FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Do you code HTML or do you use wysiwyg editors?






Code or wysiwyg?
I always type my HTML
44%
 44%  [ 20 ]
I use both
48%
 48%  [ 22 ]
wysiwyg is the only way for me
6%
 6%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 45

ocalhoun
wysiwyg editors may be easier, but if anything goes wrong, and you need to fix it, you're in trouble.
HTML is easy to learn, really.
I want to know how many people here feel the same way.

As for me I use Quanta+
Its a html editor for linux.
It can add tags and attributes for you, and it highlights errors.
It reminds me of C and C++ editors like Anjuta.
cheeta
i use editors... but not the one u wrote...
Arnie
Typing own code makes me feel I truly 'own' the website. But if you don't have much time I can understand using WYSIWYG is better.
raver
well i don`t know how many people nowadays still use HTML for coding websites..especially as you cannot use the term code...html isn`t a programming language....i say HTML is nice to learn for someone who wants only to move to higher steps of web design education Razz (javascript, php, mysql). FOr the design of a webpage it is easier to use a WYSIWYG editor as you can quickly switch between code and design views.
Arnie
PHP still needs HTML for its output. Look at the source of the very phpBB page you're currently viewing. And I code in pure HTML, because it's a lot safer than PHP. PHP scripts can be abused. Javascript is only an addition to a website, it hardly ever is used as the main language.

1stpage 2000 is a type-your-own-code application with preview tab. I really like that function.
Jack_Hammer
HTML is very easy to learn, but what I usually do is just create the bases of my web page in the designer (because it shaves ages off my time and because I'm a really bad speller) and then I just edit it to perfection or things I can't do in the design view in notepad, but now I'm busy trying to learn how the hell to use linux because I'm think.
raver
Arnie wrote:
And I code in pure HTML, because it's a lot safer than PHP. PHP scripts can be abused.


But you are missing at a whole lot of features that php can bring to your website to give it a dynamic feel. It is true that PHP scripts can be abused, but if you secure them well the chances of that happening drop dramatically.
koolbluez
Textpad... simple HTML...

Dreamweaver is costly & complex...

Need a simple one... learn HTML... do it...
JustaMin
I always use HTML. WSYWIG editors are fine if you dont know how to code, but they often produce innefficient of just plain bad code. I do use dreamweaver though (although not in WYSIWIG mode) because it provides a nice interface and has built in site management and FTP.

I'd always recomment people to try and learn the code necessary for their needs though, its much better to have fine control and spot and fix errors.

The other factor of course is some things can only be done with code and not in a WSYWIG editor so you are often limiting yourself when you use it.
amaudy
I use both.

Some time tools for edit webpage is generate junk code.
Ranfaroth
As JustaMin said, studies have shown that WYSIWYG editors output hugly, and very heavy code.
You should always code by hand, because you'll spend more time correcting the WYSIWYG errors than writing code directly.
Arnie
Yes, WYSIWYG generates messy code. No, that doesn't have to be bad. Do you type your emails' HTML by hand? If not, check out the source once. For those of you that use text-only mails: do you use any Office document format, whether OOo, MS Office, RTF, AbiWord, etcetera? Just look at the source of an RTF document for example. They're not efficient at all. Often a font is specified, no text follows and directly after another font is specified. But it would take a lot of time to manually code all your documents, wouldn't it? Not everyone has that time.
dan751
I use a mix between the two. I use wysiwyg editors for certain parts of HTML I don't know how to code yet, the rest, I pretty much code myself.Wink I don't like to use a wysiwyg editor a whole lot, because coding the page is half the fun in making it.Wink
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
Yes, WYSIWYG generates messy code. No, that doesn't have to be bad.
Yes it has.
You should learn a bit about bandwith, display speed, accessibility...
Quote:
Do you type your emails' HTML by hand?
emails shouldn't be in HTML
Quote:
do you use any Office document format, whether OOo, MS Office, RTF, AbiWord, etcetera? Just look at the source of an RTF document for example.
The old RTF is a very bad example. Have a look to the OpenDocument format, and you'll see the difference...
headlong
I agree that WYSIWYG generates messy code. That's why I write HTML code directly all the time for my own stuff.

On the other side, I think we can have a better productivity by using WYSIWYG tools.

It is just like writing programs using Machine language, assembly language vs. high-level languages such as C, Java, etc. Some of the high-level programmings are not very efficient (much slower than machine language), but according to some people, they can write up 50 times more program with Java!
seanooi
I use both, WYSIWYG editors are easy to start with but as you go on, HTML editors would be a better choice as you can make ammendments easilly is you're already familiar with the codes. Laughing
Arnie
So Ranfaroth, I suppose you'd rather pay 5 times as much for a car that uses its fuel twice as efficient? Again I say: not everyone has the time to code HTML. Life is all about making choices. You either choose for time or clean code. If you choose time, you lose bandwidth, display speed, accessibility.... if you choose clean code, you gain those, but lose time. And the time you save by using WYSIWYG can be used more efficient. For example you can use it to work an earn money. Money which compensates the loss caused by bandwidth, display speed, accessibility... You see the circle? Sometimes WYSIWYG is more efficient when you think outside the box.
dcshoes23
i use both, I know how to write HTML but it just saves so much time to use an editor for the basic layout and design, then anything u want to do special you code yourself. It just saves so much more time that way
lockwolf
I use HTML for some fine tuning and stuff like that, or just to make a real simple webpage

I use WYSIWYG if I'm trying to make something look really nice and profesional
THE11thROCK™
Make HTML in notepad. That's the best way, plain and simple.

If you don't have time, then use WYSWYGs Frontpage or Dreamweaver.

If you are not satisfied with HTML, then use some PHP coding.
Commando_Sondre
I use both.
Well, not really both, i make a webpage in HTML,
and check it out in Microsoft Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition.
Then i put it into Dreamweaver...

Microsoft Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition checks HTML codes,
and if its wrong, it become a red streak under the HTML thats wrong.
desertwind
I use simple test editors for coding HTML. It gives me complete control over my code.
savabg
i cant step away from Dreamweaver ... nothing beats it ...
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
So Ranfaroth, I suppose you'd rather pay 5 times as much for a car that uses its fuel twice as efficient?
Why do you suppose that ?
Quote:
You either choose for time or clean code.
One thing you didn't understand. Coding by hand is faster than with WYSIWYG when you know how to code.
As I said, you'll spend more time fixing the WYSIWYG bugs than writing code directly
Quote:
If you choose time, you lose bandwidth, display speed, accessibility.... if you choose clean code, you gain those, but lose time.
No, you won't
Quote:
And the time you save by using WYSIWYG can be used more efficient. For example you can use it to work an earn money. Money which compensates the loss caused by bandwidth, display speed, accessibility...
What are you saying ? The bandwith, speed and accessibility problems are client-side. Are you going to give money to each user visiting your site ? Rolling Eyes
dkbg
I can't imagine using a wysiwyg program to create webpages. Writing your own (x)html and css is really the only way to go if you want clean, readable, and minimal code.
Arnie
Ranfaroth wrote:
Coding by hand is faster than with WYSIWYG when you know how to code. As I said, you'll spend more time fixing the WYSIWYG bugs than writing code directly
That's not true, for the simple reason that a double <font> tag or other unnecessary code will not make your website buggy. That double code doesn't change anything about your website's appearance. So the large majority of bugs only causes your files to be larger, but it doesn't change the way the website looks. The small amount of bugs that are actually visible can be corrected in less time than it would take to write everything by hand. Besides all this, learning HTML correctly in the first place costs a lot of time. The basics are easy to get, but when you want to make a real site you'll find yourself making a lot of mistakes. Those hand-coded mistakes have to be corrected, which takes time. It takes even more time if you're a beginner. Not everyone is a 1337 HTML coder as you. And you can't demand them to be - I can imagine people having other priorities than spending their time learning HTML.

Ranfaroth wrote:
What are you saying ? The bandwith, speed and accessibility problems are client-side. Are you going to give money to each user visiting your site ? Rolling Eyes
A website is offering a service to its users. If users want the service, they have to pay for their own internet connection. As a webmaster you don't pay for all your visitor's connections, do you? But you do pay for the traffic generated by your visitors. So if your HTML is messy it will cost you more because you have to pay the bandwidth of your site. But that difference you can earn back (or earn even more) by spending time making money instead of coding by hand. Secondly, a website is offering a service to its users. If the users don't want that service because it has accessibility problems, they simply shouldn't use it. The webmaster will get the consequences himself. He's not obligated to provide users an accessible website. By the way, WYSIWYG websites can certainly be accessible.

So the point is it's not good to claim that your way is always the best:
Ranfaroth wrote:
You should always code by hand,
I myself prefer coding by hand. But I'm not saying that "in every situation hand coding is the only best solution". Why? Because there are more factors than clean code, and the most important is time.

Disclaimer: if you take offense to the words 'HTML' and 'coding' combined, feel free to read them as 'writing HTML' Rolling Eyes
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
That's not true, for the simple reason that a double <font> tag or other unnecessary code will not make your website buggy.
Yes they will. And I'm getting tired to explain why again and again...
Quote:
That double code doesn't change anything about your website's appearance.
A website isn't limited to its appareance...
Quote:
So the large majority of bugs only causes your files to be larger, but it doesn't change the way the website looks.
A website isn't limited to what it looks like in very few browsers...
Quote:
Besides all this, learning HTML correctly in the first place costs a lot of time.
But as you'll gain time after, it's a good investment
Quote:
So if your HTML is messy it will cost you more because you have to pay the bandwidth of your site.
You really have to understand that bandwith problem affects both server and clients...
Quote:
But that difference you can earn back (or earn even more) by spending time making money instead of coding by hand.
No, because coding is done once, whereas bandwith problems occures at each connection
Quote:
Secondly, a website is offering a service to its users. If the users don't want that service because it has accessibility problems, they simply shouldn't use it.
Are you joking ?
Can you imagine a shop forbidden to blind people ?
Quote:
He's not obligated to provide users an accessible website.
In many contries he is.
Quote:
By the way, WYSIWYG websites can certainly be accessible.
Yes, but not with nowdays WYSIWYG tools.
KHO
always in XHTML, its easier for me to do what l need to do by hand then waste my time going through editors, after all, l'm a fairly fast typer Neutral
Arnie
You call a double <font> tag buggy. Sure, but nearly every application on your computer has bugs. By the way, that's not a bug, but superfluous code. There's superfluous code everywhere, simply because coding 100% efficient costs way too much time. Ask a programmer, he'll tell you. If the browser you're using right now had to conform to your clean code standards, it would have taken years longer to make it. The file size would be smaller, yes. But at what cost? The same story applies to websites.

You say a website isn't limited to its appearance. But what is a website intended for? For being viewed. A double <font> tag doesn't change anything except the file size. And ("I'm also getting tired of explaining why") file size isn't the only counting factor. With modern faster connections its importance is actually decreasing. I'm not saying it has 0 importance, but it certainly is getting less. Surely file size isn't the only factor of importance. If it would be, the Internet would lack a lot of valueble information. There are people out there extremely skilled in all kinds of subjects. Let's say for example there's a chemic who's doing revolutionary research. Now when he's not so skilled in making websites, he wouldn't be able to share his information with the Internet if he had to conform to your standards. He'd have to give up their valueable research time to study HTML! So it would actually slow down innovation. There would be nothing wrong with such people publishing WYSIWYG sites.

Ranfaroth wrote:
A website isn't limited to what it looks like in very few browsers...
What are you talking about "in very few browsers"?

Ranfaroth wrote:
You really have to understand that bandwith problem affects both server and clients...
Here are two of my quotes that will show you I already understand:
Arnie wrote:
If users want the service, they have to pay for their own internet connection.
So 1) users have to pay their own connection, and often there's a bandwidth limit on it. But if users want to visit a site and get the information, they are paying a price for that. I would rather pay some extra bandwidth to get the chemic's research data now, than wait until he wasted valueable research time learning HTML. That would slow my scientific progress down because I get the data later, and it would slow his investigation down as well. Now the second quote:
Arnie wrote:
So if your HTML is messy it will cost you more because you have to pay the bandwidth of your site.
2) the website owner has to pay the generated bandwidth to his host. So as you could have seen by these two quotes I'm not as ignorant as you are picturing me.

Coding isn't done once: websites have to be updated.

Ranfaroth wrote:
Arnie wrote:
Secondly, a website is offering a service to its users. If the users don't want that service because it has accessibility problems, they simply shouldn't use it.
Are you joking ?
Can you imagine a shop forbidden to blind people ?
That's different because it would be discrimination towards blind people. But websites that are less accesible aren't discrimination. They cannot be compared to a shop forbidden to blind people, but rather to a shop with less organised paths. In Holland for example we have supermarkets in which you have to pick stuff out of boxes, but also supermarkets where it's organised on nice shelves. If you don't like to pick things out of boxes, you shouldn't go to the supermarket. Maybe the other one won't have the product you want, but that's your choice. In comparison: maybe there's a WYSIWYG site with very valueable chemistry data, but you stick to the clean HTML site with less valueable data. That's your choice: you save some bandwidth, but you miss information.

Ranfaroth wrote:
Arnie wrote:
By the way, WYSIWYG websites can certainly be accessible.

Yes, but not with nowdays WYSIWYG tools.

Ranfaroth wrote:
Arnie wrote:
He's not obligated to provide users an accessible website.
In many contries he is.
According to your first quote WYSIWYG sites can't be accessible nowadays. According to your second quote in many countries webmasters are obligated to provide users an accessible website. In other words, you should be able to name some countries with laws stating "You may not have a website unless it is non-WYSIWYG". Let's hear them.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
You call a double <font> tag buggy. Sure, but nearly every application on your computer has bugs. By the way, that's not a bug, but superfluous code.
How it's called doesn't matter. What matters are the consequences I listed above
Quote:
You say a website isn't limited to its appearance. But what is a website intended for? For being viewed. A double <font> tag doesn't change anything except the file size.
No, you're definitly wrong...
Wel, for example, for you, why should we use CSS instead of tables ? There can't be the only reason of appareance, since it's almost the same...
Quote:
And ("I'm also getting tired of explaining why") file size isn't the only counting factor. With modern faster connections its importance is actually decreasing. I'm not saying it has 0 importance, but it certainly is getting less.
Size doesn't apply only to download time, but also in render time
Quote:
There are people out there extremely skilled in all kinds of subjects. Let's say for example there's a chemic who's doing revolutionary research. Now when he's not so skilled in making websites, he wouldn't be able to share his information with the Internet if he had to conform to your standards.
He doesn't have to use fonts on his webpages. You should look at research websites, they're very simple, and most of time hand coded. (They don't need to know all HTML features. Only 3 or 4 tags...). And even more, they're used to write directly in TeX. And there are good tools to convert Tex to HTML.
You can trust me, I work in research field.
Quote:
What are you talking about "in very few browsers"?
The way a browser must display a website is explained by W3C standards. But if a website doesn't respect them, the browser can display it as it likes...
Quote:
So 1) users have to pay their own connection, and often there's a bandwidth limit on it. But if users want to visit a site and get the information, they are paying a price for that.
That would be really egocentric to make them pay more, just because you use stupid tools.
Quote:
2) the website owner has to pay the generated bandwidth to his host.
It's not limited to hist host ! Bandwith also affect routers for example. Why should a well designed website be slow down by the stupid "webmaster" of another one ?
Quote:
Coding isn't done once: websites have to be updated.
The content has.
Quote:
That's different because it would be discrimination towards blind people. But websites that are less accesible aren't discrimination.
Yes, they are. In some countries it's exactly called discrimination.
Quote:
According to your second quote in many countries webmasters are obligated to provide users an accessible website. In other words, you should be able to name some countries with laws stating "You may not have a website unless it is non-WYSIWYG". Let's hear them.
France, USA...
bboy_nycb
Under Linux, I am using Quanta which is not bad at all.
It has very useful and helpful features to create my own webpages.
Arnie
Quote:
How it's called doesn't matter. What matters are the consequences I listed above
We've talked about that enough. Using WYSIWYG has consequences, both negative and positive. Hand-coding also has consequences, both negative and positive.

Quote:
That would be really egocentric to make them pay more, just because you use stupid tools.
It would not, for the simply reason webmasters are not in debt with their visitors. Your visitors come to your site because they want your content. If they don't like your site, that's their problem. Nobody forced them to come. They shouldn't come if they don't want to pay the price. It's not egocentric, because nobody is obligated to spend days and days and days making a very nice site to provide the best to his users. For free! The users should be glad they get the content of the site. For free! That's not egocentric - the webmaster is already giving. How dare you demand even more? I'd call that egocentric and ungrateful. If you're too proud to visit a WYSIWYG site, fine. Stay away then. But don't bother the people that spent time making a site for free, for anybody that wants to visit it, by demanding even more from the guy, also for free.

Quote:
Quote:
According to your second quote in many countries webmasters are obligated to provide users an accessible website. In other words, you should be able to name some countries with laws stating "You may not have a website unless it is non-WYSIWYG". Let's hear them.
France, USA...
So you're claiming WYSIWYG sites are forbidden in the USA? That sounds pretty ridiculous because the USA is home to the most hated WYSIWYG company ever - Microsoft with Frontpage. I find this so hard to believe that you would actually have to quote the law to prove that they forbid WYSIWYG sites.

Quote:
The content has to be updated.
I hand-code all my websites and updating the content by hand still takes more time than with a WYSIWYG. It's actually discouraging sometimes to do updates.

Quote:
It's not limited to hist host ! Bandwith also affect routers for example. Why should a well designed website be slow down by the stupid "webmaster" of another one ?
It's a matter of choice. The two factors are:
1) The webmaster's time and productivity on other terrains - also the speed with which something is published on the website
2) The amount of traffic required
Code:
          WYSIWYG   HAND-CODED
FACTOR 1  good      bad
FACTOR 2  bad       good
Which factor weighs stronger depends on the situation. It's like math - for certain x values 2x + 10 is higher, for other values 5x + 2 is higher. It depends on the circumstances (represented by x in my comparison). Now to answer your question about one website effecting the other through routers: who do you think you are to claim the Internet? The Internet is a free place and you are not the boss. You are not in authority to say "you must do a lot of effort so that my website will not be slowed down". If that would be the case, Internet would never ever have reached anything near the size it has now. Everyone would have to follow strict standards. Because your statement of effecting other websites isn't limited to WYSIWYG-usage only. There are a lot of other things that would have to be taken account of to exactly equalise the router pressure caused by websites. A sort of virtual communism. And that simply isn't going to work out.
Reign
I use the code view of dreamweaver and still write xHtml.... you just have to go trough some settings and dreamweaver even gives you a valid xHtml page to start with...

the code hints are the bomb! and my code isn't a mess...
Nyizsa
1. HTML is for creating static pages. A WYSIWYG editor can do the job very well, if you don't want to add features which require user interaction. But you MUST know HTML thoroughly if you want to create a professional website. (Or is there a WYSIWYG PHP editor out there?)
2. To the conversation between Arnie and Ranfaroth: yes, a webpage created by a WYSIWYG editor has a messy code. (Try making a Hello world! webpage in MS Word!) But double font tags and other such things will not cause significant difference in bandwidth. But imagine this user:
"Ok, I know some HTML, I want to make my own site. Let's see... I like this one. Ok, now View source... What? Why did he do that? It makes no sense... This guy is an i****. Ok, let's find another one..."

Conclusion: The appearance of the site is not just what you see in the browser.
Dino
i use NVU and I typing html codes, if i don`t know how to do something i make it in wysiwyg mod
k_s_baskar
Oh Coding is too boring. I only use Front page for html Very Happy
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
We've talked about that enough. Using WYSIWYG has consequences, both negative and positive. Hand-coding also has consequences, both negative and positive.
Taking them separalty is stupid. You have to compare them, and then realise that hand coding is more interesting than unsing WYSIWYG tools
Quote:
It would not, for the simply reason webmasters are not in debt with their visitors. Your visitors come to your site because they want your content. If they don't like your site, that's their problem. Nobody forced them to come. They shouldn't come if they don't want to pay the price.
You know, I perfectly accept this vision of web.
But now, accept that this vision is egoistic.
Quote:
So you're claiming WYSIWYG sites are forbidden in the USA? That sounds pretty ridiculous because the USA is home to the most hated WYSIWYG company ever - Microsoft with Frontpage.
Why is it ridiculous ? It won't be the first time that USA ask some think and just don't apply it for themself... but that's politic...
Quote:
I find this so hard to believe that you would actually have to quote the law to prove that they forbid WYSIWYG sites.
No problems, just ask...
Quote:
I hand-code all my websites and updating the content by hand still takes more time than with a WYSIWYG.
I'm sorry, but it's really your problem if your site is so badly designed...
Quote:
It's a matter of choice. The two factors are:
1) The webmaster's time and productivity on other terrains - also the speed with which something is published on the website
2) The amount of traffic required
First, you'll have to realise that first factor is only about 1 person. Then, read my previous post about this egoistic vision
Quote:

Code:
          WYSIWYG   HAND-CODED
FACTOR 1  good      bad
FACTOR 2  bad       good
I've already explained that factor 1 is quite good for hand-coded, and most of time, definitly better.
Quote:
Now to answer your question about one website effecting the other through routers: who do you think you are to claim the Internet? The Internet is a free place and you are not the boss.
But it's not me who claim that, it's the internet boss : IETF and W3C
Quote:
Everyone would have to follow strict standards.
It's already the case. It's obvious that you don't really know what's under internet, but in fact, the only field were standards are not totally respected is coding web pages (with all the problems that I listed previously)
Arnie
My vision of the web isn't egoistic. How is it egoistic that a webmaster is willing to give information for free? (That's what the web was designed for.) Rather, it's egoistic to make extra demands to the people that offer you free information. They're still boss over their own lives! They're giving you something (information) - how dare you dictate in what form they should? They're doing effort for you - how dare you demand even more effort to get that information the way you want? Webmasters have rights too. It's ridiculous that anyone would dictate them what methods to use, while they're paying the price to offer their services. You as user are only paying traffic if you accept the service, which is your free choice. And you're not even paying the webmaster, but your provider!

Who are you to say my site is badly designed? You haven't even seen it, you're just keen on personally attacking me. Fact remains that ENTER in WYSIWYG is one button, but four in hand-coded. Making text bold in WYSIWYG is just selecting it and pressing a button, while it's typing <b> </b> in hand-coded. Not to mention alignment etcetera. If you edit large amounts of text this certainly does make a difference. So it's not because a site would be so badly designed that hand-coding takes longer. It's simply the method hand-coding that demands more actions for the same result (such as four keyhits instead of one for a <br>)

The webmaster's productivity certainly effects more people than himself! If he's more productive, he has more content to publish and share. That's what I was targeting to. So the interest of the users is also involved! Webmasters can develop more content when they can spend less time publishing it. More result in less time! The price is more space/traffic usage, so sometimes that's worth it, and sometimes it's not.

The Internet isn't owned by those 'bosses' like W3C. If I pay for my hosting, then I have the right to do what I want with my space. I paid for it! If nobody had to pay, those institutes wouldn't have an income either.

Also as for the links you gave. As far as I see they only speak vaguely about "accessibility". They don't deny accessibility is possible with WYSIWYG. Just enter wysiwyg in the search function of Sector 508. Actually, ITTATC (which is affiliated to Sector 508 - go to FAQs and "New to Section508") gives courses on making accessible websites with WYSIWYG!
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
How is it egoistic that a webmaster is willing to give information for free?
It's exactly the contrary
Quote:
Who are you to say my site is badly designed?
I just quoted yourself Laughing
Quote:
Fact remains that ENTER in WYSIWYG is one button, but four in hand-coded.
Fact remains than using keyboard is faster than mouse...
Quote:
while it's typing <b> </b>
Typing <b> </b> ? Well... you site must really be bad designed Rolling Eyes
Quote:
So it's not because a site would be so badly designed that hand-coding takes longer.
Yes it is. You definitly have to learn one basic concept of web : separation of content and presentation. Then, I hope you'll understand your mistake by yourself...
Quote:
The webmaster's productivity certainly effects more people than himself!
Productivity is increased coding well designed web sites. And that has already been prooved many times.
Quote:
The Internet isn't owned by those 'bosses' like W3C. If I pay for my hosting, then I have the right to do what I want with my space.
That is an egoistic vision.
I bought my gasoline can. Now I have the right to burn it, and I absolutly don't care about toxic fumes that will disturb my neighbors”
Quote:
Also as for the links you gave. As far as I see they only speak vaguely about "accessibility".
That was the point.
I thought you already understood that accessibility is linked with good designed web sites. If you don't realise it, read this thread again (it's explained at the begining)
Quote:
Actually, ITTATC (which is affiliated to Sector 508 - go to FAQs and "New to Section508") gives courses on making accessible websites with WYSIWYG!
That proove another of my points : to make good websites with WYSIWYG tools, you'll have to learn more that what you'd do for hand coded directly
Rolz
I type all the HTML down in notepad... Rolling Eyes

Takes a bit of time, but it does the job. I have some other programs like Xara Webstyle, but I only use them to create graphics for my site.
FriBogdan
I prefer HTML. At first was hard but if u read some of the pages u visit and some tutorials... The right way is the HTML way Razz.
mark
I use both. I normally use HTML when I am starting to build a web page by scratch. That helps me get all the formatting and stuff like that. I then use visual tools to tweak my page and find any errors.

However, when there is already a pre built template I am working on, I have to use WYSIWYG. Thats because I am unaware of the content and how all the items and tags are placed on the page.
Arnie
I'm not going to reply to quotes of Ranfaroth this time, because they are basically personal attacks on me (and on my website which he has never seen, but he's convinced that it's bad and that that makes his point any stronger). That's not worth 15 minutes of typing at all.

Without WYSIWYG some people would have to spend a lot of timing getting to know HTML. Not everyone is so technically minded. Some people just need a quick website. And they can still share good information on that.

Though many hand-coders feel superior, that does not justify them mocking WYSIWYG-users. I don't see the Internet being super-slow or hardly useable because of WYSIWYG websites at all. And if you're so concerned about that, you should rather get rid of massive download sites, useless contentless show-off sites, large illegal FTP servers and other things that have much larger impact. And that serve no good purpose, in contrary to for example the scientists' WYSIWYG website.
Ranfaroth
Arnie wrote:
and on my website which he has never seen
All we know about your website, is what you post about it. Try to understand why you give it a so bad image...
Quote:
Some people just need a quick website. And they can still share good information on that.
To share information, you don't need a WYSIWYG editor
Quote:
And if you're so concerned about that, you should rather [...]
Sorry, but that's so stupid... There is more than one solution to solve this problem, there's more than one cause. So don't erase one of those causes, pointing to another which is in fact much more difficult to correct...
bigdan
I use both.
root
Personally, I like vi or emacs with syntax highlighting; and that applies to any coding I do.
Arnie
My website is not involved in this discussion at all, and no, I'm not giving it a bad image. You are simply using / twisting my quotes, and that's what gives it a bad image. Which is a very low way to go in a debate, because it's not even on the subject - it's just mud throwing.

And sharing information is a lot easier with WYSIWYG for some people that don't make websites all the time. Others may have a feeling for coding and will have less trouble with hand-coding. But not all! You cannot judge for others what is (or, must be) easier for them.
mgeek
FriBogdan wrote:
I prefer HTML. At first was hard but if u read some of the pages u visit and some tutorials... The right way is the HTML way Razz.


I agree. One who knows HTML controls his page, the way it looks and the way people interact with it.
silverdown
I code by hand in a various langauges
ankur209
Well,i only prefer writing codes myself when i feel like (last time i feel like that was a year ago ). When there are softwares in market that provide you with the WYSIWYG then why to code yourself and wasting time..!!
But i'm not saying that you don't need to learn the syntax or codes or tags. You should learn them and should have practised them writing on your own.Once you're familiar with the element and the attributes then try these softwares Razz
welshsteve
I have never got on with wysiwyg editors. I own Dreamweaver, but never use it because it takes up far too much resource on my PC. I just use Notepad++ and TopStyle Lite. More than adequate.
SultanMA
I'm using Notepad++
mgeek
Arnie wrote:

And sharing information is a lot easier with WYSIWYG for some people that don't make websites all the time. Others may have a feeling for coding and will have less trouble with hand-coding. But not all! You cannot judge for others what is (or, must be) easier for them.


Agreed. WYSIWYGs help when typing the content. The Coffeecup Editor does a nice work with this.
pioneer987
My websites are mostly not about design, so HTML isn't the thing I program, but I need to face it anyway.
Making the website with dreamweaver was always easy for me.
And there is nothing I mess up when implementing further codes to the website.
deanhills
There are so many free templates available these days. Easiest would be to use a free template and then edit the codes. That can be easily done by using Notepad++.
mshafiq
If I need to control my webpage, I mean if I need to change some thing i n future or I use java scripts, I use text editor. Otherwise I use WYSIWYG editors.

The simplest one having WYSIWYG feature, I use is . Then I like Kompozer which is portable too.
I remember once I used Microsoft's Front Page too. But I now I do not prefer it at all as it will deter learning process.

In text editor I love Crimson Editor as it has column mode editing feature and it is really unique.

Thanks!
jcreus
I always use hand-coded html using vim or gedit.

The resulting code is much more efficient, semantic, not as messy, readable... A part, I know exactly what it does and can modify it in any moment. Also, Javascript hasn't WYSIWYG editors (or does it), and, since most of my sites are javascript-heavy, it's a must.

Also, I feel prouder of myself writing hand-coded html instead of letting a program do it for me.
mgeek
mshafiq wrote:

In text editor I love Crimson Editor as it has column mode editing feature and it is really unique.

Thanks!


The Crimson Editor was one of the better text editors in early 90s. I did not know it was still being maintained.
deanhills
mgeek wrote:
mshafiq wrote:

In text editor I love Crimson Editor as it has column mode editing feature and it is really unique.

Thanks!


The Crimson Editor was one of the better text editors in early 90s. I did not know it was still being maintained.
Wow! That's a long time ago in Website building history. Never heard of Crimson Editor before. My first experience was with Homesite around 2000 just for a month or so. I then moved on to FrontPage as I found it much more user friendly. I'm now using both MS Expression Web, as well as Notepad++ and Mozilla Firefox. Took a while, but some of the code does make sense to me these days. Still have to get to grips with CSS though. I'm able to edit CSS but have not tried my hand at writing it from scratch .... yet. CSS is probably much more important now than before as HTML5 has a great requirement for CSS.
clubdeinovaristi
Tiny, simple, good-looking notepad.
You aren't a web developer if you have never used notepad.
mgeek
deanhills wrote:

Wow! That's a long time ago in Website building history. Never heard of Crimson Editor before. My first experience was with Homesite around 2000 just for a month or so. I then moved on to FrontPage as I found it much more user friendly.


I used FrontPage first, and then I had a chance to work with Homesite before it was purchased by Adobe. But in between the two, I worked with the CoffeeCup HTML Editor before it had a WYSIWYG feature and many other text editors (like xSite, Arachnophilia -- before it became cross-platform -- HTML Beauty, etc. One of these was the Crimson Editor which I liked because of its FTP feature.
tranthetoan
I used gedit for everything, now just move to VIM and learning EMACS right now Smile
Related topics
Create Web pages without knowing HTML.
HTML tables with irregular rows and/or columns
question on html...
HTML editing Software
Any thing suit for beginners better than FrontPage
website program
META Tag How-To
Favourite Website Builder
Convert your site to XHTML, prices vary
Hey!!!
HTML WYSIWYG In-Browser Editor
Photoshop CS3 Flash and GIF
Question about HTML WYSIWYG editors
WYSIWYG Alternatives
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Software

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.