HTML editors - WYSIWYG plus HTML coding too please!
ian clark
Hi All,
I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
also allow you to write HTML code too.
I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
Admitedly I've only just recently been playing around with Microsoft
Publisher and not much else for me to judge fairly.
My PC runs Win95.
Cheers, Ian.
Don't beam me up yet Scottie, I'm having a shiiii
Sungod
> I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
> also allow you to write HTML code too.
> I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
> that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
> coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
> Admitedly I've only just recently been playing around with Microsoft
> Publisher and not much else for me to judge fairly.
Well, you could continue using Publisher and then use notepad to edit the
code. Alternatively you could try the editor that comes with Netscrape,
this allows you to view the code at least, editing I`m not too sure about.
Then theres the proper HTML editors like WebEdit Pro, which is based around
editing the code but has a preview window you can bring up, and you can
also preview via browser. Flex-Ed falls into this category as well. IMO
these are the best type (especially WebEdit Pro) as they generally have
wizards (eg. frame wizard) that generate the code and insert it into the
document for you, however, you can view, analyse, and learn from it because
thats what they`re based around - the code.
> My PC runs Win95.
Nevermind.
HTH
--
...Sungod
http://www.heyes.demon.co.uk - A showcase of 3D artists
http://www.berrigio.demon.co.uk - Free logo and banner design.
Tim Stannard
<SNIPS>
>
>As I said earlier, I'm trying out several authoring tools and my
>trials with Office 97 and Publisher are limited, but do you agree with
>the above example and do you know of any extensions to Office 97 that
>have Java wizards or such like?
>
I've recently been publishing tables of information (specifically lists
of golf scores - of no interest to anyone except members of my club).
I start off with the scores in an Excel 97 spreadsheet and then use the
Save As HTML option to give me the table that I then wrap some head and
tail info around. Works quite well except that it tries too hard (IMO)
to make the resulting table look like the spreadsheet.
I find I spend a lot of time editing out <FONT> </FONT> ALIGN=... etc as
well as the unnnecessary </TD>s and </TRs>.
WHOOPS just double checked this. Shouldn't really remove the </TD>s and
</TR>s should I? Dammit!
I just want basic output so the end user can decide what fonts etc to
view it in, and also to keep the file sizes down.
I hope that somewhere I can customise how it outputs in HTML, I just
haven't had the time or inclination to look yet. I do not want to have
to much around with VBA too much, I'd rather write something from
scratch in Delphi.
Ref Publisher 97 as a Web Authoring tool. My admittedly limited
experience of using it for this, as well as other comments I've read,
suggests to me that given any opportunity P97 will convert large chunks
of your pages into .gifs. This won't make you too popular with your
readers!
--
Tim Stannard - Ad Hoc Computing, Addlestone, Surrey, UK
Tel/Fax: 01932 830572 Mob: 0589 918184
e-mail: stan...@adhoc.demon.co.uk
Martin Regan
Tim Stannard (T...@adhoc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
# I start off with the scores in an Excel 97 spreadsheet and then use the
# Save As HTML option to give me the table that I then wrap some head and
# tail info around. Works quite well except that it tries too hard (IMO)
# to make the resulting table look like the spreadsheet.
[snip]
# I just want basic output so the end user can decide what fonts etc to
# view it in, and also to keep the file sizes down.
Rather than customising the HTML, try making Excel save the file in a
very simple format, and modifing that yourself via a script.
Say, saving the excel spreadsheet as a comma delimtted file, and then
writing a simple program that will read that output file and add in
the appropiate <TD><TR> etc?
<pseudocode>
open file output <TABLE>
read in line from file output <TR>
Read in elememt between "," output <TD>$ELEMENT$</TD>
at end of line? output </TR>
repeat till end of file output </TABLE>
</pseudocode>
# I hope that somewhere I can customise how it outputs in HTML, I just
# haven't had the time or inclination to look yet. I do not want to have
# to much around with VBA too much, I'd rather write something from
# scratch in Delphi.
If all your formatting is tables of info, I'd suggest the above
solution, it will be simple, no fonts loaded, and keep the file sizes
to a minimum. If you've got more stuff than tables on the page, you
could still use this to format the tables and add the rest later.
I haven't tried this myself (I don't have Excel on this machine) but I
don't seem any glaring mistakes, unless I misunderstood your needs.
# Ref Publisher 97 as a Web Authoring tool. My admittedly limited
# experience of using it for this, as well as other comments I've read,
# suggests to me that given any opportunity P97 will convert large chunks
# of your pages into .gifs. This won't make you too popular with your
# readers!
Lots of big gifs! Cool! just what my modem always wanted! :-)
hope this helps,
Martin
--
Martin Regan | email: mar...@stheno.demon.co.uk
| www: http://www.stheno.demon.co.uk/
| PGP Key http://www.stheno.demon.co.uk/martin.asc
bash: ~/.wittysig: not found: out of ideas.
Craig Cockburn
Ann an sgriobhainn <33c50a80...@news.demon.co.uk>, sgriobh
1...@dasl.demon.co.uk
>> By the way...to the witty responders who picked up on
>>my stating my PC runs Win95..I mentioned it only so that people knew
>>not to recommend an authoring tool that worked on Win3.1. :-)
>>
>>Cheers, Ian.
>
>That's an interesting point. Can anyone reccomend the best set-up
>for Win3.11 - I know a couple of people upgrading from W95
>to Win3.11 -
>
I have an HTML generation tool at
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/q-html.html which works under 16 bit
windows.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Chris Lawrence
Re:<33c01665...@news.demon.co.uk>
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, ian clark wrote:
>I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
>also allow you to write HTML code too.
>I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
>that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
>coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
I find it better to view your page locally on Netscape, IE, or whatever,
as you are actually editing it. There isn't really such a thing as a
WYSIWYG web page anyway.
--
Regards, Chris - in Liverpool, UK | "Absorb what is useful,
http://www.spacetime.demon.co.uk/ | reject what is useless."
== Replace 'news' with 'cl' === |
====== to reply by email ====== | - Bruce Lee
Sally Woolrich
And pseudo-WYSIWYG HTML editors seem to me to lead people up the alley
of trying to define their page layouts far too precisely with the result
that without graphics, or on a different resolution screen, they fall
apart in a most unsightly fashion.
I have been know to use 'vi' (pages on a UNIX host!) and view them with
netscape (or whatever). This certainly doesn't encourage anything very
fancy!
In article <H$1LuTAX3...@spacetime.demon.co.uk>, Chris Lawrence
<ne...@spacetime.demon.co.uk> writes
>Re:<33c01665...@news.demon.co.uk>
>On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, ian clark wrote:
>
>>I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
>>also allow you to write HTML code too.
>>I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
>>that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
>>coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
>
>I find it better to view your page locally on Netscape, IE, or whatever,
>as you are actually editing it. There isn't really such a thing as a
>WYSIWYG web page anyway.
>
--
Sally Woolrich
Sally Woolrich
In article <OmoZ4MAh...@spacetime.demon.co.uk>, Chris Lawrence
<ne...@spacetime.demon.co.uk> writes
>Re:<unNEOEAC...@excelsis.co.uk>
>On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Sally Woolrich wrote:
>
>>And pseudo-WYSIWYG HTML editors seem to me to lead people up the alley
>>of trying to define their page layouts far too precisely with the result
>>that without graphics, or on a different resolution screen, they fall
>>apart in a most unsightly fashion.
>
>You are spot on - and I made this mistake when creating my homepages.
Thanks for the compliment! There has to be some good in having a 14"
screen that I can't read at anything other than 640x480.
>They looked fine at 800x600 but looked awful at 640x480. I altered them
>all anyway and they look better, but I have a small note near the top
>that 800x600 is the optimum resolution since that is what they were
>designed in.
But some of us don't have the choice and this sort of thing is (for me)
a turn-off.
<snip>
> Large graphics will
>have thumbnails to save the browsers' time.
And defining the size of the GIFs also helps. It also helps the layout
of the page if the GIFs arn't downloaded.
Netscape Gold does this for you when you put in a GIF, other editors may
do, otherwise you need to find it out (your GIF editor should tell you)
and put it in the <img> bit with 'height=' and 'width='. Incidentally I
saw information somewhere about a horrid hack with a single-pixel
transparent GIF being used with 'height=' & 'width=' to control layout
indents! Please stick to '<BLOCKQUOTE>' (which I think can be nested)
and tables to keep it all together. Tables are the best thing since
sliced bread (well no, red wine, garlic & olive oil!) IMHO, and I
believe all common browsers support them. I'm sure I'll be informed if
I'm wrong!
--
Sally Woolrich
Craig Cockburn
Ann an sgriobhainn <869602358.15632....@news.demon.co.uk>,
sgriobh Mark Hughes <ma...@compware.demon.co.uk>
>Karen Thorn wrote in article <5qtmc3$r1$1...@neverwhere.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>ian clark (i...@tubeway-army.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>: Hi All,
>>:
>>: I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
>>: also allow you to write HTML code too.
>>: I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
>>: that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
>>: coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
>
>
>is a good mix of not-quite-WYSIWYG (what is though), and tag level editing.
>
>If you want an editor that really helps with HTML tags though, there really
>is nothing better than Agile (warning - biased opinion here). Just right
>click on a tag to see the attributes it supports and what they do. It also
>includes HTML refs from W3C and Microsoft:
> http://www.compware.demon.co.uk/agile/
I believe NACHOS also gets good reviews
URL: http://www.exit109.com/~oz/nachos/
Mark Hughes
Karen Thorn wrote in article <5qtmc3$r1$1...@neverwhere.demon.co.uk>...
>ian clark (i...@tubeway-army.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Hi All,
>:
>: I would welcome any views on HTML editors of the WYSIWYG variety that
>: also allow you to write HTML code too.
>: I like the idea of using a WYSIWYG type editor but I've not seen one
>: that allows you to view the source of your page and add your own HTML
>: coding for such things a JavaApplets and so on.
There is an HTML editors review somwhere on CNet which suggests HotDog pro
is a good mix of not-quite-WYSIWYG (what is though), and tag level editing.
If you want an editor that really helps with HTML tags though, there really
is nothing better than Agile (warning - biased opinion here). Just right
click on a tag to see the attributes it supports and what they do. It also
includes HTML refs from W3C and Microsoft:
http://www.compware.demon.co.uk/agile/
Mark
--
Mark Hughes
ma...@compware.co.uk
Agile HTML Editor
- first with HTML 4.0 / Dynamic HTML
- the "right-click" editor
Tony Morgan
In article <GGCkUJAr...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
<st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes
>Until you can show me a non-text to speech app for blind web users...
Maybe I'm a bit slow this morning, but what do you mean by "non-text to
speech"? Do you mean graphics to speech for example? I should think this
is asking too much.
On the subject of blind web users, some years ago I had an app which
came with my old 8-bit sound card which translated "web-words" to speech
and it seemed to work quite well. I came across it again about 2 years
ago when I got hooked on IRC where it was used to translate the incoming
(text) chat to audio through the sound card. It came with a "word
library" that you could add to using a mic. It "was" a long time ago,
but I'll try and find it (I can't even remember the name of the darn'd
thing). If I do I'll put it up on this ng under the subject "Blind web
users" if you think it might be useful.
--
Tony Morgan
Steve Glover
In article <buGD5LA2$D2z...@atomor.demon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
<to...@atomor.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Steve, who remembers the web before the arty types got at it.
>Yeah... me too... when there was no internet, just WAN with TCP, Telnet,
>Archie, Veronica etc. Worked for Case then on DCX and B-Line (god... I'm
>getting old!!!!).
I'd actually been talking about using the web in 1992/3, but I do have
memories going back further (I was edc...@uk.ac.ed from about 1980).
Of course being in an academic environment in those daysmeant that you
had both very much better, and very much worse, net access than
"everyone else".
Cheers
Steve
--
Steve Glover
Steve Glover
In article <c+xCNGAr...@atomor.demon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan
<to...@atomor.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Until you can show me a non-text to speech app for blind web users...
>Maybe I'm a bit slow this morning, but what do you mean by "non-text to
>speech"? Do you mean graphics to speech for example? I should think this
>is asking too much.
It's easier than you might think ;-) Copious use of ALT tags will render
lynx more friendly to unsighted users AND have side benefits when it
comes to search engines.
>On the subject of blind web users, some years ago I had an app which
>came with my old 8-bit sound card which translated "web-words" to speech
>and it seemed to work quite well. I came across it again about 2 years
>ago when I got hooked on IRC where it was used to translate the incoming
>(text) chat to audio through the sound card. It came with a "word
>library" that you could add to using a mic. It "was" a long time ago,
>but I'll try and find it (I can't even remember the name of the darn'd
>thing). If I do I'll put it up on this ng under the subject "Blind web
>users" if you think it might be useful.
Sounds like it may be of use. I think we may be just round ther corner
from a sudden drop in price/increase in availability of speech
recognition software, which should also bring down the text to speech
prices.
Keith Morris
In article <ICqd3FAO...@excelsis.co.uk>, Sally Woolrich <sally.wool
ri...@exxcelsis.co.uk> writes
> Or if selling clothes I think we would want to see what we were
>going to buy.
And if you are a photographer it's a pretty good idea to actually show
some of your photographs....
--
Keith Morris
theatre in wales web site
http://www.cambria.demon.co.uk/
Ben
Steve Glover <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> said..
>Steve, who remembers the web before the arty types got at it.
It was awful.
Now it's slow - but mostly looks good. I've had access to the
"internet" for a fair while, if you honestly want to know if I prefer
1200/75 or 2400/2400 text access thru TELNET on an 8bit BBC, or HTML 4
on a fast pentium with plugins up the wazoo, then your answer is, HTML 4
and wazoo fillers all the way.
-----------------------------------
B. -] b...@heater.demon.co.uk [-
-----------------------------------
Steve Glover
In article <8GZ0yCAy...@heater.demon.co.uk>, Ben
>>Steve, who remembers the web before the arty types got at it.
>It was awful.
>Now it's slow - but mostly looks good. I've had access to the
>"internet" for a fair while, if you honestly want to know if I prefer
>1200/75 or 2400/2400 text access thru TELNET on an 8bit BBC, or HTML 4
>on a fast pentium with plugins up the wazoo, then your answer is, HTML 4
>and wazoo fillers all the way.
No, when I said the web, I *meant* the web -- not the Internet, not
Usenet, and not comms in general. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I'm
firmly of the opinion that for transfer of useful information all you
need is text plus pictures -- to which can be added search facilities
and the ability to download software. Everything else is gravy. Often
very nice gravy, but gravy nonetheless.
And if people are thinking "How can I use this plug-in/applet/spiffy new
feature in my website?" rather than "How can I best convey the
information?" then something's gone very wrong indeed (for an example of
an over-designed, gimmicky site that *didn't* do the job it was meant
to, but won awards and competitions anyway, see last autumn's Scottish
Tourist Board site).
Steve
--
Steve Glover