Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

[Jim Scott]

When made my first website I used MS Publisher. Although I learned later that the
resulting HTML was mucky and bloated, it taught me the fundementals.
My next pc came with MS Frontpage and although it produced quite nice webpages, my
provider at that time did not support FP extensions.
My site was criticised by the purists on alt.html, so I abandoned FP for a time and
produced my site using various other editors, each time validating every page with W3C.
Although it uses frames a lot and tables extensively I have not changed it for a good
while.
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

 

[Joel Shepherd]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with
heaps of webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its
bells and whistles.

I personally don't care what you use ... provided I can get through your
site with the browser I like. That'd be the one thing I'd be a little
leery of w/regard to FP: creating pages that work in IE (possibly
specific versions of IE) only.

For myself, that'd be reason to not use the tool, or to learn to use it
in a way that does not create that limitation. (My understanding is that
the latter is possible.)

 

[Dan]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

 

[Jim S]

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

Thanks.
At first glance it looks a 'bit' like what I have been doing only more-so.
)

 

[David F.]

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

______________________

That is a very interesting article about WYSIWYG editors, and I hope to
study it more closely. I am a newbie to HTML and web page creation,
but I do happen to have FP 2003. Like the original poster, I was
wondering why anyone would want to learn HTML when programs like FP and
Dreamweaver exist. However, Dan's article does help to clarify why
learning HTML might be very helpful. Thanks.

I remember a while back creating a web page in MS Word XP just for
practice. It was not a complicated web page at all, but when I looked
at the source code actually created by MS Word, I could not believe how
complex and how extensive it was. HTML coding would have been very
straight forward and not nearly as complex. I was wondering at the time
whether that complexity was a good or necessary thing.

One of the advantages of FP 2003 for HTML lovers is that the program
can simply function as a very good HTML editor, without adding FP's
smoke and mirrors, if the writer wants that. You can also use FP's
special tools for web site creation, and still tinker with the HTML
source code behind the scene (although I am not anywhere near
proficient to do much tinkering with the more complex code yet).

David F.

 

[David]

When made my first website I used MS Publisher. Although I learned later that the
resulting HTML was mucky and bloated, it taught me the fundementals.
My next pc came with MS Frontpage and although it produced quite nice webpages, my
provider at that time did not support FP extensions.
My site was criticised by the purists on alt.html, so I abandoned FP for a time and
produced my site using various other editors, each time validating every page with W3C.
Although it uses frames a lot and tables extensively I have not changed it for a good
while.
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

FRONTPAGE REALLY F**KS UP YOUR HTML! FrontPage is notorious for this.
FrontPage uses a tags that can only be used by Internet Explorer, which
messes up the web site for viewers who have the brains to use other
browsers, such as Mozilla, Safari, Firefox, Opera. FP also likes to use
stupid document formatting that makes code buggy and hard to read.

FrontPage Extensions
FrontPage uses little "programs" called "FrontPage Extensions" with the
idea of not having to use a server side language for functions. This
seems like a good idea because you don't have to use a server side
language such as ASP, PHP, or SSI. FrontPage Extensions have a habit of
screwing up and being terribly inefficient.

Because the frontpage extensions cause security issues.

The web components are non-web-standard, quirky to debug, and even
harder to convert over to a different editor such as Dreamweaver.

FrontPage was purposely designed to only work hassle-free ONLY with
Microsoft Web Servers. A whole series of artificial stumbling blocks
have been written into the program to make it less compatable with
non-Microsoft products.

Do a search on the web, there are many reasons NOT to use FrontPage.

 

[Joe]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

Your site appears to work in Opera9.02, which is the acid test as far as
I am concerned.
For what you are doing, FP is perfectly fine, as it is for ANY personal
(non-commercial) site. If you don't want to learn HTML, but do want to
show your pictures to others, and you have FP, why not use it?
(There are other, free, wysiwyg HTML proggies that are arguably better
than FP. Go to http://www.nvu.com for one of them.)

Me - I wouldn't use FP or frames. I'd rather eat worms.

http://graspages.cjb.cc/test/ shows one way to do your galleries without
frames or tables.
http://graspages.cjb.cc/rant/ takes you to rants about FP and frames.

oh - and nice pics, by the way.

 

[bigdaddybs]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.

I, personally, have no problem with FP, and have said so elsewhere. In
fact, I added a page to my site because of all the negativity(sp)
produced by some of the posters on this site. (See
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml.)

I'm glad to see that others on alt.html don't really have problems with
WYSIWYG editors, as long as you are aware of the items that can get
added into the HTML code that you don't need. FP is my "editor of
choice", though there ARE problems with it. Again, if you know what to
watch for, you can skip it.

You MUST remember, that the "bells and whistles" are FP Extensions, and
not everyone or every browser can (or WANT to) deal with them. I also
don't agree that you cannot use FP if you are writing a "professional"
site. You cannot do some of the things in the site without adding some
type of scripting, or actually editing the HTML, but FP can be used to
give you basics. You MUST be willing to actually look at, learn and
edit the HTML, directly (Source mode in FP), or even in a text editor
if FP refuses to do it, but there are literally THOUSANDS of sites out
there where you can find what you need/want to do.

If you're comfortable with FP, and don't use their extensions (that
goes for almost ANY WYSIWYG), then there should be no problem, even
from the "standards" bearers. ;-)

BigDaddyBS (Bill S.)

PS: If you have constructive comments about the page I wrote, let me
know.

 

[Travis Newbury]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I can not think of a single reason that you should not use Front Page.
It is just an editor.

YOU are ultimately responsible for the code on your web page. NOT the
editor you choose to use.

 

[Travis Newbury]

FRONTPAGE REALLY F**KS UP YOUR HTML!

You are a buffoon. Front page is an inanimate object, it can not ****
up anything. The person using it is what fucks it up.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

______________________

That is a very interesting article about WYSIWYG editors, and I hope
to study it more closely. I am a newbie to HTML and web page
creation, but I do happen to have FP 2003. Like the original poster,
I was wondering why anyone would want to learn HTML when programs like
FP and Dreamweaver exist. However, Dan's article does help to clarify
why learning HTML might be very helpful. Thanks.

I remember a while back creating a web page in MS Word XP just for
practice. It was not a complicated web page at all, but when I looked
at the source code actually created by MS Word, I could not believe
how complex and how extensive it was. HTML coding would have been
very straight forward and not nearly as complex. I was wondering at
the time whether that complexity was a good or necessary thing.

No, it's not necessary at all. The only thing that is needed is good
markup and content. Presentation should be left to an external
stylesheet, as should client side scripting.

One of the advantages of FP 2003 for HTML lovers is that the program
can simply function as a very good HTML editor, without adding FP's
smoke and mirrors, if the writer wants that. You can also use FP's
special tools for web site creation, and still tinker with the HTML
source code behind the scene (although I am not anywhere near
proficient to do much tinkering with the more complex code yet).

You see, if you separate content from presentation, there is no complex
code, just straight forward markup. Keeping the markup simple usually
means the CSS can be pretty simple as well. All that makes client side
scripting easier to do, and the lot easier to change/debug later on.

For example, having to change the text to the right of an input box to a
different background color on all forms on a large site:

<form method="post" action="">
<fieldset><legend>Fill out the form</legend>
<label for="name" id="name1">Name: </label> <input type="text"
name="name" id="name"><br>
<label for="email" id="email1">Email: </label> <input type="text"
name="email" id="email"><br>
<input type="submit" value="submit" class="submit">
</form>
Style sheet: ----
label {text-align:right; float:right; width:7em; background-color:
#c0c0c0; color:#fff}
form br {clear:both}
input.input {text-align:center; background-color:#fff; color:#000}
----

vs no stylesheet:
<form method="post" action="">
<table summary="form">
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Fill out the form</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"><font color="#ffffff">Name:</font>
</td><td class="input"><input type="text" name="name"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="right" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"><font color="#ffffff">Email:</font>
</td><td class="input"><input type="text" name="email"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="#000000">
<input type="submit" value="submit"></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</form>

 

[Jim S]

I can not think of a single reason that you should not use Front Page.
It is just an editor.

YOU are ultimately responsible for the code on your web page. NOT the
editor you choose to use.

OK I suppose my question was badly phrased.
What are the bad consequences of my using tools in FP that do not use
validatable code, but make the site more interesting and appear on all
current browsers?

 

[Jim S]

I, personally, have no problem with FP, and have said so elsewhere. In
fact, I added a page to my site because of all the negativity(sp)
produced by some of the posters on this site. (See
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml.)

Careful the last .) mucks up the link

 

[Jim S]

On 2 Oct 2006 01:38:28 -0700, bigdaddybs wrote:

If you're comfortable with FP, and don't use their extensions (that
goes for almost ANY WYSIWYG), then there should be no problem, even
from the "standards" bearers. ;-)

BigDaddyBS (Bill S.)

Thanks Bill, but it was the extensions that concern me and why they are so
'evil'. )

 

[Andy Dingley]

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.

Wrong question. Don't ask "What's the easiest editor to use?", ask
instead "What do I want to make?" and then "How can I best make what I
want to make?"

What _do_ you want to make? HTML-slurry, or something decent? It's
your call - neither is ever wrong (the web is a broad church, and long
may it remain so). However there are advantages to doing it right.

If you don't care, then use whichever editor is easiest and prettiest,
and ignore the comments about its output. You've already decided that
for your site then it just isn't going to matter (MySpace is an
indication that you can build a very big and popular site this way).

If you do care, then immediately rule out any and all editors that
aren't co-operative. There's no point in trying to meet standards, then
using a tool that fights you all the way. This rules out most known M$
offerings. It shouldn't need to, but practical measurement suggest M$
just don't care about standards as a design goal. We're hardly short of
alternatives either.


FP Extensions are also poorly thought out, unreliable and a damn
nuisance on a big, multi-developer or long-term site. You'd be far
better served by rsync, or even a decent ftp program and good bandwidth
(obliterate the lot with vast duplicated copies from your dev server
that are at least simple to trigger).

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

You are a buffoon. Front page is an inanimate object, it can not ****
up anything. The person using it is what fucks it up.

All right, using Frontpage unconditionally fucks up HTML. Are you happy now?

 

[Travis Newbury]

All right, using Frontpage unconditionally fucks up HTML. Are you happy now?

Interesting how you want to blame an inanimate object for a humans
shortcomings.

 

[Travis Newbury]

OK I suppose my question was badly phrased.
What are the bad consequences of my using tools in FP that do not use
validatable code, but make the site more interesting and appear on all
current browsers?

"Interesting" things don't work in all browsers. The more you move
away from vanilla layout and content the greater your chances that it
will not work in every visitors browser.

The key is to learn what the correct mix for a particular site.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

OK I suppose my question was badly phrased.
What are the bad consequences of my using tools in FP that do not use
validatable code, but make the site more interesting and appear on all
current browsers?

By the time you've finished testing your page in all current browsers
(Firefox 1.5, IE 6, ELinks 0.11, Safari 2, Opera 9, Konqueror 3.5, W3M
1.5, JAWS 7, many others), the next generation will be out and your
page won't work anymore.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Interesting how you want to blame an inanimate object for a humans
shortcomings.

My HTML editor is "cat /dev/urandom > index.html". I blame human
shortcomings for the fact that it's never been used in the production of
anything useful.