Antenna Web Design Studio

[Michael Winter]

I'm curious to know if anyone has used this software.

Is its output consistently awful, as demonstrated by the markup used
with the product site, or is it just that the author is inept?

<http://www.stormdance.net/>

I haven't used Frontpage in quite a while, but I wonder: do we have a
contender for the worst WYSIWYG software?

Mike

 

[Andy Dingley]

Is its output consistently awful, as demonstrated by the markup used
with the product site, or is it just that the author is inept?

<http://www.stormdance.net/>

An inept author couldn't have made that. It's awful, but it's neatly
and consistently awful.

 

[hywel.jenkins]

I'm curious to know if anyone has used this software.

Is its output consistently awful, as demonstrated by the markup used
with the product site, or is it just that the author is inept?

<http://www.stormdance.net/>

I haven't used Frontpage in quite a while, but I wonder: do we have a
contender for the worst WYSIWYG software?

The overview page for the software does, however, validate as HTML4.01
Transitional.

 

[kchayka]

do we have a contender for the worst WYSIWYG software?

I nominate a DIY online service for #1: homestead.com

They provide their users with a Java-based editor that doesn't permit
anything except attempts at a pixel-perfect layout. All font sizes must
be absolute, all elements are absolutely positioned and sized (all in px
units, of course). The code is bloated with not only the usual
deprecated junk, but piles of inline styles setting fixed dimensions and
positions.

See the results yourself:
<URL:http://btautotransport.homestead.com/>
(Site chosen at random from homestead's Customer Sites page
<URL:http://www.homestead.com/~site/qslo/featuredsites.html>)

Document structure or visitor accessibility aren't considerations, thus
the resulting page is a disaster on both counts. The user has no access
to the generated source code either, but the type of people who use this
service aren't likely to know what to do with it anyway.

In homestead's help doc, they say that if a visitor complains about text
overlapping or other display issues, they should change their system
display settings to match homestead's "standard", then everything will
be peachy!

I once sent homestead an email pointing out the WAI guidelines regarding
authoring tools, but they were too clueless to get it.

My #2 pick is the similar service at yahoo. It is capable of making the
same mess, but at least the user can avoid some of it if they're mindful.

 

[dorayme]

An inept author couldn't have made that. It's awful, but it's neatly
and consistently awful.

So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it? Compared to what?
So the rest of us mugs can benefit from your private little tête
à tête here... (We are not talking source code here, boys...)

 

[Andy Dingley]

So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?

Yes. Like all of these on-screen design tools (extending as far as
Dreamweaver in some cases) it's based on DTP, not web design. There's
only one "view" of a page (window size, screen resolution, font sizes)
and although it might look perfectly adequate in that one context, it
suffers badly for anything different.

 

[dorayme]

Yes. Like all of these on-screen design tools (extending as far as
Dreamweaver in some cases) it's based on DTP, not web design. There's
only one "view" of a page (window size, screen resolution, font sizes)
and although it might look perfectly adequate in that one context, it
suffers badly for anything different.

You are doubtless right. I make a comment now not meant to
flatly contradict you. The situation may be worse than you
think!

To take just one point, I am back on my Mac and notice that it
breaks up horribly at different font sizes. This has nothing to
do with Dreamweaver much, it is really quite a naive or ignorant
use of it I would say... I would rather fall down a hole in the
ground and be pissed on by passing kangaroos than use any of
these alleged wysiwigs, but here I digress.

 

[Michael Winter]

On 22/10/2005 02:44, dorayme wrote:

[snip]

So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?

So, you want to determine quality based solely on how a section of the
potential audience might see a document? That would seem to be quite a
restricted view of 'quality'. It seems to me that software that has the
purpose of generating HTML and CSS should be able perform that task
adequately.

As for your question: awful? No, not quite, but it is bad. The text is
too small to be comfortable, and there's low contrast between text and
background images.

If we move away from the norm and impose a minimum font size (I use a
very reasonable 12px), the numerous 'overflow: hidden' declarations
cause some of the text to be hidden. Obviously, this only gets worse at
larger font sizes. If I look at the site using Opera with its text
browser emulation mode, it is unusable.

So the rest of us mugs can benefit from your private little tête
à tête here...

Private? I asked an open question. We know that any WYSIWYG program
/can/ produce rubbish if left to its own devices, but they don't always
have to. It can depend on the user of that program and whether that is
the case here was the subject of my question.

(We are not talking source code here, boys...)

You might not be, but I was.

Mike

 

[dorayme]

On 22/10/2005 02:44, dorayme wrote:

[snip]

So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?

So, you want to determine quality based solely on how a section of the
potential audience might see a document? That would seem to be quite a
restricted view of 'quality'. It seems to me that software that has the
purpose of generating HTML and CSS should be able perform that task
adequately.

As for your question: awful? No, not quite, but it is bad. The text is
too small to be comfortable, and there's low contrast between text and
background images.

If we move away from the norm and impose a minimum font size (I use a
very reasonable 12px), the numerous 'overflow: hidden' declarations
cause some of the text to be hidden. Obviously, this only gets worse at
larger font sizes. If I look at the site using Opera with its text
browser emulation mode, it is unusable.

So the rest of us mugs can benefit from your private little tête
à tête here...

Private? I asked an open question. We know that any WYSIWYG program
/can/ produce rubbish if left to its own devices, but they don't always
have to. It can depend on the user of that program and whether that is
the case here was the subject of my question.

(We are not talking source code here, boys...)

You might not be, but I was.

Mike

Michael, I agree with much of what you say. I know it was not
private! Just stirring you a bit to make you reveal further
information so that I can know more and be in a stronger
position when it comes time for me to take over the leadership
of the world... and you have further added informatively to the
thread.

As I said in another post, it looked not too bad at one font
size but really terrible at others, a sign to me that the wsiwig
probably needed an operator to heed some classic advice of
/knowing/ how to do without one at the very least...

I think there is a little issue, but it is not very pressing;
about you saying "So, you want to determine quality based solely
on how a section of the potential audience might see a
document?" I did not at all mean "soley" and I don't think the
average punter is just any old "section of the potential
audience".

Cheers anyway...

 

[dorayme]

From: Michael Winter <[email protected]>

On 22/10/2005 02:44, dorayme wrote:

[snip]

So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?

So, you want to determine quality based solely on how a section of the
potential audience might see a document? That would seem to be quite a
restricted view of 'quality'. It seems to me that software that has the
purpose of generating HTML and CSS should be able perform that task
adequately.

As for your question: awful? No, not quite, but it is bad. The text is
too small to be comfortable, and there's low contrast between text and
background images.

If we move away from the norm and impose a minimum font size (I use a
very reasonable 12px), the numerous 'overflow: hidden' declarations
cause some of the text to be hidden. Obviously, this only gets worse at
larger font sizes. If I look at the site using Opera with its text
browser emulation mode, it is unusable.
snip

Michael, I agree with much of what you say.
snip

As I said in another post, it looked not too bad at one font
size but really terrible at others, a sign to me that the wsiwig
probably needed an operator to heed some classic advice of
/knowing/ how to do without one at the very least...

I think there is a little issue, but it is not very pressing;
about you saying "So, you want to determine quality based solely
on how a section of the potential audience might see a
document?" I did not at all mean "soley" and I don't think the
average punter is just any old "section of the potential
audience".

Cheers anyway...

I notice a typo of mine...

In short, I mean that if a person caters for a very big section
of a website audience (say from 15" to 19" screens bracketed at
a couple font sizes either way of average settings for such
screens) the site will be very much better than one that does
not. This does not make it perfect, true. I was thinking that it
is a slightly misleading (though technically correct) use of the
word "solely" (here I typoed).

 

[Michael Winter]

[...] I don't think the average punter is just any old "section of
the potential audience".

Of course. The average type of visitor, whatever that might be, is going
to be the most frequently encountered and so a site /must/ render well
for them. However, that shouldn't mean summarily dismissing everyone
else, but this might be precisely what the software in question does if
it always generates markup like that displayed by the product site.

Mike

 

[dorayme]

[...] I don't think the average punter is just any old "section of
the potential audience".

Of course. The average type of visitor, whatever that might be, is going
to be the most frequently encountered and so a site /must/ render well
for them. However, that shouldn't mean summarily dismissing everyone
else, but this might be precisely what the software in question does if
it always generates markup like that displayed by the product site.

It is a pleasure to say I agree fully with you. And well put.