Creating a website
Year 5 teacher
to start a new line in a text box everything appears normal in publisher,
but when i upload it at look at the website, every time I've pressed Enter
to start a new line - the website appears to have "pressed" enter twice so
that there is a gap underneath a line. Any ideas?
John Cartmell
1. You wouldn't use enter to start a new line in any word processor unless
you were also starting a new paragraph.
2. The gap could be the standard gap that you'd expect between paragraphs.
3. HTML is quite different from desktop publishing.
4. Starting a new line when you produce a HTML document won't give a new
line on screen with the resultant web-site. Look at the raw HTML and the
control characters (within the < > brackets). These characters tell you
whether a new line (new paragraph) is to be used.
5. Don't use Publisher. It's probably the worst way to produce HTML. Best
learn to produce your own HTML - it's easy for a simple site. Use programs
that will help you produce your own HTML. I don't know of any for Windows
machines but for Acorn / RISC OS machines there is HTMLEdit (commercial)
and HTML3 or an edit program like StrongEd will do (AFAIK these essential
programs are rare on the Windows platform. I use StrongEd when teaching KS3
pupils to produce their own web pages. If you really refuse to do the thing
properly try using the output from Textease.
--
John Cartmell
Andrew Virnuls
news:4b4c45b...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <afaen4$1o2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Year 5 teacher
> <pri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I've created a website using Microsoft Publisher. If I press the enter
> > key to start a new line in a text box everything appears normal in
> > publisher, but when i upload it at look at the website, every time I've
> > pressed Enter to start a new line - the website appears to have
> > "pressed" enter twice so that there is a gap underneath a line. Any
> > ideas?
>
Although we teach our students to do their own HTML in year 8, and I did my
entire site in Notepad (apart from the graphics, of course!), I wouldn't
agree that that's the way to go for everyone.
Most tools have drawbacks, even purpose-designed ones such as Dreamweaver
and FrontPage, but Publisher is particularly bad (we don't even see the
point of it for producing printed pages - it can't do anything that you
can't do in Word, and if you don't use the templates - which you really
shouldn't if you want a decent NC level - then it's probably more difficult
to use than Word) as it created really elaborate tables to position things,
and often displays text as graphics.
If you're using Office, Word might be a better bet, or even PowerPoint - the
BBC uses Powerpoint to produce its pages! There used to be a free
application called FrontPage Express that came with Internet Explorer and
was OK for simple sites, but that seems to have disappeared without a trace!
Andrew
--
and...@advanced-ict.info Swatting the wasps from the
http://www.advanced-ict.info pure apple of truth
John Cartmell
<and...@virnuls.freeserve.co.uk> replied to:
> > 5. Don't use Publisher. It's probably the worst way to produce HTML.
> > Best learn to produce your own HTML...
> Although we teach our students to do their own HTML in year 8, and I did
> my entire site in Notepad (apart from the graphics, of course!), I
> wouldn't agree that that's the way to go for everyone.
Notepad certainly isn't a tool I'd choose!
As I said I don't know of an appropriate editor for the Windows platform
but, if there is something like RISC OS's StrongEd, then I'd suggest that
anyone producing HTML should at least look at their coding. If a simple
basic page is beyond them then I question whether they should be doing it
at all; it certainly wasn't beyond any of my year 8 / year 9 kids in a
fairly standard comprehensive school. Perhaps the problem is that programs
like Publisher produce code that's far too complex.
--
John Cartmell
Ian
I would liken it to teaching numeracy. You could teach kids to do sums by
keying in sequences to a calculator so they know that a certain button
sequence produces a result. Better to teach them how to add an multiply
first. Since basic HTML is within the capabilities of most KS2 pupil it
would be better to give them at least the basic idea before going on to
painting by numbers. And I agree, MS Publisher is about the worst tool I
can think of for this job.
Regards,
--
IanL
Brett
"Year 5 teacher" <pri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afaen4$1o2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
To answer your question (!), use SHIFT Enter to start a new line.
Enter will enter a paragraph break <p>
Shift Enter will enter a line break <br>
Having said this, I would also recommend you don't use a DTP application to
create web pages.
--
Brett
User1951
>And I agree, MS Publisher is about the worst tool I
>can think of for this job.
A monkey wrench?
I think that whatever system pupils use they should have access to the
HTML so they can see the effects of changing the HTML.
Anything from Microsoft seems to incorporate line after line of HTML
which seems to serve no purpose.
I am not saying that pupils should not use Microsoft software but that
studying the HTML might educate them.
****************************************
http://user1951.tripod.com
Education Education Education
*****************************************
Ian
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:03:45 +0100, Ian <i...@Zaphod.com> wrote:
>
>>And I agree, MS Publisher is about the worst tool I can think of for
>>this job.
>
> A monkey wrench?
>
> I think that whatever system pupils use they should have access to the
> HTML so they can see the effects of changing the HTML.
>
> Anything from Microsoft seems to incorporate line after line of HTML
> which seems to serve no purpose.
Come on, just think what most other applications would look like if you
could actually access the code.
> I am not saying that pupils should not use Microsoft software but that
> studying the HTML might educate them.
Its horses for courses and for web design a toy DTP package is definitely
not the right horse for the course.
Regards,
--
IanL
Michael Saunby
"Ian" <i...@Zaphod.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.06.26.15....@Zaphod.com...
Given that the web is supposed to be about creating distributed hypertext
documents with links that can reference other documents anywhere on the web,
examining the HTML of individual pages, or creating such pages by any means,
seems about as worthwhile as teaching pencil sharpening. Heck, what do I know,
I don't teach anything.
Then again, it does seem the art of sharpening pencils has been lost, so maybe
teaching web page design as a craft will at least ensure kids have some
practical skills.
Ooh look. I can just type a URL, and in many email applications, you'll get a
link http://www.w3c.org No HTML, just type and link appears by magic! Visit a
wiki, e.g. http://www.zwiki.org and you can create hypertext documents without
any HTML, more magic!
Michael Saunby
P Rolt
"User1951" <user...@hotmai.com> wrote in message
news:3d1cd3c5...@news.freeserve.com...
> A monkey wrench?
>
> I think that whatever system pupils use they should have access to the
> HTML so they can see the effects of changing the HTML.
>
> Anything from Microsoft seems to incorporate line after line of HTML
> which seems to serve no purpose.
>
> I am not saying that pupils should not use Microsoft software but that
> studying the HTML might educate them.
I agree. I have taught these skills to low ability pupils in year 3/4. They
can all use a text editor (notepad seems fine) to understand that they are
working with HTML. I taught them some basic tags and then they experimented
to find out what effect a range of other tags had.
They then used MS Word to create the pages as this gave them something
visually appealing. That said, they also looked back at the code and
recognised some of the tags they had been using in Notepad.
Phil
Mr. Edd
"Andrew Virnuls" <> wrote in message ...
There used to be a free
> application called FrontPage Express that came with Internet Explorer and
> was OK for simple sites, but that seems to have disappeared without a
trace!
>
FrontPage Express can be downloaded from M$. I have a copy that I install
on all our machines for the kids to use. I can put it on my website if
anyone wishes. Our IT teacher is currently negotiating for a licence for the
full version of FrontPage 2002 so that they can use this. I think it is to
complex for the kids, at the end of the day they only want a taster then
it's up to them to take it further.
I agree about Publisher, its horrible for web pages. I have a basic
tutorial for HTML on my site.
Edd
Andrew Virnuls
That's a fair analogy, and to extend it into this context, you wouldn't
expect an accountant or book-keeper to work everything out on paper - you'd
be happy for him or her to use a calculator or spreadsheet. That's why, if
someone is creating a large web-site, out of necessity rather than as an
academic exercise, some sort of tool such as Dreamweaver or FrontPage could
be more appropriate.
John Cartmell
<and...@virnuls.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ian" <i...@Zaphod.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.06.26.08....@Zaphod.com...
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:19:49 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
> >
> > I would liken it to teaching numeracy. You could teach kids to do sums
> > by keying in sequences to a calculator so they know that a certain
> > button sequence produces a result. Better to teach them how to add an
> > multiply first. Since basic HTML is within the capabilities of most
> > KS2 pupil it would be better to give them at least the basic idea
> > before going on to painting by numbers.
> That's a fair analogy, and to extend it into this context, you wouldn't
> expect an accountant or book-keeper to work everything out on paper -
> you'd be happy for him or her to use a calculator or spreadsheet.
> That's why, if someone is creating a large web-site, out of necessity
> rather than as an academic exercise, some sort of tool such as
> Dreamweaver or FrontPage could be more appropriate.
I'd expect a professional to use a HTML editor and not a dtp program. If
they were using FrontPage I'd be questioning their competence. Two
questions for any web-site:
is it lean and fast to render?
is it valid? http://validator.w3.org
There are others but those two are particularly relevant for this question.
If you can show me substantial web-pages produced by FrontPage that are
lean and valid then I'll re-think my response.
--
John Cartmell
greebs
>In article <afb27h$fp8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Andrew Virnuls
><and...@virnuls.freeserve.co.uk> replied to:
>> > 5. Don't use Publisher. It's probably the worst way to produce HTML.
>> > Best learn to produce your own HTML...
>
>> Although we teach our students to do their own HTML in year 8, and I did
>> my entire site in Notepad (apart from the graphics, of course!), I
>> wouldn't agree that that's the way to go for everyone.
>
>Notepad certainly isn't a tool I'd choose!
>As I said I don't know of an appropriate editor for the Windows platform
Arachnophilia is a useful HTML editor for windoze. Also available for
non-windoze platforms.
Downloadable free from http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/
--
greebs
Mark Evans
> In article <afdjvv$u5r$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Andrew Virnuls
> <and...@virnuls.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ian" <i...@Zaphod.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2002.06.26.08....@Zaphod.com...
>> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:19:49 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
>> >
>> > I would liken it to teaching numeracy. You could teach kids to do sums
>> > by keying in sequences to a calculator so they know that a certain
>> > button sequence produces a result. Better to teach them how to add an
>> > multiply first. Since basic HTML is within the capabilities of most
>> > KS2 pupil it would be better to give them at least the basic idea
>> > before going on to painting by numbers.
>> That's a fair analogy, and to extend it into this context, you wouldn't
>> expect an accountant or book-keeper to work everything out on paper -
>> you'd be happy for him or her to use a calculator or spreadsheet.
>> That's why, if someone is creating a large web-site, out of necessity
>> rather than as an academic exercise, some sort of tool such as
>> Dreamweaver or FrontPage could be more appropriate.
> I'd expect a professional to use a HTML editor and not a dtp program. If
Also to understand that HTML is not a DTP medium in the first
place.
> they were using FrontPage I'd be questioning their competence. Two
> questions for any web-site:
> is it lean and fast to render?
Mechanically generated HTML, especially the output of something
like MS Word, often contains tags which are entirely redundant.
Thus isn't fast or easy to render.
--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763
Mark Twells
> I'd expect a professional to use a HTML editor and not a dtp program. If
> they were using FrontPage I'd be questioning their competence. Two
> questions for any web-site:
> is it lean and fast to render?
> is it valid? http://validator.w3.org
>
> There are others but those two are particularly relevant for this
> question.
>
> If you can show me substantial web-pages produced by FrontPage that are
> lean and valid then I'll re-think my response.
FrontPage 2000 can be used as a perfectly acceptable, indeed good, HTML
editor, provided you ignore "themes". It adds 1 line in the header
indicating FP2k was used, and the rest of the code is pretty standards
compliant - indeed, I surf the stuff using Konqueror and Opera, and they
don't squeak. I use it if I have to work with frames, imagemaps, or link
lots of pages together. You drag the page into the editing document to
establish a hyperlink, and that works very well indeed.
Earlier versions of FP were nowhere near as good.
Howie
<m...@shrewsbury.org.uk> wrote:
|FrontPage 2000 can be used as a perfectly acceptable, indeed good, HTML
|editor, provided you ignore "themes". It adds 1 line in the header
|indicating FP2k was used, and the rest of the code is pretty standards
|compliant - indeed, I surf the stuff using Konqueror and Opera, and they
|don't squeak. I use it if I have to work with frames, imagemaps, or link
|lots of pages together. You drag the page into the editing document to
|establish a hyperlink, and that works very well indeed.
|
|Earlier versions of FP were nowhere near as good.
I have never used FP, but I HAVE read lots of complaints in
newsgroups about ISP's not supporting FrontPage Extensions
(whatever they are).
Is this not an issue when teaching pupils to design webpages
aimed at the real world?
--
Howard Coakley: New Media Consultant.
My messageboard:-
http://cgi.coakley.plus.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
e-mail... howard<dot}coakleyatbigfoot<dot].com
ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)
/|ndy |<avanagh
26 Jun 2002 02:19:49 +0100, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.education.schools-it, yawatina tan reek esk John Cartmell
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
>Notepad certainly isn't a tool I'd choose!
>As I said I don't know of an appropriate editor for the Windows platform
>but, if there is something like RISC OS's StrongEd, then I'd suggest that
>anyone producing HTML should at least look at their coding.
I use two tools: HTMLPad, and Mozilla.
dtr
publisher.
I guess it depends what you prefer to use, what skills you rely on more etc.
I was perfectly happy to use publisher to create a simple site.
I tend to use it in preference to word.
Anyone else agree :-))
"Year 5 teacher" <pri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afaen4$1o2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Year 5 teacher
creating my website with it.
"dtr" <d...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yumU8.5654$Mw4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
/|ndy |<avanagh
2 Jul 2002 20:36:49 +0100, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.education.schools-it, yawatina tan reek esk "Year 5 teacher"
<pri...@hotmail.com> fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
>All last - someone else who thinks publisher is ok. I've had no problems in
>creating my website with it.
That isn't the point. Yes, you can create a website quite easily with
Publisher. But many people can't *see* it properly when you've done
so. Publisher creates webpages that are bloated (so thay take longer
to load) and produce non-standard HTML (which many web browsers can't
understand).
John Cartmell
<d...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> At the risk of standing alone I have created a web site successfully
> using publisher.
Have you validated the site?
Is it available for public scrutiny?
--
John Cartmell
gertie@grumbles
but have other people had problems viewing it?
give us the url and get some answers
--
Gertie.
Award-winning bog cleaner, agony aunt and now Latin scholar.
Veni, vidi, Vim (I came, I saw, I cleaned)
Ian
> All last - someone else who thinks publisher is ok. I've had no
> problems in creating my website with it.
I don't think that was really the issue. What you can do and what is the
appropriate tool to do are not necessarily the same thing. I just saw a
demo of Word being used to provide interactive questioning and answering -
its a Word processor not an interactive authoring tool.Ok, it worked but
there are many reasons why using the right tool for the job is a much more
sensible approach. If you believe in high standards you tend to want to
educate to produce high standards in whatever field, whether its numeracy
literacy or technology. Afta al U can prbly make cence of dis but its not
considered a reason to forget grammar and punctuation when teaching
English. Ok, most teachers are a lot less technically knowledgeable about
ICT than they are about English but if an English specialist told you that
it was considered good practice to teach the rules of grammar you would
generally believe them and try and get high standards into your English
teaching. No doubt someone will say that we can forget grammar now with
the advent of SMS text messaging ;-)
Regards,
--
IanL
Ian
> In article <afsvca$8rd$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Year 5 teacher <pri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I've had no problems in
>> creating my website with it.
>
> but have other people had problems viewing it?
>
> give us the url and get some answers
Even if on your non-scientific sample you find most people can on this
particular site that could well be luck rather than good judgement. The
issue is one of sticking with internationally agreed standards and
producing high quality that makes efficient use of resources. Educating
children at an early stage as to why such things are important is also a
good thing. No different from teaching them why spelling and grammar are
important, its just less familiar to teachers. Ok, we can't suddently make
everyone technologically educated but surely we can make an effort to move
in the right direction.
Regards,
--
IanL
Covey
"Ian" <i...@Zaphod.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:36:49 +0100, Year 5 teacher wrote:
>
> > All last - someone else who thinks publisher is ok. I've had no
> > problems in creating my website with it.
>
> I don't think that was really the issue. What you can do and what is the
> appropriate tool to do are not necessarily the same thing. I just saw a
> demo of Word being used to provide interactive questioning and answering -
> its a Word processor not an interactive authoring tool.Ok, it worked but
> there are many reasons why using the right tool for the job is a much more
> sensible approach.
"Mark Twells" <m...@shrewsbury.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3d0a...@shiva.ukisp.net...
>
> IT in education (well, in most things) isn't about perfection. It's about
> putting a plan together which works. >
I think that Mark's observation applies here. If Word worked OK doing
interactive questioning and answering, why bother looking for something
else? Perfection if fine if you can afford it, but most schools do not have
the luxury of time or money to seek perfection, they make the best of what
they have.
Covey.
Mark Evans
The reason for the bloated HTML is that the algorithms used
to output HTML by such programs are very simple. Indeed it
wouldn't suprise me if they use something akin to a printer
driver.
IIRC there are some third party tools available to carry
out optimisation on mechanically generated HTML.
Mark Evans
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:36:49 +0100, Year 5 teacher wrote:
>> All last - someone else who thinks publisher is ok. I've had no
>> problems in creating my website with it.
> I don't think that was really the issue. What you can do and what is the
> appropriate tool to do are not necessarily the same thing. I just saw a
> demo of Word being used to provide interactive questioning and answering -
> its a Word processor not an interactive authoring tool.Ok, it worked but
Sounds like the software equivalent of a "Brummie screwdriver" :)
> there are many reasons why using the right tool for the job is a much more
> sensible approach. If you believe in high standards you tend to want to
> educate to produce high standards in whatever field, whether its numeracy
> literacy or technology. Afta al U can prbly make cence of dis but its not
> considered a reason to forget grammar and punctuation when teaching
> English. Ok, most teachers are a lot less technically knowledgeable about
> ICT than they are about English but if an English specialist told you that
The grammer needed for something like HTML (or any computer
language) is considerably simpler than that needed for English,
French, German. Even if you do need to cope with Mr Webster's
spellings for some of the words.
> it was considered good practice to teach the rules of grammar you would
> generally believe them and try and get high standards into your English
> teaching. No doubt someone will say that we can forget grammar now with
> the advent of SMS text messaging ;-)
Even this does have rules.
Ian
Mark's point is that its an imperfect world. I agree but that isn't a
reason to ditch all standards of quality and expectation because of it.If
its no more difficult to put a plan together that works and is of higher
quality then I'm sure you would agree that it would be better to do so.
Perhaps its worth making a bit of extra effort for quality and pointing
out how practice can be improved. Ok not everyone is able to do everything
but in an education ethos one would expect to strive to learn in order
that quality is improved as time goes on. One of the reasons for reading
these posts is to learn and the emotions aside, the purpose of learning
is to do things better.
Regards,
--
IanL
Tony Degerdon
news:jk04iu4jp4fdfk6l5...@4ax.com...
There may be nothing wrong with using Publisher at all.
For some people using something like publisher is just what they need to
encourage them to take the first step into making a web site. Once they
have some confidence and some interest sparked by seeing what they can
achieve then they can migrate to better systems. By trying to make them
hand-code it you may stop them doing it at all!
If this is just for the intranet and you know the browser that you are using
then you don't care about compatibility or bandwidth.
Even on the internet you have to be realistic. If over 90% of visitors to
your site are using IE then you have to consider the cost implications of
preparing materials to make them compatible with 'all' other browsers.
The same choices must be made even when you adhere to standards. How old
browser technology are you going to support? There has to come a time when
you choose to rule some people out by the way you construct your site.
A more important issue might be considering access for visually impaired and
producing reader friendly sites.
Tony Degerdon
Horsforth School.
Mark Evans
> Even on the internet you have to be realistic. If over 90% of visitors to
> your site are using IE then you have to consider the cost implications of
> preparing materials to make them compatible with 'all' other browsers.
It's more a matter of how many of the visitors will be on a dialup.
Since something like MS Publister tends to produce very bloated
code they may simply get bored waiting for the page to load.
John Cartmell
> For some people using something like publisher is just what they need to
> encourage them to take the first step into making a web site. Once they
> have some confidence and some interest sparked by seeing what they can
> achieve then they can migrate to better systems.
The ones who start that way tend not to.
> By trying to make them hand-code it you may stop them doing it at all!
Not if it's taught right. It's no harder to hand code a simple HTML page
than it is to learn to use Publisher; actually it's far easier.
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> your site are using IE then you have to consider the cost implications of
> preparing materials to make them compatible with 'all' other browsers.
more satisfying for you to do it right then you have no business bothering
with it in the first place.
With dtp - do you centre headings using the space bar; emphasise by
capitalising and underlining; make your document interesting by using 25
different fonts including 'horror' at 12 pts for your base text; use return
at the end of each line and indent your whole document with spaces at the
start of every line?
If not - why not? - and apply your answer to web pages.
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
> browser technology are you going to support? There has to come a time
> when you choose to rule some people out by the way you construct your
> site.
Why?
--
John Cartmell
Steve Rochford
> to output HTML by such programs are very simple. Indeed it
> wouldn't suprise me if they use something akin to a printer
> driver.
be used to produce wysiwyg output and generate it as such. Some of it
certainly isn't standards compliant but a surprising amount of what looks
like garbage actually does validate.
Standards are also easy to fool - for example, IMG tags need an ALT tag.
It's easy to add in an ALT tag which doesn't actually tell you anything
useful in much the same way as you can get ISO 9002 accreditation without
actually providing a good service.
> IIRC there are some third party tools available to carry
> out optimisation on mechanically generated HTML.
Office XP provides a "filtered HTML" output which loses much of the dross
and there's also a filter available for Office 2000 which produces much
cleaner code.
--
Steve Rochford
Computer Support, The College of North West London
Ian
> Tony Degerdon <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Even on the internet you have to be realistic. If over 90% of visitors
>> to your site are using IE then you have to consider the cost
>> implications of preparing materials to make them compatible with 'all'
>> other browsers.
>
> It's more a matter of how many of the visitors will be on a dialup.
> Since something like MS Publister tends to produce very bloated code
> they may simply get bored waiting for the page to load.
I use the web a lot commercially and usually I'm in a hurry. If the page
doesn't render pretty instantly or does som flash gizmo its delete and
look at the next one. There are usually several to look at. Quick clear
messages are in my view the most important aspect of a web site unless
its primarily for entertainment.
Regards,
--
IanL
Lionel Smith
Mark Evans <m...@st-peters-high.devon.sch.uk> wrote:
> .......... mechanically generated HTML.
Which should probably carry similar health warnings to mechanically
retrieved meat. ;-)
Lionel
--
___ ______
/ / / ___/ 4 children | Sea Vixen for pugnacity
/ / ionel A.| \ mith 7 grandchildren, | Hunter for elegance
/ /____ __\ | no wonder life is a breeze | Phantom for clout
/_______/ /_____/ http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lionels | ZFC B+5
Join a Microsoft Foundation Class, and go away brainwashed. ;-)
Steve Rochford
> > old browser technology are you going to support? There has to come a
> > time when you choose to rule some people out by the way you construct
> > your site.
>
> Why?
Some people choose to use browsers that don't support HTML 4. If I want to
do something which can only be achieved in HTML 4 then it's not going to
work well such a browser. I can spend time trying to make sure my site
will work well with these browsers but time costs money (OK for pupils it
doesn't but the principle still stands). Eventually I have to decide how
important it is to bring in that last 20%, 10% or whatever.
The decision ought to be made on the basis of knowing your audience. For
example, our intranet makes some use of client side vbscript. We can do
this because we know that everyone using our intranet will have Internet
Explorer. We can also use styles to control things like page layout for
printing so that printouts will fit properly on college letterhead. Our
public web site is essentially written without using such methods (but I
don't really have any input into it and I do know that it uses Flash
completely pointlessly and uses lots of terrible, Macromedia generated
code!)
Steve Rochford
>
> Which should probably carry similar health warnings to mechanically
> retrieved meat. ;-)
Except that I suspect that almost all big sites use mechanically generated
HTML to write web pages from news, information etc held in databases of
some kind. MRM is always going to be poor quality, MHTML can be high
quality.
John Cartmell
Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > The same choices must be made even when you adhere to standards. How
> > > old browser technology are you going to support? There has to come
> > > a time when you choose to rule some people out by the way you
> > > construct your site.
> >
> > Why?
> Some people choose to use browsers that don't support HTML 4. If I want
> to do something which can only be achieved in HTML 4 then it's not
> going to work well such a browser.
If you can't produce a web-site that doesn't work on all valid browsers
then where is your professionalism? There are many reasons for new, flashy
options being unavailable or switched off. If you specifically ignore such
possibilities then you're putting up two fingers to part of your potential
audience and, in some cases, may be breaking the law. If you want to do
that then go ahead and do it but expect your actions to be seen as rude or
amateurish. Don't expect to deal in that way and still be treat as a
professional; a professional will ensure that the site can be seen (in some
form) whether the customer uses the latest or well worn software, 16million
colours and high resolution or monochrome and low resolution, by sight or
using a speak system, using Janet or a pda and a mobile phone.
There are many cowboys pretending to be professionals - let's at least
teach our kids to appreciate the difference.
--
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon
news:4b50eb2...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk>, Steve
> Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > The same choices must be made even when you adhere to standards. How
> > > > old browser technology are you going to support? There has to come
> > > > a time when you choose to rule some people out by the way you
> > > > construct your site.
> > >
> > > Why?
>
> > Some people choose to use browsers that don't support HTML 4. If I want
> > to do something which can only be achieved in HTML 4 then it's not
> > going to work well such a browser.
>
> If you can't produce a web-site that doesn't work on all valid browsers
> then where is your professionalism?
Managing the production of a web site which has loads of contributors none
of whom claim to be professional web site designers in such a way that the
resulting site works in all valid browsers is a tall order.
Like most things in life some compromise has to be reached. In our case we
have a limited target audience for the web site and involving staff and
students from across the school in the production of the site is more
important to us than making it accessible to someone on the other side of
the world with a weird browser.
Equally when students are contributing then the content they produce is more
important to us than the quality of their coding. The web site is the
vehicle for learning and not the learning objective itself.
Following your line of thought it would appear that anyone who writes a
program that does not work on all operating systems and indeed all verisons
of the operating system no matter how old is also unprofessional?
Deg.
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4b50eb2...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk>,
> > Steve Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > The same choices must be made even when you adhere to standards.
> > > > > How old browser technology are you going to support? There has
> > > > > to come a time when you choose to rule some people out by the
> > > > > way you construct your site.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> >
> > > Some people choose to use browsers that don't support HTML 4. If I
> > > want to do something which can only be achieved in HTML 4 then it's
> > > not going to work well such a browser.
> >
> > If you can't produce a web-site that doesn't work on all valid
> > browsers then where is your professionalism?
> Managing the production of a web site which has loads of contributors
> none of whom claim to be professional web site designers in such a way
> that the resulting site works in all valid browsers is a tall order.
If you don't claim professionalism then that wouldn't be expected.
> Like most things in life some compromise has to be reached. In our case
> we have a limited target audience for the web site and involving staff
> and students from across the school in the production of the site is
> more important to us than making it accessible to someone on the other
> side of the world with a weird browser.
Practical limitations in schools are appreciated - from personal
experience!
> Equally when students are contributing then the content they produce is
> more important to us than the quality of their coding. The web site is
> the vehicle for learning and not the learning objective itself.
Yes - but. There is a clear distinction between accepting limitations and
teaching poor techniques. Pupils can accept that their output won't be of
professional quality but shouldn't be mis-taught and given bad habits or
presented with excuses that are only used by poor workmen. Doing it well
is no harder than doing it badly - it merely requires the teacher to
understand their subject. I realise this is a problem at the moment with
teachers themselves being very badly taught. That's why we need to shout
about the problem!
> Following your line of thought it would appear that anyone who writes a
> program that does not work on all operating systems and indeed all
> verisons of the operating system no matter how old is also
> unprofessional?
No. Web sites are public documents. The comparison is with being able to
read some newspapers, traffic signs and posters only if you have purchased
new (and frequently changed) spectacles. Yes the concept is ridiculous.
It is possible to produce html that is generally viewable. Such code is
usually faster at presenting information than anything else. If additional
effects are required then they can easily be offered as options and not as
a barrier to viewing the rest of the page(s). Note most (almost all) use of
flashy effects is irrelevant, time-wasting or can be produced by simpler
methods (often all three). In education we should be teaching good practice
- if not then our professionalism in that area is in doubt.
> Deg.
--
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon
> In article <ag4hmb$80g$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Tony Degerdon
> <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
....snip....
> > Equally when students are contributing then the content they produce is
> > more important to us than the quality of their coding. The web site is
> > the vehicle for learning and not the learning objective itself.
>
> Yes - but. There is a clear distinction between accepting limitations and
> teaching poor techniques. Pupils can accept that their output won't be of
> professional quality but shouldn't be mis-taught and given bad habits or
> presented with excuses that are only used by poor workmen. Doing it well
> is no harder than doing it badly - it merely requires the teacher to
> understand their subject. I realise this is a problem at the moment with
> teachers themselves being very badly taught. That's why we need to shout
> about the problem!
>
Sorry but I still think you are missing the point. If part of a site is
being generated by an English teacher working with or without student help,
and they are trying to present resources that will help their students
further their study of English then the fact that they may use Publisher to
create the web page does not mean that either the English teacher or their
students are badly taught. It just means that they are more interested in
teaching/learning English and using IT as a tool to further that aim than
they are in learning about HTML versions.
> > Following your line of thought it would appear that anyone who writes a
> > program that does not work on all operating systems and indeed all
> > verisons of the operating system no matter how old is also
> > unprofessional?
>
> No. Web sites are public documents. The comparison is with being able to
> read some newspapers, traffic signs and posters only if you have purchased
> new (and frequently changed) spectacles. Yes the concept is ridiculous.
> It is possible to produce html that is generally viewable. Such code is
> usually faster at presenting information than anything else. If additional
> effects are required then they can easily be offered as options and not as
> a barrier to viewing the rest of the page(s). Note most (almost all) use
of
> flashy effects is irrelevant, time-wasting or can be produced by simpler
> methods (often all three). In education we should be teaching good
practice
> - if not then our professionalism in that area is in doubt.
>
I agree with you completely about the flashy effects but that is not what we
are talking about. By using a tool such as Word or Publisher loads of
people who would otherwise be put off by what they would see as 'complicated
technology' are able to publish information that is viewable by a very large
number of people. In reality I doubt anyone else in the world would want to
look at it, but that really doesn't matter.
The idea that a website is a public document is at the root of the problem.
Take that to its extremes and we all have to publish in every language under
the sun. I am all for the authors retaining ownership of their site. If
they are happy to restrict their audience because of the techniques or the
language that they use in the creation of the site then that is their
choice.
At the moment using something like publisher to create a web page can be
very educational. Put it on the school website and then when a student has
tried to view it from home they will come back complaining at how slow it is
and they may be interested in learning why and how to avoid that in the
future.
In the future I expect that tools like Publisher will produce perfectly
adequate code and our bandwidth concerns will have shifted from static pages
to streaming media. A detailed technical knowlegde of how to hand code HTML
to make small and efficient pages will be irrelevant. Understanding the
principle of limited bandwidth and applying that to the technologies of the
time will be all that matters.
Deg.
John Cartmell
> ....snip....
Will the English teacher complain if my teaching of IT includes poor
spelling, punctuation and grammar?
[Snip]
> At the moment using something like publisher to create a web page can be
> very educational. Put it on the school website and then when a student
> has tried to view it from home they will come back complaining at how
> slow it is and they may be interested in learning why and how to avoid
> that in the future.
I'd like to think that teachers would be capable of answering the question.
I doubt it. That's why I referred to shouting about quality.
> In the future I expect that tools like Publisher will produce perfectly
> adequate code
No chance. The concept is totally incompatible (Publisher & HTML) and the
direction of development is in entirely the wrong direction. These tools
are anti-educational and work to stifle understanding. They have no place
in schools.
--
John Cartmell
Ian
>> In the future I expect that tools like Publisher will produce perfectly
>> adequate code
>
> No chance. The concept is totally incompatible (Publisher & HTML) and
> the direction of development is in entirely the wrong direction. These
> tools are anti-educational and work to stifle understanding. They have
> no place in schools.
That's a bit extreme. Publisher used in the right way can be Ok for
introducing DTP. There are much better tools admittedly but I agree that
Publisher used to create web sites is bad practice (maybe that's what you
meant) and reinforcing or introducing bad practice is not the route to
high standards. Its a bit like phonetic spelling, it might seem easier for
beginners at the outset but its generally agreed now that its not the most
efficient way to get pupils to spell properly. My problem with Publisher
as a DTP tool is that it encourages the photocopying mentality through the
use of wizards ie dumb down the design element, compared to a real DTP
package that professionals use its limited and it does not transfer files
easily to other applications. Ok, some teachers can get round these by the
way they teach with it but in my experience in hundreds of schools, this
is all too rare.
Regards,
--
IanL
John Cartmell
<i...@Zaphod.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 00:52:23 +0100, John Cartmell wrote:
> >> In the future I expect that tools like Publisher will produce
> >> perfectly adequate code
> >
> > No chance. The concept is totally incompatible (Publisher & HTML) and
> > the direction of development is in entirely the wrong direction. These
> > tools are anti-educational and work to stifle understanding. They have
> > no place in schools.
>
> That's a bit extreme. Publisher used in the right way can be Ok for
> introducing DTP.
If you insist!
> There are much better tools admittedly but I agree that Publisher used
> to create web sites is bad practice
DTP and HTML are incompatable.
It is possible to persuade elephants to prance about on their back legs
but circus tricks like that should be kept where they belong - banned.
> My problem with Publisher as a DTP tool is that it encourages the
> photocopying mentality through the use of wizards ie dumb down the
> design element,
That's one of my complaints about the whole of the Microsoft output. It's
easy to follow the photocopy mentality and hard to produce original work -
exactly the opposite of what schools should be about.
Start on the wrong path and it's practically impossible to put it right
later. Schools should be guiding the first tricky (but demonstrably
possible) first steps to original work - which is why school art classes
don't teach with painting by numbers sets.
--
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon
Oh come on guys, you will have us all programming in assembler next. Most
packages these days offer a range of wizards, templates and tools that are
intented to save the user time and in some cases allow them to carry out
actions that they themselves do not have the skill to do.
Our Art department makes use of packages like Photoshop and Corel Draw.
These are stuffed full of gimicky tools but that doesn't mean that students
should not be allowed to use them until they had produced the same effect
using nothing more than Microsoft Paint!
A package like Microsoft Access makes it possible for a large number of
people work with relational databases. You could argue that they shouldn't
do that until they can program one themselves, but the skill set has
changed. The same will inevitably happen with web page design. At the
moment a number of people are, with some justification, obsessed with
producing hand-coded HTML. OK so the idea that a future version of
Publisher might become a good web design tool may be a bit fanciful, but
there certainly will be programs that will provide DTP style ease of use and
yet produce code that is acceptable for the technology and standards of the
time. Sure there may still be a few people working in HTML but the vast
majority won't.
IMHO schools have to recongnise that the use of IT will inevitably mean
students don't always start with a blank page and produce original work.
That applies just as much to copying and pasting text and graphics from the
internet as it does to making use of wizards to create a publication or
downloading someone elses objects when writing a program. If education is
about standing on the shoulders of those who have come before, then IT is a
tool that can assist in making this happen by making it easy for us to nick
their work and integrate it into our solutions.
Deg.
Ian
> Oh come on guys, you will have us all programming in assembler next.
No, just expecting the same standards as in the other core subjects.
> Most packages these days offer a range of wizards, templates and tools
> that are intented to save the user time
A photocopier saves time, but have you ever let Year 7 use one with
freedom? The results are predictable. Wizards are Ok if used properly as
are photocopiers. Unfortunately all too often they are used badly and not
to move pupils on. Teachers are their to help children through the trauma
of progression. Learning is actually hard work, no pain no gain. CASE and
a number of other accelerated learning research programmes provide the
evidence.
> and in some cases allow them to
> carry out actions that they themselves do not have the skill to do.
And never will have if they don't learn and practice those skills.
> Our Art department makes use of packages like Photoshop and Corel Draw.
> These are stuffed full of gimicky tools but that doesn't mean that
> students should not be allowed to use them until they had produced the
> same effect using nothing more than Microsoft Paint!
Balance. Do you mean the package or the gimicky tools? If they use the
gimicky tools rather than their creative skills I'm sure your art
colleagues would not approve, but that is really off topic. Microsoft
Paint would be a pretty poor tool - its really there for designing
desktop icons and the like. Judgement about the right tool is not
necessarily its simplicity or ease of use. Publisher is not the right tool
to design a web page just as Microsoft Paint is not the tool for drawing a
circuit board layout. It might be possible to do it but its not a good
choice.NC KS3 Level 8 I think.
> A package like Microsoft Access makes it possible for a large number of
> people work with relational databases. You could argue that they
> shouldn't do that until they can program one themselves,
I think you are missing the point entirely.
> but the skill
> set has changed. The same will inevitably happen with web page design.
Unless all computer screen resolutions and operating systems become the
equivalent of a piece of paper, web design will require the use of web
design tools not DTP packages. Of course they might graft a web authoring
system into Publisher but that would not simply be designing something
for a paper printout and then saying hey let's make it a web page.
> At the moment a number of people are, with some justification, obsessed
> with producing hand-coded HTML.
Not me, I just want to see a decent choice of tool for the job. OTOH we do
teach some fundamental science on the grounds its a more transferrable
skill so I have some sympathy with the idea that teaching fundamentals is
actually more useful than training in specific packages. We get arguents
for using X because its what pupils will use when they leave school. Any
pupil getting into web design when they leave school is very unlikely to
choose Publisher as the tool. Since its no more difficult to use a tool
designed for the job I can't see the justification in not doing so.
> OK so the idea that a future version of Publisher might become a good
> web design tool may be a bit fanciful, but there certainly will be
> programs that will provide DTP style ease of
use
There are several but none of them is Publisher.
> and yet produce code that is acceptable for the technology and standards
> of the time. Sure there may still be a few people working in HTML but
> the vast majority won't.
The vast majority will use a combination and probably continue to do so at
the quality end of things.
> IMHO schools have to recongnise that the use of IT will inevitably mean
> students don't always start with a blank page and produce original work.
Some of the work needs to be original or its just plaigiarism, this is a
different argument from choosing an appropriate design tool.
> That applies just as much to copying and pasting text and graphics from
> the internet as it does to making use of wizards to create a publication
> or downloading someone elses objects when writing a program.
Well, if pupils copy and paste from the internet without modification it
falls into the same category of bad practice. Most exam boards ban wizards
for coursework in subjects like DT and would certainly expect teachers to
mark down work that is simply cut and pasted from the Internet.
> education is about standing on the shoulders of those who have come
> before, then IT is a tool that can assist in making this happen by
> making it easy for us to nick their work and integrate it into our
> solutions.
Newton would be turning over in his grave ;-) Education is about
progression based on the ideas of others to produce new ideas, not copying
ideas and then passing them off as our own.This is however a completely
separate argument to choosing an appropriate tool for a task.
Regards,
--
IanL
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
In most cases they take out all originality and individuality but that, in
itself, isn't the sole problem. take art: Give students the task of
producing a painting in the style of Leonardo da Vinci and give student A
standard art materials, B a photograph of the Mona Lisa and access to a
photocopy machine and C a paint by numbers kit of the Mona Lisa. Do you
say they are facing the same task? Do you look at the final product and
allocate marks / NC levels according to output alone - or do you take
account of the work done by the students *themselves* - ie not Leonardo
and not the paint by numbers designers? We need to remember that we're
looking at education; our requirements may be different if we wanted fast
output cheap by unskilled operators. We don't.
> Our Art department makes use of packages like Photoshop and Corel Draw.
> These are stuffed full of gimicky tools but that doesn't mean that
> students should not be allowed to use them until they had produced the
> same effect using nothing more than Microsoft Paint!
I'd hope the art department would teach drawing and painting with cheap
and easy to use/learn materials before progressing to oils. Ditto the
electronic versions. I'd use Draw (RISC OS of course!) before ArtWorks
(Corel Xara) or Vantage and Paint before ProArtisan, Composition or
PhotoDesk.
> A package like Microsoft Access makes it possible for a large number of
> people work with relational databases. You could argue that they
> shouldn't do that until they can program one themselves, but the skill
> set has changed.
In school I'd expect them to have experience of a range of simple database
programs and also use a spreadsheet as a form of database before using a
relational database program. That's what school is about!!!
> The same will inevitably happen with web page design. At the moment a
> number of people are, with some justification, obsessed with producing
> hand-coded HTML. OK so the idea that a future version of Publisher
> might become a good web design tool may be a bit fanciful, but there
> certainly will be programs that will provide DTP style ease of use and
> yet produce code that is acceptable for the technology and standards of
> the time. Sure there may still be a few people working in HTML but the
> vast majority won't.
Some people will always sit on a table, hammer in nails with a screwdriver
and change gear without fully depressing the clutch. The same people try to
produce DTP pages with HTML. Education is about pointing out that such
things are generally wrong.
[Snip]
--
John Cartmell
`p
> In article <ag71jh$9k4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, Tony Degerdon
> <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Give students the task of
> producing a painting in the style of Leonardo da Vinci and give
student A
> standard art materials, B a photograph of the Mona Lisa and access to
a
> photocopy machine and C a paint by numbers kit of the Mona Lisa. Do
you
> say they are facing the same task? Do you look at the final product
and
> allocate marks / NC levels according to output alone - or do you take
> account of the work done by the students *themselves* - ie not
Leonardo
> and not the paint by numbers designers? We need to remember that we're
> looking at education; our requirements may be different if we wanted
fast
> output cheap by unskilled operators. We don't.
>
Please see some of the work done by David Hockney, using existing art
work (his and others), graphics packages, photcopiers/fax machines.
I think you might be surprised.
--
`p
Tony Sheppard
vtFV8.21388$k6.160...@news-text.cableinet.net, "`p"
<smar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
I fully agree ... It's not what you use ... It's how you use it.
The argument about using DTP products for creating websites should really
boil down to "Do you want the students to learn and understand standardised
and compatible HTML, DHTML and so on, or do you want them to learn web
design?"
These are 2 different things and although a really good web site needs to
have both, if you are interested in the design side, you really do not need
the coding side ... And if you are only interested in the code, why do you
need to worry about design?
Personally I have no problem with DTP products preparing web pages, as long
as the student is willing to look at the source and tell me where and why it
doesn't meet the standards. That way you get the best of both worlds.
Tony
John Cartmell
<smar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Please see some of the work done by David Hockney, using existing art
> work (his and others), graphics packages, photcopiers/fax machines.
I have done.
> I think you might be surprised.
It's not fine art. It's something different even if valid in its own right.
And it doesn't show that the use of pencils and brushes in art should be
scrapped.
The equivalent (in IT) was what was being advocated. Don't scrap learning!!
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
<grumb...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Personally I have no problem with DTP products preparing web pages, as
> long as the student is willing to look at the source and tell me where
> and why it doesn't meet the standards. That way you get the best of both
> worlds.
To do that the student needs to have got his/her hands dirty with real-life
HTML. It's not difficult and it's an essential aspect of learning how to
produce web-pages. Hopefully the student will then have the good sense to
reject the so-called DTP option of producing web pages whilst thanking you
for the exercise. The ignorant student who only uses the 'easy' option will
not have been given the ability to remove their ignorance.
--
John Cartmell
Ian
The issue isn't the tool but how its used and inmost cases Year 7 are not
David Hockney so you don't get the same outcome and you don't get too
much learning.
Regards,
--
IanL
Ian
> On 06/07/2002 18:07, in article
> vtFV8.21388$k6.160...@news-text.cableinet.net, "`p"
> <smar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Please see some of the work done by David Hockney, using existing art
>> work (his and others), graphics packages, photcopiers/fax machines.
>>
>> I think you might be surprised.
>>
> I fully agree ... It's not what you use ... It's how you use it.
>
> The argument about using DTP products for creating websites should
> really boil down to "Do you want the students to learn and understand
> standardised and compatible HTML, DHTML and so on, or do you want them
> to learn web design?"
>
> These are 2 different things and although a really good web site needs
> to have both, if you are interested in the design side, you really do
> not need the coding side ... And if you are only interested in the code,
> why do you need to worry about design?
If you are interested in the design side, use a tool that has the purpose
of producing web pages. If you want to design say the background graphics
use a suitable graphic design tool. Since its just as easy to use
appropriate tools why use an inappropriate one.
> Personally I have no problem with DTP products preparing web pages, as
> long as the student is willing to look at the source and tell me where
> and why it doesn't meet the standards. That way you get the best of both
> worlds.
Not really. You start pupils off believing that sub-standard methods are
as good as any. In my view its not primarily about HTML. I suppose if you
said this is actually not the right tool but we can't afford the proper
one, or I don't know how to use a proper one it would be a little bit more
defensible.
Regards,
--
IanL
>
> Tony
Tony Degerdon
But what we do want is people who can make sensible decisions about how to
solve a problem. We are in danger of teaching students that they have to do
things the hard way. To teach people not to use wizards on principle is not
helpful. To teach people to make appropriate use of wizards and modify the
results when needed is.
Suppose to students are given the same task. One solves it by writing reams
of code. Another solves it by making effective use of a couple of SQL
statements. Which one deserves the higher mark? Personally I would want to
give the higher mark to the one that used SQL, but I wouldn't bet on the
exam board moderator seeing it the same way.
Now take a third student who solves the same problem using a couple of
queries driven by a macro. If I know that this student is perfectly capable
of implementing either of the other approaches but has chosen this one then
I would want to give them a high mark. If I know that they used this
approach because they were not even aware that there were alternatives then
I wouldn't. Unfortunately the need to provide evidence means that I would
probably advise the capable candidate to use an unecessarily complex
approach just to demonstrate their skill. Daft isn't it.
Deg.
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> But what we do want is people who can make sensible decisions about how
> to solve a problem. We are in danger of teaching students that they have
> to do things the hard way. To teach people not to use wizards on
> principle is not helpful. To teach people to make appropriate use of
> wizards and modify the results when needed is.
The intial question was whether or not to use an inappropriate tool or an
appropriate tool when teaching a technique (web page production). The
inappropriate tool is likely to be used by inexperienced staff or staff who
have been badly trained.
The use of wizards is a parallel, but different, problem. Their use can
easily disguise the lack of work/understanding by the student. perhaps
another parallel can be aired:
I would never let pupils use clip art (this is KS3) until they had produced
their own art using Draw (vector graphics). Once they could produce their
own art from scratch, and were working through all the facilities of the
package, then they could use 3rd party clip art but:
they received no marks for unamended 3rd party artwork (except (possibly)
for its appropriateness,
some marks for 3rd party artwork that they had modified,
potential full marks for original art.
However other staff would regularly make no distinction between 3rd-party
art and own-produced art because they (staff) were not capable of producing
such artwork themselves and didn't appreciate the difference.
As teachers we should work to understand the (not too difficult) basics of
the technology that we're using and ensure that students understand those
basics. We should teach correct and incorrect processes even if most of the
world gets it wrong (that includes DTP as well as Web Design).
Another subject for comparison:
What is your view on a music teacher whose pupils produce wonderful music
from the earliest age - by playing a pre-recorded CD?
--
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon
news:pan.2002.07.06.16...@nltworld.com...
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 16:16:01 +0100, Tony Degerdon wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh come on guys, you will have us all programming in assembler next.
>
>
> No, just expecting the same standards as in the other core subjects.
>
In other core subjects the technique of estimation is frequently used. Its
quick, easy and gives and answer that is not correct but is good enough for
the given situation.
> > Most packages these days offer a range of wizards, templates and tools
> > that are intented to save the user time
>
> A photocopier saves time, but have you ever let Year 7 use one with
> freedom? The results are predictable. Wizards are Ok if used properly as
> are photocopiers. Unfortunately all too often they are used badly and not
> to move pupils on. Teachers are their to help children through the trauma
> of progression. Learning is actually hard work, no pain no gain. CASE and
> a number of other accelerated learning research programmes provide the
> evidence.
>
Agreed but they will not learn how to use them well if we don't teach them
to use them.
> > and in some cases allow them to
> > carry out actions that they themselves do not have the skill to do.
>
> And never will have if they don't learn and practice those skills.
>
Yes but it is not a hard and fast rule is it. I am not suggesting that
students should be totally de-skilled, but there are some cases when it
makes sense not to bother leaning a skill because current and certainly
future IT products will be able to deliver that skill for us.
> > Our Art department makes use of packages like Photoshop and Corel Draw.
> > These are stuffed full of gimicky tools but that doesn't mean that
> > students should not be allowed to use them until they had produced the
> > same effect using nothing more than Microsoft Paint!
>
> Balance. Do you mean the package or the gimicky tools? If they use the
> gimicky tools rather than their creative skills I'm sure your art
> colleagues would not approve, but that is really off topic. Microsoft
> Paint would be a pretty poor tool - its really there for designing
> desktop icons and the like. Judgement about the right tool is not
> necessarily its simplicity or ease of use. Publisher is not the right tool
> to design a web page just as Microsoft Paint is not the tool for drawing a
> circuit board layout. It might be possible to do it but its not a good
> choice.NC KS3 Level 8 I think.
>
> > A package like Microsoft Access makes it possible for a large number of
> > people work with relational databases. You could argue that they
> > shouldn't do that until they can program one themselves,
>
> I think you are missing the point entirely.
>
No I am not ;-P
> > but the skill
> > set has changed. The same will inevitably happen with web page design.
>
> Unless all computer screen resolutions and operating systems become the
> equivalent of a piece of paper, web design will require the use of web
> design tools not DTP packages. Of course they might graft a web authoring
> system into Publisher but that would not simply be designing something
> for a paper printout and then saying hey let's make it a web page.
>
But things will have to change. For example at the moment our printers use
Corel Draw to produce the schools paper based newsletter. If I try to
convert this to PDF it produces garbage. Outputing it as a web page from
Corel Draw produces large graphic images of the page which are only useable
by people with a broadband connection. The other alternative is that I can
copy and paste pictures and articles into a proper web design tool. This is
all extremely inefficient. I need standard productivity tools to produce
acceptable web pages. If I need it then so does the rest of the world, and
that means that one way or another it will happen. So I am betting that 5
years from now using your DTP package to output a web page will not be as
bad as it is now.
> > At the moment a number of people are, with some justification, obsessed
> > with producing hand-coded HTML.
>
> Not me, I just want to see a decent choice of tool for the job. OTOH we do
> teach some fundamental science on the grounds its a more transferrable
> skill so I have some sympathy with the idea that teaching fundamentals is
> actually more useful than training in specific packages. We get arguents
> for using X because its what pupils will use when they leave school. Any
> pupil getting into web design when they leave school is very unlikely to
> choose Publisher as the tool. Since its no more difficult to use a tool
> designed for the job I can't see the justification in not doing so.
>
I like the fundementals argument too. All sailors should start in dinghies.
But there are times in a school when a student will have produced work in
Word or Publisher or Star Office or TextEase and then as an afterthought
they want to publish it on the web. There are also times when an English
teacher who is teaching English wants to make use of IT. If they have never
used a web page design packages but they are familiar with Word or Publisher
or Star Office or Text Ease then I will say 'go for it'.
> > OK so the idea that a future version of Publisher might become a good
> > web design tool may be a bit fanciful, but there certainly will be
> > programs that will provide DTP style ease of
> use
>
> There are several but none of them is Publisher.
>
Really? I am not aware of any web design packages that do that good job of
hiding the technology from the user.
> > and yet produce code that is acceptable for the technology and standards
> > of the time. Sure there may still be a few people working in HTML but
> > the vast majority won't.
>
> The vast majority will use a combination and probably continue to do so at
> the quality end of things.
The same used to be true of assembly language. I can no longer justify
teaching it to everybody.
> > IMHO schools have to recongnise that the use of IT will inevitably mean
> > students don't always start with a blank page and produce original work.
>
> Some of the work needs to be original or its just plaigiarism, this is a
> different argument from choosing an appropriate design tool.
>
> > That applies just as much to copying and pasting text and graphics from
> > the internet as it does to making use of wizards to create a publication
> > or downloading someone elses objects when writing a program.
>
> Well, if pupils copy and paste from the internet without modification it
> falls into the same category of bad practice. Most exam boards ban wizards
> for coursework in subjects like DT and would certainly expect teachers to
> mark down work that is simply cut and pasted from the Internet.
>
> > education is about standing on the shoulders of those who have come
> > before, then IT is a tool that can assist in making this happen by
> > making it easy for us to nick their work and integrate it into our
> > solutions.
>
> Newton would be turning over in his grave ;-) Education is about
> progression based on the ideas of others to produce new ideas, not copying
> ideas and then passing them off as our own.This is however a completely
> separate argument to choosing an appropriate tool for a task.
>
OK so this is exactly my point. Our current way of thinking is that
everything has to be new. Unless of course you are an undergraduate in
which case it is better to show that you have read widely and can quote from
your superiors than it is to have original ideas!
In reality our idea of new often means 'take someone elses ideas and express
them in your own words'. This is a particularly pointless activity
particularly when you have the assitance of IT. If you wanted to write a
new policy document for you school (a daily event) then the most sensible
thing to do is to research several other peoples policy documents. Copy,
scan or even retype the bits you like from several documents. Add a small
percentage of your own original content, and then finally meld the resulting
document into a seamless whole. These are the skills that we need to teach.
Deg.
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> So I am betting that 5 years from now using your DTP package to output a
> web page will not be as bad as it is now.
is not something to be improved. HTML (web pages) are not DTP pages. They
are something quite different. The output will not be the same on my
machine as on your machine. It may differ radically. The whole concept of
HTML is that ***despite*** the needs of viewers being different the
information contained within the page can still get through. If you
*****force***** me to look at your page in a particular way by presenting
it as a DTP page then you may very well ensure that I have no access to the
page at all. eg I may be blind. For the blind, colour blind, partially
sighted etc a proper HTML page can still be perceived. Try to present it to
me as DTP and, in effect you're saying "F*** you. You're blind and don't
matter!"
If you don't mean that then don't try to DTP your web pages and don't teach
kids that it's appropriate. It isn't.
--
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon
> In article <ag7fvf$ojq$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Tony Degerdon
> <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > But what we do want is people who can make sensible decisions about how
> > to solve a problem. We are in danger of teaching students that they have
> > to do things the hard way. To teach people not to use wizards on
> > principle is not helpful. To teach people to make appropriate use of
> > wizards and modify the results when needed is.
>
> The intial question was whether or not to use an inappropriate tool or an
> appropriate tool when teaching a technique (web page production). The
> inappropriate tool is likely to be used by inexperienced staff or staff
who
> have been badly trained.
AFAIK the original question was not about teaching people to make web pages
but was from someone confused about the difference between a new line in
Publisher and a paragraph in HTML. With no disreprespect to the person
concerned I think that telling them to learn HTML was not appropriate - yet.
> The use of wizards is a parallel, but different, problem. Their use can
> easily disguise the lack of work/understanding by the student. perhaps
> another parallel can be aired:
> I would never let pupils use clip art (this is KS3) until they had
produced
> their own art using Draw (vector graphics). Once they could produce their
> own art from scratch, and were working through all the facilities of the
> package, then they could use 3rd party clip art but:
> they received no marks for unamended 3rd party artwork (except (possibly)
> for its appropriateness,
> some marks for 3rd party artwork that they had modified,
> potential full marks for original art.
>
OK so by comparison I would start with using clipart then introduce
modifying third party art work then move on to making your own. I don't
think that you are wrong in your approach, but I don't think my approach is
wrong either.
> However other staff would regularly make no distinction between 3rd-party
> art and own-produced art because they (staff) were not capable of
producing
> such artwork themselves and didn't appreciate the difference.
>
Were they teaching IT? If so somebody needed to train them. If not then I
think they were entitled to be interested in outcome rather than process.
> As teachers we should work to understand the (not too difficult) basics of
> the technology that we're using and ensure that students understand those
> basics. We should teach correct and incorrect processes even if most of
the
> world gets it wrong (that includes DTP as well as Web Design).
>
Yeah. Its a wondeful feeling when the rest of the world is wrong :-)
> Another subject for comparison:
> What is your view on a music teacher whose pupils produce wonderful music
> from the earliest age - by playing a pre-recorded CD?
>
If the play it then they are not producing it. If they are really good at
mixing pre-recorded music then they may end up being richer than you, me,
their music teacher and Beethoven put together.
Deg.
Tony Degerdon
news:ag7moh$758$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> John Cartmell wrote:
>
> > The intial question was whether or not to use an inappropriate tool or
an
> > appropriate tool when teaching a technique (web page production). The
> > inappropriate tool is likely to be used by inexperienced staff or staff
> > who have been badly trained.
>
> evaluate me as a possible ICT teacher. For ICT, I was told to teach a
class
> how to make a poster. Yet another poster.
>
> I have my own way which starts off with various sizes of headline,
pictures
> and text which I stick on the white board to demonstrate layout a la the
> old fashioned cut and paste way.
>
> I then demonstrate resizable and movable frames/textboxes using Word to
show
> how a similar approach can be used on the computer. I find Word is easier
> to use than Publisher for this. I try to get the kids to combine creative
> and technical skills.
>
> My approach is "wrong, wrong, wrong". The proper way to do it is to get
the
> kids to use the Wizard in Publisher to choose a preset layout and a colour
> scheme. Then they simply insert some clip art and type in some text and
the
> job is done. I was told that if I didn't understand how to use the
software
> then I shouldn't be an ICT teacher.It must be right because the man what
> told me is an LEA advisor and that's the way it's done in the LEA.
ROFL. Well if you were told that you were wrong then that just confirms what
we all suspected about LEA advisors (apart from the LEA advisors reading
this post of course - they probably never suspected anything!)
If you never point out to the students that there is the option of using a
wizard then you may well be wrong. The majority of our students have a PC
at home. They will discover (be hit over the head with) wizards without our
help. Making valid judgements on the suitability of wizard produced output
may reqire the help of a professional such as yourself.
Deg.
Ian
>
> But what we do want is people who can make sensible decisions about how
> to solve a problem.
Yes let's teach them elegant problem solving with appropriate tools.
> We are in danger of teaching students that they have
> to do things the hard way.
Nope, its no more difficult to use the right tools.
> To teach people not to use wizards on
> principle is not helpful.
Again this is distortion. Teach them to design - if that includes the use
of wizards at appropriate times, fine but I see very little evidence of
this type of discrimination in the teaching.
> To teach people to make appropriate use of
> wizards and modify the results when needed is.
Fine if this really was what was happening - there is also the issue that
starting from scratch from time to time is best too.
> Suppose to students are given the same task. One solves it by writing
> reams of code. Another solves it by making effective use of a couple of
> SQL statements. Which one deserves the higher mark? Personally I would
> want to give the higher mark to the one that used SQL, but I wouldn't
> bet on the exam board moderator seeing it the same way.
That depends on the task and its objectives. Are you assessing learning
or outcome? What was the purpose of the task?
> Now take a third student who solves the same problem using a couple of
> queries driven by a macro. If I know that this student is perfectly
> capable of implementing either of the other approaches but has chosen
> this one then I would want to give them a high mark.
All of which is completely irrelevant to the issue which is about using
the right tools for a particular task. Its pretty difficult to justify
Publisher as a tool for DTP except on the grounds that a) there is no
alternative available b) No expertise. Neither of these are addressed by
your examples.
> If I know that
> they used this approach because they were not even aware that there were
> alternatives then I wouldn't.
Which is most often the reason people use things like Publisher for web
pages. They are unaware of the alternatives or do not have them available
neither of which is likely to read to quality education.
> Unfortunately the need to provide
> evidence means that I would probably advise the capable candidate to use
> an unecessarily complex approach just to demonstrate their skill. Daft
> isn't it.
You could get them to explain in terms of the exam criteria why their
solution meets the criteria and is actually the most elegant solution.
Regards,
--
IanL
Tony Degerdon
Blimey John, you must have drunk nearly as much as me! Well it is Saturday
night and we are both using the newsgroup like a Yahoo chat room :-)
Believe it or not I understand perfectly the difference between a DTP page
and and HTML page. But you might note that many organisations decide on an
appropriate width for their HTML pages 800x600 being typical at the moment.
If you happen to use a different resolution then the result may not be so
aesthetically pleasing but it is not necessarily unreadable.
Equally many organistations produce alternative web pages to meet the needs
of the visually impaired. Quite how they navigate to these alternative web
pages is a mystery to me but never mind. Proper use of HTML does not ensure
that the page is readable by visually impaired people.
As for appropriateness a while ago I bought a teaching package that was
presented as a set of web pages. It looked good and worked fine and was
clearly a commercial success. Some time later I had a need to modify the
notes slightly. It was not until this point that I discovered the whole
thing had been produced in Word.
It is entirely possible that some customers may have had problems viewing
the resulting product. It is entirely possible that the organisation
concerned has calculated that it is not financially sensible to try and meet
their needs.
As for somone using Publisher to produce a first web page - is this really
an issue to get stressed about?
At this point I am going to bed. My wife has started swearing and my
daughter says you are a ninny. Personally I have enjoyed the debate.
Best Wishes.
Deg.
Ian
> "Ian" <ian.l...@nltworld.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.07.06.16...@nltworld.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 16:16:01 +0100, Tony Degerdon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Oh come on guys, you will have us all programming in assembler next.
>>
>>
>> No, just expecting the same standards as in the other core subjects.
>>
>>
> In other core subjects the technique of estimation is frequently used.
Which has nothing to do with this.
> Its quick, easy and gives and answer that is not correct but is good
> enough for the given situation.
Apples aren't oranges so making spurious comparisons doesn't change bad
practice. Estimation in the context of teacing number concepts is good
practice. I can't see how anyone with any real knowledge of web design
would come to the conclusion that using Publisher is good practice.
>> > Most packages these days offer a range of wizards, templates and
>> > tools that are intented to save the user time
>>
>> A photocopier saves time, but have you ever let Year 7 use one with
>> freedom? The results are predictable. Wizards are Ok if used properly
>> as are photocopiers. Unfortunately all too often they are used badly
>> and not to move pupils on. Teachers are their to help children through
>> the trauma of progression. Learning is actually hard work, no pain no
>> gain. CASE and a number of other accelerated learning research
>> programmes provide the evidence.
>>
>>
> Agreed but they will not learn how to use them well if we don't teach
> them to use them.
So teach them in sensible contexts not in the context of a DTP package
being used for Web page design.
>> > and in some cases allow them to
>> > carry out actions that they themselves do not have the skill to do.
>>
>> And never will have if they don't learn and practice those skills.
>>
>>
> Yes but it is not a hard and fast rule is it. I am not suggesting that
> students should be totally de-skilled, but there are some cases when it
> makes sense not to bother leaning a skill because current and certainly
> future IT products will be able to deliver that skill for us.
>
> But things will have to change.
On those grounds let's just do everything with Star Office and forget
about every other piece of software.
> For example at the moment our printers
> use Corel Draw to produce the schools paper based newsletter. If I try
> to convert this to PDF it produces garbage. Outputing it as a web page
> from Corel Draw produces large graphic images of the page which are only
> useable by people with a broadband connection. The other alternative is
> that I can copy and paste pictures and articles into a proper web design
> tool. This is all extremely inefficient. I need standard productivity
> tools to produce acceptable web pages. If I need it then so does the
> rest of the world, and that means that one way or another it will
> happen. So I am betting that 5 years from now using your DTP package to
> output a web page will not be as bad as it is now.
Maybe, maybe not but better to teach pupils to discriminate and choose
tools at the time because that is what they are suited to do.
>> > At the moment a number of people are, with some justification,
>> > obsessed with producing hand-coded HTML.
>>
>> Not me, I just want to see a decent choice of tool for the job. OTOH we
>> do teach some fundamental science on the grounds its a more
>> transferrable skill so I have some sympathy with the idea that teaching
>> fundamentals is actually more useful than training in specific
>> packages. We get arguents for using X because its what pupils will use
>> when they leave school. Any pupil getting into web design when they
>> leave school is very unlikely to choose Publisher as the tool. Since
>> its no more difficult to use a tool designed for the job I can't see
>> the justification in not doing so.
>>
>>
> I like the fundementals argument too. All sailors should start in
> dinghies. But there are times in a school when a student will have
> produced work in Word or Publisher or Star Office or TextEase and then
> as an afterthought they want to publish it on the web.
So what are the issues involved? You probably can think of some
circumstances when its seems sensible to publish to the wen in this way
but the initial context of this discussion seemed to be to use Publisher
routinely for the task. There is a significant difference.
There are also
> times when an English teacher who is teaching English wants to make use
> of IT. If they have never used a web page design packages but they are
> familiar with Word or Publisher or Star Office or Text Ease then I will
> say 'go for it'.
But hopefully try and raise their technological literacy to a level they
expect you to deliver in their subject ;-)
>> > OK so the idea that a future version of Publisher might become a good
>> > web design tool may be a bit fanciful, but there certainly will be
>> > programs that will provide DTP style ease of
>> use
>>
>> There are several but none of them is Publisher.
>>
>>
> Really? I am not aware of any web design packages that do that good job
> of hiding the technology from the user.
Well, why hide it if its not that difficult to understand or learn? Even
FrontPage is better than using Publisher and its not too difficult.
>> > and yet produce code that is acceptable for the technology and
>> > standards of the time. Sure there may still be a few people working
>> > in HTML but the vast majority won't.
>>
>> The vast majority will use a combination and probably continue to do so
>> at the quality end of things.
>
> The same used to be true of assembly language. I can no longer justify
> teaching it to everybody.
No, the vast majority of programmers do not use assembler.
>> Newton would be turning over in his grave ;-) Education is about
>> progression based on the ideas of others to produce new ideas, not
>> copying ideas and then passing them off as our own.This is however a
>> completely separate argument to choosing an appropriate tool for a
>> task.
>>
>>
> OK so this is exactly my point. Our current way of thinking is that
> everything has to be new.
Not mine.
> In reality our idea of new often means 'take someone elses ideas and
> express them in your own words'. This is a particularly pointless
> activity particularly when you have the assitance of IT.
No it shows that the person understands what has been written whereas
photocopying shows they understand how to press a button.
> If you wanted
> to write a new policy document for you school (a daily event) then the
> most sensible thing to do is to research several other peoples policy
> documents. Copy, scan or even retype the bits you like from several
> documents. Add a small percentage of your own original content, and
> then finally meld the resulting document into a seamless whole. These
> are the skills that we need to teach.
Writing school policy documents has little to do with education.
Regards,
--
IanL
Ian
> x-no-archive: yes
> John Cartmell wrote:
>
>> The intial question was whether or not to use an inappropriate tool or
>> an appropriate tool when teaching a technique (web page production).
>> The inappropriate tool is likely to be used by inexperienced staff or
>> staff who have been badly trained.
>
> I did a days supply last week which was also a sort of opportunity to
> evaluate me as a possible ICT teacher. For ICT, I was told to teach a
> class how to make a poster. Yet another poster.
>
> I have my own way which starts off with various sizes of headline,
> pictures and text which I stick on the white board to demonstrate layout
> a la the old fashioned cut and paste way.
>
> I then demonstrate resizable and movable frames/textboxes using Word to
> show how a similar approach can be used on the computer. I find Word is
> easier to use than Publisher for this. I try to get the kids to combine
> creative and technical skills.
>
> My approach is "wrong, wrong, wrong". The proper way to do it is to get
> the kids to use the Wizard in Publisher to choose a preset layout and a
> colour scheme. Then they simply insert some clip art and type in some
> text and the job is done. I was told that if I didn't understand how to
> use the software then I shouldn't be an ICT teacher.It must be right
> because the man what told me is an LEA advisor and that's the way it's
> done in the LEA.
Sad really and it just shows why ICT teaching, despite all the millions
spent on hardware and training, really is in poor shape.
Regards,
--
IanL
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> AFAIK the original question was not about teaching people to make web
> pages but was from someone confused about the difference between a new
> line in Publisher and a paragraph in HTML. With no disreprespect to the
> person concerned I think that telling them to learn HTML was not
> appropriate - yet.
I think we got here by suggesting that it would be appropriate to look at
the coding to help understand the problem - and not to start producing HTML
by using Publisher.
As all such threads they wander and, in the process, both illuminate and
annoy. ;-)
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
Tony Degerdon <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yeah. Its a wondeful feeling when the rest of the world is wrong :-)
I'd only dare suggest such a thing in very limited areas! ;-)
DTP is one such area. :-(
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > However other staff would regularly make no distinction between
> > 3rd-party art and own-produced art because they (staff) were not
> > capable of producing such artwork themselves and didn't appreciate the
> > difference.
> Were they teaching IT? If so somebody needed to train them. If not
> then I think they were entitled to be interested in outcome rather than
> process.
In the view of the powers that be they were all teaching ICT (through the
curriculum) and all entirely capable of doing so. :-(
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes John Cartmell wrote:
> > The intial question was whether or not to use an inappropriate tool or
> > an appropriate tool when teaching a technique (web page production).
> > The inappropriate tool is likely to be used by inexperienced staff or
> > staff who have been badly trained.
> I did a days supply last week which was also a sort of opportunity to
> evaluate me as a possible ICT teacher. For ICT, I was told to teach a
> class how to make a poster. Yet another poster.
> I have my own way which starts off with various sizes of headline,
> pictures and text which I stick on the white board to demonstrate
> layout a la the old fashioned cut and paste way.
> I then demonstrate resizable and movable frames/textboxes using Word to
> show how a similar approach can be used on the computer. I find Word is
> easier to use than Publisher for this. I try to get the kids to combine
> creative and technical skills.
> My approach is "wrong, wrong, wrong". The proper way to do it is to get
> the kids to use the Wizard in Publisher to choose a preset layout and a
> colour scheme. Then they simply insert some clip art and type in some
> text and the job is done. I was told that if I didn't understand how to
> use the software then I shouldn't be an ICT teacher.It must be right
> because the man what told me is an LEA advisor and that's the way it's
> done in the LEA.
Please name the adviser and the LEA. Both are clearly in need of custodial
care for the sake of the community.
--
John Cartmell
Ian
Every teacher is a teacher of English
Every teacher is a teacher of mathematics
Strange how such concepts go out of the window with ICT ;-)
Ok, there are likely to be skills and knowledge issues here, but no
reason not to strive for good practice rather than condone and reinforce
bad practice.
Regards,
--
IanL
Ian
> really an issue to get stressed about?
Never get stressed, life is too short ;-) OTOH if its symptomatic of an
acceptance of poor practice in technology that would not be tolerated in
other subject specialisms, yes its worth making the point.
> At this point I am going to bed. My wife has started swearing and my
> daughter says you are a ninny.
You me or John ;-)
Regards,
--
IanL
Tony Degerdon
OK you could have a point here. I actually tried using Publisher to make a
web page this morning (*embarrassed look*) and I could not duplicate the
problem described. Publisher used line breaks when I pressed enter and did
not appear to use the paragraph tag at all!
I was quite impressed with Publisher on two counts. Firstly the code it
produced was not that bad. OK it wouldn't pass an HTML/CSS validator and
the non-CSS version had to use some fairly horrendous table structures, but
it is good enough to work in IE and Netscape and Opera.
Secondly it has cute little design checker in it which attempts to explain
when you are doing things wrong. The messages even change depending on
whether you are using CSS or not. I quite enjoyed playing with it.
Normally I used Notepad and FrontPage for teaching, but I beginning to think
that there could be a place for Publisher in my scheme of work :-)
Deg.
Tony Degerdon
Deg.
Steve Rochford
> to solve a problem. We are in danger of teaching students that they have
> to do things the hard way. To teach people not to use wizards on
> principle is not helpful. To teach people to make appropriate use of
> wizards and modify the results when needed is.
Of course. We're in danger of forgetting that a major reason for using a
computer is that it makes complex tasks simpler. As a simple example, look
at producing address labels from a database. I wouldn't dream of doing
this without using a wizard driven approach - I don't want to start
measuring the labels, measuring the gaps between the labels, constructing
pages with the right margins etc and then inserting all the fields. I'd
much rather say "I have L7162 labels, this is my database and these 6
fields go on the label in this order" and let the computer do the work. If
I were teaching then I'd guess that this could be shown following a lesson
on mailmerge in which you do manually insert the fields, set the page size
etc. Essentially, you teach pupils the task at a simple level and then let
them see that actually a computer can automate the repetitive parts of the
task.
I'd take a similar approach to clipart. I'd be horrified to think that an
art teacher was introducing IT in art by letting the pupils pick bits of
clipart and arrange them on a page but it might be quite a good exercise
if the teacher took a piece of vector clipart to pieces, gave the pupils
the individual bits and told them to put it back together. This way you
get familiar with a wide range of techniques quickly and, quite
importantly, the pupil knows its possible to succeed at the task. IMO
there's nothing more frustrating than trying to do something with a
computer when you're not sure that it's actually possible!
I used to teach chemistry and whenever pupils were drawing diagrams of
apparatus I would expect them to use a stencil to help get shapes etc
correct. If I taught chemistry now I'd expect them to use a word processor
and to pull in clipart of flasks, test tubes etc - I'm not interested in
whether they can draw a Liebig condenser; I want to know that they've
understood the science. The diagram is there to help them remember what
they did and how, not to test their drawing skills.
--
Steve Rochford
Computer Support, The College of North West London
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> but I beginning to think that there could be a place for Publisher
We've lost. The lunatics have totally taken over. Let me out of here!!!
--
John Cartmell
Steve Rochford
> HTML is not something to be improved. HTML (web pages) are not DTP
> pages. They are something quite different.
Once upon a time this was true. Now it might be true but it's not
necessarily so. There are various reasons for this; one is that people
want to produce one set of material and use it for print and for the web.
Sometimes this is done just by sticking PDF files on a web site and
sometimes by using HTML. HTML with CSS can be used to give very accurate
control over the screen display. Obviously a user can choose to ignore the
style sheet but that won't stop people trying to use the web to present
information which is visually rich, hopefully as well as being content
rich.
> Try to present it to me as DTP and, in effect you're saying "F*** you.
> You're blind and don't matter!"
It depends on what you're presenting. If a school presents its basic
information in that way then I'd agree. If a school presents samples of
pupils art in that way then that's obviously not the case. There's
obviously a need to make sure that pupils are aware of what they're doing
and who they're excluding but we'd close every art gallery if we decided
that just because blind people can't see the pictures then no-one should
be allowed to see them. I'd like to think that this is an area where a
school can make a contribution to developing their pupils awareness. For
example, if they are presenting art, can they attach text descriptions
which are not bland lists of what's included in the picture but somehow
evoke the mood of it.
Ian
>> But what we do want is people who can make sensible decisions about how
>> to solve a problem. We are in danger of teaching students that they
>> have to do things the hard way. To teach people not to use wizards on
>> principle is not helpful. To teach people to make appropriate use of
>> wizards and modify the results when needed is.
>
> Of course. We're in danger of forgetting that a major reason for using a
> computer is that it makes complex tasks simpler.
The snag with all these discussions is that its easy to take anything out
of a context and prove black is white :-)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is not a place for
automation of tasks. There are two key issues. 1.) learning objectives
and 2.) appropriate tools. The wizard/clip art issue hinges on what you
are trying to teach and why, the use of Publisher for web design is about
appropriate use of tools. In general, teaching pupils to use bitmap
editors such as MS paint to produce diagrams instead of a vector package
is bad practice - ok you might be able to quote an example that
contradicts this but it is generally true. I believe the use of Publisher
for web design falls into this category. On the issue of wizards, clip
art, photocopying etc, let's see the learning objectives and then decide
whether the activity is the best way of achieving them. Two quite
different issues, I believe.
Regards,
--
IanL
John Cartmell
Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course. We're in danger of forgetting that a major reason for using a
> computer is that it makes complex tasks simpler. As a simple example,
> look at producing address labels from a database. I wouldn't dream of
> doing this without using a wizard driven approach - I don't want to
> start measuring the labels, measuring the gaps between the labels,
> constructing pages with the right margins etc and then inserting all
> the fields. I'd much rather say "I have L7162 labels, this is my
> database and these 6 fields go on the label in this order"
Doesn't this cause a problem if you want something slightly different?
Don't you end up buying a new computer if someone brings out a new size of
labels? ;-)
I don't know where you stand on the use of calculators argument -
presumably you would do away with all mental arithmetic as there is a far
easier way of solving that problem ...
.. rubbish!
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> an art teacher was introducing IT in art by letting the pupils pick bits
> of clipart and arrange them on a page
> but it might be quite a good exercise if the teacher took a piece of
> vector clipart to pieces, gave the pupils the individual bits and told
> them to put it back together. This way you get familiar with a wide
> range of techniques quickly and, quite importantly, the pupil knows its
> possible to succeed at the task. IMO there's nothing more frustrating
> than trying to do something with a computer when you're not sure that
> it's actually possible!
This is where we get into the standard Technology trap. You can't teach
projects until the kids understand techniques and you can't show techniques
without the context of the projects (and you don't have time for either!).
For clip art you should get the kids to produce their own using a model
that you've carefully designed to require a range of processes and will
re-inforce good practice; let them expand into their own projects (KISS!);
give them clip art that they can modify (and you need to look carefully
because they aren't easy to find - it is easier with RISC OS artwork
because of its use of bezier curves); and use the technique above.
You know you've won when kids shun third-party clip art because "it's not
mine".
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > You're blind and don't matter!"
> It depends on what you're presenting. If a school presents its basic
> information in that way then I'd agree. If a school presents samples of
> pupils art in that way then that's obviously not the case. There's
> obviously a need to make sure that pupils are aware of what they're
> doing and who they're excluding but we'd close every art gallery if we
> decided that just because blind people can't see the pictures then
> no-one should be allowed to see them.
If you're taking a technology that is designed to be open and deliberately
closing it to a specific group of people then that is your decision - and
that decision stinks. They are right to feel insulted. In schools we should
be fighting to ensure that we carry that message.
--
John Cartmell
Jim Lesurf
<grumb...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> The argument about using DTP products for creating websites should
> really boil down to "Do you want the students to learn and understand
> standardised and compatible HTML, DHTML and so on, or do you want them
> to learn web design?"
. . . or even, "Do you want to produce pages which *viewers* will find
accessible, readable, convenient, and even informative?" :-)
Producing public webpages is an act of communication. To do this, when
producing the pages you need to be thinking about what your *viewers* will
be getting as a result. The nature of HTML means you then have to take into
account the (unpredictable) variety of the circumstances of said viewers.
The purposes of trying to follow W3C HTML standards is to maximise
accessibility (including for the visually impaired, and those who will need
to use an auto-translation of the text, and those in third world countries
whose resources are poor). The purposes of keeping 'bloat' out of the pages
is to allow them load in a reasonable time for those who do not have the
time/money to expend upon redundant or irrelevant coding.
None of the above may matter, of course, if your 'target audience' is
'yourself'. :-) But then, this would not be communication, and HTML would
be irrelevant. Might as well write a Word document. ;->
Using poor english may well make it easier for students to "write quickly
and easily". But what kind of achievement would that be if the results then
alienate the audience and make them feel the students are poorly educated?
The question here becomes, "Do you care what those viewing the pages think
of the communication skills of those who created them?"
FWIW there are 'DTP like' applications that produce quite sparse HTML.
There are also HTML editors which will add the 'code' for you without you
having to remember the details, and will even 'verify' the results. Hence
you don't have to learn all the details of HTML to write sparse HTML that
is fairly W3C compliant and which views well in browsers. However, when
producing pages for public consumption it is still useful to bear in mind
what might be wanted by your audience. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
TechWriter http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/TechWrite/Tips1.html
Compo http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Compo/clues.html
Covey
"Steve Rochford" <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk...
>
> Of course. We're in danger of forgetting that a major reason for using a
> computer is that it makes complex tasks simpler. As a simple example, look
> at producing address labels from a database. I wouldn't dream of doing
> this without using a wizard driven approach - I don't want to start
> measuring the labels, measuring the gaps between the labels, constructing
> pages with the right margins etc and then inserting all the fields. I'd
> much rather say "I have L7162 labels, this is my database and these 6
> fields go on the label in this order" and let the computer do the work. If
> I were teaching then I'd guess that this could be shown following a lesson
> on mailmerge in which you do manually insert the fields, set the page size
> etc. Essentially, you teach pupils the task at a simple level and then let
> them see that actually a computer can automate the repetitive parts of the
> task.
>
the days of measuring labels and the gaps between and trying for hours to
get the layout right, proving what? If a kid from school on work experience
or in their first job can produce a mail merge label list in 5 minutes using
a wizard and it is laid out correctly and prints the right number of labels
per page, that is all I want. How the VB coding works to achieve that is
irrelevant to the end user.
I have just taken on a large golf club as a client. They had a website
designed using Dreamweaver and need to be able to update the fixtures page.
I would not dream of trying to teach them HTML coding even if I was that
good at it. We taught them to backspace out the old fixtures and retype the
new and how to upload the page back onto the site. When I was a soldier we
used to work on the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid!
Covey.
Tony Degerdon
news:memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk...
> > HTML is not something to be improved. HTML (web pages) are not DTP
> > pages. They are something quite different.
>
> Once upon a time this was true. Now it might be true but it's not
> necessarily so. There are various reasons for this; one is that people
> want to produce one set of material and use it for print and for the web.
> Sometimes this is done just by sticking PDF files on a web site and
> sometimes by using HTML. HTML with CSS can be used to give very accurate
> control over the screen display. Obviously a user can choose to ignore the
> style sheet but that won't stop people trying to use the web to present
> information which is visually rich, hopefully as well as being content
> rich.
Absolutlely, and as I understand it CSS is generally regarded as being good
for accessibility as it separates the formatting from the structure. This
would suggest that a DTP style approach to the development of web pages
could be successful.
Whatever other people say I think that designing web pages for accessibility
is a complex issue. There are lots to things to remember which is why
people use tools like Bobby to check their work. Sounds like an ideal
candidate for one of those naughty wizards to me, it could even offer to fix
your errors for you. Do you think that if I suggest it to Bill he will cut
me a slice?
Deg.
Steve Rochford
> deliberately closing it to a specific group of people then that is your
> decision
But "I" am not doing that, nor are any of the other individuals in this
conference intending to do that. All (I hope) we're doing is using the
technology in extra ways without in any way excluding a group of people
from something in which they could be included.
Steve Rochford
> Don't you end up buying a new computer if someone brings out a new size
> of labels? ;-)
I see the smiley but, no, of course it doesn't. One of the features of the
wizard ought to be the facility to add a new type of label - it should
prompt you for the things which need to be measured and then automate the
(repetitive) part of arranging them on the page. Word certainly works like
that - I'd guess other such products do the same.
> I don't know where you stand on the use of calculators argument -
> presumably you would do away with all mental arithmetic as there is a
> far easier way of solving that problem ...
Of course not. Again, however, context matters. If we're doing a small
number of different calculations then I'd expect pupils to be able to do
mental arithmetic; if there are dozens of similar calculations then I'd
expect them to use a calculator (or, probably, a spreadsheet)
John Cartmell
Steve Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > presumably you would do away with all mental arithmetic as there is a
> > far easier way of solving that problem ...
> Of course not. Again, however, context matters. If we're doing a small
> number of different calculations then I'd expect pupils to be able to do
> mental arithmetic; if there are dozens of similar calculations then I'd
> expect them to use a calculator (or, probably, a spreadsheet)
But no matter how many calculations are to be done the pupils will be
expected to have been taught to do the mental arithmetic.
I'd expect them to be taught to produce (at least simple) html using
appropriate tools and to be taught that html isn't dtp.
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > deliberately closing it to a specific group of people then that is
> > your decision
> But "I" am not doing that, nor are any of the other individuals in this
> conference intending to do that. All (I hope) we're doing is using the
> technology in extra ways without in any way excluding a group of people
> from something in which they could be included.
?
It's impossible to reproduce a dtp page in html without copying the whole
page as a graphic. It has been done! :-((
I assume that we'd all agree that such an act would have the negative
effect that I described before.
Some dtp programs will extract aspects of the dtp page and produce those
extracts as html. The more they attempt to reproduce the dtp layout of the
page the less successful they will be. The resultant html will be bloated
(slow), reproduce badly or not at all in some browsers, and will be
difficult if not impossible to follow for certain groups of people.
The best means of transferring from a (pseudo) dtp page to html is if the
dtp program works in a well structured wordprocessor format. I know of only
one - Easiwriter/Techwriter - that does this well though I presume
MacWriter?Author will be at least as good.
Some people say Textease is good; I'm not convinced (I know of an excellent
site produced this way but I'm certain its excellence is a product of its
author - not the program).
In my experience Publisher is bad - as is Word.
The best way of tackling the problem is to use a program that will help you
insert the html tags to produce the page you require. there are appropriate
tools and I repeat:
We have a responsibility as teachers. Students are pushed (by software
developers and mis-trained teachers & etc) to use incorrect and disabling
techniques. It's our job to put that right.
NB somewhere (I think it was in this thread!) I suggested that the author
of a web page produced in Publisher validate that page or give us the URL.
Some of you know that I've put my money where my mouth is - ready to be
shot down in public. My head's well and truly above the parapet!
Can we see the web page in question - or others produced by Publisher? Can
we be convinced that they are valid and open?
--
John Cartmell
Mark Evans
>> Doesn't this cause a problem if you want something slightly different?
>> Don't you end up buying a new computer if someone brings out a new size
>> of labels? ;-)
> I see the smiley but, no, of course it doesn't. One of the features of the
> wizard ought to be the facility to add a new type of label - it should
> prompt you for the things which need to be measured and then automate the
The same way that MS Publisher should really alter it's
Wizards to suite the localization(sic) settings. However
many end up stuck as US Letter. Leading to teachers who
are confused by printer displaying "LOAD LETTER".
> (repetitive) part of arranging them on the page. Word certainly works like
> that - I'd guess other such products do the same.
--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763
Christopher Dawkins
> The nature of HTML means you then have to take into account the
> (unpredictable) variety of the circumstances of said viewers.
Unpredictable? There's the rub! I think what John and many of us are in
fact objecting to is that many web designers now work on the assumption
that the viewers are entirely predictable - all IE6 - so that if their
page works on their own IE it will work for everyone. Anyone who objects
is viewed as a nut clinging to ancient Acorns, or an anti-Microsoft geek
with a strange home-made Linux contraption. In either case, they can be
ignored cos the Redmond juggernaut is bound to crush them out of existence
soon, and anyway the author either doesn't want to communicate with such a
stupid minority or, more likely, is quite unaware that they exist.
You must expect some complaints from minorities that are being crushed and
forced into expensive conformity by a largely (present company excepted)
ignorant majority.
It's amusing that those of us with brand-new ultra-modern web-browsing PDA
portable phones find ourselves in the same digitally-deprived category. I
can easily read all pages produced by myself, by w3c and by all the other
sites that generate any-browser HTML. I can't read the same sites that I
can't read on my FreeBSD and Acorn boxes. I know the situation is similar
for many with set-top-box browsers.
But there is some light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to hope it
isn't the headlight of an approaching train. Most IE users don't know what
they are using and wouldn't notice a change to any other browser. This is
a phenomenon I observe daily.
>> In my experience Publisher is bad - as is Word.
I have no direct experience of either, but judging from the raw HMTL of
pages I can't easily read, I'd fully agree with you.
--
Christopher Dawkins, Felsted School, Dunmow, Essex CM6 3JG
01371-822698, mobile 07816 821659 cc...@felsted.essex.sch.uk
Ian
> Unpredictable? There's the rub! I think what John and many of us are in
> fact objecting to is that many web designers now work on the assumption
> that the viewers are entirely predictable - all IE6 - so that if their
> page works on their own IE it will work for everyone. Anyone who objects
> is viewed as a nut clinging to ancient Acorns, or an anti-Microsoft geek
> with a strange home-made Linux contraption. In either case, they can be
> ignored cos the Redmond juggernaut is bound to crush them out of
> existence soon, and anyway the author either doesn't want to communicate
> with such a stupid minority or, more likely, is quite unaware that they
> exist.
Imagine the same attitude to Welsh speakers or the disabled ;-)
I find it interesting how normal standards go out of the window when it
comes to technology. I have observed this recently with accounting and
value for money practice, academic expectations of pupils and access to
information by minority technology users. There is probably a lot more
too. While with languages its considered a strength to be able to offer
two or three, with technology, diversity is seen as a major weakness. It
all seems to be a symtom of resistance to change. In the case of
languages the diveersity is there to preserve the status quo, in the case
of technology the aversion to diversity is to preserve the status quo :-)
Fortunately, a minority can easily bring down a majority as has been
shown many times in history so I don't really expect the status quo to
survive in anything. Anarchy in the UK! ;-)
Regards,
--
IanL
Tony Degerdon
> In article <memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk>, Steve
> Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > If you're taking a technology that is designed to be open and
> > > deliberately closing it to a specific group of people then that is
> > > your decision
>
> > But "I" am not doing that, nor are any of the other individuals in this
> > conference intending to do that. All (I hope) we're doing is using the
> > technology in extra ways without in any way excluding a group of people
> > from something in which they could be included.
>
> ?
> It's impossible to reproduce a dtp page in html without copying the whole
> page as a graphic. It has been done! :-((
>
> I assume that we'd all agree that such an act would have the negative
> effect that I described before.
> Some dtp programs will extract aspects of the dtp page and produce those
> extracts as html. The more they attempt to reproduce the dtp layout of the
> page the less successful they will be. The resultant html will be bloated
> (slow), reproduce badly or not at all in some browsers, and will be
> difficult if not impossible to follow for certain groups of people.
>
I don't understand your first paragraph but there are a couple of points
that need clearing up.
Firstly if you are using Publisher without CSS then it does not convert the
page to a large graphic unless you have what it regards as overlapping
objects. It does make a pretty disgusting table structure in an attempt to
duplicate your page layout, but then many web pages have disgusting table
structures anyway.
If you do have overlapping objects then it warns you and explains the
problem that it will create, which was the point I was making about
Publisher having the potential to raise some interesting teaching points.
If on the other hand you allow it to use CSS then there is no problem
because you can overlap objects to your hearts content with CSS. I thought
that one of the purposes of CSS was to give web designers the kind of
control that DTP normally provided.
Maybe you have a problem with people using CSS or maybe you have a problem
with the way in which CSS is used in which case lets move the debate on to
that.
Deg.
Tony Degerdon
news:20020708101314...@server.felsted.essex.sch.uk...
>
> > The nature of HTML means you then have to take into account the
> > (unpredictable) variety of the circumstances of said viewers.
>
> Unpredictable? There's the rub! I think what John and many of us are in
> fact objecting to is that many web designers now work on the assumption
> that the viewers are entirely predictable - all IE6 - so that if their
> page works on their own IE it will work for everyone. Anyone who objects
> is viewed as a nut clinging to ancient Acorns, or an anti-Microsoft geek
> with a strange home-made Linux contraption. In either case, they can be
> ignored cos the Redmond juggernaut is bound to crush them out of existence
> soon, and anyway the author either doesn't want to communicate with such a
> stupid minority or, more likely, is quite unaware that they exist.
They are allowed to make a choice about how far they will go in supporting
older or different browsers. Personally I think that if a commercial
company does not make the effort to support at least Versions 4+ of IE,
Netscape and Opera then they are making a mistake, but it is their choice.
Equally if someone chooses to buy and use a computer with a different
browser knowing full well when they do so that they may have problems
accessing some sites then that is their choice too.
Rather than worrying about someone who chooses to use an Acorn I think it is
more important that they worry about people who don't have a choice. It is
hard to know what to do about people who can't afford access to a reasonably
current browser. I don't think this is really a problem for the web
designers to deal with because there are other schemes that are designed to
address this issue. People with disabilities fall into a different
category. It doesn't matter how much money they have or which browser they
use, if the site is not designed with them in mind then it can be next to
impossible to use.
I know that I really need to go away an rebuild our site from scratch to try
and improve its accessibility and I suspect that many organisations are in
the same position. I'm afriad you just got prioritised out of the window
mate!
Deg.
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Rather than worrying about someone who chooses to use an Acorn I think
> it is more important that they worry about people who don't have a
> choice.
The whole thing is that it shouldn't be a matter of having to think
specially about those with no choice. Keep to the basic standards and make
extra optional. It's simple - or would be but for the fact that nearly
everyone is encouraged to use precisely those tools that break those simple
rules. As those are generally Microsoft programs wielded by LEA advisers
I'm entitled to rant against my two favourite targets! ;-)
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4b528e5...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <memo.2002070...@srochford.compulink.co.uk>, Steve
> > Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > If you're taking a technology that is designed to be open and
> > > > deliberately closing it to a specific group of people then that is
> > > > your decision
> >
> > > But "I" am not doing that, nor are any of the other individuals in
> > > this conference intending to do that. All (I hope) we're doing is
> > > using the technology in extra ways without in any way excluding a
> > > group of people from something in which they could be included.
> >
> > ? It's impossible to reproduce a dtp page in html without copying the
> > whole page as a graphic. It has been done! :-((
> >
> > I assume that we'd all agree that such an act would have the negative
> > effect that I described before. Some dtp programs will extract aspects
> > of the dtp page and produce those extracts as html. The more they
> > attempt to reproduce the dtp layout of the page the less successful
> > they will be. The resultant html will be bloated (slow), reproduce
> > badly or not at all in some browsers, and will be difficult if not
> > impossible to follow for certain groups of people.
> >
> I don't understand your first paragraph but there are a couple of points
> that need clearing up.
First para: you can guarantee that your web page looks like your dtp page
only if you make it into a graphic and make it useless for anyone relying
on speech or low resolution images.
> Firstly if you are using Publisher without CSS then it does not convert
> the page to a large graphic unless you have what it regards as
> overlapping objects. It does make a pretty disgusting table structure in
> an attempt to duplicate your page layout, but then many web pages have
> disgusting table structures anyway.
Guess why many web pages are so disgusting! That's the enemy ...
> If you do have overlapping objects then it warns you and explains the
> problem that it will create, which was the point I was making about
> Publisher having the potential to raise some interesting teaching points.
> If on the other hand you allow it to use CSS then there is no problem
> because you can overlap objects to your hearts content with CSS. I
> thought that one of the purposes of CSS was to give web designers the
> kind of control that DTP normally provided.
No - but there's potentially a long explanation there.
--
John Cartmell
Steve Rochford
> whole page as a graphic.
I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by a dtp page. To me, dtp means
that I have the ability to specify exactly where on the page I want my
text and pictures to go. Some of the text will flow freely, some will be
fixed by dragging into place or, perhaps, by adjusting the properties to
give an exact position. Using styles with HTML allows me to do just this.
The following HTML validates according to http://validator.w3.org/check
and will place text and images in absolutely specified positions.
For those reading this message using something like Outlook Express I've
no idea what you'll see but hopefully you can make out that the "P" tags
have style info attached which says things like -
position:absolute;
top:150px;
left:50px;
etc
This lets the browser know that the author wants that paragraph to be
positioned as shown. Browsers can ignore this but if you're using a
browser capable of working with styles such as this then you will see
something pretty close to what the author intended. This, to me, is a
pretty good description of what dtp is about - I sit down in front of my
computer and design a page. I send the file to a printer (person, not
machine) who produces something which looks much as I intended. There are
always going to be problems - I've specified the Arial font and that's not
going to be present on lots of computers. This is exactly the same as
sending my PostScript file to the printer having used a font which they
won't have but HTML styles are actually better here than dtp because I can
specify that if the browser doesn't have Arial it should use (eg)
Helvetica or a sans-serif font.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html lang="en">
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<TITLE>A page to show absolute positioning</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P STYLE="
position:absolute;
top:150px;
left:50px;
font-family:Arial;
font-size:20pt
">20 pt Arial, 150 pixels from top, 50 pixels from left</p>
<P STYLE="
position:absolute;
top:20px;
left:50px;
">20 pixels from top, 50 pixels from left</p>
<P STYLE="
position:absolute;
top:50px;
left:250px;
">
50 pixels from top, 250 pixels from left</p>
<img style="
position:absolute;
top:200px;
left:300px"
src="test.jpg"
alt="a pointless picture"
>
</BODY>
</HTML>
> Some dtp programs will extract aspects of the dtp page and produce those
> extracts as html. The more they attempt to reproduce the dtp layout of
> the page the less successful they will be.
Less portable, perhaps, but not less successful. If you have a program
which looks at each block of text etc on the page, works out its position
and content in the way I've described above then you'll end up with HTML
which faithfully describes the page as required.
> The resultant html will be bloated (slow)
Obviously bigger than if you leave out all formatting but if you have a
reason for wanting formatting then there's no real alternative.
> reproduce badly or not at all in some browsers, and will be
> difficult if not impossible to follow for certain groups of people.
I tried validating the above code with Bobby (http://bobby.cast.org) and
it picks up on the image; it can't check the image (and it's actually just
a scribble!) but otherwise validates the code. The 3 paragraphs are shown
out of order but that's easy to fix; they just need placing in the file in
the order they will appear on screen.
> The best way of tackling the problem is to use a program that will help
> you insert the html tags to produce the page you require.
That's fine if you want to teach pupils who've never used HTML the basics
of how it works (in fact, it's not "fine"; I'd say it's essential as a
starting point) but, as with many other areas of teaching, to suggest to
pupils that that's the way big sites (eg Amazon, BBC etc) are put together
is probably doing them a disservice.
Steve Rochford
> Wizards to suite the localization(sic) settings. However
> many end up stuck as US Letter. Leading to teachers who
> are confused by printer displaying "LOAD LETTER".
I haven't used Publisher for ages (it's a dire program which I hate!) but
the "load letter" business is just an indication that you use crappy HP
printers rather than choosing something decent which recognises that it
can put the contents of a letter page on a sheet of A4 with just
slightly different margins :-)
John Cartmell
Steve Rochford <sroc...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> > whole page as a graphic.
> I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by a dtp page. To me, dtp means
> that I have the ability to specify exactly where on the page I want my
> text and pictures to go. Some of the text will flow freely, some will be
> fixed by dragging into place or, perhaps, by adjusting the properties to
> give an exact position. Using styles with HTML allows me to do just this.
> The following HTML validates according to http://validator.w3.org/check
> and will place text and images in absolutely specified positions.
What happens if I have a sight defect and have my resolution at 480 x 352
and my browser has a base font of 36pt?
Are text and images still in absolutely specified positions?
What if my browser uses fonts that are totally different from the fonts you
use?
[Snip]
I realise that you can *advise* the use of fonts but you can't *dictate*
without breaking+ the essential nature of html.
+ I appreciate that most MS products break whatever protocols exist but
let's assume that we aren't blindly following their example.
--
John Cartmell
Mark Evans
>> The same way that MS Publisher should really alter it's
>> Wizards to suite the localization(sic) settings. However
>> many end up stuck as US Letter. Leading to teachers who
>> are confused by printer displaying "LOAD LETTER".
> I haven't used Publisher for ages (it's a dire program which I hate!) but
> the "load letter" business is just an indication that you use crappy HP
> printers rather than choosing something decent which recognises that it
> can put the contents of a letter page on a sheet of A4 with just
> slightly different margins :-)
Most HP printers will printer a letter page on A4,
problem is that some of them won't do it automatically.
Requiring a manual button pressing for every page.
Anyway it's simply another case of the US
feeling they have to do things differently
from the rest of the planet :)
Jim Lesurf
<tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> They are allowed to make a choice about how far they will go in
> supporting older or different browsers. Personally I think that if a
> commercial company does not make the effort to support at least Versions
> 4+ of IE, Netscape and Opera then they are making a mistake, but it is
> their choice. Equally if someone chooses to buy and use a computer with
> a different browser knowing full well when they do so that they may have
> problems accessing some sites then that is their choice too.
Fortunately, the website creator does not need to worry about this if they
simply try to get as close to W3C HTML as they can. :-) Webpages are not
about supporting a *specific* browser - be it MIE or WXL.
> Rather than worrying about someone who chooses to use an Acorn I think
> it is more important that they worry about people who don't have a
> choice.
Agreed. That is one reason why the W3C standards exist. It gives people
more opportunity for choice, and also makes things easier for all browser
developers who then know what their programs have to deal with. When
producing websites, you should not need to be concerned, or aware of, what
browsers people may choose. A new browser may well appear *after* your
pages are up, and people flock to use it. Provided your pages approach W3C
compliance this should not bother you. However if you go for 'proprietary'
standards <sic> your pages may then have to be re-done. Waste of time and
effort, and risking irritating viewers needlessly.
> It is hard to know what to do about people who can't afford
> access to a reasonably current browser.
Fortunately, you don't need to worry about this if you try to follow the
W3C standards. :-) The point of the W3C standards is that you can write
websites without having to take any real notice of what browsers people may
use. However if you focus on a specific browser's quirks you will risk
annoying people - even those who used that browser when they eventually
upgrade/change browser in the future.
The W3C recommendations are designed to make life easier for both site
creators and viewers.
> I don't think this is really a problem for the web designers to deal
> with because there are other schemes that are designed to address this
> issue. People with disabilities fall into a different category. It
> doesn't matter how much money they have or which browser they use, if
> the site is not designed with them in mind then it can be next to
> impossible to use.
That may be so. However IIUC the UK law *requires* you to take them into
account. :-)
Tony Degerdon
news:4b533a8...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <agcmgp$2lb$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Tony Degerdon
> <tony.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> > They are allowed to make a choice about how far they will go in
> > supporting older or different browsers. Personally I think that if a
> > commercial company does not make the effort to support at least Versions
> > 4+ of IE, Netscape and Opera then they are making a mistake, but it is
> > their choice. Equally if someone chooses to buy and use a computer with
> > a different browser knowing full well when they do so that they may have
> > problems accessing some sites then that is their choice too.
>
> Fortunately, the website creator does not need to worry about this if they
> simply try to get as close to W3C HTML as they can. :-) Webpages are not
> about supporting a *specific* browser - be it MIE or WXL.
>
CSS pages using different browsers and with crazy resolutions and fonts
sizes like John suggested elsewhere in the thread. In some cases they were
almost completely unuseable. I am sure that the W3C pages will have been
good so it must be the browsers that are not up to standard.
If I ever find time to revamp the school's web site then I am going to have
to try and take a lot of this on board, but I am still not clear on the
position of CSS. Half of what I have read or heard says that CSS is great,
particularly for accessibility. The rest says it needs to be treated with
caution and my own experiences above confirm that. I have got to have some
positioning control so it is either going to be using tables which is
supposed to be a bad thing or using CSS which seems to be heavily dependant
on the users browser and settings.
Comments?
Deg.