Frontpage/Dreamweaver

[Brian Robertson]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

Brian.

 

[tech578]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

Brian.

Neither do a great job at creating valid web pages, but Dreamweaver is
a vastly better WYSIWYG tool. However, the hand coding of pages is
still the best option. I have never heard of an experienced web
designer that would even install or use Frontpage for anything.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

1. People won't point and laugh.

 

[richard]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

Brian.

If ya wanta go wysiwyg style, seamonkey ain't bad.
FP just sucks and DW is bloatware.

I'm tryin out seamonkey now because I need the value of a wysiwyg
editor.
It's free so what the hell?

 

[Ed Mullen]

If ya wanta go wysiwyg style, seamonkey ain't bad.
FP just sucks and DW is bloatware.

I'm tryin out seamonkey now because I need the value of a wysiwyg
editor.
It's free so what the hell?

Just remember to use a text editor to change the default Transitional
doctype after you save your page with Composer.

 

[asdf]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am
doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

Brian.

Neither do a great job at creating valid web pages, but Dreamweaver is
a vastly better WYSIWYG tool. However, the hand coding of pages is
still the best option. [snip]

....until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every page
individually, or using some ghastly search and replace routine.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

.. However, the hand coding of pages is still the best option. [snip]

...until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every
page individually, or using some ghastly search and replace routine.

Depends on how you construct your site.

If you use server-side includes, you should be able to change everything
but the individual page's content by editing just the include file(s).

 

[richard]

Just remember to use a text editor to change the default Transitional
doctype after you save your page with Composer.

For my needs, that's just fine. Nothing but pure text in tables.

 

[Neredbojias]

Yeah but I usually lie with the notion in the back of my head of taking off
my shoes for the worldy pursuits one doesn't really have to travel all that
far for.

 

[asdf]

.. However, the hand coding of pages is still the best option. [snip]

...until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every
page individually, or using some ghastly search and replace routine.

Depends on how you construct your site.

If you use server-side includes, you should be able to change everything
but the individual page's content by editing just the include file(s).

....assuming that the last bunny who edited the site knew that.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" :

:
.. However, the hand coding of pages is still the best option.
[snip]

...until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every
page individually, or using some ghastly search and replace
routine.

Depends on how you construct your site.

If you use server-side includes, you should be able to change
everything but the individual page's content by editing just the
include file(s).

...assuming that the last bunny who edited the site knew that.

....assuming that the new bunny is going to correct it and update it.

 

[asdf]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" :

asdf wrote:
:
.. However, the hand coding of pages is still the best option.
[snip]

...until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every
page individually, or using some ghastly search and replace
routine.

Depends on how you construct your site.

If you use server-side includes, you should be able to change
everything but the individual page's content by editing just the
include file(s).

...assuming that the last bunny who edited the site knew that.

...assuming that the new bunny is going to correct it and update it.

You can do this with DW, as you can with any other text editor. It's just a
hell of a lot easier to do this with DW templates. DW however comes with a
WYSIWYG editor that you can use *if you choose to do so*.

Easy Peasy.

 

[Jeff]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am
doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

Brian.

Neither do a great job at creating valid web pages, but Dreamweaver is
a vastly better WYSIWYG tool. However, the hand coding of pages is
still the best option. [snip]

...until you have to maintain a site where you have to touch every page
individually, or using some ghastly search and replace routine.

Never heard of templates and CMS?

You always want to carefully construct your template so that it won't
break and the best way to do that is to hand code your template so you
know exactly what it does. I've seen and fixed my share of Dreamweaver
stuff.

You have to be a quite masochist to have a site that isn't CMS.
Either that or be 5 years out of date.

Jeff

 

[dorayme]

You have to be a quite masochist to have a site that isn't CMS.
Either that or be 5 years out of date.

That's me, folks!

 

[asdf]

That's me, folks!

dorayme... you and me should stick together...

CMSs are great if you want a slow (witness PLONE - awful. It's so slow it's
painful), 'breakable', insecure, non-standards-compliant site IMHO, and
should not be used unless your content changes every day, hour or minute.
Much more cost effective to engage a web developer who knows what they are
doing, methinks . Higher quality code and much more effective use of
resources. ...and it DOESN'T MATTER what tools you use... the quality of the
code has got much more to do with the developer than the tools that he or
she uses IMHO.

*ducks - waiting for the flak*

 

[Brian Robertson]

1. People won't point and laugh.

There's always one. ;-)

Brian.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You have to be a quite masochist to have a site that isn't CMS.
Either that or be 5 years out of date.

Interesting, I work with a lot of CMS's and many of the developers say
while updating the words on the site is easier, the creativity you
have for the site is greatly limited. Most would prefer to not use
one (mind the kinds of sites I work on)

On the other side of that coin, I worked with Siemens on some
training, and they had novices updating parts of their intranet. 8
hours of class and you were qualified to change the intranet. They
use Microsoft's CMS/DMS and are very happy with it. But, they don't
give ANY created control to the people updating the site. So they are
able to maintain quite a large site with a small handful of skilled
people and a shitload of novices that just change the content in the
CMS or DMS.

 

[David Segall]

I use Frontpage 2003 to create webpages. It works for me and, after all,
that's what matters. I am more than capable of diving into the raw code
to tweak things when the need arises and so I am happy with what I am doing.

But, I am told that Dreamweaver is a better tool, so if I did get hold
of Dreamweaver, what would the advantages be?

I have never used Frontpage but my favourite bit of Dreamweaver is the
CSS editor. If you select anything on the page, either in the HTML or
in the WYSIWYG editor, Dreamweaver shows you all the CSS that applies
to it. If you select a property it shows you where that property is
defined and all the other properties that are defined there; the
location of any overridden properties that will apply to the selection
is displayed. You can edit the CSS at any level without opening the
CSS file or finding the CSS code in the HTML file.

Anyway, why not try it and see what you think?
<https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=dreamweaver>

 

[Jeff]

That's me, folks!

There's a big difference between doing this as a personal site versus
commercial work. If you are doing commercial work one page at a time,
good luck to your client!

Most of us have worked on sites that have been through a string of
web designers. It's easy to tell as you'll find shifting navigation and
page looks. For commercial work, its all about maintenance. Except for
the few that are on staff just to maintain a site, it's about getting
the client to maintain the site without destroying it.

Jeff

 

[Jeff]

Interesting, I work with a lot of CMS's and many of the developers say
while updating the words on the site is easier, the creativity you
have for the site is greatly limited. Most would prefer to not use
one (mind the kinds of sites I work on)

On the other side of that coin, I worked with Siemens on some
training, and they had novices updating parts of their intranet. 8
hours of class and you were qualified to change the intranet. They
use Microsoft's CMS/DMS and are very happy with it. But, they don't
give ANY created control to the people updating the site.

I think it's almost always better to separate the creative people from
the content people. Once you let ordinary folks have creative control
you'll get god awful pages. And the sad fact is they may think it's just
lovely. Let the content people do what they may with headings, lists,
paragraphs and images but keep them out of the styling. You can always
add a new template or a widget if they need something different or creative.

I have a client that discovered the center tag and in short order
made a couple of "lovely" but really hard to read pages.

Jeff


So they are