You can stick to the standards and still create very nice looking sites, just because the w3c.org site looks bad doesn't mean that you can't stick to standards and produce good sites (Although it is not a good advert for it).
------------------
Karl Austin KDA Web Services
"Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film."
FP doesn't make crappy code when you stay from themes and bots, but it can be bad to code that you paste and it does add extra tags/overlapping tags.
The fact that it doesn't clean the code doesn't prove anything except that it doesnt clean up the code. Dreamweaver is really good with code, but includes a clearner anyway (which is useful when you import poorly generated pages such as themed FP pages).
You might be able to argue that it can become confusing when, for example, coloring text is involved...you can overlap tags and use more than needed, since all you're seeing sometimes is the output...might be a waste...but this is a problem with all WYSIWYG editors...
i don't know FP2000 at all, but surely it includes a "clean up HTML" function, (like Dreamweaver3), to do away with redundant tags? If that is not the case, then perhaps the editor is simply not that great. just a thought.
The editor is super! The fact that there is no clean up tool underlines that FP2000 does not at crappy code!
And if we would all create pages by the norm they all would look like w3.org. Who wants to see that everyday? And they just redesigned the site . Yuck...
Because DreamWeaver has a HTML cleanup tool doesn't mean that it adds 'crappy code'. I've seen the code made by DW many times and it looks very good and clean. I don't think that FP2k adds a lot of crappy code, as long as you don't use those themes and other different-from-normal-editors-stuff.
I agree about the W3 site, it's not a site were you would like to stay a whole day.
Just because parts of FP2000 are crappy doesn't mean the entire program is...I dislike AIM (I prefer MSN), but I still keep it around because I know enough people on it to make it worthwhile.
FrontPage2000 is similar in some respects for me...I still make use of it...it's saved me hundreds of hours in layout creaiton.
<LI> it does slow down loading time somewhat. Not too much, maybe .1 seconds. But if you have 1,000 pageviews a day, this adds up to 100 seconds that could have been saved. Yeah, 100 seconds longer to load your pages.
<LI>The tag was added so MS could keep track of who uses its software. Many HTML editors (WYSIWYG and text) add this to get an idea of how they are doing, and also to advertise their product to anyone looking at the code.
Your frames based pages should have a no frames page. Not all modern browsers can use frames. How is an Aureal browser used by the blind supposed to speak frames?
Did you know that if your an American Citizen or Company and you don't provide equal access to the disabled to your website, that you in violation of the law? Such violation could result in fines and or imprisonment.
I have not used FP 2000, but FP 97 and 98 do add a lot of extra code, extensions etc etc. Thats exactly why i never touched FP again and I dont think I will. I have read reviews on FP 2000 and some people say that it stopped adding bad code, so maybe its true, like I said, I have not used it. So its whatever floats your boat - if you are comfortable with FP - then more power to you. Just dont forget - there is nothing that FP can do that you can't code by hand!
temis: true, but there are things you can do within, say, an hour that you can do with FP and NOT by hand.
As for this "law"...it's ridiculous. It's not as if no one can access your site...they can download a better suited browser if they want...it's not at all like denying someone in a wheelchair a ramp for entrance...they HAVE a choice...
You can remove them simply by going to the properties of the page choose them and remove. There is also somewshere an option to stop FP2000 of adding this code. It is not crap code at all cause it gives developers who visit your site and wish to see how the page was made can see trough which browser it was made. And it makes the page NOT download slower..
About the typing: you can never beat FP2000..it's a speeding devil! Well a speeding angel
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
As for this "law"...it's ridiculous. It's not as if no one can access your site...they can download a better suited browser if they want...it's not at all like denying someone in a wheelchair a ramp for entrance...they HAVE a choice...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a grandmother who is almost blind and surgery won't help. Please tell me where I can get a better browser for her so she can see the internet like she wants. As it is now she can only listen to it like a radio.
I have been asked by my friends that have FP to help them out with their pages. I have found the redundit coding it produces to be quite annoying. HTML file size affects download time as well as image and multi-media files do, optimizing all files are the sign of good webmasters.
Oops, after saying that, I'd better go optimize more of my older pages LOL....
But, I don't really think that it adds that much in file size unless the file is really large to begin with.
My opinion is that if you know enough about your wysiwyg program to make nice pages, who gives a rat's tail which program is used. I just hate editing other's messed up pages that were done with FP. That does not mean that all pages made with FP are messed up. Perhaps the fact that I was asked to assist can mean that they were not the most adept at using FP yet.
I don't see why style has to be applied to every paragraph though, is this the case with all FP users, or maybe it was just my friends' pages. Not sure.
All I know is that I am very glad I learned to hand code my html and have become a very good tweaker when it comes to using other's scripts to enhance my pages so that I don't have to rely on wysisyg programs.
If you can edit your own work, cool. But expect for hand coders and users of other programs to not be happy with the fonky looking FP code. BTW....I've seen some other fonky looking codes produced by other wysiwyg editors too.
I can't figure out DW to save my life LOL, but was able to figure out FP the very first time, and never went back to either of them ROFLMBO and notepad is an excellent editor which loads very quickly and is much cheaper than the other mentioned programs on this forum subject LOL (oh but it don't have buttons *sniff sniff*)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by wluke: I have a grandmother who is almost blind and surgery won't help. Please tell me where I can get a better browser for her so she can see the internet like she wants. As it is now she can only listen to it like a radio. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure if I follow...are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me? Someone who's blind can't view a site at all unfortunatly...and I don't think any of us here are capable of producing braille websites (although I do think a printable braille site feature will evolve eventually...).
I'm not against making things easy on everyone...buildings need ramps for wheelchairs, baby strollers, etc...every parking lot should have a handicapped space, etc...but I think implementing that into websites is taking it a bit far...I can't think of an instance where it makes much sense.
The rules seem to imply that you need text links accompanying graphical links...someone with an old browser isn't "disabled"...they just havn't downloaded a new browser...in most cases I'm sure they're capable of downloading an updated one or getting their hands on another one...we put these sites up without government funding...we should be able to make them as browser-specific as we like.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by trcfreebies:
<LI>The tag was added so MS could keep track of who uses its software. Many HTML editors (WYSIWYG and text) add this to get an idea of how they are doing, and also to advertise their product to anyone looking at the code.
[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
100 seconds longer COMBINED...to each individual user on there it makes almost no difference.
You have obviously missed my point. Yes, the 100 seconds doesn't matter much when you combine it, but still that is 100 seconds of the server sending data to end users. That is also one site with not too much traffic. If these figures were increased a little, and everyone had just ONE extra tag, this would mean several thousand seconds extra that the server is sending data to end users.
If any web hosts read this, I am sure that they can agree that the extra tags serve no purpose to the user, and deteriorate (slightly) from everyone.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
I'm not sure if I follow...are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me? Someone who's blind can't view a site at all unfortunatly...and I don't think any of us here are capable of producing braille websites (although I do think a printable braille site feature will evolve eventually...).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagreeing with you.
The blind already have access to devices that work like this. Its not printed but converted to sound i.e. Text to Speech. The page is then "read" to the user. Unfortunately these browsers have no way of doing frames hence my earlier comment about "How do you speak frames". Granted these are first or second generation devices but they do work and fairly well.
The solution is rather simple and that is to provide a simple frameless interface through the use of the noframes tag and the use of ALT attributes on graphics. With no ALT attribute the Reader just says "graphic", when it comes to an image tag. I personally have known blind people who work in programming, police dispatch and other professions, so to expect them to not enjoy the internet is not a really good option. The internet should be open to all, even if it makes our jobs as developers more difficult, it should still be an attainable goal.
..
/font><HR>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks