Web authoring-where does one start?
Colin
cost is not an issue, which is
the best software to create quite basic web pages e.g. advertise a social
club or to expand later when get more proficient?
Is it easy to upload and publish on freespace provided by ISP's?
Some general pointers would be very helpful.
NyoWorks Multimedia Designer
Code -> Topstyle Pro or any free textpad
graphics -> Macromedia Fireworks or Adobe Photoshop (or simple free graphic
programs)
Animation and Vector based illustration for web -> Illustrator, Freehand and
Flash
:) bye
--
.:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:
Nicolň Armato
Nyoworks Multimedia Designer
.:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:
www.nyoworks.com
.:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:..:~:
David Dorward
> Sorry if this is not the correct forum. Front page? Dreamweaver?
> Assuming cost is not an issue, which is
> the best software to create quite basic web pages e.g. advertise a social
> club or to expand later when get more proficient?
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?HTML_editors
You would be wise to stay away from tools which try to turn a picture into
HTML, at least at first. You can't produce quality results with them until
you know what you are doing (and you can't know what you are doing until
you learn the basics - and that means being able to do it with a text
editor)
> Is it easy to upload and publish on freespace provided by ISP's?
Yes.
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Barry Pearson
> Sorry if this is not the correct forum. Front page? Dreamweaver?
> Assuming cost is not an issue, which is
> the best software to create quite basic web pages e.g. advertise a
> social club or to expand later when get more proficient?
This is highly personal, because so much depends on your ability & intentions,
but:
Dreamweaver, or equivalent, for web site management, design (or WYSIWYG) view,
and code (HTML) view. The latest version has much better support for CSS
(styles). It still has a steep learning curve, but you can get a long way just
knowing the basics, while leaving the details to the package, then see what
the package did as a learning exercise. (It also has a layout view, but the
consensus appears to be to avoid that because it generates grotty code).
Photoshop for images. Also a steep learning curve, but there is a much simpler
version (Elements) which is a good starting point. Lots of people prefer Paint
Shop Pro, a cheapish but comprehensive package. (And there are many others
which I can't speak for, including Fireworks which I have but rarely use). The
consensus appears to be: don't use imaging software to develop HTML pages.
Just take their images and pass them to the web site software.
The 2 above are big packages, and rather expensive, but have some advantages
arising from this. There are lots of extensions to each of them, some free,
most paid for, and these continue to be developed, so you would rarely be held
back. There are vast numbers of tutorials available, often free. And each of
them has newsgroups & forums dedicated to them, typically populated by people
experienced in them, many of whom earn their living using them.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson
> Sorry if this is not the correct forum. Front page? Dreamweaver?
> Assuming cost is not an issue, which is
> the best software to create quite basic web pages e.g. advertise a
> social club or to expand later when get more proficient?
One additional point - you need to check your pages as well as authoring them.
One very useful method is the use the Firefox or Netscape browsers with the
"web developer toolbar" added. This toolbar was clearly developed by an author
who was aware of all the things that can easily go wrong with pages, and it
has lots of features to show them up rapidly. Even just looking at the
features will tell you what an experienced author considers to be important,
so is a learning exercise in its own right. It is worth vastly more than it
costs - which is nothing.
Nats
etc which only costs around £80 and gives you the image functionality you
would need as well.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"CW" <webm...@cannabiswindow.co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ab9f934d...@news.newshosting.com...
> <uk.net.web.authoring , Colin , co...@rogloc.freeserve.co.uk>
> <c25v8a$5st$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
> <Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:03:10 -0000>
> Ignore heavy weight apps like dreamweaver & stick to simple apps like
> frontpage express to build your first webpages .
>
> WS_FTP LE to upload your webpages to the isp webspace .
>
> - web author app
> - ftp app
>
> These are the only 2 things you need to get started .
>
> ..... ignore the geeks .
>
>
> --
> http://www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
> (buy cannabis online)
Nats
later on when you want to expand into web design, and as you say money is no
object, then Dreamweaver and Fireworks has to be the choice to go for, you
cant beat that team for professional web design. Adobe also do quite a good
set of products. But I would tend to keep away from Frontpage and the lesser
programs unless you really dont intend to go much into web design in the
future
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Nats" <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c2qbq6$pp8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Pyromancer
<nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> breathed:
>But if you want some software that can create great websites and you can use
>later on when you want to expand into web design, and as you say money is no
>object, then Dreamweaver and Fireworks has to be the choice to go for, you
>cant beat that team for professional web design. Adobe also do quite a good
>set of products. But I would tend to keep away from Frontpage and the lesser
>programs unless you really dont intend to go much into web design in the
>future
The usual advice given here is "Notepad and learn HTML" (usually with
subsidiary comments about other text editors, the virtues of CSS, and
the occasional rant over X[HT]ML).
If you do want to get into "professional" web design, then at the very
least you need to understand what validators are and why they are
important, and how the Disability Discrimination Act affects websites.
What those of us like me who run our own sites for non-commercial fun
can get away with is rather different from what's needed if you're
building an on-line shop or information portal.
--
- Pyromancer. DJing at: Carpe Noctum, Bradford, Sat 13th March.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.
Nats
to much of a degree. They just make a rather clumsy way of creating websites
rather painless. So I would argue and say apps have everything to do with
sensible website design. If you are a jounalist these days you wouldnt cut
and paste or even attempt to use a typewriter rather than a good typesetting
program. If you are an architect you dont use a drawing board you use CAD
these days. If you are a salesman you wouldnt attemp to keep all of your
information in files and bits of sticky paper stuck onto a wall would you. I
respect those who stick to outmoded ways of creating websites if only for
their dedication and romantic notions. But I would say that hand coding HTML
has no place in modern web site design except for cleaning up designs and
perhaps doing odd tasks that you cant do some other way. But cerating
websites from scratch by hand is pretty old hat these days and getting more
outmoded every day.
True sometimes you do have to bend a little to use apps, but who doesnt have
to change a little when they use a computer to create something. Thats isnt
necessarily a bad thing.
So I still say get a good web authoring program and start learning that way.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"CW" <webm...@cannabiswindow.co.uk.INVALID> wrote in message
news:MPG.1abaf38f9...@news.newshosting.com...
> <uk.net.web.authoring , Nats , nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk>
> <c2qlmd$5oi$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
> <Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:28:49 -0000>
>
> > But if you want some software that can create great websites and you can
use
> > later on when you want to expand into web design, and as you say money
is no
> > object, then Dreamweaver and Fireworks has to be the choice to go for,
you
> > cant beat that team for professional web design.
> >
>
> Apps dont have anything to do with web design old chap .
>
> Or maybe its just me who doesnt have any suitable apps to generate and
> build all the webpages & have the app decide what it looks like and what
> goes where .
Eric Jarvis
> I dont see how using Dreamweaver or Fireworks can restrict your creativity
> to much of a degree. They just make a rather clumsy way of creating websites
> rather painless. So I would argue and say apps have everything to do with
> sensible website design. If you are a jounalist these days you wouldnt cut
> and paste or even attempt to use a typewriter rather than a good typesetting
> program. If you are an architect you dont use a drawing board you use CAD
> these days. If you are a salesman you wouldnt attemp to keep all of your
> information in files and bits of sticky paper stuck onto a wall would you. I
> respect those who stick to outmoded ways of creating websites if only for
> their dedication and romantic notions. But I would say that hand coding HTML
> has no place in modern web site design except for cleaning up designs and
> perhaps doing odd tasks that you cant do some other way. But cerating
> websites from scratch by hand is pretty old hat these days and getting more
> outmoded every day.
>
> True sometimes you do have to bend a little to use apps, but who doesnt have
> to change a little when they use a computer to create something. Thats isnt
> necessarily a bad thing.
>
> So I still say get a good web authoring program and start learning that way.
>
I'm afraid none of your analogies hold water
the web site is the finished product...not the draft, not the plan, not
the layout...an architect might use software to create the design for a
building, but the builders don't just stuff material into automated
machinery and let it get on with it...and the architect has to be
thoroughly aware of the process and materials the builders will eventually
use...your other analogies suffer from the same flaws
in fact, the flawed analogies are symptomatic of the most important reason
why you shouldn't start learning to build web sites by simply pretending
it's the same as DTP...it leads to confusion about what a web page
actually is and a mistaken belief that the design process can begin by
playing around with visual ideas on ones own desktop as if it relates in
some way with the eventual use of the site...a huge proportion of the
problems people have with the web are entirely down to this misconception
Dreamweaver et al are great for knocking up prototype template...they can
be successfully used as site management tools (though there are
better)...but unless your ambition is to either be a graphic designer
knocking out design templates or a complete cowboy who has no idea what
they are doing, then it's best to learn the basics first
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> Dreamweaver et al are great for knocking up prototype template...they
> can be successfully used as site management tools (though there are
> better)...but unless your ambition is to either be a graphic designer
> knocking out design templates or a complete cowboy who has no idea
> what they are doing, then it's best to learn the basics first
Given that Dreamweaver includes a perfectly respectable HTML-code editor, as
well as a perfectly respectable CSS editor, *as well* as the other things, it
is a good tool for people who know the basics or more, and/or want to do so.
As well as for people who are starting up and want to progress. (It is too
"heavy" for people who never want to learn the basics).
If you position Dreamweaver at the level of just knocking up prototype
templates, perhaps you need to try later versions, and/or try the other views.
The long-awaited upgrader for MX2004 was released today, and appears to turn a
somewhat-flaky initial product into a good one. Previous versions of DW have
been pretty good at rendering table-layout in WYSIWYG editing mode.Now, this
version also appears to be pretty good at rendering float-layouts &
absolute-positioned-layouts in WYSIWYG editing mode. It is interesting to be
about to type into a CSS-positioned layout.
I suspect that many people do what I do, and do bulk manipulation in design
mode (WYSIWYG editing), while keeping an eye on what is happening to the code
in split-screen view or code view. I still don't trust Dreamweaver to
interpret my WYSIWYG manipulations perfectly, all the time. But sometimes I am
just being picky - it has interpreted them enough for them render as expected
in major browsers. I just tried to do something different, and possibly not
very important!
By default, this latest version does something important. It pushes authors to
use CSS, rather than HTML, for presentation. I suspect, by default, you
couldn't put a <font> into the code when in design (WYSIWYG) mode. (I may be
wrong, but I can't be bothered to investigate). You could only apply styles to
the code. For some users, this has come as a cultural shock! I have seen
requests from people about how (in effect) to do all the transitional things
the are used to. And they can - they just have to reconfigure it to let them.
Serious authors won't do this, of course.
All my reading, and my experience so far (only hours!), is that this latest
MX2004 version has truly become an editor of the combined HTML+CSS. You can
edit either, and it shows the results as you do so. I have some quibbles - its
rendering appears to differ from some browsers as much as one browser differs
from another. You would certainly be unwise to assume that what you saw in
design view was what everyone sees. As we know, even if we preview in 5
browsers we can't be sure of that. But it has become impressively close - a
bit like editing within a 6th browser.
Barry Pearson
> I dont see how using Dreamweaver or Fireworks can restrict your
> creativity to much of a degree. They just make a rather clumsy way of
> creating websites rather painless. So I would argue and say apps have
> everything to do with sensible website design. If you are a jounalist
> these days you wouldnt cut and paste or even attempt to use a
> typewriter rather than a good typesetting program. If you are an
> architect you dont use a drawing board you use CAD these days. If you
> are a salesman you wouldnt attemp to keep all of your information in
> files and bits of sticky paper stuck onto a wall would you.
The key to all of the above is to work at a suitably high level of
abstraction. Ideally, authors should work in the "solution space", where
content & structure & layout matter, rather than in the "implementation
space", where details of HTML & CSS matter.
[snip]
> So I still say get a good web authoring program and start learning
> that way.
[snip]
Dreamweaver lets you work at all of these levels, and switch between them. Or
run in split-screen mode, so that you type into a WYSIWYG display and watch
what this does to the HTML code. Or choose a colour from a picker, click on
it, and see what difference this makes to the CSS, while also seeing what
difference it makes to the WYSIWYG display.
It won't suit everyone, of course. But the 30 day trial is free!
(Unfortunately, it involves downloading 100 megabytes! It took about 20
minutes on my broadband connection. Gosh!) Perhaps some people here have a web
site they need to produce in the next 30 days ....?
Nats
computer to be viewable by us. True architects need to know a little about
construction methods but these days its getting far more likely that
specialist subcontractors with do the fine work leaving the architect to get
on with the interesting stuff like design etc. In the same way Dreamweaver
leaves webdesigners free to get on with the interesting stuff. Unless you
are one of those types who absolutely must have a table positioned to the
nth degree, and it even allows you to do that too.
You are confusing matters by pretending that you have ultimate control by
handcoding HTML when in fact the only way you could have such control is to
code in binary. Its actually just about losing control to differing degrees.
You might want to control every line of code within your site. I certainly
dont, Im far more interested in the finished product and how it looks to the
eye rather than how its coded.
I would say that kind of mentality differentiates between the artistic and
the programmers, both types can be web designers. But I know which web sites
I prefer to look at. Doesnt mean your a cowboy just because you view web
design as an art rather than a science.
--
Regards
Nats
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
"Eric Jarvis" <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1abc43c1f...@news.individual.net...
Eric Jarvis
effectively be done with a WYSIWYG editor would be a top
poster?...furthermore one with a sig so that all the quoted text is
removed...of course they were
ho hum...chronology reorganised for those of us who read top to bottom...I
may be gone some time...but I don't want somebody to think they've won an
argument simply because their pig headed short sighted ignorance makes it
hard work to do a proper reply
Nats nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> "Eric Jarvis" <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1abc43c1f...@news.individual.net...
> > Nats nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >> I dont see how using Dreamweaver or Fireworks can restrict your
> >> creativity to much of a degree. They just make a rather clumsy way of
> >> creating websites rather painless. So I would argue and say apps have
> >> everything to do with sensible website design. If you are a jounalist
> >> these days you wouldnt cut and paste or even attempt to use a typewriter
> >> rather than a good typesetting program. If you are an architect you dont
> >> use a drawing board you use CAD these days. If you are a salesman you
> >> wouldnt attemp to keep all of your information in files and bits of sticky
> >> paper stuck onto a wall would you. <snip>
> >>
> >> But I would say that hand coding HTML has no place in modern web site design
> >> except for cleaning up designs and perhaps doing odd tasks that you cant do
> >> some other way. But cerating websites from scratch by hand is pretty old hat
> >> these days and getting more outmoded every day. <snip>
> >
> > I'm afraid none of your analogies hold water
> >
> > the web site is the finished product...not the draft, not the plan, not
> > the layout...an architect might use software to create the design for a
> > building, but the builders don't just stuff material into automated
> > machinery and let it get on with it...and the architect has to be
> > thoroughly aware of the process and materials the builders will eventually
> > use...your other analogies suffer from the same flaws
> >
> > in fact, the flawed analogies are symptomatic of the most important reason
> > why you shouldn't start learning to build web sites by simply pretending
> > it's the same as DTP...it leads to confusion about what a web page
> > actually is and a mistaken belief that the design process can begin by
> > playing around with visual ideas on ones own desktop as if it relates in
> > some way with the eventual use of the site...a huge proportion of the
> > problems people have with the web are entirely down to this misconception
>
> Ah but it is a layout, its a layout that is created in binary code by the
> computer to be viewable by us. True architects need to know a little about
> construction methods but these days its getting far more likely that
> specialist subcontractors with do the fine work leaving the architect to get
> on with the interesting stuff like design etc. In the same way Dreamweaver
> leaves webdesigners free to get on with the interesting stuff. Unless you
> are one of those types who absolutely must have a table positioned to the
> nth degree, and it even allows you to do that too.
>
it is NOT a layout
a web site is not purely visual...and ask any practising architect how
much they can ignore inconvenient complications such as the nature of the
materials they would like to use or the laws of physics
if you want a situation where content can be concentrated on you use a
CMS...you don't stuff each and every page through an editor...you let the
content producers upload content directly...at least in pretty much any
serious professional context
> You are confusing matters by pretending that you have ultimate control by
> handcoding HTML when in fact the only way you could have such control is to
> code in binary. Its actually just about losing control to differing degrees.
> You might want to control every line of code within your site. I certainly
> dont, Im far more interested in the finished product and how it looks to the
> eye rather than how its coded.
>
again you betray your ignorance of how the web actually works...the web is
NOT a visual medium
the reason I can't afford to rely on automatically generated mark up is
that the single most vital visitor to any commercial site is
googlebot...and search engine bots require conceptual clarity in the
important aspects of mark up...because, you may be surprised to learn,
they don't have eyes
in this universe a WYSIWYG can't handle that sort of thing...it can't make
decisions...it can't understand context...software is fine for bashing out
repetitive tasks...but at the root of making a functional and effective
web page is the need to make decisions on context and concept...it's only
in Star Trek that a computer can do that sort of thing
CSS can be largely generated automatically...a lot of that IS repetitive
and for a visual stylesheet it genuinely is purely a visual thing...I
think Top Style is a marvellous bit of software...no problem there, but
that's presentation not mark up
I'm interested in the look of a site, but only in so far as that look
helps the site to achieve it's purpose...that's why I deal with design and
development and not visual art...design is not about making pretty
patterns...design is about achieving specific purposes
> I would say that kind of mentality differentiates between the artistic and
> the programmers, both types can be web designers. But I know which web sites
> I prefer to look at. Doesnt mean your a cowboy just because you view web
> design as an art rather than a science.
>
neither "type" can be a designer unless they design...design is not an
art...it isn't a science...it has some elements of craft and some of
engineering...and it most certainly involves knowing how to make the
medium you are designing for achieve a specified goal...what you are
describing is an appropriate process for a graphic designer to produce
template prototypes for a web designer to turn into web pages...it most
certainly is not web design, though it seems to pass for it in many places
I wouldn't deny that Dreamweaver and Fireworks are fine tools for a
graphic designer to produce useful template prototypes with which somebody
competent can produce a working web site...however, it's a very small part
of the process of producing a functional and effective web site...and
unless your long term career goals are either to concentrate on being a
graphic designer for the web or on slapping up cheap but pretty sites for
small businesses that don't know what they actually want, then it's best
to learn the other aspects of web design
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Alan J. Flavell
> Ah but it is a layout,
Then you're not learning web page design, but some kind of
pseudo-WYSIWYG DTP that misses the whole *point* of the WWW -
just uses it as a clumsy vehicle for visual layout.
What _is_ it about top-posters? Sheesh.
Barry Pearson
> and what were the chances of the person proposing that everything can
> effectively be done with a WYSIWYG editor would be a top
> poster?...furthermore one with a sig so that all the quoted text is
> removed...of course they were
A problem with objecting to Dreamweaver in those terms is that, while it is
*also* a WYSIWYG editor, it is not *only* a WYSIWYG editor. So anyone
proposing the use of Dreamweaver isn't necessarily "proposing that everything
can effectively be done with a WYSIWYG editor".
(And, for the record, Macromedia, I believe, do not promote Dreamweaver as a
WYSIWYG editor).
DW has a respectable CSS editor, and a respectable HTML-code editor, as well
as what I call a WYSWIG editor. (In fact, it really has 2 of the latter. A
"layout" view that generates bloated fragile code, and a "design" view that
generates cleaner code but needs more knowledge of HTML. Guess which
experienced people use).
> Nats nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
>> Ah but it is a layout, its a layout that is created in binary code
>> by the computer to be viewable by us. True architects need to know a
>> little about construction methods but these days its getting far
>> more likely that specialist subcontractors with do the fine work
>> leaving the architect to get on with the interesting stuff like
>> design etc. In the same way Dreamweaver leaves webdesigners free to
>> get on with the interesting stuff. Unless you are one of those types
>> who absolutely must have a table positioned to the nth degree, and
>> it even allows you to do that too.
>
> it is NOT a layout
>
> a web site is not purely visual...and ask any practising architect how
> much they can ignore inconvenient complications such as the nature of
> the materials they would like to use or the laws of physics
A web site *also* includes layout. And complex CSS-positioned pages, developed
by CSS experts, typically *still* include some page-layout decisions in the
mark-up. Just as they typically include speech-rendering decisions (possibly
accidental!) in the mark-up.
If an author is able to translate mentally from the combination of design-view
and code-view into linearisation-rendering & speech-rendering, surely that is
good all round? Design view caters for perhaps 90% of the audience, and the
translation should cater for the rest. It would be useful if Dreamweaver has a
"speech-view", too, and perhaps one day they will.
But I've just run a Dreamweaver accessibility report on the document I was
working on before looking at this NG. It told me some things that the WAI
guidelines suggest I should manually check. I think it is OK, but the reminder
was probably useful.
[snip]
>> You are confusing matters by pretending that you have ultimate
>> control by handcoding HTML when in fact the only way you could have
>> such control is to code in binary. Its actually just about losing
>> control to differing degrees. You might want to control every line
>> of code within your site. I certainly dont, Im far more interested
>> in the finished product and how it looks to the eye rather than how
>> its coded.
>
> again you betray your ignorance of how the web actually works...the
> web is NOT a visual medium
The web is a communications medium that typically has to be able to be
rendered visually, *as well*. And if the most effective way for an author is
to work visually, while performing the other translations, why not have the
tools to help that process? (If I have to convey important information over
the telephone, I may still write it out first, or more likely use Word. That
is far more natural for me than trying to organise what I am going to say by
using a tape-recorder, or some other non-visual medium).
> the reason I can't afford to rely on automatically generated mark up
> is that the single most vital visitor to any commercial site is
> googlebot...and search engine bots require conceptual clarity in the
> important aspects of mark up...because, you may be surprised to learn,
> they don't have eyes
Why can't that be achieved by using design-view + code-view in Dreamweaver? I
suspect many people put content into design view (WYSIWYG mode) in an order
that suits linearising browsers & search engines, then transform it to suit
other uses too. The vital message here is - WYSIWYG mode doesn't stop you
doing all of those good things! And when you know what you are doing, it helps
you to be more effective all round.
> in this universe a WYSIWYG can't handle that sort of thing...it can't
> make decisions...it can't understand context...software is fine for
> bashing out repetitive tasks...but at the root of making a
> functional and effective web page is the need to make decisions on
> context and concept...it's only in Star Trek that a computer can do
> that sort of thing
A WYSIWYG editor + a human being *can* do those things. And that is what we
are talking about here! Has anyone tried to take the human being out of the
equation? I believe not.
You can't use Dreamweaver if you haven't got 2 brain-cells to rub together.
You need to switch your brain on first. Once you have done so, the discussion
should be about "intelligent person + powerful tool".
[snip]
> I'm interested in the look of a site, but only in so far as that look
> helps the site to achieve it's purpose...that's why I deal with
> design and development and not visual art...design is not about
> making pretty patterns...design is about achieving specific purposes
And specific purposes often require the visual arts, of course! They help
understand such things as the visual hierarchy, and the importance of position
and colour and font, etc.
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/
http://www.msu.edu/~glazered/tc801/index.html
http://www.webstyleguide.com/page/hierarchy.html
[snip]
> I wouldn't deny that Dreamweaver and Fireworks are fine tools for a
> graphic designer to produce useful template prototypes with which
> somebody competent can produce a working web site...however, it's a
> very small part of the process of producing a functional and
> effective web site...and unless your long term career goals are
> either to concentrate on being a graphic designer for the web or on
> slapping up cheap but pretty sites for small businesses that don't
> know what they actually want, then it's best to learn the other
> aspects of web design
Yes - but that hasn't contradicted what has gone before. Has it?
Dreamweaver has the ability to produce the prototypes, of course. But, since
it *also* has a respectable (X)HTML editor, and a respectable CSS editor, and
vast amounts more besides, it can be used to carry the concept right through
to release and evolution.
Dreamweaver enables people to work at a higher level of abstraction. That
doesn't mean not understand the concepts of CSS. It means not having to worry
whether that property to remove underlining in text in bullets is
text-enhancement or text-embellishment or .... oh heck! Or is it color or
colour, or center or centre, and is mid-green #700 or #070 or what? What order
do the font-family short cuts appear? Is it "repeat: no"? And wouldn't it be
nice if you could never, even accidentally, put a space between the number and
the units, eg. 100 px?
If, indeed, a person *is* only doing part of the process, and others are
turning this into a functional web site, then perhaps decent site management,
with check-in / check-out, plus design notes, might be useful. Now, guess the
name of a product that has these?
Barry Pearson
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Nats wrote:
>
>> Ah but it is a layout,
>
> Then you're not learning web page design, but some kind of
> pseudo-WYSIWYG DTP that misses the whole *point* of the WWW -
> just uses it as a clumsy vehicle for visual layout.
You don't make your case by setting up such exaggerated straw-men so that you
knock them down. There are a handful of things that appear in responses when
people talk about the importance of layout. Examples:
"The web is not DTP"
"The web is not paper"
"Don't expect to be pixel-perfect"
I discuss these in:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/sayings.htm
I have a vision of a Sir Humphrey sitting in his club, saying "it may work in
practice, but it doesn't work in theory". Perhaps Nats *has* missed 10% of the
point of the WWW. But he hasn't missed the whole point.
Owners & publishers of web sites, paying to publish their stuff, often want
good control of the visual layout. Research shows that users of web sites
expect various features in the visual layout of pages.
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/
The primary principle of web design is "communicate with your audience". The
rest is a means to that end.
Nats
news:YPI4c.413$nN6.320@newsfe1-win...
absolutely 0% difference to me whether someone top or bottom posts, in fact
I prefer top posters. But personally I see it symtomatic of your whole
argument that you consider the manner of writing an email is worthy of
discussion or argument.
Similarly we shall just have to disagree on the points above. By the way I
am a chartered architect as well as a web designer. And the web is 90% a
visual medium with a minimal interactivity present only becuase some books
say you 'need' to design web sites that way. Same as you 'need' to hand code
HTML to be a 'proper' web designer. What a load of rubbish. I can design a
website that will communicate my goals, capture visitors, obtain business,
and be a beautiful thing to look over, All of this without touching HTML if
I dont wish to. It is an artform and yes it can be a science but it doesnt
have to be. But to be a good webdesigner you have to be a good artist - but
you dont have to be able to code.
We'll just have to disagree on this becuase I know I am right. :-)
Nats
James Taylor
I was about to make a similar remark. I think the following
illustration is helpful:
Answer: Top posters.
Question: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
I normally come to this group with a cosy home-coming feel
because I know the people here are like-minded and clued up.
I don't expect intelligent people to top post, and frankly
it rather spoils the atmosphere of the group. I would
therefore entreat the newbies that are either top posting
and/or not trimming properly to learn the correct netiquette:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html
Thank you.
--
James Taylor, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. PGP key: 3FBE1BF9
To protect against spam, the address in the "From:" header is not valid.
In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit.
If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk.
James Taylor
Nats <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
[snip the entirity of Barry's previous post including signature]
> it makes absolutely 0% difference to me whether someone top or
> bottom posts, in fact I prefer top posters.
That's like walking into a library and shouting at the top
of your voice "it makes absolutely no difference to me
whether people shout in libraries, in fact I prefer people
to shout". I hope you can see why this makes you seem both
anti-social and wilfully ignorant.
> to be a good webdesigner you have to be a good artist
Sure, it certainly helps, but it's not the full story.
> but you dont have to be able to code.
I disagree. To be a good designer (of *anything*) you need to
understand and your medium profoundly. Good design requires
both technical and artistic skills. One without the other
inevitably leads to poor design. The same is true of the
web. You might be able to draw pretty graphics and choose
stylish colours but unless you can construct a site that
actually works properly then you're not a good designer.
> We'll just have to disagree on this becuase I know I am right. :-)
It's nice that you can laugh about it. Personally, I find it
exasperating that arty-farty types with a very shallow
understanding of the usability and technical nuances of
website design are allowed free reign. It's because of the
arrogance of myriad arty "designers" that the web is of such
a poor quality. I think there should probably be a mandatory
competence exam before people are let loose on the web.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:YPI4c.413$nN6.320@newsfe1-win...
>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>>>
> If it helps shatter your illusions I will bottom post although it
> makes absolutely 0% difference to me whether someone top or bottom
> posts, in fact I prefer top posters. But personally I see it
> symtomatic of your whole argument that you consider the manner of
> writing an email is worthy of discussion or argument.
I assume you are responding to Alan, not to me! And in fact, responding to
points that I snipped out of my response to Alan.
I don't personally get hung up about other people's top posting, especially
where it is used to provide a quick answer to a question, as in some technical
NGs. (Although I never use that style myself). But for a lengthy discussion,
it makes it hard to follow the sequence. It isn't about philoshophy, but about
the practicality of tracking a debate.
For lengthy discussions, I use dialogue style, not specifically bottom
posting, and trim back to just sufficient earlier material to set the context
for my response. In fact, bottom posting after untrimmed material is probably
far worse than top posting, because of the wasted bandwidth, and the need to
scroll down to see if there is even a reply there!
Normally I stay out of such discussions. I am only responding here because you
replied to my post, not to Alan's earlier post. I'm setting the record
straight.
Barry Pearson
> In article <c2vvtn$5k1$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Nats <nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> to be a good webdesigner you have to be a good artist
>
> Sure, it certainly helps, but it's not the full story.
>
>> but you dont have to be able to code.
>
> I disagree. To be a good designer (of *anything*) you need to
> understand and your medium profoundly. Good design requires
> both technical and artistic skills. One without the other
> inevitably leads to poor design. The same is true of the
> web. You might be able to draw pretty graphics and choose
> stylish colours but unless you can construct a site that
> actually works properly then you're not a good designer.
"Actually works" is the key. The web site (in lieu of the owning organisation)
must communicate with its audience. The rest is a means to that end. You need
sufficient understanding of the medium to establish and maintain this
communication with the audience.
There are, as always, levels of abstraction. Tools are gradually raising the
level of abstractions, both those available, and those that an author needs to
know about. For example, if you want to communicate some tabular information,
such as menus of descriptions & prices, at one time you would need to know the
specification for the HTML for the table element - tags, attributes, nesting,
etc. Now it is easy to have the material visible as a table in front of you on
a screen, and type into the cells. Or take it from another source and build
the HTML automatically. Dreamweaver will even prompt you for accessibility
information, etc, such as a caption & summary. Composer puts in <tbody> - I
don't know how important that is, since it is optional, at least in the simple
case. But the point is that they both manage the detailed syntax, putting in
even the optional closures. Put an image in, and you will be prompted for alt
text and even a longdesc.
This applies for CSS too. Dreamweaver will manage a number of aspects of it,
such as the <link>, then the detailed syntax of the selectors, properties, and
values. It will offer menus of these, and where you already have styles
defined, makes it easy to apply them for elements, and, of course, see the
result in approximate WYSIWYG immediately. I suspect you will get "CSS2
lite" - I'm not sure whether it will handle the most complex selectors, for
example. (It may do. I'll find out within days as I work through the 30-day
trial).
You still have to know the basic concepts, and I'm sure this is one of your
points. Many beginners struggle to understand that HTML doesn't simply let you
put a word or image "anywhere" and it will somehow hang there. But since the
design view won't show it hanging there, they soon learn! And there is the
difference "making do" and "excelling", and that appears to be another of your
points. But the latter represent degrees of "actually working properly". It
may work on normal computer screens but not on PDAs, and of course it may not
work well with a speaking browser, or NN4. But do these matter for the
particular audience?
>> We'll just have to disagree on this becuase I know I am right. :-)
>
> It's nice that you can laugh about it. Personally, I find it
> exasperating that arty-farty types with a very shallow
> understanding of the usability and technical nuances of
> website design are allowed free reign. It's because of the
> arrogance of myriad arty "designers" that the web is of such
> a poor quality. I think there should probably be a mandatory
> competence exam before people are let loose on the web.
Chuckle! I'll assume that last sentence is a joke. But I've seen the idea
elsewhere, so I'll answer it.
Who is competent to judge? Given that the objective of the web site is
communication (in a broad sense) with its audience, for the benefit of either
or both of the publisher & audience, what matters is the impact on those
people. And we have some well-tried methods of evolving qualities in such
areas: we subject them to the marketplace and let them succeed or fail. Or let
a court decide, in the case of DDA 1995. Where safety is an issue, or fraud,
yes we need regulations.
What we shouldn't have here is self-regulation by those with a personal
interest, as with (say) the legal profession. That sort of regulation,
rightly, gets bad press; when it doesn't act against its members, or tries to
act like a closed shop. But the technically competent people probably *do*
have a personal interest. Besides - how would could "the West" hope to
regulate web site production in the Indian sub-continent?
It is an incredible over-generalisation to say "the web is of such a poor
quality". There are many millions of web sites, ranging from excellent to
grotty. And nearly every one of those has appeared in the last decade, making
the web one of the most successful new communications systems ever. I believe
that attention to layout, starting around 1995/6, has helped to make it so
successful.
Geoff Berrow
James Taylor contained the following:
>> What _is_ it about top-posters? Sheesh.
>
>I was about to make a similar remark. I think the following
>illustration is helpful:
>
> Answer: Top posters.
> Question: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Bottom posting can be just as bad. We should, as Barry points out, be
encouraging correct quoting.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Eric Jarvis
>
> There are, as always, levels of abstraction. Tools are gradually raising the
> level of abstractions, both those available, and those that an author needs to
> know about. For example, if you want to communicate some tabular information,
> such as menus of descriptions & prices, at one time you would need to know the
> specification for the HTML for the table element - tags, attributes, nesting,
> etc. Now it is easy to have the material visible as a table in front of you on
> a screen, and type into the cells. Or take it from another source and build
> the HTML automatically.
I don't recall ever actually creating a table from scratch...the first one
I made was cut and paste from an example...for many years I've simply
pasted in the most appropriate preexisting table from my "snippet"
library...the only time I'd need to have a table automatically generated
would be for one that is absolutely massive
so the ONLY real advantage of using Dreamweaver or Fireworks over a
halfway decent text based editor is that you can pretend it's DTP or you
can completely switch your brain off whilst working on mark up...I don't
see either of these as good things at all, and especially I don't see them
as good things to do when first learning web authoring
Eric Jarvis
> I noticed that Message-ID: <ant14035...@nospam.demon.co.uk> from
>
> encouraging correct quoting.
>
precisely...posting below the quote is merely a technique...the purpose is
to post in a way that makes it easier for others to read your post or to
follow up to it
Alan J. Flavell
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:YPI4c.413$nN6.320@newsfe1-win...
[...]
> > The primary principle of web design is "communicate with your
> > audience". The rest is a means to that end.
Indeed.
> If it helps shatter your illusions I will bottom post although it makes
> absolutely 0% difference to me whether someone top or bottom posts, in fact
> I prefer top posters.
I don't see what relevance that remark has to what you just quoted.
> But personally I see it symtomatic of your whole
> argument that you consider the manner of writing an email is worthy of
> discussion or argument.
Nobody has "written an email". You seem to have stumbled into a
discussion forum without really being aware of where you are, and that
there are established conventions ("netiquette") for the debate.
The main thing that you're achieving here is: demonstrating just how
badly things can go wrong if you follow-up to the wrong person, quote
the wrong parts of what they said, and thus make your argument look
even more illogical than it is.
> And the web is 90% a visual medium with a minimal interactivity
> present only becuase some books say you 'need' to design web sites
> that way.
Anything you say...
> Same as you 'need' to hand code HTML to be a 'proper' web designer.
> What a load of rubbish.
Yeah, I've had contact with architects like that. Everything works
great on paper, but when the workmen put in the actual components,
nothing actually fits, and they have to keep coming back and adapting
the various things that might have worked in an ideal test house, but,
out in the real world, being used by many different people, it's
another story.
If they'd known a bit more about actually _using_ the stuff that they
design with, in a wide range of real-use situations, instead of the
one situation illustrated in the glossy brochure, we'd have been a lot
better off.
> We'll just have to disagree on this becuase I know I am right. :-)
Of course. Anything you say.
bye now.
King Queen
wrote:
>precisely...posting below the quote is merely a technique...the purpose is
>to post in a way that makes it easier for others to read your post or to
>follow up to it
I've been having an e-mail chat with a blind lady for a while now. She
has asked me to stop doing the snipping and responding below the
quotes thing, as apparently it makes it difficult to "scan" with a
screenreader - makes her listen to everything she has said again.
The Internet is a constant learning process...
--
To email me remove ".lartsspammers"
http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
Geoff Berrow
from King Queen contained the following:
>I've been having an e-mail chat with a blind lady for a while now. She
>has asked me to stop doing the snipping and responding below the
>quotes thing, as apparently it makes it difficult to "scan" with a
>screenreader - makes her listen to everything she has said again.
In Agent and many other newsreaders, quoted text is in coloured or
otherwise differentiated. I rarely do more than scan it unless I have
forgotten the context. Clearly this convention has evolved for sighted
people.
I would think that in your conversations with a blind person you should
perhaps revert back to ordinary letter writing technique and not quote
at all (e.g. I agree with your comment that border collies are the best
dogs in the world...").
King Queen
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> I would think that in your conversations with a blind person you should
>perhaps revert back to ordinary letter writing technique and not quote
>at all (e.g. I agree with your comment that border collies are the best
>dogs in the world...").
That's what I do now but it was a bit of a headsup. I wasn't aware
that the quoting convention caused problems for blind people. Mind you
maybe it is a programming issue - just as Agent colours quoted lines
differently, maybe software for blind people should have options to
ignore "quoted" lines if that is what is required.
Paul
> <snip> Composer puts in <tbody> - I
> don't know how important that is, since it is optional, at least in the simple
> case.
I've been lurking in this thread for some time and was rather surprised
by that comment, particularly from someone who defends the use of tables
for layout purposes.From the html 4.01 specification, I understand that
<tbody> is used to distinguish the body of the table, the part that
holds the data, from the head and the foot. One of the purposes being
that user agents may not wish to display the entire body of a table at
any given time,particularly for large tables, but might enable
scrolling. So if you put a large image, or images, inside a table body
element, a standards-based user agent might well surrounded this with
scroll bars when rendering it in a web page. Would that be the behaviour
you would want?
Just an example of why someone wanting to start web authoring should
find out a little about html coding.
Paul
Nats
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Nats wrote:
> > But personally I see it symtomatic of your whole
> > argument that you consider the manner of writing an email is worthy of
> > discussion or argument.
>
> Nobody has "written an email". You seem to have stumbled into a
> discussion forum without really being aware of where you are, and that
> there are established conventions ("netiquette") for the debate.
So Im not witing an email now am I not. This answer isnt going to this
newsgroup using email isnt it? So this forum is linked to my brain directly
is it? Seems like youre pretty unsure about exactly what email is yourself.
> > Same as you 'need' to hand code HTML to be a 'proper' web designer.
> > What a load of rubbish.
>
> Yeah, I've had contact with architects like that. Everything works
> great on paper, but when the workmen put in the actual components,
> nothing actually fits, and they have to keep coming back and adapting
> the various things that might have worked in an ideal test house, but,
> out in the real world, being used by many different people, it's
> another story.
Im presently designing a £10,000,000 apartment block with several
subcontractors and a team of 5 people under me. What have you designed
recently with anywhere near the amount of organisation that is required to
do such a task?
> If they'd known a bit more about actually _using_ the stuff that they
> design with, in a wide range of real-use situations, instead of the
> one situation illustrated in the glossy brochure, we'd have been a lot
> better off.
My argument here (and yes it was my argument) was about web design and the
way HTML coders tend to get target fixation on the code and lose a sense of
the objective. Ive seen millions of sites that are created this way. Ive
also seen loads of sites that are arty farty and yet are a nightmare to use.
The trick in web design is a balance. But in my view you have to first start
a design with your artisitic head on and then turn to your coding head only
after you have designed the website as you want it. Many people Im sure
start straight out with the coding. Dreamweaver and the like let you design
in artistic terms whilst relieving from you all the messy coding until you
are ready to address it at the end. Its a design philosophy that has been
proven in architecture for years and can lead to the truly great buildings.
You can by all means start designing at the outset from hand coding (ie
bottom up) but you will never ever achieve a truly 'great' web site that
way.
David Dorward
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:45:56 -0000, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
> wrote:
> I've been having an e-mail chat with a blind lady for a while now. She
> has asked me to stop doing the snipping and responding below the
> quotes thing, as apparently it makes it difficult to "scan" with a
> screenreader - makes her listen to everything she has said again.
Bottom posting with sensible trimming has been a convention for far longer
then top posting. My email software (which is free software) is capable of
recognising these conventions and colour highlighting quoted material,
skipping past the current block of quoted material (when a key is pressed)
and hiding quoted material all together (if a different key is pressed).
While I have sympathy for people suffering from handicaps/disabilities, it
is quite possible for software to cope with these conventions. If the
software she is using can't cope, then I'm of the opinion that it is the
responsibility authors of the software should improve it, and not the
responsibility of the Internet community to switch to a less logical format
for quoting material.
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
King Queen
<nst...@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>This answer isnt going to this
>newsgroup using email isnt it?
No it's not, it uses an entirely different system. Usenet newsgroups
use NNTP whereas email uses SMTP. They don't have any overlap.
David Dorward
>> Nobody has "written an email".
> So Im not witing an email now am I not. This answer isnt going to this
> newsgroup using email isnt it?
Correct.
Usenet operates over NNTP, email operates over SMTP (with POP, IMAP,
Exchange and possible a few other protocols involved in the collection of
messages). While the format of messages sent via the two protocols is
similar, email and usenet are different.
It seems likely that you are being confused by your use of Microsoft Outlook
Express which is both an email and Usenet client.
> But in my view you have to first start a design with your artisitic head
> on and then turn to your coding head only after you have designed the
> website as you want it.
> But in my view you have to first start a design with your artisitic head
> on and then turn to your coding head only after you have designed the
> website as you want it.
While that sounds like a perfectly valid technique for developing a site, it
isn't a good way to start learning how to create websites.
You need to learn the tools (HTML and CSS) first.
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson wrote:
>
>> <snip> Composer puts in <tbody> - I
>> don't know how important that is, since it is optional, at least in
>> the simple case.
>
> I've been lurking in this thread for some time and was rather
> surprised by that comment, particularly from someone who defends the
> use of tables for layout purposes.From the html 4.01 specification, I
> understand that <tbody> is used to distinguish the body of the table,
> the part that holds the data, from the head and the foot. One of the
> purposes being that user agents may not wish to display the entire
> body of a table at any given time,particularly for large tables, but
> might enable scrolling. So if you put a large image, or images,
> inside a table body element, a standards-based user agent might well
> surrounded this with scroll bars when rendering it in a web page.
> Would that be the behaviour you would want?
I had forgotten about the scrolling! And another case is printing headers and
footers on each page. But if you don't use thead and tfoot, does the presence
of tbody make any visual difference? I though that the idea was to partition
the table into header and footer information that a browser could keep in
view, while scrolling the main content between them. But if there is no header
or footer, what will happen? (I've just tried in IE & Firefox & Opera, and
can't spot a difference. But perhaps other browsers will do something in
future. Thanks for the warning).
(I've never actually used tbody - I don't use Composer to develop my sites -
and in fact my next " HTML mission" is to get up to date about all the data
table stuff, because I have some big data tables that need some improvements.
I might also need "headers" & "scope" attributes, etc).
(And my next "CSS mission" is to understand much more about what can be
achieved by html-rules & body-rules. I'm trying to get my mind round:
html {overflow: hidden}
in combination with some other stuff which someone proposed to me to solve a
problem I have. I'm trying to fix some background images to the corners of the
viewport while the page content scrolls over them. My first attempts had
body-rules and other positioning that resulted in an extra scrollbar in IE).
> Just an example of why someone wanting to start web authoring should
> find out a little about html coding.
I know much more than a little. I had simply forgotten that - I first started
to use tables (probably using Hot Dog Editor) a year or 2 before HTML 4
appeared, and haven't caught up with all the extras.
I suspect that someone wanting to start web authoring would have a lot more to
think about than these optional elements. I believe it is more important to do
simple things well, and build on it, than take on too much at once. But
different people have different learning styles.
Alan J. Flavell
> That's what I do now but it was a bit of a headsup. I wasn't aware
> that the quoting convention caused problems for blind people.
There's a significant difference between an email dialogue on the one
hand, and a usenet discussion on the other.
In the case of an email dialogue, you're writing for the other party,
and so, obviously, you'll want to adapt to their preferences and
needs.
On Usenet, you're writing for Usenet, and the preferences of the one
participant you're following-up to are of, at best, secondary
relevance. The primary audience are the other Usenauts, and their
collective preferences are the key factor. And they are codified, as
a result of years of experience, in the "netiquette".
Just as in a debating society, there are "rules of order" required to
be observed, irrespective of the personal views of the participants.
If blind readers are to participate in Usenet discussions - and they
certainly *do* - they clearly want appropriate software, tuned to the
job.
Paul
> Paul wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>>Just an example of why someone wanting to start web authoring should
>>find out a little about html coding.
>
>
> I know much more than a little. I had simply forgotten that - I first started
> to use tables (probably using Hot Dog Editor) a year or 2 before HTML 4
> appeared, and haven't caught up with all the extras.
That comment was not directed at you. I was just responding to the title
of the thread.
>
> I suspect that someone wanting to start web authoring would have a lot more to
> think about than these optional elements. I believe it is more important to do
> simple things well, and build on it, than take on too much at once. But
> different people have different learning styles.
>
I just wonder what you regard as optional and what you regard as simple.
Styling is optional: a style sheet is only a recommendation as to how
mark-up should be rendered. IMO html is simple; xhtml is even simpler.
But, as you say, different people have different learning styles.
Paul
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> There are, as always, levels of abstraction. Tools are gradually
>> raising the level of abstractions, both those available, and those
>> that an author needs to know about. For example, if you want to
>> communicate some tabular information, such as menus of descriptions
>> & prices, at one time you would need to know the specification for
>> the HTML for the table element - tags, attributes, nesting, etc. Now
>> it is easy to have the material visible as a table in front of you
>> on a screen, and type into the cells. Or take it from another source
>> and build the HTML automatically.
>
> I don't recall ever actually creating a table from scratch...the
> first one I made was cut and paste from an example...for many years
> I've simply pasted in the most appropriate preexisting table from my
> "snippet" library...the only time I'd need to have a table
> automatically generated would be for one that is absolutely massive
Different workflows for different people. I'm not trying to persuade you to
use Dreamweaver for your work! Although you might find a free-trial
interesting. I'm simply pointing out that there are other routes to the same
destination, which is valid strict code. And those other routes may be good
ones for some people.
Heck - I've been using Notepad for 15 months or more as my CSS editor. I'm not
going to criticise you for using a text editor for HTML! (I hope to be able to
stop using Notepad, if the Dreamweaver CSS editor is good enough).
> so the ONLY real advantage of using Dreamweaver or Fireworks over a
> halfway decent text based editor is that you can pretend it's DTP or
> you can completely switch your brain off whilst working on mark
> up...I don't see either of these as good things at all, and
> especially I don't see them as good things to do when first learning
> web authoring
Not true. It is a real advantage for me and many others to be able to type
into a close facsimile of what I am trying to achieve. Part of the activity of
building a web page is putting true content - the leaves on the tree - into
the document, or editing it. I see no point at that stage in having mark-up in
my face. (I've never used "proper" DTP so I can't comment about that. I tend
to write simpler documents that can be handled well by Word).
Consider the table on the following page. While I could type into a text
editor - after all, Dreamweaver has a respectable one that I can use at the
touch of a button - I find it more convenient to input content in design view,
which looks rather like the page seen by common browsers. I can run in split
screen mode, watching the HTML code being constructed as I type into design
view, if I want to keep an eye on what is happening.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/history.htm
(You are welcome to criticise the HTML & CSS for that page. I know it isn't
perfect - and I'll probably fix those extra no-break-spaces when I work out
how to stop IE 5 breaking the navigation box! But it was developed in DW, and
at least it validates).
We probably agree that there are a set of basics that need to be understood,
and I suspect we could agree what *some* of them are. But there are some
details that I think can be postponed for a long time, perhaps for ever. Much
of the detailed syntax of HTML & CSS is arbitrary, in the sense that it
doesn't really matter whether it is "text-embellishment" or "text-decoration",
or "tfoot" or "tfooter", etc. I can't always remember which elements need
proper end tags, and which can be omitted. I've actually configured
Dreamweaver to put in even the optional end tags, so I may never know for
sure.
I used to use WordStar 3 in the mid-1980s, and knew all the control-codes &
dot commands. I even invented several extra ones of my own, to control a
laser-printer driver I wrote for it. Without using those terms, I devised
mark-up for drawing diagrams, and allowed stylesheets to be used to control
the rendering of both normal text and my diagrams. But ... once I got my hands
on Word, I stopped messing around at that level, and concentrated on real
content intended for people. It was nearer to the "solution space" rather than
the "implementation space".
Alan J. Flavell
> Usenet operates over NNTP, email operates over SMTP (with POP, IMAP,
> Exchange and possible a few other protocols involved in the collection of
> messages). While the format of messages sent via the two protocols is
> similar, email and usenet are different.
Yes, right, but more to the point, the whole architectures are
different. The details of protocol are, in a way, somewhat incidental
to that.
> Nats wrote:
> > But in my view you have to first start a design with your artisitic head
> > on and then turn to your coding head only after you have designed the
> > website as you want it.
That stance comes as no surprise, of course.
> While that sounds like a perfectly valid technique for developing a site,
Do you think so? The first things to do are to decide what the web
site is for, and what it should contain. Then consider how to
structure that content in the interests of the prospective users.
At some point the visual designer's input is also needed, of course:
that's not in dispute. But to start with visual design before
everything else is what makes so many web sites the pride and joy of
their owners - and a source of annoyance and despair to their
prospective users, in my experience.
> You need to learn the tools (HTML and CSS) first.
You surely need to develop a state of mind: to have a feeling for the
properties of the medium - how far you can control them and how far
you can't, and get a feel for designing sites that capitalise on the
strengths of the medium, and avoid falling foul of its weaknesses.
Just how to develop that feeling, that state of mind, will surely be
different for different people. We're all starting from different
starting positions, for one thing, and we all have different
inclinations. There surely isn't One True Way to go about learning.
Geoff Berrow
Pearson contained the following:
> But ... once I got my hands
>on Word, I stopped messing around at that level, and concentrated on real
>content intended for people. It was nearer to the "solution space" rather than
>the "implementation space".
Though, TBH, there are times when I would dearly love to be able to edit
Word documents in code view, if there was one.
Geoff Berrow
<Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk> from Alan J.
Flavell contained the following:
>At some point the visual designer's input is also needed, of course:
>that's not in dispute. But to start with visual design before
>everything else is what makes so many web sites the pride and joy of
>their owners - and a source of annoyance and despair to their
>prospective users, in my experience.
And in architecture, no visual design would be undertaken without first
determining the user needs, unless the architect were simply indulging
in a flight of fancy.
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson wrote:
>> I suspect that someone wanting to start web authoring would have a
>> lot more to think about than these optional elements. I believe it
>> is more important to do simple things well, and build on it, than
>> take on too much at once. But different people have different
>> learning styles.
>
> I just wonder what you regard as optional and what you regard as
> simple. Styling is optional: a style sheet is only a recommendation
> as to how mark-up should be rendered. IMO html is simple; xhtml is
> even simpler. But, as you say, different people have different
> learning styles.
An example is those tbody, thead, & tfoot elements in tables. But there are
others. I'm actually unsure of the syntax for inline styles, and I've never
used them. Nor embedded styles (which I probably know if I tried - not hard).
I can't remember when quotes are needed round attribute values, and where
not - so I always use them. Although I used to use Frames & iFrames, I'm
hoping to avoid them in future, and won't bring myself up to date unless I
really need to. That is quite apart from not knowing the deprecated ones,
which you would probably agree would be a waste of time learning about, unless
you had to maintain some old stuff.
In fact, I've just had a look at the 4.01 list of elements, and I was
surprised at how many I don't use! I'd forgotten about client-side maps
(although I used them many years ago), and in-line quote (whoops!), and some
other phrase elements. And some of the attributes too.
I'm not saying these will never be needed. Simply that an author can build
pretty good web pages with only a subset of the elements & attributes. The
trick is probably to know what *may* be needed, just in case, then use "just
in time" learning about them. And Dreamweaver comes with a huge amount of
easily accessible reference material, and can tell me what is relevant at
particular places. (Although mostly I just use the Google toolbar).
Similarly, I tend not to know the details of CSS if IE 6's deficiencies are
likely to stop me using them. I tend to know they exist (eg. that there are
lots of "display" values corresponding to table elements), and since
Dreamweaver knows the details, I probably don't have to. I don't use fixed
positioning, for similar reasons. (But styling is pretty well mandatory for
acceptable web sites. While you can't force a user to use a CSS, you had
better provide one for all the other users who want to see things styled).
In other words, I understand the core "architecture" / syntax of HTML & CSS,
then I add the details on a sort of "need to know" basis. And this is perhaps
the common point here - that there are certain core principles which are
needed. But I don't think that core is as extensive as some would claim.
Barry Pearson
> I noticed that Message-ID: <j4_4c.18$Ee2.0@newsfe1-win> from Barry
> Pearson contained the following:
>
>> But ... once I got my hands
>>on Word, I stopped messing around at that level, and concentrated on
>>real content intended for people. It was nearer to the "solution
>>space" rather than the "implementation space".
>
> Though, TBH, there are times when I would dearly love to be able to
> edit Word documents in code view, if there was one.
Gosh!
(I daren't ask why).
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> > Barry Pearson ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> There are, as always, levels of abstraction. Tools are gradually
> >> raising the level of abstractions, both those available, and those
> >> that an author needs to know about. For example, if you want to
> >> communicate some tabular information, such as menus of descriptions
> >> & prices, at one time you would need to know the specification for
> >> the HTML for the table element - tags, attributes, nesting, etc. Now
> >> it is easy to have the material visible as a table in front of you
> >> on a screen, and type into the cells. Or take it from another source
> >> and build the HTML automatically.
> >
> > I don't recall ever actually creating a table from scratch...the
> > first one I made was cut and paste from an example...for many years
> > I've simply pasted in the most appropriate preexisting table from my
> > "snippet" library...the only time I'd need to have a table
> > automatically generated would be for one that is absolutely massive
>
> Different workflows for different people. I'm not trying to persuade you to
> use Dreamweaver for your work! Although you might find a free-trial
> interesting. I'm simply pointing out that there are other routes to the same
> destination, which is valid strict code. And those other routes may be good
> ones for some people.
>
very true...but the crucial thing is having a basic understanding of what
one ISN'T doing
as it happens I've worked quite a bit with Dreamweaver, and I've always
ended up going back to other tools (mostly Arachnophilia or Note Tab
Pro)...if you aren't using its "WYSIWYG" capabilities it's somewhat
cumbersome compared to the alternatives unless you are somebody who NEEDS
to have everything done from within a single application
> Heck - I've been using Notepad for 15 months or more as my CSS editor. I'm not
> going to criticise you for using a text editor for HTML! (I hope to be able to
> stop using Notepad, if the Dreamweaver CSS editor is good enough).
>
I suppose Notepad probably kind of works for CSS where there isn't as much
use for syntax highlighting and site wide find/replace...I do html with it
now and again to keep in practise since it's useful to be able to edit
pages from pretty much anywhere
> > so the ONLY real advantage of using Dreamweaver or Fireworks over a
> > halfway decent text based editor is that you can pretend it's DTP or
> > you can completely switch your brain off whilst working on mark
> > up...I don't see either of these as good things at all, and
> > especially I don't see them as good things to do when first learning
> > web authoring
>
> Not true. It is a real advantage for me and many others to be able to type
> into a close facsimile of what I am trying to achieve. Part of the activity of
> building a web page is putting true content - the leaves on the tree - into
> the document, or editing it. I see no point at that stage in having mark-up in
> my face. (I've never used "proper" DTP so I can't comment about that. I tend
> to write simpler documents that can be handled well by Word).
>
this is the crux of the matter and where I think you're missing
something...you see, all I'm doing at that stage is marking paragraphs,
headers, lists and emphasis etc...if it's obviously going to be needed I
might even add some classes without yet defining them...I tend to combine
that with proofreading and separating the content into "pages"...so
actually doing mark up is quite a trivial task and barely noticeable
since I usually work by pasting into templates, when it comes to building
the final pages themselves it's again generally a trivial task
the whole point of the approach is that I work with the web page "as it
is" at all stages...it's only when I'm working on visual presentation that
I look at visual presentation...I don't see where there is a need to look
at visual presentation when dealing with other aspects of the job
> Consider the table on the following page. While I could type into a text
> editor - after all, Dreamweaver has a respectable one that I can use at the
> touch of a button - I find it more convenient to input content in design view,
> which looks rather like the page seen by common browsers. I can run in split
> screen mode, watching the HTML code being constructed as I type into design
> view, if I want to keep an eye on what is happening.
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/history.htm
>
again I don't understand why this is an advantage unless you want to make
a document where visual requirements unnecessarily interfere with other
functions
> (You are welcome to criticise the HTML & CSS for that page. I know it isn't
> perfect - and I'll probably fix those extra no-break-spaces when I work out
> how to stop IE 5 breaking the navigation box! But it was developed in DW, and
> at least it validates).
>
not much point doing a crit unless you are about to do a revamp...if it
works to your satisfaction then it works :)
> We probably agree that there are a set of basics that need to be understood,
> and I suspect we could agree what *some* of them are. But there are some
> details that I think can be postponed for a long time, perhaps for ever. Much
> of the detailed syntax of HTML & CSS is arbitrary, in the sense that it
> doesn't really matter whether it is "text-embellishment" or "text-decoration",
> or "tfoot" or "tfooter", etc. I can't always remember which elements need
> proper end tags, and which can be omitted. I've actually configured
> Dreamweaver to put in even the optional end tags, so I may never know for
> sure.
>
I don't understand this either...I don't generally need to remember any of
it...I usually start by pasting some basics from my "snippet library" into
the template page...I don't need to remember syntax, it's already
there...I just need to know what it means...when in doubt or when trying
something new I've got the definitions bookmarked
Eric Jarvis
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:45:56 -0000, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >precisely...posting below the quote is merely a technique...the purpose is
> >to post in a way that makes it easier for others to read your post or to
> >follow up to it
>
> I've been having an e-mail chat with a blind lady for a while now. She
> has asked me to stop doing the snipping and responding below the
> quotes thing, as apparently it makes it difficult to "scan" with a
> screenreader - makes her listen to everything she has said again.
>
> The Internet is a constant learning process...
>
email is a different protocol...top posting makes sense in email...you
know the previous content is available and has been read...the reason it
doesn't work on Usenet is that you can't guarantee that what you are
responding to is available to the reader or that it has been read
previously...not all newsservers will receive the same articles
Eric Jarvis
> I noticed that Message-ID: <j4_4c.18$Ee2.0@newsfe1-win> from Barry
> Pearson contained the following:
>
> > But ... once I got my hands
> >on Word, I stopped messing around at that level, and concentrated on real
> >content intended for people. It was nearer to the "solution space" rather than
> >the "implementation space".
>
> Though, TBH, there are times when I would dearly love to be able to edit
> Word documents in code view, if there was one.
>
I write fiction. I write fiction directly in html. It's just less hassle
than using Word.
I'm 34,000 words into what will possibly end up being something the size
of a novel (though it won't be one unless it's good enough to be
published), all written in Arachnophilia, Wordpad or Notepad. :)
Geoff Berrow
Pearson contained the following:
>> Though, TBH, there are times when I would dearly love to be able to
>> edit Word documents in code view, if there was one.
>
>Gosh!
>
>(I daren't ask why).
It's not that mysterious.
For example:
In a blank Word 2000 document insert a table. Now try to position the
cursor before the table to type a heading.
I end up having to add carriage returns and then drag the table down.
Daniel R. Tobias
> If it helps shatter your illusions I will bottom post although it makes
> absolutely 0% difference to me whether someone top or bottom posts, in fact
> argument that you consider the manner of writing an email is worthy of
> discussion or argument.
You clearly don't seem to "get" bottom-posting (or, more properly,
interleaved posting), as you quoted back the entire original message
in one big block (including signature), rather than trimming it down
to what was needed to preserve context, then replying (point-by-point
if appropriate) beneath the (short) quoted text.
More info:
http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html
--
Dan
Barry Pearson
> I noticed that Message-ID: <TS_4c.7$CR2.1@newsfe1-win> from Barry
> Pearson contained the following:
>
>>> Though, TBH, there are times when I would dearly love to be able to
>>> edit Word documents in code view, if there was one.
>>
>>Gosh!
>>(I daren't ask why).
> In a blank Word 2000 document insert a table. Now try to position the
> cursor before the table to type a heading.
>
> I end up having to add carriage returns and then drag the table down.
Yup! I try to remember to leave a blank line first, but sometimes forget.
OK, I understand.
Geoff Berrow
<ow05c.556$Q66...@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net> from Barry Pearson
contained the following:
>> I end up having to add carriage returns and then drag the table down.
>
>Yup! I try to remember to leave a blank line first, but sometimes forget.
Now imagine having a class of kids doing exactly the same thing and you
will realise why I am follically challenged.
Barry Pearson
>> Different workflows for different people. I'm not trying to persuade
>> you to use Dreamweaver for your work! Although you might find a
>> free-trial interesting. I'm simply pointing out that there are other
>> routes to the same destination, which is valid strict code. And
>> those other routes may be good ones for some people.
> as it happens I've worked quite a bit with Dreamweaver, and I've
> always ended up going back to other tools (mostly Arachnophilia or
> Note Tab Pro)...if you aren't using its "WYSIWYG" capabilities it's
> somewhat cumbersome compared to the alternatives unless you are
> somebody who NEEDS to have everything done from within a single
> application
Not *need*. Just *like*, where possible.
Opinions about Dreamweaver before 12th March 2004 are likely to be out of
date. That was when they announced version 7.0.1 of DW MX2004. That was a
bug-&-problem-clearance upgrade of MX2004, which was their first really
credible CSS-enabled WYSIWYG editing capability. Editing in a
visually-plausible CSS-positioning development tool is a useful (and
astonishing!) experience. There is a 30-day free trial of this product:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/?promoid=home_prod_dw_082403
[snip]
>> Not true. It is a real advantage for me and many others to be able
>> to type into a close facsimile of what I am trying to achieve. Part
>> of the activity of building a web page is putting true content - the
>> leaves on the tree - into the document, or editing it. I see no
>> point at that stage in having mark-up in my face. (I've never used
>> "proper" DTP so I can't comment about that. I tend to write simpler
>> documents that can be handled well by Word).
>
> this is the crux of the matter and where I think you're missing
> something...you see, all I'm doing at that stage is marking
> paragraphs, headers, lists and emphasis etc...if it's obviously going
> to be needed I might even add some classes without yet defining
> them...I tend to combine that with proofreading and separating the
> content into "pages"...so actually doing mark up is quite a trivial
> task and barely noticeable
>
> since I usually work by pasting into templates, when it comes to
> building the final pages themselves it's again generally a trivial
> task
I have 2 very different stages of mark-up, and perhaps you do too. One sort
precedes the unique content of page, and the other is applied to the unique
content of a page.
The first sort of mark-up is concerned with page-layout. No one has devised a
sensible web page-layout language, so web page layout, even by world-class
experts, often uses a combination of a few HTML elements and a few CSS rules.
This then often becomes some sort of template for repeated use, which appears
to correspond to what you have. That mark-up tends to be a bit tricky, and can
need some care in code view, although design view is also useful.
The second sort of mark-up is applied to the unique content of a particular
page. I sometimes paste "raw" pre-existing material into the initial template,
apparently like you, and sometimes develop it in-situ. Or a combination. Then
I mark-up that content, often while going along. I find this very convenient
in design or WYSIWYG view. Just as I would rather write text in Word rather
than Notepad or some other editor of that nature, so I would rather write such
material in design view rather than code view. Just as later that page has to
communicate with others, what I wrote some time agao (minutes or months) has
to communicate with me, as I develop the content. Should I write another
paragraph in line, or sketch a diagram instead? (I may still have the words,
but perhaps they would be more sensible as alt and/or title text and/or
longdesc).
There isn't just one perfect content for a particular page that I can write
knowing, irrespective of mark-up, it is "right". It isn't like writing a poem,
say. There are a large number of ways of combining words, images, tables, and
a large number of ways of sequencing & grouping them into sections with
headings. I'm juggling these so they read OK serially, or when skimmed or
scanned, and layout & presentation are important. I might accept different
messages from someone in a suit from someone in casual clothes. So I am
influenced by presentation when reading material. Human beings don't separate
content & presentation in any "pure" way.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/content_presentation/markup.htm
> the whole point of the approach is that I work with the web page "as
> it is" at all stages...it's only when I'm working on visual
> presentation that I look at visual presentation...I don't see where
> there is a need to look at visual presentation when dealing with
> other aspects of the job
For me, relatively few stages are not concerned with visual presentation. When
I develop templates, they have a lot to do with presentation. I may develop
material outside the context of a web page - researching it, etc. But then it
becomes a matter of producing what someone will see (or hear, but mostly see).
>> Consider the table on the following page. While I could type into a
>> text editor - after all, Dreamweaver has a respectable one that I
>> can use at the touch of a button - I find it more convenient to
>> input content in design view, which looks rather like the page seen
>> by common browsers. I can run in split screen mode, watching the
>> HTML code being constructed as I type into design view, if I want to
>> keep an eye on what is happening.
>> http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/history.htm
>
> again I don't understand why this is an advantage unless you want to
> make a document where visual requirements unnecessarily interfere
> with other functions
See above - visual presentation can *enhance* other functions. But in the
example above, it is simple convenient for me to type into a facsimile of the
table that the user will get. It was convenient when I first developed the
table, and is at least as convenient when I evolve it.
I used to do "wet darkroom" photography, and found the distance between the
action, such as dodging & masking, and final result, frustrating. I find a
"digital darkroom" (Photoshop) where I am working in WYSIWYG mode for much of
the time much more productive & satisfying. I would rather type into the cells
of a spreadsheet than type data initially into comma separated variables with
a text editor. And for some purposes, a set of diagrams precedes text - I
often think in diagramatic mode. For a process model, I type the description
into the outline diagram.
What this probably says it that much of the time I am not editing someone
else's material, but developing my own. When I do edit someone else's material
into web pages, then they will probably have developed it with an office
suite, and I am pasting into my templates and simply marking it up. But for my
own original material, of which I have many 100s of HTML pages on the web,
Dreamweaver is the equivalent of an office suite.
[snip]
>> We probably agree that there are a set of basics that need to be
>> understood, and I suspect we could agree what *some* of them are.
>> But there are some details that I think can be postponed for a long
>> time, perhaps for ever. Much of the detailed syntax of HTML & CSS is
>> arbitrary, in the sense that it doesn't really matter whether it is
>> "text-embellishment" or "text-decoration", or "tfoot" or "tfooter",
>> etc. I can't always remember which elements need proper end tags,
>> and which can be omitted. I've actually configured Dreamweaver to
>> put in even the optional end tags, so I may never know for sure.
>
> I don't understand this either...I don't generally need to remember
> any of it...I usually start by pasting some basics from my "snippet
> library" into the template page...I don't need to remember syntax,
> it's already there...I just need to know what it means...when in
> doubt or when trying something new I've got the definitions bookmarked
OK. You use snippets, I press a button or type into a dialogue box. I can
select the words Grapsus grapsus, right click and select "species" from the
menu of available styles, and it becomes <span class="species">Grapsus
grapsus</span>. And I see it turn italic immediately, which helps with knowing
what I have done and what I still have to do. Or place the cursor in a piece
of text and press the H2 button or use Control+2. Or place the cursor into a
table and use the right-click menu to add a row or a column, however large the
table it.
I like this way of working. It isn't as good as being able to talk to the
computer to get it to develop the page I want, but it is good enough for the
time being.