Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim Scott, Oct 1, 2006.

  1. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    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?
    --
    Jim S
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim Scott, Oct 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <Xns984FA6D0D55A7jimjimscotXplusnet@84.92.1.10>,
    Jim Scott <> wrote:

    > 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.)

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Oct 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim Scott

    Dan Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:
    > 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

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, Oct 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Jim Scott

    Jim S Guest

    On 1 Oct 2006 10:15:34 -0700, Dan wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> 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


    Thanks.
    At first glance it looks a 'bit' like what I have been doing only more-so.
    :eek:)
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Jim Scott

    David F. Guest

    Dan wrote:
    > Jim Scott wrote:
    > > 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
    >
    > --
    > Dan

    ______________________

    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 F., Oct 1, 2006
    #5
  6. Jim Scott

    David Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:
    > 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.
     
    David, Oct 1, 2006
    #6
  7. Jim Scott

    Joe Guest

    In article <Xns984FA6D0D55A7jimjimscotXplusnet@84.92.1.10>,
    says...

    > 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.
     
    Joe, Oct 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Jim Scott

    bigdaddybs Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:
    > 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.
     
    bigdaddybs, Oct 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Jim Scott wrote:
    > 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, Oct 2, 2006
    #9
  10. David wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Travis Newbury, Oct 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "David F." <>
    writing in news::

    >
    > Dan wrote:
    >> Jim Scott wrote:
    >> > 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
    >>
    >> --
    >> Dan

    > ______________________
    >
    > 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>

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Oct 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Jim Scott

    Jim S Guest

    On 2 Oct 2006 02:24:39 -0700, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> 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.


    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
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Jim Scott

    Jim S Guest

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

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> 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.)


    Careful the last .) mucks up the link

    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Jim Scott

    Jim S Guest

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

    <snip>
    >
    > 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'. :eek:)
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Jim Scott

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:

    > 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).
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > David wrote:
    >> 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.


    All right, using Frontpage unconditionally fucks up HTML. Are you happy now?
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Oct 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > >> 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.

    > 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, Oct 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Jim S wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Travis Newbury, Oct 2, 2006
    #18
  19. Jim S wrote:
    > 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, Oct 2, 2006
    #19
  20. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Oct 2, 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. Larry Webb
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    415
    Toby A Inkster
    Oct 27, 2003
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    935
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,129
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. john_c
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    601
    John Saunders
    Mar 11, 2007
  5. Trollen Lord
    Replies:
    50
    Views:
    462
    Jari Williamsson
    Nov 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page