PDA

View Full Version : Web Design - WYSIWYG v. Hand-Coded



aysiu
March 28th, 2007, 09:40 PM
Every now and then, someone asks about a drop-in replacement for Dreamweaver (or *gasp* FrontPage!) and is told to check Nvu. Someone else usually replies that Nvu doesn't compare to Dreamweaver (or that its development is discontinued or that it's not in the Feisty repositories), and then people recommend a bunch of web design apps that are not WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) like Bluefish or Screem.

It usually turns out into an argument about hand-coding taking "too long" but without any specifics about why WYSIWYG is faster than hand-coding.

Can someone who has done both hand-coding extensively and WYSIWYG extensively explain with concrete examples how much time you save going one way or the other?

I've always done only hand-coding of HTML/CSS and haven't found it slow at all, but I also haven't really done WYSIWYG that much. Copy and paste, find/replace, some good PHP includes, and an external stylesheet make maintenance make things pretty easy for me on the hand-coding side of things.

v8YKxgHe
March 28th, 2007, 09:48 PM
I personally absolute hate WYSIWYG editors, they don't teach you anything about what is doing what and almost always ends up with messy, against every rule ever written, code.

I always hand code, always. I find it much faster and from hand-coding everything I've learnt about web development, not the program I would have been using. If someone is going to use a WYSIWYG editor I think they would be far better off with a content management system.

GuitarHero
March 28th, 2007, 10:13 PM
Never ever use WYSIWYG editors. You learn nothing and end up with non compliant code.

beercz
March 28th, 2007, 10:51 PM
Same here, hand coded all the way for me :-)

prizrak
March 28th, 2007, 10:52 PM
In my experience it is quicker to hand code it in a good editor rather than dealing with a WYSIWYG. I do think that Dreamweaver does Flash as well as other stuff. Maybe it's ColdFusion I'm thinking about not sure.

Lord Illidan
March 28th, 2007, 10:58 PM
I used WYSIWYG - Dreamweaver, and I liked the way how I got fast results. I could also see what was non compliant and then edit it my way..

%hMa@?b<C
March 28th, 2007, 10:59 PM
in a rush, I will do WYSIWYG, but nothing beats hand coded css.

picpak
March 28th, 2007, 11:00 PM
WYSIWYG is fun once in a while, but it gives poor code (esp. Frontpage). I usually hand-code it.

cunawarit
March 28th, 2007, 11:30 PM
WYSIWYG, may be faster, but I always hand code.

queen_yoshi
March 28th, 2007, 11:32 PM
I use Dreamweaver and like others go in and clean up the code. However if you are a noob just starting and want to get a site up and running 'now' rather than spend hours learning how to code the pages and learn yet another new thing a WYSIWYG editor is a quick and painless way to do this. That and you then start to understand more where and what all the HTML does visually.

Personally I found it far easier to learn HTML with a WYSIWYG program first than stuff around with a notepad......and some people (who already know about this stuff) who suggest that to someone who is a bit lost and just wants to quickly put a site up to (example) show off a photo they took, really should look at it from a noob point of veiw rather than that of someone who already knows about HTML. Said noob doesnt really want to spend the next few days, or weeks learning HTML to get the job done. Nor would the suggestions of getting someone else to do it for them either!

So looking at it that way a WYSIWYG has its place. Makes HTML a lot less daunting for people who have never even delved into that sort of thing before :)

getaboat
March 28th, 2007, 11:34 PM
I'm no artist - I'll hand code and produces sites that work with IE/FF/Opera, have good-ish code and don't look great.

A friend of mine who is a graphic designer uses Dreamweaver, produces sites that work with most browsers, have good looking if hard to maintain manually code and look fabulous.

Now web pages written using Word - the code there is something else............perhaps another thread for worst code generators..........

daynah
March 28th, 2007, 11:37 PM
I learned how to hand code, and then I got a job at my college putting content on the web using a WYSIWYG editor. It was by the same company that made Dreamweaver, but I didn't get full dreamweaver privilages. Basically, I wasn't allowed to edit the layouts. Which totally made sense because I was only working on the Math and Science department, and you want all the departments to look alike. The administrators disabled that for me, that wasn't the fault of the program.

But things that were the fault of the program... Anytime I needed to put an image in the page was a monumental feat. I had to jump through hoops. I had to first resize it in one editor (we didn't have photoshop or any other photo editor besides paint, so I had to do this on Gimp, which I had to do in secret because my boss thought Open Source was Open Virus). Then I had to go into gimped (ha! I made a funny!) dreamweaver and hope I resized it the right size, because if I didn't, it would look very funny on the page with the editor's resizing program.

But it made no difference because the one thing my boss was good at was photoediting, so she was very very picky about it and I had to do it over and over again. Ah.

Back to the editor.

The administrator, or you, whatever, picks out ways you want your text to look. For example, you can have it Big and Black, and small and blue, but if your administrator didn't think to make an option for it to be big and blue, you're SOL. This is to prevent people from doing outrageous colors on the page, and to encourage you to use matching schemes all the time... but it's just restricting and it means you have to go through a whole big ordeal just to change the color of a font (whether it means set a new style or call up the administrator).

Tables, though, tables are the worst. First, off, my access of dreamweaver had CSS disabled, and I hear a fully enabled version of dreamweaver sticks at CSS anyway. Let it be known I was using tables for fully legit things, not trying to create a layout out of them. :) So tables are... awful. If you make a table, and then someone later wants to add another row (which often happens, not even out of any mistake, just more information comes up!), you have to make a whole new table, and copy and paste and copy and paste from the old to the new table. And then reapply the formatting. Hours have been lost doing this. Eh, I got paid for it.

Handcoding you just add another row. K.I.S.S.

These are the experiences I have had, like Ayisu requested. Those moments in life where I say "Why am I sitting in front of thise horrible horrible invention?!" I honestly didn't think there would be a worse program in the world... until I recently got a job using QuickBooks.

Most importantly though is something I didn't have to deal with, like I said, the layouts. Anytime new code gets made, Macromedia (makers of Dreamweaver) basically have to rewrite the html/css code itself, they have to have artists and such work on designing the new version, they have to rewrite a new version. Dreamweaver still hasn't harnessed the power of CSS, my favorite. What I'm saying is, the most important thing to remember is that by using a WYSIWYG is you will always be behind. You will never have a webpage that is creative; it will always look like other people's; it will never stand out. And that's very important for marketing.

On the other hand, if you're making this for your small business, how much time do you have to work on this webpage? Balance our making money, and the advertising? Or you could hire a freelance webdesigner (if you're in England: go get Hydroxide Design! Simon's INCREDIBLY creative with beautiful clean design!). The freelance has the creativity the big companies that just throw anybody at you don't.

fatphilthethird
March 29th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Depends entirely on what you're doing. Personally, I think WYSIWYG is for designers and hand coding is for developers.

FWIW, my pet theory is that the whole WYSIWYG thing is a hang-over from the early days of the 'net when the responsibility for developing sites was dumped into the laps of the marketing/hard copy design team. As they were used to DTP software, WYSIWIG was the way to go.

As the net has matured, the focus has drifted towards a more a specialised "web developer" role, which seems to be more about delivering information, and the traditional design elements are seen as a small part of a much larger whole. This kind of role would use hand coding far more than a WYSIWYG editor.

If, on the other hand, you are just starting out, I would recommend a WYSIWIG editor, provided you take a look at what it's doing to your code. When I first started, I used Dreamweaver in split screen mode so I could see the code being added when ever I did something in WYSIWYG mode. That's how I learnt HTML and now just use hand coding.

Fat

23meg
March 29th, 2007, 02:05 PM
I've lost enough time cleaning up code that WYSIWYG editrors produce to make up for their supposed quickness.


Personally, I think WYSIWYG is for designers and hand coding is for developers.

I don't think a half decent designer who does serious work and intends to produce content that can be viewed on all browsers can get by with WYSIWYG at all.

curuxz
March 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM
In my view no serious developer or designer should ever use something like dreamweaver.

The biggest reason is the crap standard of code that is made. Plus if you hand write your code markup and code then you will know exactly whats being done, and how.

I'm sorry if it offends but as someone who is currently working on highly compliant code (for DDA, w3c AAA and full valid code compliance) I have to say that anyone using dreamweaver or frontpage is in my view amature and anyone who actauly knows XHTML is more proffessional even if the pages are more basic.

Just my 2 pennies (sorry i dont use cents)

argie
March 29th, 2007, 02:12 PM
All my experiences with WYSIWYG editors ended up with them making code that looked not so nice on some browsers. That put me off them, and that was years ago. I haven't gone back since I have no reason to, but it did help back in the day when I knew no code and the idea of a syntax highlighter was alien. We used Notepad in school, you see. And we were asked to do all caps. Oh god, bad times.

fatphilthethird
March 29th, 2007, 02:22 PM
I'm sorry if it offends but as someone who is currently working on highly compliant code (for DDA, w3c AAA and full valid code compliance) I have to say that anyone using dreamweaver or frontpage is in my view amature and anyone who actauly knows XHTML is more proffessional even if the pages are more basic.

But that's kind of the point. Sure, no serious developer would use DW or FP (oh god, FP!) but that's entirely beside the point when you look at the swathes of web sites out there that were clearly designed with that dreaded phrase "look and feel" at the forefront of their minds and compliant code coming a very poor second.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that that's the way it is. The shift is certainly underway, but the split is most definitely there. Just look at all the non compliant sites that exist.

Fat

(Must. Resist. Urge. To. Blame. I. Bloody. E.)

curuxz
March 29th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I agree Fat, but we need to find out ways to address the problems and increase the shift from bad developers and designers to good ones using correct markup.

Personaly, obvoisly once im running a company myself again and not gainfully employed under another for webdeveloopment, I would love to see some kind of colilation of small development firms that only deal in 100% valid code, and 100% accessable. Because it benifits everyones.

A kind of web developers pro club (for marketing reasons to reward the compaines that practice well) but one that does not let the normal crap in you get with these type orginistations!

SunnyRabbiera
March 29th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Well both dreamweaver and Kompozer/NVU are good WYSIWYG editors, they make quick web page editing for the average joe.
Even front page is good in its way, as I find frontpage can make good web pages if you know how to tweak it.
But dreamweaver NVU/Kompozer are infinately better when it comes to cross browser compatibility, I made several pages in Kompozer that looks good on all major browsers.

helliewm
March 29th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Can someone recommend a beginners guide to hand coding?

Helen

justin whitaker
March 29th, 2007, 05:45 PM
But that's kind of the point. Sure, no serious developer would use DW or FP (oh god, FP!) but that's entirely beside the point when you look at the swathes of web sites out there that were clearly designed with that dreaded phrase "look and feel" at the forefront of their minds and compliant code coming a very poor second.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that that's the way it is. The shift is certainly underway, but the split is most definitely there. Just look at all the non compliant sites that exist.

Fat

(Must. Resist. Urge. To. Blame. I. Bloody. E.)

You guys and gals might be missing the point. Where I work, we have a bunch of clueless exects who expect us to use whatever the corporate standard is...which up until recently was FrontPage. Now we use Dreamweaver.

I find a simple text editor easier, but that isn't really the point: whether you think the users are clueless or not, people put a lot of stock in WYSIWYG, particularly those that are paying people's paychecks.

So you get non-compliant code as a result.

Then again, I do web development and design because noone in my group has the technical capacity to do it, not because I am trained in it. I'm a spreadsheet jockey (MBA) not a real developer.

:lolflag:

Cloudy
March 29th, 2007, 05:58 PM
It's always been quicker for me to hand code, but that's just me. I took a programming class that consisted mainly of HTML, XHTML & JavaScript a few semesters ago, where we HAD to either code in notepad or at the very most the syn html/text editor. Near the end of that class I decided to tool around with WYSIWYG editors for fun and found coding frustratingly slow compared to hand-coding in notepad, etc.

But then again, that's just me. I've seen some people code quite fast in Dreamweaver, etcetera.

Nrvnqsr
March 29th, 2007, 06:51 PM
Can someone recommend a beginners guide to hand coding?

Helen

http://www.w3schools.com/
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/

to be honest, I'm not sure myself if these sites are "beginner" friendly, but these links my professor recommends fir the class to read and check out, and as for the main topic I'm just taking beginner's web classes and so far hands down on hand coding than WYSIWYG, with coding I can use any text editor to code....even Window's notepad and GNOME's Text editor to code on the fly......

Tomosaur
March 29th, 2007, 07:05 PM
I have used both, although I wouldn't say my experience is 'extensive'. Anyway, my two cents:

1) WYSIWYG editors frequently make a bungling mess of the source for a website. Maintaining WYSIWYG pages by hand is a pain.

2) Hand coding websites gives you much greater control, and the speed of development is pretty much directly proportional to how knowledgable you are about the various languages required, and how fast you can type. You also need to have the skill of being able to vizualise something, and implement it in code. I think of it like building a machine or creating a painting on a massive canvas. Individually, the little bits don't represent much of anything, but combined, they can be amazing works of art. It will take longer to learn all of the languages necessary, but the flexibility hand-coding provides you, and the other skills you will learn, more than make up for it.

3) WYSIWYG is frequently NOT WYSIWYG, especially when you have different browsers. This has improved over time, but problems still persist, given that browsers implement and display things differently. Most modern WYSIWYG editors will help you out in this regard, but only by hand-coding can you virtually guarantee that your website will display exactly how you intend it to in any browser it will be viewed in.

4) Learning how to hand code websites can lead to other things. Many people I know who are into programming, started out by creating web-sites. That's not to say that web-design is child's play - it certainly isn't. I have great respect for awesome looking websites, and there's a lot of room for ingenuity. However - HTML is a fairly easy language to learn, and despite the great flexibility possible, it is still a pretty limited language. To get a truly great looking page, HTML just isn't going to cut it. You will need to use CSS, and probably other languages like PHP, Javascript, etc etc. May WYSIWYG editors also provide features for this, but hand coding in these languages clearly wins out. If you spend all of your time dragging and dropping, you're not really going to create anything truly new, and you're not going to learn much, either.

daynah
March 29th, 2007, 07:10 PM
Can someone recommend a beginners guide to hand coding?

Helen

Don't ever pay for a book for handcoding. :) Total rip off, because it isn't updated as the web gets better and better.

I used, and I'll swear by it...

www.lissaexplains.com !

Any kid's guide to coding is a noob's guide to coding. :) It's a bit of a bright website, so dim your monitor or something. ;)

Copy and paste the code in the manner she describes. A little bit at a time. Go to HTML Help, and basically start from left to right. Try it out. Try to alter it. Try it till you break it. When you break it, what did you break? It was probably something stupid like a comma, or you forgot to close a bracket.

You don't have to have it memorized before you go to the right some more. You wont have it memorized. Just UNDERSTAND it. Understand that you have to close brackets and things and then go on. The more you use it, then you'll magically start noticing things.

Did you notice that when you copied and pasted all the commands from the ubuntu forums, one day you just straight typed out "sudo apt-get install blah" and you didn't copy and paste? One day you're going to want to make a website of something, and instead of doing your normal routine of going to Lissaexplains and copying and pasting, because you've copied and pasted it so many times and because you understand it, you'll just type it out. :) Just how the brain works.

Granted, that takes longer than a semester, so that's why people don't teach HTML in school like that. But this is more similar to how learning a first language works and that takes many years, not the few semesters learning spanish does. :)

Don't get discouraged. Once you want harder more creative stuff, I like HTMLgoodies.com.

And I STILL go to Lissaexplains (she has a great color chart) and HTMLgoodies.com (for php), by the way.

Tell me if you want any help, and if you have good content, I'll put your website up on my domain (that goes for most people). If it's about Linux, there was someone else on the forum that was hosting Linux centered sites, so I'd rather send you to him so he can get some peeps, though. Spread the love. :) Then you can learn about domains and stuff!

akniss
March 29th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Just like any decision on one software package versus another, it depends on how one intends to use it. I bounce back and forth between Nvu (or actually kompozer lately) and Screem. They both have their uses, and can both be 'faster' depending on the situation.

When I use Nvu, it is typically when I need to put together a nice looking site fairly quickly... say for a class I'm teaching and I would like to post an example of what ever it is we're doing that week. Nvu allows me to do things easily and quickly. For this use I really don't care what the underlying code looks like. It could be ridiculously long and non-standards compliant, but I know my students will only be looking at it with IE or Safari. I will also not plan on keeping a site like this up for very long, so there is no need to keep things up to date for a matter of years (usually a couple weeks maximum).

When I use Screem (or notepad if I'm on Windows) it is when I'm designing a site that I know I will have to keep up to date long term. For cases like this, it is absolutely imperative that the code is formatted so that I can find what I need quickly, and in a format that I am use to looking at. I have a very specific style when coding html, with a certain number of spaces to begin different lines, etc. The WYSIWYG editors use their own formatting conventions, and don't use the same code that I would typically use. So for this type of page, I much prefer to hand code everything.

Just like any software choice, I am not a believer that either way is 'right' or 'wrong'. They are just different.

bvanaerde
March 29th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Sure, no serious developer would use DW
You do know that it's possible to write your code by hand, using DreamWeaver, right?
It has a lot of advantages over programs like Notepad (or Gedit) or whatever text editor you like.

I've done both: writing the code myself and using wysiwyg.
I've started with writing code in Notepad at school, and in the second year we used DM (combined use of wysiwyg and hand coding).

Right now, I never use the wysiwyg part of DM. I really don't need it, and I feel more comfortable this way. More in control...
I'm definitely working faster this way, because when using the wysiwyg feature, I'd check the code afterwards anyway :p

The advantages of hand-coding in DM instead of Notepad?

auto-completion of html tags (automatically adding closing tags surely makes coding a lot faster!)
the implemented upload feature, wich is really great
site management
check in/out
PHP support (colored coding and function tooltips)


To conclude: I prefer hand-coding over wysiwyg. Period.
Choosing a decent program for this is a bit difficult... I chose DM for Windows and Aptana for Linux.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 07:47 PM
and some people (who already know about this stuff) who suggest that to someone who is a bit lost and just wants to quickly put a site up to (example) show off a photo they took, really should look at it from a noob point of veiw rather than that of someone who already knows about HTML. Said noob doesnt really want to spend the next few days, or weeks learning HTML to get the job done. Nor would the suggestions of getting someone else to do it for them either! I think people who don't have a few hours to learn how to code HTML should use Flickr or Blogger to take care of their "website" needs, because those venues are ideal for showing off photos to frends and family, and they do not require you to do even WYSIWYG "designing." They're totally content based.


Don't ever pay for a book for handcoding. :) Total rip off, because it isn't updated as the web gets better and better. I may not be up on all the latest standards put out by the W3C, but I'd say that the hand-coding book I read way back in 2000 is still valid more or less. It's Liz Castro's Quickstart Guide to HTML

SunnyRabbiera
March 29th, 2007, 07:55 PM
well even web blogs are beyond the average joe, they just want a simplistic web page on say geocities or something and don't care about aesthetics.

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 08:04 PM
When I was the webmaster of Gateway.com I used Adobe GoLive to control ghost pages. I also used Dreamweaver to build mass level templates so I could have 100s of different pages at a hands reach. I also built some scripts to help me change the mass levels of the hand coded pages on a days notice. I had to manage roughly 7500 unique pages but thankfully each of them were designed with modularity in mind.

Building a single site with less than 30 pages... by hand only. There's no excuse for using a WYSIWYG engine to rough in the elements when you can build it faster by hand. However, once you have the main components of the site, build the pages modularly and allow the client to fill in the content they would like to have, right down to the imagery and colors.

I'm out of the presentation game now, I'm more into the server side application development scene. I still program by hand though... I only use context highlighting rather than rely on some visual studio type rendition.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 08:09 PM
Most blogging sites just require you to create a login and password, choose a template, and then start writing entries and uploading photos. How is that beyond the "average joe"? It's easier than Geocities, as far as I can tell.

JAPrufrock
March 29th, 2007, 08:16 PM
A few years ago I learned hand coding in order to develop my own web site. Afterwards, I decided to use a wysiwyg editor (I think it was frontpage) and opened up my source code file and then saved it. When I opened it up again, and looked at the source code, it was more than twice the size of the original file that was created with notepad. And some of the stuff I didn't understand.

egon spengler
March 29th, 2007, 09:11 PM
The advantages of hand-coding in DM instead of Notepad?

auto-completion of html tags (automatically adding closing tags surely makes coding a lot faster!)
the implemented upload feature, wich is really great
site management
check in/out
PHP support (colored coding and function tooltips)



It's a bit sneaky comparing the DW functionality to what is possibly (by design) the least featured text editor possible.

If you update your comparison to more featured competitors:

auto completion is available in countless editors from vim to eclipse.

built in upload/site management can be useful but then in terms of which is better for writing html site management, although useful, doesn't contribute in anyway.

Check in/out is terrible. Seriously if you're working with multiple developers (which you must be else you wouldn't tout check out as a plus) try using svn instead.

Multiple editors support php.


That said when people bash DW's code quality I think most of them are basing it on hearsay and not real first hand experience. The only other WYSIWYG editors I've used, Frontpage and GoLive, create absolutely hideous code but DW (generally) creates pretty good, valid code. Has done for a while

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 09:14 PM
egon spengler, thanks for that even-handed response.

nihilocrat
March 29th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I like using Dreamweaver with a WYSIWYG / code view. It's handy because it lets me see things without having to continually tab to a web browser and refresh. It also automates some tedious chores (like uploading the site). I'll occasionally use the WYSIWYG component to actually enter in content, but I get annoyed that I sometimes end up having to clean up the code it generates. WYSIWYG is mainly just a convenience to me, not a means to making a web page.

queen_yoshi
March 29th, 2007, 10:41 PM
I think people who don't have a few hours to learn how to code HTML should use Flickr or Blogger to take care of their "website" needs, because those venues are ideal for showing off photos to frends and family, and they do not require you to do even WYSIWYG "designing." They're totally content based.

Not everyone wants to do that, thats what I am getting at and some people out there do want a nice looking site that isnt filled with ads. (And maybe using photographs as an example was a bad choice of words as it seems to have been taken literally lol)

I think looking at the use of WYSIWYG editors with a frame of mind that if someone cant be bothered learning HTML in a few hours then they dont deserve a decent looking site, and they can use Geocities etc is a bit elitist? :(

Why do people that do understand such things as HTML and computing assume on behalf of the computer illiterate and people who do not want to spend a few hours learning HTML that they are not concerned with aesthetics and should use a free hosting solution as well that has a crappy WYSIWYG editor online?
Thats a very big assumption to make, and I will always encourage people to find the best solution to a problem that suits them, and if that solution is for them to use WYSIWYG and they are happy then so be it!!

The results are that said 'non-geek' does indeed learn a bit more about HTML, and they get a decent looking site in their eyes that they have done all by themselves. Why is this bad again? Its how I learnt about HTML (prior to using Wordpress on my site lol)

23meg
March 29th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Not everyone wants to do that, thats what I am getting at and some people out there do want a nice looking site that isnt filled with ads. (And maybe using photographs as an example was a bad choice of words as it seems to have been taken literally lol)

Then they're better off at least starting from ready made templates, such as those from Open Source Web Design (http://oswd.org), instead of producing bad code.


I think looking at the use of WYSIWYG editors with a frame of mind that if someone cant be bothered learning HTML in a few hours then they dont deserve a decent looking site, and they can use Geocities etc is a bit elitist?

If a computer illiterate person can't be bothered learning HTML/CSS, I don't think they'll bother to learn a WYSIWYG editor inside out, to a degree that will let them make decent looking sites either. Their problem is that they can't be bothered, and there are great solutions for them, such as blogs, community sites, ready made templates and the like.

I'm not saying they don't deserve decent looking sites; with my own standards of decency, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a decent site either way, so they're best off starting with templates and maybe customizing them. It's good for them, since they have little time, and templates make things quick, and it's good for the visitors, because almost all common templates consist of healthy code that's compliant with all browsers.


Why do people that do understand such things as HTML and computing assume on behalf of the computer illiterate and people who do not want to spend a few hours learning HTML that they are not concerned with aesthetics

I don't assume they aren't concerned with aesthetics; I don't think anyone else does either. It's just that putting together a standards compliant and decent looking website is a technical job at the end of the day, no matter which technique you employ, and if non-technical people can't get the hang of it, which is to be expected, it's better if they at least start from a foundation laid out for them by people who know what they're doing.


Thats a very big assumption to make, and I will always encourage people to find the best solution to a problem that suits them, and if that solution is for them to use WYSIWYG and they are happy then so be it!!

As long as they're using a hypothetical WYSIWYG editor that produces 100% standards compliant, tidy code, and they can get the hang of it, of course, so be it. There's no techie snobbery here.

dbbolton
March 30th, 2007, 12:45 AM
i find googlepages' editor to be annoying. i love the service, but i prefer 'edit html' mode. example:

let's say you click on the 'insert link' button, and make a nice little hyperlink. all subsequent typing becomes part of the link text- as though the farthest point you can go with the cursor is still left of the </a> tag. of course, this can be fixed by typing all text (or a few placeholding characters after the point where the link is to be inserted), then going back to add links.

milehigh
March 31st, 2007, 12:51 PM
Can someone recommend a beginners guide to hand coding?

http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/

el mariachi
March 31st, 2007, 01:46 PM
Can someone recommend a beginners guide to hand coding?Not a guide but it really helped me out. HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide, Sixth Edition from O'reilly!. Great success! :KSbtw: what do you use for hand-coding: plain text editor or markup highlighting text editor, like Crimson Editor (or the future Emerald Editor)? What do you recommend for a starter? (i don't like WYSIWYG editors, they don't teach much..)

helliewm
March 31st, 2007, 01:50 PM
Thanks everyone for the beginners guide to coding, I will take a look.

Helen

bvanaerde
April 1st, 2007, 08:01 PM
It's a bit sneaky comparing the DW functionality to what is possibly (by design) the least featured text editor possible.
You're right, my post doesn't really belong in this thread. But it was as a reaction to someone posting that "no real programmer would use DreamWeaver".
It is both a code-by-hand and a wysiwyg editor, so I can't imagine why it wouldn't be suitable.

billdotson
April 1st, 2007, 08:27 PM
I like coding manually you can do more.