Frontpage

J

Jim Scott

I know that several here do not use FP and I understand their reasons.
However are there any of you who DO use FP?
Just interested, as people who are content with things tend to get on and
say nothing.
 
R

rf

Jim said:
However are there any of you who DO use FP?

Yep. I use it all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client (usually) to
synchronize the local copy of my web sites with the copies at the server. I
know, I could find another one just as good but, well, I have FP and am used
to it.

Oh, do you mean do I use it to actually produce/write HTML or something? Not
a bloody chance. FP produces invalid bloated and deprecated HTML with a very
low understanding of CSS and totally rips apart anything I write in PHP. I
never ever use the editor bit[1]. Crimson editor is the one I use for
producing web/PHP pages.

[1] With one single exception. If I have a bunch of images to plonk on a
page then I might use FP to produce a dummy page that I drop those images
into. I like the way it puts the dimensions of the images into the generated
HTML. I then copy/paste the code into my real editor and discard the FP
produced dummy page.

Cheers
Richard
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

_____/ On Tuesday 23 August 2005 11:27, [rf] wrote : \_____


I used to, but not for a long time. It was a good way to start getting a
feel for Web design. Time and experience have shown that it was not
necessary and encouraged poor knowledge of (X)HTML/CSS. The outcome of this
abstraction is lack of flexibility and dependency on a single-platform
product rather than on a text editor.



I know a few who use Dreamweaver, but Frontpage seems to have lost its
spark.

Yep. I use it all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client (usually) to
synchronize the local copy of my web sites with the copies at the server.
I know, I could find another one just as good but, well, I have FP and am
used to it.


I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux? You can
edit the files over FTP as if they were placed locally. KDE does all the
copying over FTP in the background.

Oh, do you mean do I use it to actually produce/write HTML or something?
Not a bloody chance. FP produces invalid bloated and deprecated HTML with
a very low understanding of CSS and totally rips apart anything I write in
PHP. I never ever use the editor bit[1]. Crimson editor is the one I use
for producing web/PHP pages.

[1] With one single exception. If I have a bunch of images to plonk on a
page then I might use FP to produce a dummy page that I drop those images
into. I like the way it puts the dimensions of the images into the
generated HTML. I then copy/paste the code into my real editor and discard
the FP produced dummy page.


I do the same thing with KDE's thumbnail gallery generator.

Roy
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Jim Scott quothed:
I know that several here do not use FP and I understand their reasons.
However are there any of you who DO use FP?
Just interested, as people who are content with things tend to get on and
say nothing.

FP might be good if you're brand new to markup, as in not knowing
anything at all about it. However, it's a rather expensive primer.
 
R

rf

Roy said:
Yep. I use it [FP] all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux?

Given that I just said I use FP (FTP only) what would make you think I would
ever consider linux? I use Windows. I have to. It is my target market. My
bread and butter.

Cheers
Richard.
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

_____/ On Tuesday 23 August 2005 14:47, [rf] wrote : \_____
Roy said:
Yep. I use it [FP] all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux?

Given that I just said I use FP (FTP only) what would make you think I
would ever consider linux? I use Windows. I have to. It is my target
market. My bread and butter.

The same goes for 80% of my visitors, but it's transparent. The Internet is
open so the way you edit your files and the server you run is something
that does not affect your target market. Look at Google, for example, with
Linux machines all over the place serving a marjet of ~95% Windows users
and doing this rather successfully.

Roy
 
E

Edwin van der Vaart

Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, Jim Scott quothed:


FP might be good if you're brand new to markup, as in not knowing
anything at all about it. However, it's a rather expensive primer.
Got FP with office 2003, it still sucks
 
E

Edwin van der Vaart

rf said:
Roy said:
Yep. I use it [FP] all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux?

Given that I just said I use FP (FTP only) what would make you think I would
ever consider linux? I use Windows. I have to. It is my target market. My
bread and butter.
Why not using smartftp, it's also free.
 
B

Barbara de Zoete

I know that several here do not use FP and I understand their reasons.
However are there any of you who DO use FP?
Just interested, as people who are content with things tend to get on and
say nothing.

What is good about FP is that it can get people to publish on the net, who would
never have done so without the software. Why that is good? Because it helps to
give all people an equal chance to publish. No matter where you're from, who you
are, what you have to say: you can without any special knowledge. All you need
to know is what you want to publish. You can focus on content, content and
content. And a bit on the looks.

It might easily be over ninety percent of the private publishers out there (no,
no studies, no statistics, just a hunge) who let FP (or Word or what ever) do
the job of creating markup. And who can blame them. Whatever the quality or lack
thereof, the stuff gets published and it is accessible to a large percentage of
the potential visitors.

Those using FP are actually people who have some authentic wish to publish in
the www. They don't use Word for the job, but got themselves a genuine piece of
software that is meant to do the job. They show some interest in doing it the
way it should be done. One should blame them for not knowing any better. At
least not initially.
Some may get the hang of it all. May get truely interested. May want more
control. May want knowledge on proper coding the markup. May want to know about
css. All because of FP and the like. If it wasn't for FP, the net wouldn't be
half as interesting as it is today. :)

All imho of course.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Edwin van der Vaart quothed:
Got FP with office 2003, it still sucks

What a coincidence. In 2003 I got an office and a secretary of similar
characteristic.
 
E

Edwin van der Vaart

Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, Edwin van der Vaart quothed:


What a coincidence. In 2003 I got an office and a secretary of similar
characteristic.
lol
 
R

rf

Edwin said:
rf said:
Roy said:
Yep. I use it [FP] all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux?

Given that I just said I use FP (FTP only) what would make you think I would
ever consider linux? I use Windows. I have to. It is my target market. My
bread and butter.
Why not using smartftp, it's also free.

Why would I? I have something that already works for me. If I were to use
*anything* else it would cost me money to learn how to use it, even if this
only took 5 minutes.

Cheers
Richard.
 
A

Andy Dingley

What is good about FP is that it can get people to publish on the net, who would
never have done so without the software.

One of the best things about the web is this easy access for people with
no other publishing route. However what they need is "software", not
necessarily Frontpage. There are any number of similar small-scale
vaguely wysiwyg packages which are both vastly cheaper than FP and
considerably better.

FP just isn't a good product. It makes bad markup by any standard, and
it carries a "professional" pricetag when its markup really is anything
but professional quality. Worst of all, it's a publishing tool for M$oft
Blackbird (anyone remember that ?), not for the Web. The web has
standards (FP ignores these) and it is cross-platform (it ignores this
too).

There is a niche for simple web publishing tools which I'm very much in
favour of supporting. I'd almost support FP if it tried to address this
- but it doesn't. FP could be simpler than it is, if it chose to address
simpler targets. In typical M$oft fashion though, it's seen as vital
that it offers every possible dancing penguin and complex feature,
whilst still not doing a good job of the basics.

I'd like Dreamweaver to be better. I don't like that either, although
it's better than FP. There is a market for a professional WYSIWYG tool,
one that assists the task of professional (i.e. paid) web developers.
This could cost real money and it can require a learning curve, so long
as it saves time in use and it delivers good markup. DW almost manages
this, FP fails completely.

HTML coding just isn't that difficult. With a good CSS stylesheet
already produced, I can author the HTML with a text editor faster than
someone with DW or FP, and I get a better end result too. FP almost
manages to do this too - the CSS "themes" are a far better idea than
DW's reliance on templates, although their implementation was poor an
their documentation was downright misleading as to what they were for.

FP's biggest failure is as a teaching tool - and this is why beginners
should be kept away from it more than any other group. FP teaches the
idea that you _need_ complex WYSIWYG tools to build web content (you
really don't) and it also teaches that a complicated page is a good
page. It teaches _nothing_ of good design styles, and certainly not good
coding styles, particularly not for CSS.
All because of FP and the like. If it wasn't for FP, the net wouldn't be
half as interesting as it is today. :)

"The like" possibly. But you simply don't need FP when there's HomeSite,
CoffeeeCup and HotDog as well.
 
A

AF

I know that several here do not use FP and I understand their reasons.
However are there any of you who DO use FP?
Just interested, as people who are content with things tend to get on and
say nothing.

I use it in two ways:

1. to support older sites I either inherited or which are small & have
uncomplicated designs and for which I do not have the time to convert.

2. to do a quick, simple page design and see it, colors, fonts, etc.
so I can adjust a font, color size etc. Sometimes after a late night
and even with much caffeine, I can not always see what html code will
look like, so FP is quick for doing this.

I usually don't publish with FP for the reasons others have listed. I
tend to use it for simple design.

If anyone has a WYSIWYG editor they like better than FP, I'd like to
hear about it.

Also if this editor helps with FTPing pages or transferring them and
also if it generates good clean code, something FP does not do, I'd
love to hear of it.

Finally FP seems easier than most editors I have worked with in
cutting, pasting, and organizing pictures, graphics files, etc. I
work occasionally with other web sites, and if I have the permission
of the web site's owner to use graphics, it is far easier to cut and
paste graphics into FP and hav it save the files than with other
editors.

Again I do not publish with FP, but use it for design tasks.

Please let me know if anyone has something better. I am not a fan of
FP or Microsoft.


Best regards,

Al
http://www.affordablefloridainsurance.com
http://www.americanbestmortgages.com
http://www.americanaffordablelifeinsurance.com
 
E

Edwin van der Vaart

rf said:
Edwin said:
rf said:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:


Yep. I use it [FP] all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux?

Given that I just said I use FP (FTP only) what would make you think I would
ever consider linux? I use Windows. I have to. It is my target market. My
bread and butter.
Why not using smartftp, it's also free.

Why would I? I have something that already works for me. If I were to use
*anything* else it would cost me money to learn how to use it, even if this
only took 5 minutes.
Then don't.
Hmmm. Always time is money and money is time.
 
W

wayne

AF said:
I use it in two ways:

1. to support older sites I either inherited or which are small & have
uncomplicated designs and for which I do not have the time to convert.

2. to do a quick, simple page design and see it, colors, fonts, etc.
so I can adjust a font, color size etc. Sometimes after a late night
and even with much caffeine, I can not always see what html code will
look like, so FP is quick for doing this.

I usually don't publish with FP for the reasons others have listed. I
tend to use it for simple design.

If anyone has a WYSIWYG editor they like better than FP, I'd like to
hear about it.

Also if this editor helps with FTPing pages or transferring them and
also if it generates good clean code, something FP does not do, I'd
love to hear of it.

Finally FP seems easier than most editors I have worked with in
cutting, pasting, and organizing pictures, graphics files, etc. I
work occasionally with other web sites, and if I have the permission
of the web site's owner to use graphics, it is far easier to cut and
paste graphics into FP and hav it save the files than with other
editors.

Again I do not publish with FP, but use it for design tasks.

Please let me know if anyone has something better. I am not a fan of
FP or Microsoft.


Best regards,

Al
http://www.affordablefloridainsurance.com
http://www.americanbestmortgages.com
http://www.americanaffordablelifeinsurance.com

I like NVU. The latest version has better code than previous versions,
nice and clean. NVU also has a CSS editor built in. You can toggle
between wsiwyg and html too. One thing I don't care for is the default
"text" behavior which inserts a <br> at every carriage return. Simply
choosing "paragragh" from the menu at the top will generate <p> </p>
tags when a carriage return is entered though.

It's free and I suggest those using FP download it and try it out.

Regards,
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Roy said:
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux? You can
edit the files over FTP as if they were placed locally. KDE does all the
copying over FTP in the background.

Hmmm. I would've never thought to use a browser.

I used to use gFTP, and used kbear for a while, but found it buggy.

Then when I checked out the Firefox FireFTP extension, I liked it and
have been using it ever since.

Wait! I said I'd never have thought about using a browser...

Well, I'm not *exactly* using a browser. ;)

Datapoint: Mandrake/KDE here.
I do the same thing with KDE's thumbnail gallery generator.

Hey, what's that called?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top