Re: critisise my site??
by "Dr. George John" <georgedr(at)giasbg01.vsnl.net.in>
|
Date: |
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:25:18 +0530 |
To: |
"Liz Bartlett" <khyri(at)idyllmtn.com>, <hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>, "Katsuey" <katsuey(at)katsuey.com> |
References: |
netbeam com netbeam2 hotmail katsuey |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
I agree with most of what you say. But FP provides such a lot of junk code
that you have to edit in notepad to make it leaner and more satisfying when
you view source. DW cannot be compared to FP as it is far superior. One
thing I feel designers should learn is some basic graphics skills in
Photoshop or similar.
IMHO
George
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katsuey" <katsuey(at)katsuey.com>
To: "Liz Bartlett" <khyri(at)idyllmtn.com>; <hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: critisise my site??
> At 02:55 PM 10/16/2000 -0700, Liz Bartlett wrote:
> >At 03:32 PM 10/16/00 -0700, amit wadhwa wrote:
> > >anyone out there whos tried both fp2000, and dreamweaver?
> > >ive been told dreamweaver scores better points than fp2000. and how
many of
> > >you would go for hand coding instead of using editors?
>
>
> I have. In fact, I continue to create sites in both editors. I think
it's
> good to be able to work in more than one editor. I disagree with those
> that disparage FP2000 - it's a good program. DW3 is also an excellent
> editor - which feature for feature, I've learned to like a bit better than
> FP2000. DW3 is a bit harder to pick up but it has some great features and
> in most cases you can do everything done in FP in DW - its just done
> differently. FP is the easier of the two to learn IMHO.
>
> DW3 is my editor of choice because of the ability to work in layers - to
me
> this allows better placement of items and is really great for sites where
> you aren't quite sure how you want to lay it out. Working in layers you
> can move things around and be a bit more creative.
>
> As far as hand coding, I will say that it stuns me how many "web
designers"
> don't read or write a pixel of HTML. I think being able to adjust HTML
> produced by WYSIWYG editors is critical to good design, but I think hand
> coding when such good editors are available is akin to using a typewriter
> rather than a computer. However, I understand that just as some writers
> would never give up their typewriters, some designers won't give up their
> hand coding. IMHO if you read and write HTML, with a good editor you can
> get all the benefits of hand coding but save yourself one heck of a lot of
> time.
>
> ((( �.-���- ^~~ ^
> ( {>�Y�<}
> \ )_ `~-~/�
> \,,/,,/ \,,,�,,�
>
> Brown Holdings LLC Group
> Katsuey's Legal Gateway
> http://www.katsuey.com
> KatsueyDesignWorks, Custom Web Design
> http://www.katsueydesignworks.com
> RGreatHosts, Hosting and Domain Name Purchasing
> http://www.rgreathosts.com
>
HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmaster @ IWA