Re: New Topic WYSIWYG

>Certainly try it out, i can only imagine 2.0 is better. (I
>am using 1.2a)


Dreamweaver 2.0 is a skilled web designer's BETTER dream!

It's got site mapping (you can print them for your
clients/proposals/mock-ups etc.) great great table management - Color
schemes - A color picker to match background/text colors with your photos
etc. - predefined java scripts for things like browser detection and image
swoping.

I haven't even began exploring the customizable features!

But it's NICE.

Hope it helps...

http://www.dreamweaver.com


~ jayse






>I would say Dreamweaver is a skilled web designer's dream.
>Its real power is the ways it can be adjusted and
>customized. It creates the most clean code i have ever
>seen, as i said I cannot tell the difference between my
>code and DW's. handles stylesheets nicely too, makes
>applying classes very easy. code is certainly Transitional
>valid, and depending what you do could be kept to Strict.
>
>like i said, the real power comes from customizing. most
>(i think all) of the automatically inserted code can be
>edited, and even the tools (for instance, the popup window
>to insert an image[and other things] is read from an HTML
>file, so you can make your own or change all that too.) If
>you haven't tried this and have Dreamweaver, go rooting
>around the Configuration directory.
>
>Only thing I would say is that it wouldn't work on a small
>desktop, as there are a lot of floating windows for styles
>and attributes and HTML viewer etc. It is tight on my
>1280x1024 screen.
>
>Certainly try it out, i can only imagine 2.0 is better. (I
>am using 1.2a)
>
>Luke
>
>===
>
>                - ( luke opperman ) -
>     Spigot Graphics, Cohesive Design for the Web
>          - ( http://spigot.hypermart.net/ ) -
>
>-- ..some tiny cows, two brushstrokes each,
>       but confidently cows.. - 'Poem' by Elizabeth Bishop
>
>
>
>
>---Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg(at)idyllmtn.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 10:20 p.m. 12/05/98 -0800, Luke Opperman wrote:
>> >First, I was anti-editor all the way. [...]
>> >Then I used Dreamweaver. Here was an interesting gap in
>my
>> >reasoning. After fiddling with the preferences, I could
>> >see the HTML as I edited in the WYSIWYG part, I could
>> >write in HTML if I wanted, and I could not tell the
>> >difference.
>>
>> This is the second time Dreamweaver's come up in this
>> thread -- how good is it on producing valid, and more
>> importantly (for me at least) accessible HTML code?
>> (Accessible as defined by the W3C's Web Accessibility
>> Initiative -- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ )
>>
>> --Kynn
>>
>> --
>> Kynn Bartlett  <kynn(at)idyllmtn.com>
>http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
>> Chief Technologist & Co-Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet;
>Fullerton, California
>> Enroll now for web accessibility with HTML 4.0!
>http://www.hwg.org/classes/
>> The voice of the future?
>http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/w3c/voicebrowsers.html
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free (at)yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA