The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi, I havent been here long and Ive only just come across this forum. I design websites for personal needs and for companies.
I thought I would maybe write a GAD worthy post in here and see what happens! :o)
~~~~~~~
What program do you use to write your websites? There are plenty to choose from - CoffeeCup, Cute-HTML, Netscape Composer, FrontPage... and countless more. They come with bells and whistles all the way from automatically finishing tags for you to providing a interface like a Wordprocessor or DTP package and just generating all the HTML code behind the scenes. In fact, a lot of modern Wordprocessing software comes with the ability to save your pages as HTML, so on the face of it, there's no need to even buy any special software.
However, what I've generally chosen to use, over the course of years of experience and professional web design work, are just plain text programs that let me write the HTML directly. Why have I chosen to fly in the face of time-saving modern conveniences? Here are my reasons:
1. Text editors are free, easily available, and don't take up a lot of system resources. That becomes less of an issue as computer power increases - but I want to learn skills that I can transfer between different machines and operating systems. If I learn how a particular HTML editing package fits together, then I'll become dependent on that particular tool, which may not be so portable.
2. Writing HTML is the quickest way to understand HTML. Sometimes your pages will not act the way you expect, forcing you to either abandon what you're trying to do or look 'under the hood' at the HTML code. If you're used to dealing with raw HTML, this isn't as hard as it would otherwise be. After all, HTML is hardly rocket science - it essentially consists of wrapping your text in a limited range of angle-bracket enclosed.
3. What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) is a dangerous illusion. What you see in an HTML editor is the way that HTML editor displays your page. Unless you are writing for a very specific audience (maybe a company intranet where everyone has a standard browser) you need to test your page on a range of different browsers. Writing raw HTML reminds me to think about the structure of the information more than the layout, and makes it easier to find solutions that will work for all visitors to my sites.
4. Related to the previous two points, getting your hands on the HTML allows you the maximum degree of control in fine-tuning it to your needs. Many HTML editing programs produce very messy code that is hard to read (and thus very hard to maintain if your original tool is no longer available). Even worse, some programs will take your hand-finished HTML and uglify it back to their own standards, undoing all your painstaking work.
5. When you use a specific tool, you are often quite limited in what you can do. You might be able to write basic HTML pages quickly, but will your editor start to frustrate you when you try to get into scripting with something like .asp or .php. Text editors are general purpose tools and can be adapted to all sorts of purposes.
Maybe this sounds too polemical for your tastes. Maybe you are quite happy with whatever program you have chosen and feel that it makes you more productive. It's not my place to censure the tools you choose to use. However, I have found that using text editors for most of my work has given me a very good understanding of the medium of web design. If you haven't tried handcrafting HTML, then maybe it would be worthwhile digging up a text editor and seeing what you can learn.
~~~~~~~
What did you think? Not bad for 15 minutes?! :o)
Anyway thanks for reading, and you may be seeing me around this forum a little more!
I thought I would maybe write a GAD worthy post in here and see what happens! :o)
~~~~~~~
What program do you use to write your websites? There are plenty to choose from - CoffeeCup, Cute-HTML, Netscape Composer, FrontPage... and countless more. They come with bells and whistles all the way from automatically finishing tags for you to providing a interface like a Wordprocessor or DTP package and just generating all the HTML code behind the scenes. In fact, a lot of modern Wordprocessing software comes with the ability to save your pages as HTML, so on the face of it, there's no need to even buy any special software.
However, what I've generally chosen to use, over the course of years of experience and professional web design work, are just plain text programs that let me write the HTML directly. Why have I chosen to fly in the face of time-saving modern conveniences? Here are my reasons:
1. Text editors are free, easily available, and don't take up a lot of system resources. That becomes less of an issue as computer power increases - but I want to learn skills that I can transfer between different machines and operating systems. If I learn how a particular HTML editing package fits together, then I'll become dependent on that particular tool, which may not be so portable.
2. Writing HTML is the quickest way to understand HTML. Sometimes your pages will not act the way you expect, forcing you to either abandon what you're trying to do or look 'under the hood' at the HTML code. If you're used to dealing with raw HTML, this isn't as hard as it would otherwise be. After all, HTML is hardly rocket science - it essentially consists of wrapping your text in a limited range of angle-bracket enclosed
3. What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) is a dangerous illusion. What you see in an HTML editor is the way that HTML editor displays your page. Unless you are writing for a very specific audience (maybe a company intranet where everyone has a standard browser) you need to test your page on a range of different browsers. Writing raw HTML reminds me to think about the structure of the information more than the layout, and makes it easier to find solutions that will work for all visitors to my sites.
4. Related to the previous two points, getting your hands on the HTML allows you the maximum degree of control in fine-tuning it to your needs. Many HTML editing programs produce very messy code that is hard to read (and thus very hard to maintain if your original tool is no longer available). Even worse, some programs will take your hand-finished HTML and uglify it back to their own standards, undoing all your painstaking work.
5. When you use a specific tool, you are often quite limited in what you can do. You might be able to write basic HTML pages quickly, but will your editor start to frustrate you when you try to get into scripting with something like .asp or .php. Text editors are general purpose tools and can be adapted to all sorts of purposes.
Maybe this sounds too polemical for your tastes. Maybe you are quite happy with whatever program you have chosen and feel that it makes you more productive. It's not my place to censure the tools you choose to use. However, I have found that using text editors for most of my work has given me a very good understanding of the medium of web design. If you haven't tried handcrafting HTML, then maybe it would be worthwhile digging up a text editor and seeing what you can learn.
~~~~~~~
What did you think? Not bad for 15 minutes?! :o)
Anyway thanks for reading, and you may be seeing me around this forum a little more!
Page:
I've alwaysed used Notepad for making Web Pages. I started with it .. not having Frontpage or anything, ad had an HTM in 24 Hours book bought for me, and have always found that the best way for me.
I've since had Frontpage come with Office, so I tried it out, it's not as bad as some people may make out ... but then again, it not as amazing as some people make out. But then again, if you started with it and are used to it, it seems like the best way to carry one, and why not???
Thing is, once these Web Page Maker kits have generatet your code, some make it har to make changes, kep it updated, and sometimes puts HTML Tags where you don't need them, or want them, shich can confuse you. Also, people may have different methods of writing their HTML Code. Such as SR, they write their HTML Tags in lower case, whereas I prefer Uppercase, ( as oposed to ) and people may also layout the code in different ways, with Tables and such. I write my code in the way that I do, so when I come back to it... I'll understand what it does...
... Pro Web Designers are said to have to write code so other are also able to understand it, but as I'm not in the Pro League, I'll only write it to what I understand. It's not only HTML, PHP as well, is writen out so I know what it does, and can change it easily.
What it comes down to really is if someone is happy with the method they use... Notepad, Frontpage, Dreamwaver, etc.. and they are able to do the task in hand with that method, then there is no need to change it. I prefer the method of writing it myself, and not WYSIWYG Packages.
I've since had Frontpage come with Office, so I tried it out, it's not as bad as some people may make out ... but then again, it not as amazing as some people make out. But then again, if you started with it and are used to it, it seems like the best way to carry one, and why not???
Thing is, once these Web Page Maker kits have generatet your code, some make it har to make changes, kep it updated, and sometimes puts HTML Tags where you don't need them, or want them, shich can confuse you. Also, people may have different methods of writing their HTML Code. Such as SR, they write their HTML Tags in lower case, whereas I prefer Uppercase, ( as oposed to ) and people may also layout the code in different ways, with Tables and such. I write my code in the way that I do, so when I come back to it... I'll understand what it does...
... Pro Web Designers are said to have to write code so other are also able to understand it, but as I'm not in the Pro League, I'll only write it to what I understand. It's not only HTML, PHP as well, is writen out so I know what it does, and can change it easily.
What it comes down to really is if someone is happy with the method they use... Notepad, Frontpage, Dreamwaver, etc.. and they are able to do the task in hand with that method, then there is no need to change it. I prefer the method of writing it myself, and not WYSIWYG Packages.
Hi, I havent been here long and Ive only just come across this forum. I design websites for personal needs and for companies.
I thought I would maybe write a GAD worthy post in here and see what happens! :o)
~~~~~~~
What program do you use to write your websites? There are plenty to choose from - CoffeeCup, Cute-HTML, Netscape Composer, FrontPage... and countless more. They come with bells and whistles all the way from automatically finishing tags for you to providing a interface like a Wordprocessor or DTP package and just generating all the HTML code behind the scenes. In fact, a lot of modern Wordprocessing software comes with the ability to save your pages as HTML, so on the face of it, there's no need to even buy any special software.
However, what I've generally chosen to use, over the course of years of experience and professional web design work, are just plain text programs that let me write the HTML directly. Why have I chosen to fly in the face of time-saving modern conveniences? Here are my reasons:
1. Text editors are free, easily available, and don't take up a lot of system resources. That becomes less of an issue as computer power increases - but I want to learn skills that I can transfer between different machines and operating systems. If I learn how a particular HTML editing package fits together, then I'll become dependent on that particular tool, which may not be so portable.
2. Writing HTML is the quickest way to understand HTML. Sometimes your pages will not act the way you expect, forcing you to either abandon what you're trying to do or look 'under the hood' at the HTML code. If you're used to dealing with raw HTML, this isn't as hard as it would otherwise be. After all, HTML is hardly rocket science - it essentially consists of wrapping your text in a limited range of angle-bracket enclosed.
3. What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) is a dangerous illusion. What you see in an HTML editor is the way that HTML editor displays your page. Unless you are writing for a very specific audience (maybe a company intranet where everyone has a standard browser) you need to test your page on a range of different browsers. Writing raw HTML reminds me to think about the structure of the information more than the layout, and makes it easier to find solutions that will work for all visitors to my sites.
4. Related to the previous two points, getting your hands on the HTML allows you the maximum degree of control in fine-tuning it to your needs. Many HTML editing programs produce very messy code that is hard to read (and thus very hard to maintain if your original tool is no longer available). Even worse, some programs will take your hand-finished HTML and uglify it back to their own standards, undoing all your painstaking work.
5. When you use a specific tool, you are often quite limited in what you can do. You might be able to write basic HTML pages quickly, but will your editor start to frustrate you when you try to get into scripting with something like .asp or .php. Text editors are general purpose tools and can be adapted to all sorts of purposes.
Maybe this sounds too polemical for your tastes. Maybe you are quite happy with whatever program you have chosen and feel that it makes you more productive. It's not my place to censure the tools you choose to use. However, I have found that using text editors for most of my work has given me a very good understanding of the medium of web design. If you haven't tried handcrafting HTML, then maybe it would be worthwhile digging up a text editor and seeing what you can learn.
~~~~~~~
What did you think? Not bad for 15 minutes?! :o)
Anyway thanks for reading, and you may be seeing me around this forum a little more!
I thought I would maybe write a GAD worthy post in here and see what happens! :o)
~~~~~~~
What program do you use to write your websites? There are plenty to choose from - CoffeeCup, Cute-HTML, Netscape Composer, FrontPage... and countless more. They come with bells and whistles all the way from automatically finishing tags for you to providing a interface like a Wordprocessor or DTP package and just generating all the HTML code behind the scenes. In fact, a lot of modern Wordprocessing software comes with the ability to save your pages as HTML, so on the face of it, there's no need to even buy any special software.
However, what I've generally chosen to use, over the course of years of experience and professional web design work, are just plain text programs that let me write the HTML directly. Why have I chosen to fly in the face of time-saving modern conveniences? Here are my reasons:
1. Text editors are free, easily available, and don't take up a lot of system resources. That becomes less of an issue as computer power increases - but I want to learn skills that I can transfer between different machines and operating systems. If I learn how a particular HTML editing package fits together, then I'll become dependent on that particular tool, which may not be so portable.
2. Writing HTML is the quickest way to understand HTML. Sometimes your pages will not act the way you expect, forcing you to either abandon what you're trying to do or look 'under the hood' at the HTML code. If you're used to dealing with raw HTML, this isn't as hard as it would otherwise be. After all, HTML is hardly rocket science - it essentially consists of wrapping your text in a limited range of angle-bracket enclosed
3. What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) is a dangerous illusion. What you see in an HTML editor is the way that HTML editor displays your page. Unless you are writing for a very specific audience (maybe a company intranet where everyone has a standard browser) you need to test your page on a range of different browsers. Writing raw HTML reminds me to think about the structure of the information more than the layout, and makes it easier to find solutions that will work for all visitors to my sites.
4. Related to the previous two points, getting your hands on the HTML allows you the maximum degree of control in fine-tuning it to your needs. Many HTML editing programs produce very messy code that is hard to read (and thus very hard to maintain if your original tool is no longer available). Even worse, some programs will take your hand-finished HTML and uglify it back to their own standards, undoing all your painstaking work.
5. When you use a specific tool, you are often quite limited in what you can do. You might be able to write basic HTML pages quickly, but will your editor start to frustrate you when you try to get into scripting with something like .asp or .php. Text editors are general purpose tools and can be adapted to all sorts of purposes.
Maybe this sounds too polemical for your tastes. Maybe you are quite happy with whatever program you have chosen and feel that it makes you more productive. It's not my place to censure the tools you choose to use. However, I have found that using text editors for most of my work has given me a very good understanding of the medium of web design. If you haven't tried handcrafting HTML, then maybe it would be worthwhile digging up a text editor and seeing what you can learn.
~~~~~~~
What did you think? Not bad for 15 minutes?! :o)
Anyway thanks for reading, and you may be seeing me around this forum a little more!
Page: