need true WYSIWYG editor

[Steve]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder. My first experience
with constructing pages was using geocities "pagebuilder", and I believe I
have been somewhat spoiled by it. Being able to move text and graphic
elements around a page as objects is a terrific feature that I cannot find
anywhere else to date. Is there an editor that can do this, preferably free
or cheap?

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:56:30 GMT, Steve is reported to have
stated:

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder.

No such thing. No wysiwyg program (AFAIK) is capable of displaying your
code correctly. And it certainly is _never_ going to be able to show you
what it will look like in every browser.

From what I have heard, Dreamweaver MX is the best of the wysiwyg editors,
but is significantly overpriced, IMO.

Much better to learn HTML and CSS and hand-code it. That way you have much
more control, and you avoid the additional fluff that wysiwyg editors add
in.

 

[brucie]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder.

not possible, a mind is required to determine what the html should be.

that was easy. next question?

 

[Richard]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder. My first
experience
with constructing pages was using geocities "pagebuilder", and I
believe I
have been somewhat spoiled by it. Being able to move text and graphic
elements around a page as objects is a terrific feature that I cannot
find
anywhere else to date. Is there an editor that can do this,
preferably free
or cheap?

Thanks,
Steve

www.stoneware.dk Stone's is excellent. HTML, CSS, Javascript tags and
attirbutes built in.
www.acehtml.com Ace free version includes a lot of scripts.
To really see what the page looks like, just save it then open in your
favorite browser.
I've found built in viewers don't always stack up right.
They're mainly designed to show you what you're doing.

 

[DU]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder. My first experience
with constructing pages was using geocities "pagebuilder", and I believe I
have been somewhat spoiled by it. Being able to move text and graphic
elements around a page as objects is a terrific feature that I cannot find
anywhere else to date. Is there an editor that can do this, preferably free
or cheap?

Thanks,
Steve

I recomend Mozilla Composer. It has now absolute positioning which is -
unless I'm mistaken - a first in all WYSIWYG html editors. You will
achieve valid and compliant markup also, maybe - not sure - much easier
than with other softwares.

Make sure you have
Edit/Preferences.../Composer/Cascade Style Sheets (CSS) Editing/Use CSS
instead of HTML elements and attributes
to make best use of the software for interoperable and evolutive pages.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

 

[DU]

Sometime around Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:56:30 GMT, Steve is reported to have
stated:




No such thing. No wysiwyg program (AFAIK) is capable of displaying your
code correctly.

If the software editor uses a highly compliant rendering engine, then
yes, such WYSIWYG should display your code accordingly (in a very wide
majority of cases, most of the time). This is one of the idea behind
Gecko engine (Mozilla and NS 7.1): you see how your code looks within a
highly compliant HTML rendering engine.

And it certainly is _never_ going to be able to show you

what it will look like in every browser.

.... unless these browsers are also highly compliant with known and well
established web standards such as HTML 4.01 (strict DTD), CSS1
properties and DOM1 attributes and methods.
Most of the time, the way a page looks in Mozilla Composer is pretty
much the way it will look in Mozilla 1.4+ and Opera 7.20 .... which are
2 different browsers from 2 different browser manufacturers. I'm
referring to not too complex pages here.

From what I have heard, Dreamweaver MX is the best of the wysiwyg editors,
but is significantly overpriced, IMO.

Both these following resources have good words for DreamWeaverMX

http://www.backupbrain.com/2002_11_17_archive.html#a003122

Standard compliant authoring tools (DevEdge):
http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/tools/2003/authoring/

but I can personally say and strongly submit and document that
DreamWeaver javascript functions are bad, not working well, bloated,
rusted, not recommendable, resorting to all kinds of bad coding
techniques which are regularly denounced as bad, etc..

Much better to learn HTML and CSS and hand-code it.

I certainly agree with you on this.

That way you have much

more control, and you avoid the additional fluff that wysiwyg editors add
in.

Tools will never replace nor substitute to expert knowledge (or
compensate lacks): only perseverance and will to improve can in the long
run.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:05:31 -0400, DU is reported to have
stated:

If the software editor uses a highly compliant rendering engine, then

That's a _big_ if. ;-)

yes, such WYSIWYG should display your code accordingly (in a very wide
majority of cases, most of the time). This is one of the idea behind
Gecko engine (Mozilla and NS 7.1): you see how your code looks within a
highly compliant HTML rendering engine.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I haven't tried Composer lately. I probably
should...

... unless these browsers are also highly compliant with known and well
established web standards such as HTML 4.01 (strict DTD), CSS1
properties and DOM1 attributes and methods.

And the editor does as well...

Most of the time, the way a page looks in Mozilla Composer is pretty
much the way it will look in Mozilla 1.4+ and Opera 7.20 .... which are
2 different browsers from 2 different browser manufacturers. I'm
referring to not too complex pages here.

Again, fair enough, though my comment was that it isn't going to show what
it will look like in _every_ browser. Since not every browser is "highly
compliant with known and well established web standards" (most aren't), I
think we do actually agree here, we are just coming at it from different
angles.

Both these following resources have good words for DreamWeaverMX

http://www.backupbrain.com/2002_11_17_archive.html#a003122

Standard compliant authoring tools (DevEdge):
http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/tools/2003/authoring/

I have also seen good reports, but haven't used it myself, so can't
comment. I use DW4 here (that's what my employer provides). It keeps
wanting to use a lot of deprecated HTML, and its CSS support is pathetic to
say the least.

but I can personally say and strongly submit and document that
DreamWeaver javascript functions are bad, not working well, bloated,
rusted, not recommendable, resorting to all kinds of bad coding
techniques which are regularly denounced as bad, etc..

Yes, I don't know a lot about Javascript, but I do know that DW (and FW)
scripts are really bad.

 

[Whitecrest]

No such thing. No wysiwyg program (AFAIK) is capable of displaying your
code correctly. And it certainly is _never_ going to be able to show you
what it will look like in every browser...

One product will never show you how it will look on ALL browsers, but
there are plenty that will work very well on the majority of the
browsers out there.

From what I have heard, Dreamweaver MX is the best of the wysiwyg editors,
but is significantly overpriced, IMO.

Way over priced.

Much better to learn HTML and CSS and hand-code it. That way you have much
more control, and you avoid the additional fluff that wysiwyg editors add
in.

The two methods are not mutually exclusive. If you NEED a WYSIWYG
editor to create pages, then you should not use one.

 

[Art Sackett]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder.

I'm not aware of any such critter. But I can tell you about the beastie
that I use, Grey Matter Web Pro:

http://www.pagetutor.com/misc/grey.html

LLYWTL.

 

[DU]

Sometime around Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:05:31 -0400, DU is reported to have
stated:




That's a _big_ if. ;-)

Mozilla 1.5+ Composer users a highly compliant rendering engine. No if
here. Best is to wait for the final release of Mozilla 1.5 which should
be out in a few days top.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I haven't tried Composer lately. I probably
should...




And the editor does as well...




Again, fair enough, though my comment was that it isn't going to show what
it will look like in _every_ browser.

When you code for different browsers, your goal is not that your page
will look *_exactly_* the same in every browser (like a photocopy of an
original sheet) but that it should look pretty much the same (structure,
display, functionality) in all W3C web standards compliant browsers.
Right now, MSIE 6 for Windows in standards compliant rendering mode, NS
7.1, Mozilla 1.3+, Konqueror 3.1+ and Opera 7.20 do render well and
accordingly (in a very wide majority of cases) webpages that are not too
complex, webpages complying with HTML 4.01 strict DTD, CSS1 and DOM1
attributes and methods.

Since not every browser is "highly

compliant with known and well established web standards" (most aren't)

Well, we can have then a discussion on this. MSIE 6 for Windows in
standards compliant rendering mode, Mozilla 1.3+, Opera 7.20, Konqueror
3.1+ are 4 different browsers created by 4 different browser
manufacturers and they all are hightly complying with known and well
established web standards (HTML 4.01 strict DTD, CSS1 properties, DOM1
attributes and methods).
These 4 browsers represent ~= 70% of all browsers in use out there.
No "if", no "maybe, but" here.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

 

[DU]

DU wrote:

You'll find more links and references here:

Support for Netscape 7.x Composer and for website HTML edition
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html#HTMLWebsiteEdition

I've personally checked and read all the linked resources/references in
that section. The web site guide is best for beginners and intermediate
people.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

 

[Steve]

Thanks for all the advice. I have tried the Mozilla editor and it is
working out pretty well. I examined some of the pages I created "way back
when" with the yahoo/geocities pagebuilder app, and I find that each entire
page seems to be a table! Is this how they enable drag-and-drop placement
of images, etc??

Steve

 

[DU]

Sometime around Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:05:31 -0400, DU is reported to have
stated:




That's a _big_ if. ;-)

Here's more for you to consider. Just 24 hours before you wrote that, an
independent testing (20 page layout) on CSS positioning was done on 9
different browsers and, except for ICab (which scored 51%), all other 8
browsers achieved 95% or better.

http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd1003.htm#feature

Recent browser versions of already well-conforming-to-W3C-web-standards
browsers (HTML 4.01 strict DTD, CSS1, DOM1) will render a wide majority
of simple pages accordingly and correctly. I'm not the only one noticing
this on a regular basis. In the last year, I rarely was not able to do a
page (not too complex) which could not be rendered correctly on other
W3C web standards compliant browsers.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I haven't tried Composer lately. I probably
should...




And the editor does as well...




Again, fair enough, though my comment was that it isn't going to show what
it will look like in _every_ browser. Since not every browser is "highly
compliant with known and well established web standards" (most aren't)

It just can not be the case. Again, a page like
http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd1003.htm#feature
support the opposite opinion and thinking. Most web browsers in use out
there do support very well CSS1, HTML 4.01 strict DTD and DOM 1
attributes and methods.


DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

 

[Joel Shepherd]

I'm not aware of any such critter. But I can tell you about the
beastie that I use, Grey Matter Web Pro:

Mine keeps segfaulting. And every time somebody swings by my desk for
conversation, it page-swaps wildly for about 30 seconds, making it
rather difficult to keep up.

Is there going to be a patch out soon?

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Mark Parnell wrote:

No such thing. No wysiwyg program (AFAIK) is capable of displaying your
code correctly. And it certainly is _never_ going to be able to show you
what it will look like in every browser.

From what I have heard, Dreamweaver MX is the best of the wysiwyg editors,
but is significantly overpriced, IMO.

Yes, Dreamweaver is probably the best WYSIWYG editor, it also writes
pretty good, clear code that's easily checked for mistakes later on
manually, it's got a decent source code editor, and it's handling of CSS
is better than in most other WYSIWYG editors. Too bad I don't own it.
But it is WAAAY to expensive for what it can do, and you're better of
grabbing a few of the cheap or even free alternatives than to spend
hundreds of dollars on this program. But if you can get a cheap license
somewhere or money is no object...

 

[Whitecrest]

Yes, Dreamweaver is probably the best WYSIWYG editor, it also writes
pretty good, clear code that's easily checked for mistakes later on
manually, it's got a decent source code editor, and it's handling of CSS
is better than in most other WYSIWYG editors. Too bad I don't own it.
But it is WAAAY to expensive for what it can do, and you're better of
grabbing a few of the cheap or even free alternatives than to spend
hundreds of dollars on this program. But if you can get a cheap license
somewhere or money is no object...

Dreamweaver is not just an editor. It has other features to;
Multi Site Management
FTP
Server Side Script debugging,
Client Script debugging
Source control
Type a head Tag and attribute help
Built in Graphic Editor (lite version of fireworks)
Code validation
Cross browser validation

and the list goes on
(http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/productinfo/newfeatures/

Can you do all these things with other products? Sure you can, but then
they are not all integrated, and the total cost would probably be the
same.

Is it too expensive, Yea, I think so. But is it worth it? Yea I think
so.

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Dreamweaver is not just an editor. It has other features to;
Multi Site Management
FTP
Server Side Script debugging,
Client Script debugging
Source control
Type a head Tag and attribute help
Built in Graphic Editor (lite version of fireworks)
Code validation
Cross browser validation

and the list goes on
(http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/productinfo/newfeatures/

Can you do all these things with other products?

I know no other product that combines all these features in one place as
well as Dreamweaver does. The next might be Adobe's GoLive, which I
have, though I don't find it nearly as comfortable to use as
Dreamweaver. And I don't like to edit my pages in GoLive, though it's
okay for site management.

Sure you can, but then
they are not all integrated, and the total cost would probably be the
same.

Not quite the same I would guess, though granted, it saves a lot of time.

Is it too expensive, Yea, I think so. But is it worth it? Yea I think
so.

If you think it is worth it, it is not too expensive. I like
Dreamweaver, yes, but I'm not willing to go into a store and fork over
the kind of dough they want to have for it. But it's a good tool, yes,
and I never said otherwise.

 

[Jim Lingenfelter]

I am looking for a "truly" WYSIWYG webpage builder. My first experience
with constructing pages was using geocities "pagebuilder", and I believe I
have been somewhat spoiled by it. Being able to move text and graphic
elements around a page as objects is a terrific feature that I cannot find
anywhere else to date. Is there an editor that can do this, preferably free
or cheap?

Thanks,
Steve

You can try CoolPage which is available at www.3dize.com . It is
WYSIWYG and it works like a page design program where you create text
blocks and graphic blocks then you can drag them around where you want
and resize them as needed. It uses CSS to position the blocks, and
the resulting pages display well in most browsers. They have a free
version you can try out to see if you like it or not, and they have
three versions for sale. The free version puts a sound clip and 3Dize
button on your page which you can move anywhere you want. You can
then open the HTML pages after your design is complete and simply
delete the code for the sound clip and button. By doing this I
believe it is the same as the Standard version. It also has drag and
drop for graphics and comes with some clipart. It is not Dreamweaver
but it is free.

Jim

 

[Art Sackett]

Mine keeps segfaulting. And every time somebody swings by my desk for
conversation, it page-swaps wildly for about 30 seconds, making it
rather difficult to keep up.

Is there going to be a patch out soon?

Switch to realtime mode with the design task as the highest priority,
and disable interrupts. Nuthin' to it but to do it!

 

[Whitecrest]

If you think it is worth it, it is not too expensive....

It is too expensive for the masses. So it can be worth it, but still
too expensive.