontracts when needed.
>
> > even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
> > contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
> > (very specialized).
>
> I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
> food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
> decent lay person in the area.
uh huh. the restaurant guy would have access to someone like that too
(food photography is tought, even for pros). do you have examples of
any of this work?
> > secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work with images "correctly")-
> > there are many sites done by technically competent people that are just f'in
> > ugly.
>
> I was in reference to basic color theory (something I could improve with,
> and I have studied it to some extent), etc.
you called out basic color theory separately from someone who could
work with images "correctly." and a good restaurateur will often be
better at this then many web folks (due to training on presentation).
> and also the mechanical aspects
> of compression and the like.
um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
Joel
>I second the GoDaddy suggestion. They have *excellent* tech support,
>applications are installed pretty much with one-click ease (ok, and
>answering a few basic questions), and their prices are very reasonable.
That reminds me, I haven't watched those unrated commercials with
Danica, yet.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
3:22 PM:
I have. Another good reason to go with GoDaddy. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
769a3e14-13f3-40c4...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
3:14 PM:
...
>>> even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
>>> contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
>>> (very specialized).
>>
>> I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
>> food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
>> decent lay person in the area.
>
> uh huh. the restaurant guy would have access to someone like that too
> (food photography is tought, even for pros). do you have examples of
> any of this work?
There are all sorts of sites with images of food. Many by pros and others
with training it it.
>>> secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work with images "correctly")-
>>> there are many sites done by technically competent people that are just f'in
>>> ugly.
>>
>> I was in reference to basic color theory (something I could improve with,
>> and I have studied it to some extent), etc.
>
> you called out basic color theory separately from someone who could
> work with images "correctly." and a good restaurateur will often be
> better at this then many web folks (due to training on presentation).
And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
Listen - the idea a person running a restaurant can be assumed to know how
to make a decent web site is just laughable... why are we debating it?
>> and also the mechanical aspects
>> of compression and the like.
>
> um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
An issue for who? Heck, you like to point out my sites... but you surely
will not mention that Sandman clearly struggles with this skill.
>> To assume a general restaurant owner is likely to have all of these skills,
>> even at a moderate level, is just silly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Joel
>> That reminds me, I haven't watched those unrated commercials with
>> Danica, yet.
>
>I have. Another good reason to go with GoDaddy. :)
:)
She is really hot, in all seriousness.
--
Joel Crump
ed
> >>> contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
> >>> (very specialized).
>
> >> I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
> >> food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
> >> decent lay person in the area.
>
> > uh huh. the restaurant guy would have access to someone like that too
> > (food photography is tought, even for pros). do you have examples of
> > any of this work?
>
> There are all sorts of sites with images of food. Many by pros and others
> with training it it.
examples of your teams work in this area...
> >>> secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work with images "correctly")-
> >>> there are many sites done by technically competent people that are just f'in
> >>> ugly.
>
> >> I was in reference to basic color theory (something I could improve with,
> >> and I have studied it to some extent), etc.
>
> > you called out basic color theory separately from someone who could
> > work with images "correctly." and a good restaurateur will often be
> > better at this then many web folks (due to training on presentation).
>
> And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
so different than color theory anywhere else?
> Listen - the idea a person running a restaurant can be assumed to know how
> to make a decent web site is just laughable... why are we debating it?
i believe that of the set of skills you listed, a serious restarateur
has as many relevant skills (and more of the important ones) than the
typical designer of the cheap sites in question.
> >> and also the mechanical aspects
> >> of compression and the like.
>
> > um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
>
> An issue for who? Heck, you like to point out my sites...
i do? when was the last time i pointed out your site before today?
> but you surely
> will not mention that Sandman clearly struggles with this skill.
i've only looked at his site a handful of time, and i didn't notice
any issues with "the mechanical aspects of compression and the like,"
so it's not that clear. i don't even konw what you're talking about
when you talk about the "mechanical aspects" of a digital electronic
process... :P
Snit
a5b21c72-dfc0-4efa...@j6g2000vbd.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
3:52 PM:
> On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
>>>>> even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
>>>>> contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
>>>>> (very specialized).
>>
>>>> I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
>>>> food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
>>>> decent lay person in the area.
>>
>>> uh huh. the restaurant guy would have access to someone like that too
>>> (food photography is tought, even for pros). do you have examples of
>>> any of this work?
>>
>> There are all sorts of sites with images of food. Many by pros and others
>> with training it it.
>
> examples of your teams work in this area...
Yeah, I am going to share more of my personal info in CSMA. No thanks! As
I said, I understand why ZnU opted not to... and he does not have a whacko
maniac stalker threatening to email his employer with the intent of having
him fired.
>>>>> secondary will be graphic skills (now how to work with images
>>>>> "correctly")- there are many sites done by technically competent people
>>>>> that are just f'in ugly.
>>>>>
>>>> I was in reference to basic color theory (something I could improve with,
>>>> and I have studied it to some extent), etc.
>>>>
>>> you called out basic color theory separately from someone who could work
>>> with images "correctly." and a good restaurateur will often be better at
>>> this then many web folks (due to training on presentation).
>>>
>> And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
>
> back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
> i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
> so different than color theory anywhere else?
Monitors do not look the same. And why do you think someone who knows how
to run a restaurant is going to have studied what font colors, for example,
are best used with what background colors? The whole debate over if a
restaurant owner should be assumed to know web design skills is just absurd.
You have no point to make, ed.
>> Listen - the idea a person running a restaurant can be assumed to know how
>> to make a decent web site is just laughable... why are we debating it?
>
> i believe that of the set of skills you listed, a serious restarateur
> has as many relevant skills (and more of the important ones) than the
> typical designer of the cheap sites in question.
This is insane: you think a restaurant owner should be expected to not just
know his own trade but to know web design better than people who design web
sites.
You cannot really believe the BS you are pushing... can you?
>>>> and also the mechanical aspects
>>>> of compression and the like.
>>
>>> um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
>>
>> An issue for who? Heck, you like to point out my sites...
>
> i do? when was the last time i pointed out your site before today?
Nice disclaimer.
>> but you surely
>> will not mention that Sandman clearly struggles with this skill.
>
> i've only looked at his site a handful of time, and i didn't notice
> any issues with "the mechanical aspects of compression and the like,"
> so it's not that clear.
Ah, the images sizes do not pop up and bonk you on the head. OK. I just
looked at his home page an he has taken me up on my suggestion... he has
improved a lot in this area. Right now his images are all under 20 KB...
before his images were often 150 KB +/-, for the same quality as what he
shows now (maybe they were a hair bigger in pixel dimensions... but no need
for being 10x as large as a well compressed file should be).
And before this is taken as an attack against Sandman, it is *good* that he
learned. It is good his site is getting better. We all have room for
improvement... and Sandman clearly is getting better.
> i don't even konw what you're talking about
> when you talk about the "mechanical aspects" of a digital electronic
> process... :P
Even though I mentioned, as an example, compression. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
3:51 PM:
Yes, she is. Though I have to say, esp. now that I have daughters, I wish
she would just be sexy and not be overtly sexual. She could be an excellent
role model for women entering a "man's" world - not many female race car
drivers - but she does not hold herself up to such standards.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ed stated in post
> > On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> ed stated in post
> >>>>> even if you limit it to a team, for the cheap sites that are in
> >>>>> contention here, the primary skill missing will be food photography
> >>>>> (very specialized).
>
> >>>> I am certainly not a full time pro, but I have someone on my team who does
> >>>> food photography. No, she is not a full time pro either, but she is a
> >>>> decent lay person in the area.
>
> >>> uh huh. the restaurant guy would have access to someone like that too
> >>> (food photography is tought, even for pros). do you have examples of
> >>> any of this work?
>
> >> There are all sorts of sites with images of food. Many by pros and others
> >> with training it it.
>
> > examples of your teams work in this area...
>
> Yeah, I am going to share more of my personal info in CSMA. No thanks!
who's asking for personal info? link to a site they did work on.
<snip>
> >> And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
>
> > back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
> > i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
> > so different than color theory anywhere else?
>
> Monitors do not look the same.
no, they don't- that's a calibration issue, not a color theory issue.
unless you're going to somehow account for users' different
calibrations with color theory...
> And why do you think someone who knows how
> to run a restaurant is going to have studied what font colors, for example,
> are best used with what background colors?
a serious restaurateur will likely have studied visual presentation
and understand what colors work with others far better than a cheap
web designer.
> The whole debate over if a
> restaurant owner should be assumed to know web design skills is just absurd.
>
> You have no point to make, ed.
>
> >> Listen - the idea a person running a restaurant can be assumed to know how
> >> to make a decent web site is just laughable... why are we debating it?
>
> > i believe that of the set of skills you listed, a serious restarateur
> > has as many relevant skills (and more of the important ones) than the
> > typical designer of the cheap sites in question.
>
> This is insane: you think a restaurant owner should be expected to not just
> know his own trade but to know web design better than people who design web
> sites.
not what i said, and you know that.
> You cannot really believe the BS you are pushing... can you?
i, on the other hand, can totally believe you are twisting my
words. :P
> >>>> and also the mechanical aspects
> >>>> of compression and the like.
>
> >>> um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
>
> >> An issue for who? Heck, you like to point out my sites...
>
> > i do? when was the last time i pointed out your site before today?
>
> Nice disclaimer.
that's not a disclaimer- you stated i like to point out your sites-
that would probably imply i do it often (otherwise why the claim of
affinity?), so you'll have to show when i do it (other than just now
obviously. because, well, that was just now, so already established
in context).
> >> but you surely
> >> will not mention that Sandman clearly struggles with this skill.
>
> > i've only looked at his site a handful of time, and i didn't notice
> > any issues with "the mechanical aspects of compression and the like,"
> > so it's not that clear.
>
> Ah, the images sizes do not pop up and bonk you on the head. OK. I just
> looked at his home page an he has taken me up on my suggestion... he has
> improved a lot in this area. Right now his images are all under 20 KB...
> before his images were often 150 KB +/-, for the same quality as what he
> shows now (maybe they were a hair bigger in pixel dimensions... but no need
> for being 10x as large as a well compressed file should be).
to be pedantic, if it's compressed that much lower, it's probably not
the same quality, right? :P
> And before this is taken as an attack against Sandman, it is *good* that he
> learned. It is good his site is getting better. We all have room for
> improvement... and Sandman clearly is getting better.
>
> > i don't even konw what you're talking about
> > when you talk about the "mechanical aspects" of a digital electronic
> > process... :P
>
> Even though I mentioned, as an example, compression. OK.
"mechanical aspects" of a digital electronic process still doesn't
make much sense "even though" you mentioned compression. :P
Snit
257572a0-6f03-4f2b...@z25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
4:21 PM:
...
>>>> And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
>>
>>> back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
>>> i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
>>> so different than color theory anywhere else?
>>
>> Monitors do not look the same.
>
> no, they don't- that's a calibration issue, not a color theory issue.
> unless you're going to somehow account for users' different
> calibrations with color theory...
Sigh. OK, we can split hairs as we debate if restaurant owners should be
expected to know not just their own business but also web design - better
than web designers - all we want. A web designer should know how a site is
likely to look on different systems.
>> And why do you think someone who knows how to run a restaurant is going to
>> have studied what font colors, for example, are best used with what
>> background colors?
>>
> a serious restaurateur will likely have studied visual presentation and
> understand what colors work with others far better than a cheap web designer.
We are now to a "serious restaurateur" vs. a cheap web designer... whatever.
But still no reason to think a "serious restaurateur" can be assumed to
understand font color issues and the like. Heck, even Chef Ramsey uses
design teams in his shows. Why doesn't he do the work himself?
>> The whole debate over if a
>> restaurant owner should be assumed to know web design skills is just absurd.
>>
>> You have no point to make, ed.
>>
>>>> Listen - the idea a person running a restaurant can be assumed to know how
>>>> to make a decent web site is just laughable... why are we debating it?
>>
>>> i believe that of the set of skills you listed, a serious restarateur
>>> has as many relevant skills (and more of the important ones) than the
>>> typical designer of the cheap sites in question.
>>
>> This is insane: you think a restaurant owner should be expected to not just
>> know his own trade but to know web design better than people who design web
>> sites.
>
> not what i said, and you know that.
This is the whole debate: if a "serious restaurateur" should be able to make
their own web site better than a web developer. It is absurd.
>> You cannot really believe the BS you are pushing... can you?
>
> i, on the other hand, can totally believe you are twisting my
> words. :P
There is no twisting here. This is just an absurd debate. More so than the
"is DW a pro tool" debate.
>>>>>> and also the mechanical aspects
>>>>>> of compression and the like.
>>
>>>>> um, yeah. how much of an issue do you think that is these days?
>>
>>>> An issue for who? Heck, you like to point out my sites...
>>
>>> i do? when was the last time i pointed out your site before today?
>>
>> Nice disclaimer.
>
> that's not a disclaimer- you stated i like to point out your sites-
> that would probably imply i do it often (otherwise why the claim of
> affinity?), so you'll have to show when i do it (other than just now
> obviously. because, well, that was just now, so already established
> in context).
You have done so in the past. And you did so today.
>>>> but you surely
>>>> will not mention that Sandman clearly struggles with this skill.
>>
>>> i've only looked at his site a handful of time, and i didn't notice
>>> any issues with "the mechanical aspects of compression and the like,"
>>> so it's not that clear.
>>
>> Ah, the images sizes do not pop up and bonk you on the head. OK. I just
>> looked at his home page an he has taken me up on my suggestion... he has
>> improved a lot in this area. Right now his images are all under 20 KB...
>> before his images were often 150 KB +/-, for the same quality as what he
>> shows now (maybe they were a hair bigger in pixel dimensions... but no need
>> for being 10x as large as a well compressed file should be).
>
> to be pedantic, if it's compressed that much lower, it's probably not
> the same quality, right? :P
Same visual quality. And Sandman had learned... he now does it "my" way.
>> And before this is taken as an attack against Sandman, it is *good* that he
>> learned. It is good his site is getting better. We all have room for
>> improvement... and Sandman clearly is getting better.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> hophead stated in post MPG.25ede2717...@news.giganews.com on
> 2/23/10 2:03 PM:
[snip]
> > Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
> > but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
> > designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
> > cash-strapped organization.
>
> Yes, there are many folks who use Dreamweaver that way. I can be used well
> by *relative* novices and by experts in the field.
>
> I suspect ZnU's biggest complaint against DW is that it does make what would
> otherwise take a lot of knowledge much easier - and that there are quite a
> few people who are not full time pros who make use of it (myself included -
> while I do web design, I certainly do not do so 40 hours a week). So ZnU
> sees non-pros using it and he sees some not doing things as well as he
> likely would. And he also has some fear about people being able to do what
> he does... in some ways analogous to main frame proponents fearing the rise
> of the desktop.
Huh? You're attributing motives to me that have absolutely no basis in
reality.
The specific discussion we were having was whether Dreamweaver had a
useful role to play in professional best-practices modern web
development. My view is that it really doesn't. You view is that it
does. Whatever. I'm done with that discussion.
I *never* claimed, as you imply above, that the problem with Dreamweaver
was that it let people who weren't web designers or developers create
web sites more easily. Ever. That is not my position at all. I have, in
fact, pointed out several times that allowing non-pros to create sites
is in fact the chief use case for Dreamweaver, and I have never said
there is anything particularly wrong with this.
Oh, and analogizing hand coding of semantic HTML + CSS to mainframes and
Dreamweaver to desktop computing, with the implication that the latter
is replacing the former, is so ludicrously wrong it's not even worth
trying to reply to.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Snit
2/23/10 4:42 PM:
> In article <C7A9947E.6671D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> hophead stated in post MPG.25ede2717...@news.giganews.com on
>> 2/23/10 2:03 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Anyway, maybe this isn't particularly relevant to this ongoing argument,
>>> but I suspect many Dreamweaver users are people like me: non-web
>>> designers/developers who have to create and maintain a web site for a
>>> cash-strapped organization.
>>
>> Yes, there are many folks who use Dreamweaver that way. I can be used well
>> by *relative* novices and by experts in the field.
>>
>> I suspect ZnU's biggest complaint against DW is that it does make what would
>> otherwise take a lot of knowledge much easier - and that there are quite a
>> few people who are not full time pros who make use of it (myself included -
>> while I do web design, I certainly do not do so 40 hours a week). So ZnU
>> sees non-pros using it and he sees some not doing things as well as he
>> likely would. And he also has some fear about people being able to do what
>> he does... in some ways analogous to main frame proponents fearing the rise
>> of the desktop.
>
> Huh? You're attributing motives to me that have absolutely no basis in
> reality.
I suspect this is true... but I also suspect you will not admit to it. But,
sure I cannot prove it.
> The specific discussion we were having was whether Dreamweaver had a
> useful role to play in professional best-practices modern web
> development. My view is that it really doesn't. You view is that it
> does. Whatever. I'm done with that discussion.
And I noted why a reason you might believe it does not - it is clearly *not*
based on the evidence.
> I *never* claimed, as you imply above, that the problem with Dreamweaver
> was that it let people who weren't web designers or developers create
> web sites more easily. Ever. That is not my position at all. I have, in
> fact, pointed out several times that allowing non-pros to create sites
> is in fact the chief use case for Dreamweaver, and I have never said
> there is anything particularly wrong with this.
I did not say you said that was a problem with DW... it is possibly *your*
problem with DW. Just as the desktop systems in the analogy were not the
problem.
> Oh, and analogizing hand coding of semantic HTML + CSS to mainframes and
> Dreamweaver to desktop computing, with the implication that the latter
> is replacing the former, is so ludicrously wrong it's not even worth
> trying to reply to.
Oh, give it a try. It might be amusing. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ZnU stated in post znu-640442.1...@Port80.Individual.NET on
> 2/23/10 10:36 AM:
>
> > In article
> > <teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.ne
> > t>,
> > Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me,
> >>> spot the glaring flaws in it?
> >>
> >> While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to
> >> disagree with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
> >>
> >> I believe that there is still a large group of companies
> >> (restaurants come to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but
> >> static web pages. Certainly some go beyond that with added frills
> >> but most of your local ones, are looking to present a few
> >> pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
> >> perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be
> >> changing, or in need of constant updating like some sites.
> >>
> > This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web
> > site in house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice.
>
> You expect the average restaurant owner to not only be an expert in
> the restaurant business but also be able to make their own effective
> website. Sure, some might have skills in both areas, but as a rule
> that is just absurd.
Small businesses do this stuff in house all time. Maybe the owner
himself isn't going to learn Dreamweaver, but there's a technically
inclined 15 year old in a lot of families who could probably pick it up
pretty quickly.
And I never said this was going to be possible "as a rule" for the
"average restaurant owner". The average restaurant owner probably does,
in fact, pay a professional. But ask anyone who runs a small business
how often they end up doing things way outside of their core skill set
because they don't want to pay someone else. It's practically a way of
life.
[snip]
Joel
>> She is really hot, in all seriousness.
>
>Yes, she is. Though I have to say, esp. now that I have daughters, I wish
>she would just be sexy and not be overtly sexual. She could be an excellent
>role model for women entering a "man's" world - not many female race car
>drivers - but she does not hold herself up to such standards.
I don't get the impression that she's *deliberately* doing it (beyond
what feels natural to her, that is), but it does seem that she enjoys
displaying a significant measure of sexuality.
--
Joel Crump
ZnU
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You appear to be deliberately reading for incomprehension at this
point.
> > Oh, and analogizing hand coding of semantic HTML + CSS to
> > mainframes and Dreamweaver to desktop computing, with the
> > implication that the latter is replacing the former, is so
> > ludicrously wrong it's not even worth trying to reply to.
>
> Oh, give it a try. It might be amusing. :)
I've seen how this goes. It will be amusing for about the first two
exchanges, and then you'll start copying and pasting the same irrelevant
nonsense into every subsequent post.
Snit
2/23/10 4:59 PM:
>>>> I believe that there is still a large group of companies
>>>> (restaurants come to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but
>>>> static web pages. Certainly some go beyond that with added frills
>>>> but most of your local ones, are looking to present a few
>>>> pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
>>>> perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be
>>>> changing, or in need of constant updating like some sites.
>>>>
>>> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web
>>> site in house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice.
>>
>> You expect the average restaurant owner to not only be an expert in
>> the restaurant business but also be able to make their own effective
>> website. Sure, some might have skills in both areas, but as a rule
>> that is just absurd.
>
> Small businesses do this stuff in house all time. Maybe the owner
> himself isn't going to learn Dreamweaver, but there's a technically
> inclined 15 year old in a lot of families who could probably pick it up
> pretty quickly.
And make *a* website. Sure. But a better one than a web developer. As a
rule.
This is just silly.
Now the argument is restaurant owner are no longer the one to make web sites
better than web developers, but that their 15 year old kids can do so.
> And I never said this was going to be possible "as a rule" for the
> "average restaurant owner". The average restaurant owner probably does,
> in fact, pay a professional. But ask anyone who runs a small business
> how often they end up doing things way outside of their core skill set
> because they don't want to pay someone else. It's practically a way of
> life.
Not sure what you are arguing against here.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5:04 PM:
This years ads not so much (though she clearly supports others doing so).
More last years ads.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2/23/10 5:07 PM:
By noting where you misread something? And doing so politely might I add.
Whatever.
>>> Oh, and analogizing hand coding of semantic HTML + CSS to
>>> mainframes and Dreamweaver to desktop computing, with the
>>> implication that the latter is replacing the former, is so
>>> ludicrously wrong it's not even worth trying to reply to.
>>
>> Oh, give it a try. It might be amusing. :)
>
> I've seen how this goes. It will be amusing for about the first two
> exchanges, and then you'll start copying and pasting the same irrelevant
> nonsense into every subsequent post.
Ah, evidence which proves you wrong and you ignore is "irrelevant nonsense".
ed
>
> >>> back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
> >>> i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
> >>> so different than color theory anywhere else?
>
> >> Monitors do not look the same.
>
> > no, they don't- that's a calibration issue, not a color theory issue.
> > unless you're going to somehow account for users' different
> > calibrations with color theory...
>
> Sigh. OK, we can split hairs as we debate if restaurant owners should be
> expected to know not just their own business but also web design - better
> than web designers - all we want. A web designer should know how a site is
> likely to look on different systems.
this isn't even splitting hairs- it's you claiming a skillset
required, but not even being able to back it up!
> >> And why do you think someone who knows how to run a restaurant is going to
> >> have studied what font colors, for example, are best used with what
> >> background colors?
>
> > a serious restaurateur will likely have studied visual presentation and
> > understand what colors work with others far better than a cheap web designer.
>
> We are now to a "serious restaurateur" vs. a cheap web designer... whatever.
> But still no reason to think a "serious restaurateur" can be assumed to
> understand font color issues and the like. Heck, even Chef Ramsey uses
> design teams in his shows. Why doesn't he do the work himself?
do you think he always had a design team? if someone's got a design
team available, they would obviously use them f(or the web site too).
i thought we were talking about what someone *could* be expected to do
themselves? obviously if you have other experts available, you could
use them too.
that wasn't the question, was it? :P
done with you (again), since you're in full defensive mode and
unwilling and unable to have a reasonable conversation...
<snip>
Snit
5f3d9805-e48a-4c6c...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com on 2/23/10
5:27 PM:
> On Feb 23, 3:35 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
>>>>>> And they know how to apply it to the web. Yeah, right.
>>
>>>>> back in the day of netscape safe colors, that was a big issue. maybe
>>>>> i'm ignorant, but tell me how, these days, color theory for the web is
>>>>> so different than color theory anywhere else?
>>
>>>> Monitors do not look the same.
>>
>>> no, they don't- that's a calibration issue, not a color theory issue.
>>> unless you're going to somehow account for users' different
>>> calibrations with color theory...
>>
>> Sigh. OK, we can split hairs as we debate if restaurant owners should be
>> expected to know not just their own business but also web design - better
>> than web designers - all we want. A web designer should know how a site is
>> likely to look on different systems.
>
> this isn't even splitting hairs- it's you claiming a skillset
> required, but not even being able to back it up!
The whole debate is asinine... but yes, it is splitting hairs for you to
whine that some of the skills dealing with color might not fit into "color
theory". Sure. You got me. Lovely... does not change the fact that the
whole concept that a restaurant owners should be expected to know not just
their own business but also web design - better than web designers - is just
an absurdity.
>>>> And why do you think someone who knows how to run a restaurant is going to
>>>> have studied what font colors, for example, are best used with what
>>>> background colors?
>>
>>> a serious restaurateur will likely have studied visual presentation and
>>> understand what colors work with others far better than a cheap web
>>> designer.
>>
>> We are now to a "serious restaurateur" vs. a cheap web designer... whatever.
>> But still no reason to think a "serious restaurateur" can be assumed to
>> understand font color issues and the like. Heck, even Chef Ramsey uses
>> design teams in his shows. Why doesn't he do the work himself?
>
> do you think he always had a design team? if someone's got a design
> team available, they would obviously use them f(or the web site too).
> i thought we were talking about what someone *could* be expected to do
> themselves? obviously if you have other experts available, you could
> use them too.
Nobody ever said restaurant owners, as a group, could not make their own
website. But to say they should be able to do so better than web designers,
which is what I am arguing against, is just absurd. Really... this whole
debate is just silly. There is no possible way you really believe what you
are defending... you are just having fun.
...
> done with you (again), since you're in full defensive mode and
> unwilling and unable to have a reasonable conversation...
Yeah, so unreasonable of me to not take the idea that restaurant owners, as
a group, also have web design skills better than web designers. For me to
not accept that is just "defensive" of me.
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
(snip BS by Snit)
> Nobody ever said restaurant owners, as a group, could not make their own
> website.
Which is why you are seen talking about it.
> But to say they should be able to do so better than web designers,
> which is what I am arguing against, is just absurd.
So why are you arguing against a point that you created for him? Mix
too much medicine again?
(snip crap and more lies by Snit)
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Welcome! To the Snit circus. You will be forever mentioned in his
"summaries" of this debate :)
I'm fairly certain that I am still there :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
2/23/10 10:49 PM:
...
> Welcome! To the Snit circus. You will be forever mentioned in his
> "summaries" of this debate :)
>
> I'm fairly certain that I am still there :)
One: what summaries have you? Huh?
Two: you are a hypocrite - you still have page upon page of lies about me on
your website.
Three: check out my "OT: Websites for $800?" thread. Seriously, can you
still say DW is not used by many pros with a straight face?
Of course, for you it was all about having an axe to grind. But fun to see
your claims blow up in your face - unless you are going to deny Las Vegas
hotels hire professional developers. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> In article <znu-756345.18423123022...@Port80.Individual.NET>,
You were the star of the DW episode... maybe not anymore, though.
Damn... jus' when I was having fun with Snit... ZnU went and broke
him;)
("you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave") LOL!
Sandman
<2fcbe0fe-3b18-4977...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, and analogizing hand coding of semantic HTML + CSS to mainframes and
> > > Dreamweaver to desktop computing, with the implication that the latter
> > > is replacing the former, is so ludicrously wrong it's not even worth
> > > trying to reply to.
> >
> > Welcome! To the Snit circus. You will be forever mentioned in his
> > "summaries" of this debate :)
> >
> > I'm fairly certain that I am still there :)
>
> You were the star of the DW episode... maybe not anymore, though.
Phew!
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 2/23/10 4:39 AM:
>
> > In article
> > <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
> >>
> >> Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me, spot
> >> the glaring flaws in it?
> >
> > While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to disagree
> > with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
>
> Perhaps you worded this incorrectly, being that below you refute it quit
> well!
Still having reading problems I see. The site I describe below IS a static site,
which the article claimed are 'dead'.
>
> > I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants come
> > to
> > mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages. Certainly some
> > go
> > beyond that with added frills but most of your local ones, are looking to
> > present a few pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions,
> > and
> > perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing,
> > or
> > in need of constant updating like some sites.
>
> My goodness... you actually made a valid point here. Yes, many sites have
> no desire or need for blogs and the like. Maybe a comment area, though,
> frankly, many do not want to even dig through that.
>
> But even if they do, it is not as though Dreamweaver cannot be used on such
> sites. And used well.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim Adams
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-7D1AD0.06...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <a82c9d29-b2f9-4964...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=91D75
> > >
> > > Hmmm... looks like a good article... can anyone, other than me,
> > > spot the glaring flaws in it?
> >
> > While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to
> > disagree with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
> >
> > I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants
> > come to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages.
> > Certainly some go beyond that with added frills but most of your
> > local ones, are looking to present a few pictures, a look at the
> > menu, a brief history, directions, and perhaps a page with some
> > customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing, or in need of
> > constant updating like some sites.
>
> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
> house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice. The thing is, though, if
> his site is done by an outside party (i.e. he contracts a professional
> web developer), he's probably going to want *some* way to make changes
> on his own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if some menu item
> changes, he doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to tweak a line
> of text.
That is the market for the $800 web site developer. He, as long as he remains in
business, will typically do minor updates on the cheap.
>
> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
> for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
> think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
> employ one on such a project.
Snit
2/24/10 7:19 PM:
...
>>> While I don't know if it's what you would call a 'flaw', I tend to disagree
>>> with the comment that Static web pages are dead.
>>>
>>> I believe that there is still a large group of companies (restaurants come
>>> to mind) that don't (IMO) need anything but static web pages. Certainly some
>>> go beyond that with added frills but most of your local ones, are looking to
>>> present a few pictures, a look at the menu, a brief history, directions, and
>>> perhaps a page with some customers reviews. Nothing that will be changing,
>>> or in need of constant updating like some sites.
>>>
>> This is true. And if a restaurant owner wanted to do his own web site in
>> house, Dreamweaver might be a decent choice. The thing is, though, if his
>> site is done by an outside party (i.e. he contracts a professional web
>> developer), he's probably going to want *some* way to make changes on his
>> own. He might not be doing daily updates, but if some menu item changes, he
>> doesn't want to have to pay his web guy just to tweak a line of text.
>>
> That is the market for the $800 web site developer. He, as long as he remains
> in business, will typically do minor updates on the cheap.
But not do sites for major Las Vegas hotel casinos. If Dreamweaver we
commonly used on such sites that would handily refute ZnU's claims.
As has been done. :)
>> There are quite a few really simple content management systems designed
>> for precisely this use case (simple little "brochure" sites), and I
>> think it would be routine these days for most pro web developers to
>> employ one on such a project.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]