Re: Hand-coding all the way, or...?

Your point is well taken. In a business, time is money. Especially when it
is being paid for by others. Using a WYSIWYG editor allows you to work out a
design on screen. Since I don't use a WYSIWYG editor, I do it the old
fashion way. I work up a (very rough) design concept on paper, then
determine how to render that in HTML (table layouts, frames, text controls,
etc...), then proceed to code. I find it simpler and faster to work out
design concepts on paper rather then on screen.

Edward Springer
Athens, Alabama
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Sass" <shawn(at)sportsstuff.com>
To: "Charla & Ed Springer" <egs(at)hiwaay.net>
Cc: "Maya Rushing Walker" <maya(at)rushingwalker.com>; <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Hand-coding all the way, or...?


> I don't know about anybody else but my boss (client) has no idea of viewer
> browser differences, download times, security issues, or anything else to
do
> with the web for that matter.  He still double clicks on links and clicks
again
> when the page doesn't load right away.  Anyway, he gets an idea in his
head and
> doesn't care what it takes to get it done.  As long as it's done
yesterday.
> This makes hand coding a non-existant option.  I don't care how fast you
are or
> how spot-free your code is, there is no way to develop the design of the
site,
> optimize the graphics, and publish SOMETHING to a URL for the boss to see
> without a WYSIWYG editor.  Yeah, there may be little bugs and fixes that
will
> be discovered but those can all be fixed and updated to the server while
the
> boss is enjoying the view on his screen the day after he asked you to do
it.
> And boy is he happy that SOMETHING is there.  I know my story may not be
true
> for anyone else but, from a designer's point of view, hand coding just
doesn't
> work.  I would rather concentrate on the design of the site than spend
that
> time typing a bunch of code.  Don't get me wrong.  I know alot of little
bugs
> may spring up and hand coding from the start would definitely avoid this.
> There's also no way to layout the design of a site when doing it all by
hand.
> Yeah, you can code your page and check it in every possible browser, but
then
> if the design isn't quite what you had visioned, you have to go back and
tweak
> the images AND go in and re-do that part of the code, unless the image
change
> isn't that drastic.
> I'll probably get a bunch of hellfire thrown down upon me from some of the
hard
> core coders about how the design isn't as important as whether the page
will
> work on NN 2x or not, but that's a whole other discussion.  I'm not trying
to
> say hand coding is wrong, I'm just explaining why I find it suitable to
use a
> WYSIWYG editor, no matter how much coding you know.
>
> Charla & Ed Springer wrote:
>
> > I remember what my old Chief told back in my Navy days, "There's never
time
> > to do it right, but always time to do it over." The clean, bug free,
code
> > you get from hand coding is worth any time that may be saved using a
buggy
> > WYSIWYG editor. Also, the time needed to fix the code is usually more
then
> > the time saved using the WYSIWYG editor.
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>       _________________
>      _\ |-| /\ \/\/ /\/
> o-o Shawn Sass-Graphic Artist
> o-o-o-o-o-o-o Sportsstuff Inc
> o- http://www.sportsstuff.com
> o-o-o- 1-888-814-8833 ext 241
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA