SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 108
  1. #76
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whichever you choose just make sure the site looks as a whole thing. There are a lot of "FrontPage Sites" out there with cheap graphics on every corner. It should be like a good composition. It's not about images at all. If you don't have the artistic eyes, use a color scheme tool to catch the right tunes. Harmony!

  2. #77
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are a lot of "FrontPage Sites"
    Do I detect a garnishing of Design Tool Snobbery here? One day people may respect that it isn't the tool, but the tool-holders skill which makes the difference.

  3. #78
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    Do I detect a garnishing of Design Tool Snobbery here? One day people may respect that it isn't the tool, but the tool-holders skill which makes the difference.
    No it is not "design tool snobbery". FrontPage is a piece of crap software that generates horrendously awful code that in no way reflects or respects W3C HTML and CSS specifications and is a major reason lots of pages do not render properly across different browsers. FrontPage should NEVER be used for "professional" web development. We might debate forever on WYSIWYG vs. hand coding, but with FrontPage the case is closed. FrontPage should only be used by amateurs who, are simply trying to create a personal site. Anyone calling themselves a professional should never use this product.

    Good skills can not make up for FrontPage's short comings.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  4. #79
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dare I suggest that what you have written above is utter rubbish at worst, and just plain untrue at best?

    Personally, I use DreamWeaver, but I have used FrontPage for many many years too. Further, I will happily meet any challenge which states that one cannot write valid code in FrontPage. You cannot, if you don't know FrontPage perhaps, but to suggest that it can't is flatly untrue and innacurate.

    Edit. Here you go, I've just added a new page to my site using FP. The site is all valid XHTML Strict, so I'll challenge you to tell me which page was done in FrontPage?

  5. #80
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    You cannot, if you don't know FrontPage perhaps, but to suggest that it can't is flatly untrue and innacurate.
    The only way one can write valid code in most WYSIWYG editors especially FrontPage is switch to the edit source mode. 99% of people who use FrontPage, only use the WYSIWYG mode. FrontPage is a piece of crap software designed to do nothing more than extend Micosoft's monopoly. Its FrontPage extensions leave all kinds of security breaches within within websites and Microsoft's canned objects are netorious for creating IE only functionality. The code generated by FrontPage is unnecesarily bloated and creates HTML files that are two, three or four times larger than they need to be if the code was created properly. No one with any self respect who considers themself a profesional should be caught dead using FrontPage, period.

    --edit--
    If you are creating valid HTML/XHTML, in FrontPage, then you are not using its WYSIWYG editor so what is the point in using FrontPage? You could simply use Microsoft's best HTML editor, Notepad.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  6. #81
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Challenge still stands. Either it can write valid code, or it can't. Which is it to be?

  7. #82
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Front Page Sucks. Dreamweaver Sucks. Microsoft Sucks. Simple as that. Hand code, and leave the 'wysiwhat you don't get' alone.

    I've got no love for wysiwygs, as they can't possibly guess how you want to code. I, personally care as much about the back side as the front. Even if they validate, a bunch of absolutely positioned tables isn't the best option.

  8. #83
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice intellectual response, but, dare I say, lacking a little in reasoning?

  9. #84
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    Challenge still stands. Either it can write valid code, or it can't. Which is it to be?
    You haven't proven anything as you have not provided any links to valid FrontPage code. Code that is written in view source mode where FrontPage was not allowed to actually generate the code does not count. Again, if you are editing the code directly thus not using FrontPage functionality, what's the point in using a WYSIWYG editor?
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  10. #85
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lol I despair. So a functionality that Frontpage provides to do exactly what you describe makes it invalid?

    I'm good but I can't reason with that sense of logic. lol

    And to answer your question of why use a WYSIWYG, that's a simple one -- I don't have the burden of code-snobbery to carry around with me. I use whatever I feel most comfortable with at that moment.

  11. #86
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is not code snobbery, as you so claim. It is a simple fact of life that most WYSIWYG editors can not generate clean valid code nor do many provide tools to validate the code being generated so that it can be cleaned up. You keep posting claims of writing valid code using FrontPage, but have not provided any proof. Furthermore, it would be a lot easier to simply use a tool that was designed for the job of creating valid code than to force valid code out of FrontPage to prove a point.

    In my expierence, "developers" who use FrontPage don't even know or care what W3C is. They create a page and then struggle to get it to work in non-MSIE browsers and blame the problem on these obscure problems when the problem lays at the feet of Microsoft.

    Any profesional who has been in this business and cares about doing the job correctly the first time knows that if they want to create quality code that works correctly across different browsers and is accessible to those with disablities, they shouldn't use FrontPage. If one is going to sell themself as a profesional to others, they have an obligation to their clients to create good quality code that works correctly across different modern browsers and is accessible to those with disablities. Thus FrontPage should not be used by those who claim to be professionals.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  12. #87
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a good argument but fails to address the likes of me. I've asked you to go find the page on my site which was written using FrontPage, you've elected not to, apparently, because if I use the Code Edit view then I'm not really using FrontPage. (A real head-scratcher if ever there was one.)

    My site is perfectly valid according to W3C standards, looks fine in all recent browsers, and was coded in Dreamweaver, so again, I'm struggling to see the basis of your argument. Which bit am I missing?

    I also note that you're happy to accuse FrontPage of being little more than Microsoft's monopoly extension, though you are happy to cater for those who use MS Access and MS SQL Server, according to your own site?

    So are we to assume that they are second rate clients for not electing Oracle or some other more elite database? Where does the limit of finger-pointing mockery end exactly?

    You seem to be contradicting yourself quite profusely.

    I also note that you now wish to highlight 'developers' as opposed to designers. So again, is it because our site uses php and mySQL, I cannot possibly be a developer? Or am I not allowed to be a designer and a developer. It's getting very confusing.

    Help me out here, because I confess, I'm really struggling to make sense of it.

  13. #88
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyway, so that I don't drivvle on all day, and in light of the spam above, shall we just agree to agree that I believe you are a code-snob who lets his opinions cloud his judgement, and you believe that I am a rank-amateur for daring to use a WYSIWYG editor?

    I'm sure we'll both sleep well tonight despite it.

    Otherwise, I fear we'll be going around in circles all day long.

  14. #89
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Get the thread back on on topic please.
    Former Design Your Site Team Leader

  15. #90
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Per URAlly's request, I'm going to make this my last off topic reply to this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    It's a good argument but fails to address the likes of me. I've asked you to go find the page on my site which was written using FrontPage, you've elected not to, apparently, because if I use the Code Edit view then I'm not really using FrontPage. (A real head-scratcher if ever there was one.)
    If you manually code your sites, why do you use FrontPage and give credit to FrontPage for your work. If you manually code, you are creating the page, not FrontPage. FrontPage can't create valid code that functions properly in a wide array of browsers--period. The individual, on the other hand who understands HTML and CSS syntax on the other-hand can. Give me any HTML editor that allows me to control the source code directly without the use of it's WYSIWYG and I can create valid code using it. However, very few WYSIWYG editors including FrontPage, can create even close to valid code via the WYSIWYG interface. Now there are some WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver that do a better job and producing clean code, but very few that can produce valid code that uses the tags as they were intended. It just isn't technically feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    I also note that you're happy to accuse FrontPage of being little more than Microsoft's monopoly extension, though you are happy to cater for those who use MS Access and MS SQL Server, according to your own site?
    This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Yes I cater to those who use MS Access and MS-SQL. These are primarily in-house applications (read not web enabled). Plus MS Access and MS-SQL are two products that can stand on their own merits with MS Access making a good front-end application with MS-SQL being the backend engine. What you failed to notice is that I also offer MySQL development, which I primarily use in conjunction with Apache/PHP for web development.

    For in-house business operations, whether to use MS Access, MS-SQL, MySQL or Oracle depends upon the business needs and does not affect the technology decisions of others. Likewise, whether a site is developed using Apache/PHP/MySQL or IIS/ASP/.NET or a Java server is an internal business decision that should have no bearing on users of that website. It is the final HTML/CSS that matters not the server technology that is used to produce those pages.

    The tools we use to develop websites and how graphically rich or lean those sites are is what affects the end user experience. If we as professionals choose to thumb our noses at W3C specifications or use tools that create unnecessarily bloated HTML, CSS or images, we will have a negative impact on users. Because we would be producing sites that don't function correctly in the browser of the user's choice or have load times that are longer than is necessary.

    The argument of FrontPage vs. professional tools and graphically rich vs minimalist boils down to one consideration--the end user's experience. If a page takes too long to load or doesn't display properly in the user's browser of choice, it will produce a bad user experience. Clean, efficient, hand coded HTML/CSS will always have a smaller download size than a comparably designed site produced via WYSIWYG. The less bandwidth consumed by the source code, the more bandwidth that could be allocated to graphics without producing a negative experience for users.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  16. #91
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    Nice intellectual response, but, dare I say, lacking a little in reasoning?
    What reasoning do you want exactly? Look around ya.

  17. #92
    SitePoint Addict Ronny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KLB
    Graphical vs Minimalistic Site Design
    My choice is of course somewhere between the two, tends more to the minimalistic side, let's say about 65%

    Loading times are highly important. So is usability for handheld devices, which is often screwed up when using graphics-heavy designs. I'm always start with a simple, very minimalistic design, then try to think how to make it more interesting without adding too much weight. My favorite choice is gradients - They weight only about hundreds of bytes and they really add something to the whole look & feel.
    Check out my new vcard at RonnyO.com
    BlinkIP.com - The fastest way to your IP

  18. #93
    SitePoint Enthusiast scattermachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronny
    My favorite choice is gradients - They weight only about hundreds of bytes and they really add something to the whole look & feel.
    Can you give a few links so I can see some samples? This sounds interesting...

    Thank ya kindly!


  19. #94
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronny
    My favorite choice is gradients - They weight only about hundreds of bytes and they really add something to the whole look & feel.
    Yeah gradients are good material to tile.

  20. #95
    SitePoint Addict Ronny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by scattermachine
    Can you give a few links so I can see some samples? This sounds interesting...

    Thank ya kindly!

    www.goask.net is one example, and www.24fans.co.il is even better, although it's in Hebrew - You can still see its layout...
    Check out my new vcard at RonnyO.com
    BlinkIP.com - The fastest way to your IP

  21. #96
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minsk, Belarus
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question need help

    Can you help me to think about what pictures shall I add to the web-site to make it with WOW effect. The site is of offshore software outsourcing company

  22. #97
    SitePoint Addict Ronny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's a bit off-topic, and you didn't write the URL...
    Check out my new vcard at RonnyO.com
    BlinkIP.com - The fastest way to your IP

  23. #98
    SitePoint Enthusiast kajax101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have two points to make on this subject.

    1. (As many have already stated) The type of website 'look & feel' you create for your website, depends on the group your targeting. I personally prefer minimalistic website and I beleive that this style can be adapted for all genres of website. But I certainly can't blame websites like 'nike.com' for having an 'all singing, all dancing' website, this is part of their image.

    2. I think that using CSS can really be a powerful way to design a website, when better browser compatibility is more wide-spread, CSS will be come even more powerful, simply take a look at this site for some example of beautiful CSS:

    http://www.csszengarden.com/

    some of my fav designs being:
    http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...rden/style.css
    http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...szen/style.css (nice use of gradients)
    http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...den/sample.css (nice use of bold imagery and css)
    http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...den/sample.css (good enough to eat/drink)

  24. #99
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oes
    Can you help me to think about what pictures shall I add to the web-site to make it with WOW effect. The site is of offshore software outsourcing company
    People in suits.

  25. #100
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    kajax101,

    The csszengarden is an excellent showcase of what can be done. It's a shame too many people are still not getting past the box layout.

    I'm going to submit an entry there in a week or so.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •