Forum Moderators: phranque
The home page and most of the second tier pages are done, just want to make sure i'm doing it right before I proceed.
[edited by: jatar_k at 12:01 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2007]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]
and actually try to clean up a page, my options are
tools > page options >....(no problem here)
and then.. (authoring, general, (thumbnail and other non relating), ruler and gring, code formatting, etc).
None give me the HTML source option you site.
Everyone defending Front Page keeps bringing up the point that it's not the tool, it's the user.
This is true, however, out of all the WYSIWYG editors out there, Front Page is the one editor that perpetuates user ignorance of basic document structure and basic HTML. Those of you who have gone the extra mile to learn these finer points of the program are the exception, not the rule.
Most users are not going to take the steps to learn about code formatting or cleanup unless they are forced to. These users see only presentation, not semantics or document structure. A case in point:
I've used FP for 10 years ... despite a few minor glitches (and you can expect that with *any* software or process) it's never caused me any trouble.
To RedCat I pose these questions: Have you LOOKED for trouble? Do your pages validate? Have you reviewed your documents for empty tags, deprecated code, any of the items mentioned in this thread? (BTW I am not singling you out, using your post as an example.) By saying "never caused me any trouble" I am guessing that your pages look fine to you in Internet Explorer and on your computer, and the only problems you've encountered are when the server-side Front Page extensions break down. That is to say, you haven't LOOKED for trouble, only waited for it to rear its ugly head.
FP Extensions brings me to my second point.
In my previous position at an ISP, I can attest to the hair-pulling, desk-pounding, red-faced rants I have heard expelled from the server room over Front Page Extensions on both Linux and Windblows servers. Part of Front Page working properly is keeping the Front Page extensions working correctly - so end users can use "publish" instead of learning FTP. So they can use "themes" instead of learning how to create unique graphics and construct image elements with proper alt attributes. Basically, the FP extensions create a whole set of issues most of you are unaware of - and probably don't care about - for system admins.
It's very easy for someone using Front Page to point fingers at a system admin, "it's your fault it's not working, don't blame your incompetence on my incompetence." Herein lies **my** biggest problem with Front Page. So much effort and so many resources required to support a proprietary format that is designed to support HTML ignorance. It is much easier - and in two specific cases I have done this - to retrain the customer to learn HTML and FTP.
When complete they were enlightened and thankful, free at last, free at last, thank God almighty free at last, from the bonds of Microsoft.
Well, for developing anyway. :-)
Most of my pages *do* validate, and I try and make sure they work adequately in the three or four most popular browsers... so is using deprecated code going to bring down Governements or accelerate Global Warming? Don't think so.
But FrontPage is *not* the worst offender - only probalby one of the best known products ... there are lots of software and online web page builders (no, I'm not going to name any of them) creating thousands of pages full of staggeringly bad code. I don't hear any rants about those...
I don't hear any rants about those...
Perhaps somebody should transfer those threads to fourm 11 as well ;)
I will supportwilderness's rants with two relevant points.
damn Bill!
I was beginning to believe that I somehow missed a requiremet in the Webmaster Wordld UAG/FAQ (possibly even hidden in the Charter) when I joined 6-7 years ago that requried everybody to use and praise FP ;) . . . .all the while talking out of the sides their mouths.
I was just about to have Jim overnight some "tranqs" when your reply came through ;)
Many thanks.
Don
Have you LOOKED for trouble? Do your pages validate?
FP does not perpetuate user ignorance of basic document structure and basic HTML any more than any other WYSIWYG. The Code view is shown on a split screen with the WYSIWYG. I can think of no better way to show a beginner how changes in the code will reflect on the final page and vice-versa.
server extensions
All of the trolling and FUD here about FP generating invalid and bloated code simply isn't true. That's why people like myself speak up. You're perpetuating a different form of ignorance. We're just trying to make sure that there is some balance to the discussion. Use the tool that you feel comfortable with and that helps you get the job done. If you don't like one tool, don't use it. However, the derision of webmasters for using FP is a largely uninformed stance to take.
Seems like Rocknbil thinks that only IT professionals should design web pages ...
It is sad case that you extrapolated this wild connection from my post. Part of my job is to educate complete novices in constructing web pages from scratch, and where to turn when they get into trouble. So additionally, it's a little ironic.
As I said, I was not singling you out, simply using your comments as an example.
However, the derision of webmasters for using FP is a largely uninformed stance to take.
Nowhere in my post did I present any form of "derision."
FP hasn't used the dreaded server extensions since 2000
Are you aware of how many Front Page users are still dependent on them? Like users who refuse to update their OS, nearly all of the Front Page customers I have worked with in the past two years are using F.P. 2000 or older (I count nine at the moment,) and **one** still updates his site using Front Page Express (of course, sans extensions.) Front Page Extensions are still very much alive.
By any means I would never belittle anyone for their choice of page production. But apparently, the difficulties of this particular editor are not open for discussion.
Those of you who have gone the extra mile to learn these finer points of the program are the exception, not the rule.Most users are not going to take the steps to learn about code formatting or cleanup unless they are forced to.
I previously mentioned that I spent two years in Word NG's in an attempt to discourage the use of Word in creating web pages.
During that process, I learned the "most" Word users believe that Word has the capibility to do anything between cutting the grass and placing shingles on the roof.
Attemtping to convince such users that Word is first and foremost a word prcessor was futile.
(on a side note; I found most Word users creating html could not even grasp simple path statments for their images).
The same applies to FP.
I have no doubt (even confidence) that a few have learned to use the software effectively.
The majority (and I'm referring to above 90%), however create crap.
You (Bill) and I know that, however these folks will never admit it!
BTW Bill,
You better check the Webmaster Word UAG/FAQ (possibly even hidden in the Charter) for FP requirements.
And keep sending those other rants to forum 11 ;)
Don
Are you aware of how many Front Page users are still dependent on them?
The number is in the millions.
Like users who refuse to update their OS, nearly all of the Front Page customers I have worked with in the past two years are using F.P. 2000 or older (I count nine at the moment,)
For most FP users, FP 1.0 (before FP 98) will do what they intended to do when they purchased FrontPage. ;)
And **one** still updates his site using Front Page Express (of course, sans extensions.) Front Page Extensions are still very much alive.
FrontPage Express. A jammin little editor that anyone can use. Set up the site using includes and then allow the client to use FP Express to modify content outside the includes. It was a great little program and probably still is for many. I've not found anything that is as easy as FrontPage Express for making quick edits at the server level.
Browse to the site. From IE's toolbar choose Edit. Then edit with FP Express. Up comes your un/pw dialog. Boom, you're in making live edits.
Again, I personally feel it all comes down to the person using the tool. It could be FrontPage, Dreamweaver, GoLive, HomeSite, or even Notepad for that matter. Heck, I could code a site in Notepad but I can't for the life of me figure out why I would want to do that. Especially if I have FrontPage at my fingertips. ;)
By any means I would never belittle anyone for their choice of page production. But apparently, the difficulties of this particular editor are not open for discussion.
Oh, all discussion on FrontPage is wide open around here. There just happen to be a few of us who are avid supporters of the program. We were lucky and found the key that unlocked the potential of the program. It all comes down to knowledge. If you don't know what the program is doing when you press a button, then there are going to be some issues after the fact. ;)
I have no doubt (even confidence) that a few have learned to use the software effectively. The majority (and I'm referring to above 90%), however create crap.
I have to ask again, what would you recommend for the beginner/novice web designer? You know, the secretary in the Lawyer's office who was given the task of building a website. What would you suggest she do? On a $500.00 budget? ;)
By the way, how would you rate code like this?
<body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 link=#0000cc vlink=#551a8b alink=#ff0000 topmargin=3 marginheight=3>
<center>
<div align=right nowrap style="padding-bottom:4px" width=100%>
<font size=-1><a href=""></a> ¦ <a href=""></a></font>
</div>
</center>
I have to ask again, what would you recommend for the beginner/novice web designer? You know, the secretary in the Lawyer's office who was given the task of building a website. What would you suggest she do? On a $500.00 budget? wink
For a novice with a $500 budget and some expectations of what they desire in a web page, I would recomend reatining somebody services.
Most experienced folks (html purists) will not even attempt to repair FP pages/sites becuase the amount of time required to repair the deprectaed html is so time consuming.
It's faster and easier just to create new pages.
BTW, I previously saw references to NotePad and anotehr to Dreamweaver. (Some say Dreamweaver has problems similar to FP.)
I use 1stPage 2000 (which is an enhanced text editor designed for html) it's NOT for everybody
[evrsoft.com...]
By the way, how would you rate code like this?<body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 link=#0000cc vlink=#551a8b alink=#ff0000 topmargin=3 marginheight=3>
<center>
<div align=right nowrap style="padding-bottom:4px" width=100%>
<font size=-1><a href=""></a> ¦ <a href=""></a></font>
</div>
</center>
There are at least three examples of deprecated html in your example that are the same the examples that I provided from the website page that began this thread.
There are at least three examples of deprecated html in your example that are the same the examples that I provided from the website page that began this thread.
That code is from Google's current home page. I doubt very seriously they are using FrontPage. And if they are, kudos to them. ;)
That code is from Google's current home page. I doubt very seriously they are using FrontPage. And if they are, kudos to them.
Who cares! (rhetorical)
If you think that's amazing?
You should run a validator on their page ;)
Who cares!
So there is really no justification to the argument that FP produces crap. We the people produce crap, FP and all other editors just facilitate it. ;)
... and what about digital cameras...?
Almost everone has one, but have you noticed how many times in a personal home page the picture titled "this is me" is taken in a mirror, or with an arm outstreched? Don't these people know how to use the timed shutter release facility?
If they can't manage that (a physical button on a real piece of equuipment) how are they going to understand the implications of pressing a virtual button in software?!
