why do people hate Frontpage?...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Smed, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Smed

    Smed Guest

    whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    website"...

    i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...

    why do people hate Frontpage?..

    what editors would you recommend?..

    -s
     
    Smed, Sep 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Smed" <> wrote in message
    news:rZiNg.1484$-kc.rr.com...
    > whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    > little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    > website"...
    >
    > i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    > Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...
    >
    > why do people hate Frontpage?..
    >
    > what editors would you recommend?..
    >
    > -s



    Homesite+

    It comes packaged with Dreamweaver, but it's a separate install.

    FrontPage is lame on many levels, not the least of which is how it creates
    dynamic content... and forget the HTML it creates...
     
    Runnin' on Empty, Sep 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Smed wrote:

    > whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give
    > that little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about
    > making a website"...


    I suppose it is ok for a personal/hobby site.

    > i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    > Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...


    The best 'editor' is a text editor.

    If you read the generated output source code, you might understand why
    FrontPage is not a good choice. It helps to understand raw HTML and CSS.
    Further, given its head, it will generate stuff that only IE users could
    see.

    > why do people hate Frontpage?..


    "Name the four worst HTML 'editors':"

    4. Microsoft FrontPage
    3. Microsoft Word
    2. Microsoft Excel
    1. Microsoft Publisher

    > what editors would you recommend?..


    http://crimsoneditor.com/ is quite good. It is an editor, not a WYSINWYG
    tool.

    If you really need a Gui, try NVu. http://nvu.com/

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 11, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <rZiNg.1484$-kc.rr.com>,
    "Smed" <> wrote:

    > whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    > little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    > website"...
    >
    > i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    > Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...
    >
    > why do people hate Frontpage?..


    Just about all of the WYSIWYG editors produce poor quality HTML. What's
    more, they encourage the bad (and common) misbelief that building a Web
    page with HTML is just like laying out a page for a magazine using
    Scribus or Pagemaker or Quark Xpress. Frontpage in particular likes to
    produce IE-specific code which is bad for non-IE users (like myself) and
    bad for standards in general.


    > what editors would you recommend?..


    I'll suggest Notepad but only to drive home the point that you can write
    high quality, interesting pages using nothing but that simple tool. It's
    worth doing (but only once!) as a learning experience. FirstPage from
    evrsoft.com used to be very good, but ISTR that something has gone
    downhill about their product and Web site. UltraEdit seems quite good;
    I've been using it on a project for about two weeks now. It has a free
    45-day eval period. Then there's JEdit which is 100% free. It is a
    general programmers editor and more complicated than you need if all you
    want to do is HTML.

    I assume you're not using a Mac since you're asking about Frontpage, but
    BBEdit is quite good on the Mac side.

    --
    Philip
    http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
    Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
     
    Nikita the Spider, Sep 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Smed

    bigdaddybs Guest

    Smed wrote:
    > whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    > little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    > website"...


    These people don't seem to realize that you can create the page in
    FrontPage Edit mode, and then edit the source to do what you wish. Yes,
    there are problems with FrontPage, but there are "problems" of some
    sort with ANY WYSIWYG and other editors.

    Personally, I use FP in Edit mode to type in my content. (No groans...
    I have absolutely NO CLUE how to use DBs for the sites I have that
    could, and it's much easier to edit the HTML if FP has put the tags on
    most of the stuff for me.) I do use the PREVIEW tag to double-check
    that my editing has not screwed up the way I wanted the page to look,
    and close it out. When I publish, FP keeps track of what pages are
    linked where (images, other pages, subdirectories, whatever) on my
    computer, and redoes the website links after everything's moved. (Other
    editors do this, too. However, I've had cases where when I didn't use
    FP for publishing, the links had to be redone "on-the-fly" live on the
    web. Maybe I'm missing something here...(?))

    And, yes... I have used Notepad at times. I also tried other
    (admittedly free) HTML editors, and none seemed to work as well for
    what I needed them to do.

    Purists will probably say you should NEVER use a WYSIWYG editor, though
    I'm sure all WYS's allow for much quicker and cleaner development and
    prototyping. Yes, if you have your layout, you can use Notepad (or it's
    cousins), though sometimes you will miss things that FP (or others)
    catches.

    If you feel comfortable with using FP while others don't, I don't see a
    problem either. I would simply say to be careful and DO NOT USE any of
    the "bells and whistles" that come with it... and DEFINITELY be careful
    if you create forms and input fields. You should be able to find
    examples by just searching for "forms html" or "form fields html" or
    something like that, and add them into your HTML directly (FP source,
    Notepad, etc.).

    Everyone has their favorites.

    > i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    > Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...


    Personally, I don't either, and, as long as it works for me...

    > why do people hate Frontpage?..


    Because it's a Microsoft product, plain and simple. They (MS) created a
    webpage builder so anyone who has used almost any MS (and other)
    product (especially word-processors) could use it, and people hate
    that!

    > what editors would you recommend?..


    I do agree that other MS products (Word, Excel, etc.) are VERY BAD at
    creating websites. They put a LOT of extra code in the HTML (almost, if
    not, EVERY line of HTML) that is unnecessary. (The only "extra" code I
    leave in my FP-created/-edited pages are in the META tags.)

    As I said, I've tried a few others, but as long as I'm (and you're)
    aware of what FP will add in that shouldn't be there, of what it CAN'T
    do, you validate your pages at http://validator.w3.org/, and the page
    layouts are double-checked with AT LEAST Firefox, I, personally, don't
    see a problem with it.

    BS
     
    bigdaddybs, Sep 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Smed

    Jasbird Guest

    On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:14:59 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >Smed wrote:
    >
    >> whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give
    >> that little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about
    >> making a website"...

    >
    >I suppose it is ok for a personal/hobby site.
    >
    >> i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    >> Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...

    >
    >The best 'editor' is a text editor.


    I actually use TextPad sometimes when coding because
    - I prefer the search and replace functions,
    - it loads instantly,
    - you can add a syntax file which allows HTML to be displayed with basic
    colour separation for elements, attributes, strings and content. From
    this I conclude that all those people claiming to use NotePad as their
    HTML editor are lying.

    PS: I think I agree with the comments above too because I used to
    Homesite a few years ago too. I prefer it to Dreamweaver's cluttered
    layout.

    Why would anyone use FrontPage in preference to GoLive, Dreamweaver,
    Homesite or even TextPad?
     
    Jasbird, Sep 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Smed

    Jasbird Guest

    On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:41:11 GMT, "Smed" <>
    wrote:

    >whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    >little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    >website"...
    >
    >i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    >Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...
    >
    >why do people hate Frontpage?..
    >
    >what editors would you recommend?..


    Ooops - The question was "why do I hate Frontpage"? I don't. I haven't
    used it because everyone has recommended me not to.

    What possible reason would I have for using it when I can use
    recommended editors instead (like GoLive, Dreamweaver, Homesite, or
    frigging TextPad)?
     
    Jasbird, Sep 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Smed

    Smed Guest

    thanks to all for the comments... i really appreciate the help...



    "Smed" <...
    > whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    > little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    > website"...
    >
    > i really dont see the disadvantages to it but then i have only used
    > Frontpage so i dont know the advantages to the others...
    >
    > why do people hate Frontpage?..
    >
    > what editors would you recommend?..
    >
    > -s
    >
     
    Smed, Sep 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Smed

    Andrew Guest

    On 12 Sep 2006 02:24:45 -0700, "bigdaddybs" <>
    wrote:

    >Smed wrote:
    >> whenever i tell people i use Frontpage for my html editor, they give that
    >> little laugh and say, "well i guess you aren't serious about making a
    >> website"...


    snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    >> why do people hate Frontpage?..

    >
    >Because it's a Microsoft product, plain and simple. They (MS) created a
    >webpage builder so anyone who has used almost any MS (and other)
    >product (especially word-processors) could use it, and people hate
    >that!


    Hi Bigdaddy,

    I seem to remember that many years ago Front Page was originally not
    actually a Microsoft program. Did they buy out a company that was at
    the time making a program called 'Front Page' and then apply the
    Microsoft magic to it?

    All the best,

    Andrew
    --

    Andrew
    http://www.andrews-corner.org/
     
    Andrew, Sep 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Smed

    David Segall Guest

    "Runnin' on Empty" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Smed" <> wrote in message
    >news:rZiNg.1484$-kc.rr.com...
    >> what editors would you recommend?..
    >>
    >> -s

    >
    >
    >Homesite+
    >
    >It comes packaged with Dreamweaver, but it's a separate install.

    If you have already paid for Dreamweaver why do you prefer Homesite?
     
    David Segall, Sep 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Jasbird wrote:

    > I actually use TextPad sometimes when coding because
    > - I prefer the search and replace functions,

    ...mark of a good editor.

    > - it loads instantly,

    ...means it's not bloated.

    > - you can add a syntax file which allows HTML to be displayed with
    > basic colour separation for elements, attributes, strings and
    > content. From this I conclude that all those people claiming to use
    > NotePad as their HTML editor are lying.


    Colour-coding, right? Quite beneficial. But, no, not necessary. Crimson
    Editor does that by default; no additional files necessary.

    If you take care how you code, leaving appropriate whitespace and
    perhaps even indents of code blocks, Notepad will work well. However,
    since it is a weak and basic editor, most people would choose something
    better, especially a tool that can edit multiple files at the same time.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jasbird wrote:


    >> - you can add a syntax file which allows HTML to be displayed with
    >> basic colour separation for elements, attributes, strings and
    >> content. From this I conclude that all those people claiming to use
    >> NotePad as their HTML editor are lying.

    >
    > Colour-coding, right? Quite beneficial. But, no, not necessary. Crimson
    > Editor does that by default; no additional files necessary.


    What I like about CrimsonEditor is that you can edit and make custom
    syntax files. I edited the Perl file to fully include the CGI.pm syntax,
    very useful...



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 12, 2006
    #12
  13. bigdaddybs wrote:


    > As I said, I've tried a few others, but as long as I'm (and you're)
    > aware of what FP will add in that shouldn't be there, of what it CAN'T
    > do, you validate your pages at http://validator.w3.org/, and the page
    > layouts are double-checked with AT LEAST Firefox, I, personally, don't
    > see a problem with it.


    Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix for
    IE...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 12, 2006
    #13
  14. Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    > other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix for
    > IE...


    But since IE is STILL the most popular browser I think this way is
    backwards. Make it work in IE (what everyone uses) the tweek for the
    lesser used browsers.

    I am NOT saying IE is better, only used more.
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 12, 2006
    #14
  15. "David Segall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Runnin' on Empty" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Smed" <> wrote in message
    >>news:rZiNg.1484$-kc.rr.com...
    >>> what editors would you recommend?..
    >>>
    >>> -s

    >>
    >>
    >>Homesite+
    >>
    >>It comes packaged with Dreamweaver, but it's a separate install.

    > If you have already paid for Dreamweaver why do you prefer Homesite?


    I (the company I work for, actually) purchases all my products in bundles
    and suites, I may only use some of the software once or twice a year, but
    when it's needed, we'd better have it.

    I do notice that Adobe is selling Homesite+ on it's own for only $99.00,
    what a deal, it used to be $600.00.


    Why is Homesite better than Dreamweaver?

    From a code only standpoint, Dreamweaver blows... macromedia tried to
    incorporate some of the better features of Homesite into it for coders, but
    it's still too cluttered and awkward to use for my tastes.

    Once set up to your coding pref's Homesite is extremely fast for coding
    HTML, CFML, PHP, and even ASP (although I don't use it), not so helpful for
    CSS.

    But that's not an issue, since a style sheet is the smallest part (as far as
    volume) of the code.

    First of all, the color coding does two things for you, it separates our
    markup code from the dynamic code, (in mine HTML is green, CFML is brown and
    PHP is gray), make it fast to find blocks of troublesome code.

    This also helps if you typo'd a quotation mark, bracket or something, if the
    code is not well formed, all the color coding skews, giving you a quick
    heads up to start looking for the problem.

    Secondly, with auto fill and code hint set to 0 seconds, I don't actually
    have to type out entire tags or scripts to complete, for code that you use
    all the time, it's a great time saver, to hit the left bracket key, the
    first 3 or 4 elements of the tag, and then when you know (from experience)
    the code hint selector is on the right block, hit the enter key and
    complete.

    You still have to know how to code, but once you are familiar with how these
    two features works, your fingers can fly, and the code comes spitting out.

    You can code a whole page in much less time than without it.

    It even has a WYSIWYG side, but I've never used it and wouldn't know how it
    compares to Dreamweaver, which I do know is miles ahead of Golive or
    Frontpage.

    As far as WYSIWYG code goes, I often have to modify code created in WYSIWYG
    editors by both good and bad designers.

    Dreamweaver is not actually that bad in code generation, but I shudder every
    time I have to dig through that ugly, bloated crap that FrontPage or MS Word
    creates, it's usually faster to just start over from scratch, which is
    probably an intended feature from MS and not a shortcoming (from their
    standpoint).
     
    Runnin' on Empty, Sep 12, 2006
    #15
  16. Smed

    Rick Brandt Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    >> other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix
    >> for IE...

    >
    > But since IE is STILL the most popular browser I think this way is
    > backwards. Make it work in IE (what everyone uses) the tweek for the
    > lesser used browsers.
    >
    > I am NOT saying IE is better, only used more.


    Initial testing should be run against the browser that more strictly
    conforms to the standards. Then you tweak for the browser that is "wrong".
    Popularity doesn't enter into it except that it would take a popular browser
    for the second step to be even necessary.
     
    Rick Brandt, Sep 12, 2006
    #16
  17. Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    >> other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix
    >> for IE...

    >
    > But since IE is STILL the most popular browser I think this way is
    > backwards. Make it work in IE (what everyone uses) the tweek for the
    > lesser used browsers.


    No, you have it backwards. It is far easier to write to the common
    standards (which work in modern browsers) and later tweak what doesn't
    work in the ancient IE, than it is to write specific IE crap and later
    try to standardize it.

    If you write well to the standards, there should be little to tweak for
    Internut Exploder.

    > I am NOT saying IE is better, only used more.


    Well, that's a relief!

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 12, 2006
    #17
  18. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:47DNg.118347$...
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    >>> other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix
    >>> for IE...

    >>
    >> But since IE is STILL the most popular browser I think this way is
    >> backwards. Make it work in IE (what everyone uses) the tweek for the
    >> lesser used browsers.

    >
    > No, you have it backwards. It is far easier to write to the common
    > standards (which work in modern browsers) and later tweak what doesn't
    > work in the ancient IE, than it is to write specific IE crap and later
    > try to standardize it.
    >
    > If you write well to the standards, there should be little to tweak for
    > Internut Exploder.
    >
    >> I am NOT saying IE is better, only used more.

    >
    > Well, that's a relief!
    >
    > --
    > -bts



    Actually Standards are great as a goal post, but they apply best to static
    brochure sites and not to anything approaching enterprise level.

    Do this simple test, run any major enterprise level or ecommerce site
    through the w3c validator, guess what, none validate.

    That's right, the most expensive, intensively used sites with some of the
    best and brightest developers in the country, (or out of the country), that
    are making the most money, don't validate worth beans.

    The reason is that there is more to successfully using the Internet (or WWW,
    if you prefer), than making sure the HTML or CSS validates.

    Making a simple 10 page vanity site, it should validate and conform to
    standards, working on a major n-tier ecom application with several layers of
    access, admin and functions, backed up by a multi terabyte database, you
    concerns are more making sure it and the multiple functions0 work and are
    secure against improper use, in the IE and Firefox.

    This often means standards are thrown to the wayside in choosing better
    methods for the task at hand.

    I know this drives CSS and validation zealots nuts, but it's the case.

    I'm all for standards, but they don't apply to every site.
     
    Runnin' on Empty, Sep 12, 2006
    #18
  19. Runnin' on Empty wrote:

    > Do this simple test, run any major enterprise level or ecommerce site
    > through the w3c validator, guess what, none validate.


    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/products/

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...hos.com/products/es/endpoint/sav-windows.html

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/products/es/endpoint/eval/

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/security/

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/

    Valid

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/dopozor475.html

    Valid

    > The reason is that there is more to successfully using the Internet (or
    > WWW, if you prefer), than making sure the HTML or CSS validates.


    Yes, there is more to it, but that doesn't stop validity being a yummy piece
    of very low hanging fruit on the tree of quality assurance.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Sep 12, 2006
    #19
  20. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Many would say you have it backwards. Build and view in Firefox (or
    >> other modern browser) first then check and tweak if required to fix for
    >> IE...


    > But since IE is STILL the most popular browser I think this way is
    > backwards. Make it work in IE (what everyone uses) the tweek for the
    > lesser used browsers.


    Most authors seem to find it easier to get things working in browsers which
    more closely follow then standard and then implement work arounds for IE.
    This approach may not work for you, but it seems to for the majority.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Sep 12, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nicolas Matringe

    Why do we hate variables?

    Nicolas Matringe, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,240
    fabbl
    Jan 23, 2004
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,261
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. samir
    Replies:
    68
    Views:
    2,092
    Oliver Wong
    Mar 15, 2007
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    759
    Roger Lindsjö
    Jun 11, 2008
  5. Alf P. Steinbach
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    405
    James Kanze
    Apr 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page