|
|
|
Re: How the Hell do I indent a paragraph! |
|---|
| message from clark_kent on 16 Jul 2004 |
bull****....a person shouldn't have learn anything...that's why a
person buys something like DreamWeaver
|
| Michael Fesser replied to clark_kent on 17 Jul 2004 |
.oO(clark_kent)
Wrong (or "bull****" if you like that more).
A tool is only as good as the person who uses it. If you know how to use
tools like DW you may be able to build good websites. If you don't know
what you're doing or how the things work behind the surface the result
will definitly be useless crap. Just have a look at many of DW-created
websites - you can tell at the first sight whether the author of the
site knows about HTML or not.
Editors like DW are _no_ replacement for knowledge, they are there to
support you in putting your knowledge into practice. If the knowledge is
zero, so will be the result.
Micha
|
| ChrisRi replied to Michael Fesser on 19 Jul 2004 |
Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
.oO(clark_kent)
Wrong (or "bull****" if you like that more).
A tool is only as good as the person who uses it. If you know how to use
tools like DW you may be able to build good websites. If you don't know
what you're doing or how the things work behind the surface the result
will definitly be useless crap. Just have a look at many of DW-created
websites - you can tell at the first sight whether the author of the
site knows about HTML or not.
Editors like DW are _no_ replacement for knowledge, they are there to
support you in putting your knowledge into practice. If the knowledge is
zero, so will be the result.
Micha
IMO, HTML editors like DreamWeaver will sart gearing more and more towards
non-HTML coders (like Contribute). I.e. If you know how to use Word, you should
be able to _at least_ add content without worrying about HTML code and its
syntax. (This won't be the death of knowledgable Web developers, though - far
from it).
Some may remember the early DOS version of Word Perfect (4.1?), where you
could press F3 to "reveal code", or something like that. Now that I write HTML,
I notice how similar it is to Word Perfect's underlying code. In today's MS
Word, for example, people don't even see the underlying "code". So, in the
future, users should worry less and less about understanding HTML, just as
those who use word processors never think about it.
Now, if you could combine DreamWeaver with NetObject Fusion's excellent
WYSIWYG, what a product it would be! NOF's edit area allows you to drag and
drop a piece of text, or an image into the edit area. An image, for example,
will stay exactly where you dropped it, with no table cell sizing, or spacing
to worry about. And, if you want to move the image 5 pixels to the left, just
highlight the image and tap the left arrow 5 times. It'll stay in place.
Problem with NOF, though, is that it's a single-user approach to building Web
sites. No one else can collaborate, or contribute to the site unless they use
the same computer, same install.
sorry for getting a little off topic... 8)
Regards,
Chris
|
| Michael Fesser replied to ChrisRi on 19 Jul 2004 |
.oO(ChrisRi)
This would require editors that write reasoanable and valid code. I
doubt this will ever happen (and I doubt that it's possible at all).
Creating good, small, fast loading code _always_ requires hand work.
... and it's crap of generated code ...
Forget about WYSIWYG, the WWW is _no_ DTP.
Micha
|
| Michael Fesser replied to Michael Fesser on 20 Jul 2004 |
.oO(darrel)
<p>hello world</p>
But OK, I agree. Even the most terrible div-soup can be valid, even if
it makes no real sense in the end.
Yep.
Micha
|
| darrel replied to ChrisRi on 19 Jul 2004 |
right...and a person shouldn't have to learn how to drive but just buy a
car, or shouldn't have to learn how to build amish furniture but just buy a
saw, etc... ;o)
a tool is just a tool.
I used to always use the metaphor of WordStar. However, few people seem to
remember WordStar. ;o)
In many ways, we were better off in those days. Even people that know how to
use word really have no concept of proper document structure or how to use
styles efficiently. So, when they get to HTML, they're just carrying over
bad/lazy habits from Word and putting them in HTML.
That's a joke, right? ;o)
The problem with most editors is that people ASSUME that there really IS
such a thing as WYSIWYG on the web. It's a myth.
-Darrel
|
| clark_kent replied to Michael Fesser on 17 Jul 2004 |
then explain why Frontpage has the feature i'm clamoring for
and DW doesn't?
|
| Michael Fesser replied to clark_kent on 19 Jul 2004 |
.oO(clark_kent)
If DW obviously doesn't fit your needs, why do you use it?
But I would be interested in seeing the FP-generated code of that
"feature" ...
Micha
|
|
