Re: Graphics/Text Overlap - HTML Editors good or bad?

At 03:11 PM 11/20/00 -0500, Paul Wilson wrote:
>Not to pick on just you Marty, but this thread seems to be going all one way
>and I somewhat disagree with the conclusion we seem to be headed towards
>here. It seems to pop up here about every six months and goes on and on
>until someone finally disagrees.

Man, you got that part right!

>
>HTML Editors are tools.  Like all tools they can be useful or they can make
>a mess of something if you don't know how to handle them.  You still need to
>know how to write code, but it's much faster to build web pages in an HTML
>Editor, than it is to type it all out.


But what if the tool you expected to be a drill turned out to be a saw?
*That* is the problem with these editors. They DO NOT write valid HTML and
those who purchase these "tools" usually tend to expect a product that
creates a reliable working page. On their own - these caned editors do not
do that. As to faster, again, I have found it faster to do it right the
first time than to do it two or three times wrong first.

>
>If I buy this idea I'm hearing about editors, next week someone will be
>trying to convince me again that I should only scan 35mm photo's and throw
>away my digital camera because photographs have a higher resolution.  I have
>seen this argument here several times too.  Digital cameras are much faster
>and cheaper than the old fashioned way of getting images into the computer.

Have you ever tried to print a digital picture at 600 - 1200 DPI ? WOOPS !!
it don't work in anywhere close to an acceptable manner !!

My point is applicability.

If your intent is to publish a personal page that you *really* do not
care/need for anyone to interact with say to buy your products or book your
services, fine - no problem. If you need to make a living with that site -
it had better be built with the right tools and as at least majority
consensus here holds (not to mention documentable fact) WYSIWYG editors
alone do NOT meet the need.



>
>Nobody can convince me that an HTML editor is slower, or bad, or a crutch. I
>built my first WebPages by hand before Netscape was even a name.  As long as
>there is a decent editor out there, I will treat it as a tool and use it to
>build WebPages more efficiently.


Well, I guess if you discard the ~fact~ that ANY error in the HTML ~will~
render a page unreliable - I see your point.



>
>Editors each have their idiosyncrasies I agree, but they usually build
>reasonably solid code - read appropriate opening and closing tags, and they
>somewhat guide the new users.  Are they everything for everyone?  No, but
>they are a significant factor in building WebPages today.  You just can't
>wish them away.  Sometimes I get tired of hearing "would someone look at my
>code" but the reality is, that's what the HWG Basics area is about.

Again, discounting the ~fact~ that ANY error renders the page unreliable
and unpredictable - I agree and see your point. If on the other hand your
livelyhood is on the line (e-commerce) - you are nuts . . . errr, I mean I
disagree :-).

I do not think the concept of these editors is flawed - I think the
marketing is. They lead the purchaser to believe that they can actually
build a reliable working web site (not to mention the poor folks that think
buying one makes them a web developer!) and ~that~ is a big problem -
because it is patently false.



>
>Try to build any kind of complex WebPages with a text only editor and it
>will get very tedious fast.  Using Hotmetal Pro or Homesite I can make short
>work of building a website or making global changes to an existing one.

Neither editor you mention is a "full fledged" WYSIWUG editor is it?
Homesite does not have a WYSIWYG component does it (I use version 2.5 so
I'm not sure about that)? Hotmetal pro does . . . and look at the rules
checking . . . notice that it writes *it's own* DTD and inserts it into the
file. Huh? Last I heard W3 had not ratified any exceptions to make that ok
with what web browsers expect to encounter. It would really be the pits to
have to troubleshoot a code problem with no reference to go from - I know.
I just finished repair on a HUGE site that had been done with that app. The
customer demonstrated using HMPro that the pages were coded correctly and
"valid".

I went to the w3 validator and it refused to parse most of the pages
because of the number of errors  !! The customer was a bit surprised - to
say the least.



>
>How long does it take to build a complex table by hand?  With a decent
>editor I can easily pop in a table already formatted to do what I want
>simply by clicking on a few menu boxes.  With hand coding it would take
>quite a while to type it all out, lets see did I get that <.td> tag before
>the nested table or not?

May I respectfully suggest visualization when hand coding nested or complex
tables? For *me* picturing myself inside a piece of graph paper. Think
about it box by box. Again, knowing me, that may make no sense at all to
you - but for me it works magnificently - and quickly too.


>
>With a good editor I can drag and drop an image into my table, with a text
>editor I have to type it all out. Want to add a link?  Just highlight an
>image or word(s) and click on an icon, pick from a list of real WebPages and
>its done.  Not that easy with a text only editor.  You have to keep track of
>the names and guess what?  No spelling errors allowed with a text editor.

I'm not going way into that one because *I* picture it as a focus issue and
would be unable to address that without (most likely) saying something that
would be interpreted as intending offense. But I could suggest creating a
text file with img links, link links, font attributes . . .you know all
that stuff . . .and then keeping a window open with that file while you are
working on your page. Need an image link? Copy and paste fill in the blanks
- fast !


>
>You also don't have to worry about upper or lowercase letters because when
>you chose the filename - you get exactly what is there.  We have all
>accidentally capitalized the first letter in a filename.  No problem when
>you actually select the filename as it is.

Well, you have me on that one. I *certainly* do occasionally capitalize
first letters in file names when inserting links to them. But 99% of the
time it is because I am doing three other things and the phone is ringing -
all at the same time.

>
>The other thing great about an HTML based editor is that it allows me to
>think about what I want to say, or do.  I can slide over to a graphics
>program and build a button or menu without loosing my train of thought about
>where I was going. We all get those little insights, "if I just do this it
>will be so clear and work slick."   Its too easy to forget what you were
>trying to do when you are arm wrestling a table or anchor thats not working
>right.
>
>Another big distractor that can screw me up is if I am worried about closing
>my tags in the right order or if a particular tag  is legal with HTML
>version 4.1 strict.    A good editor somewhat takes care of that and Tidy or
>an online error checking program can point to the occasional foible.

Huuum. Focus and having time to do it twice. I have already been there.


>
>My feelings are that people that dislike editors usually don't spend enough
>time learning how to use one.  You can't pick up one of these editors and
>hope to build a WebPages in fifteen minutes.  Just like a word processor or
>graphics program you have to invest a lot of time learning how to use it.


My friend, you will never in your life find a bigger PROPONENT of the use
of WYSIWUG editors. I have made a *great* living for ~several~ years just
about exclusively fixing sites that have been done with these canned
editors. If it were not for them I would actually have to be creative or
something - Aaaarrrggghhh. No matter how much time you send learning an
editor, if you do not actually know HTML you will not realize that

<.P><.font color=blue><a href=myfile.html><font
size=4>NBSP;</font></P.></font></A>

is going to choke some browsers and at the very least is NOT the way this
language is intended to be implemented.

>
>You have to learn what the editor can and cannot do and use it as a tool to
>help you.....  but you MUST learn how to use it.  Another idea is that you
>need to pick the best editor for your style of web design.  Hotmetal is
>great for tables but is the wrong choice if you want any XML abilities.
>Homesite supports a lot of newer features but is just average at building
>tables.

I can not address this, as I have **never** encountered these problems when
using an ASCII text editor (like note pad). Sorry.

>
>Lets quit saying editors are bad.  Anytime you generalize like this you are
>narrowing your own personal choices and possibly giving bad advice. Everyone
>is entitled to an opinion.  What works for one person however does not
>necessarily work well for another person.

How about this: "WYSIWYG editors DO NOT create valid HTML alone. ANY error
in the HTML  DOES render a page unreliable and thus unpredictable . . .
PLEASE, go buy one !! I still have truck payments to make!" ?


>
>Like any tool it's how you use them that counts. It's the content of the
>webpages we build that count, and how efficiently we can build them because
>for me time is money.  Anything I use to make me more productive - allows me
>to do more with less effort.

Buttttttttt, what about the page *actually* working reliably and
predictably? I have to agree, if these are not criteria that concern you -
by all means BY ONE !!

In closing, I hope that this is accepted as intended - an alternative
position based on knowledge of the language *and* editor's output (with a
touch of Fuzzy Humor) - not a personal flame job on you Paul.

HTH,
Fuzzy
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
------------------------------------------------------------------

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