Wysiwyg

siforek

siforek

New member
Once again I find myself picking up the pieces of a business website that has clearly been thrown together by a n00b with Dreamweaver charging thousands..

I'd like to know if any "respectable" design/developers use or would be caught dead using WYSIWYG editors?
 
Respectable to you is relative - probably different from my perspective. You're a design/developer specialist, so your expectations are obviously set to a higher standard.

I use WYSIWYG editors, but always split the display to review the coding on the backend. When necessary, I'll change the coding to achieve the results I'm looking for. Most of the development work I do (not for Hostirian), is geared toward transitioning the client to manage their own site.
 
I've been using WYSIWYG programs for a long time. I don't know code, so when I need to do something within my level of skill, I will use FrontPage (very used to that program).
 
Artashes said:
I've been using WYSIWYG programs for a long time. I don't know code, so when I need to do something within my level of skill, I will use FrontPage (very used to that program).
Click to expand...
FrontPage? You really need to move on. :)
CSS really isn't that difficult. Expression Web 2 Upgrade costs around $100 - and could be a good upgrade for you. I have clients who know nothing about code using this software to manage their sites.
 
Steve-Hostirian said:
Respectable to you is relative - probably different from my perspective. You're a design/developer specialist, so your expectations are obviously set to a higher standard.

I use WYSIWYG editors, but always split the display to review the coding on the backend. When necessary, I'll change the coding to achieve the results I'm looking for. Most of the development work I do (not for Hostirian), is geared toward transitioning the client to manage their own site.
Click to expand...

As you mentioned, you do view the code as well, so I'll give you kudos on that :) Of course my standards are much higher than most, & I wouldn't hold someone outside my profession to the same standards I hold myself, however my issue is primarily with those who are paid as "professionals" and are anything but.

@Artashes, I'd also suggest getting away from FP.

To any who are seriously trying to be a professional.. I'd highly suggest weening yourself off of the WYSIWYG's. HTML & CSS are very easy once you grasp the basic logic. I mean.. "font-weight: bold" how hard is that?
 
I consider myself to be very respectable and I use WYSIWYG almost exclusively.
I will modify some code but I don't rely on it nor do I think I need to.
No complaints so far.

I have seen many lousy sites designed by "experts" who code everything by hand.
 
No. It doesn't.
And just because some choose to use WYSIWYG format doesn't make them any less respectable.
 
I think it really helps to know the basics of coding because WYSIWYG editors can sometimes produce strange unwanted results that are easily corrected by slightly modifying the underlying code. I started with WYSIWYG graphic terminals in 1980 (Varityper 4800) and have been a great fan ever since. When I first started with FrontPage, I was always curious what the code looked like on the backside, and would play around for effect - mostly with undesired results. LOL. The more you see the code in different applications, the easier it is to understand the how and why this stuff works.
 
I'm an programmer - have been professionally for 25+ years now. And I've got to say that the newer WYSIWYG packages like Expression2 is miles different from FrontPage - and I created the 1st Microsoft certified hosting provide in Louisiana many years ago, off a couple T1s in the back of the house on DEC Alphas running NT.

We also write Line-Of-Business apps for healthcare, and one of the cool things we're moving into is adding Silverlight with Expression Studio to C# back end (VS2008)... No more client application pushes and you can even forget 1 click installs... How about the only thing needed on the PC is a browser with SL. See this article for an intro There are some kinks being worked out, but SL3 is looking pretty good.
 
If you play with it, just realize it's a pretty early developer's version. Things may (and will) change before it ships.
 
This is what I call classic case of a web site done by neighbor's little kid :) Those people should be put to prison for not providing a full service! One of the ways to outlaw such "web designers" is to inform clients that proper coding is a normal thing and they should always ask for impartial review of their paid work.
 
Amdinistrator said:
This is what I call classic case of a web site done by neighbor's little kid :) Those people should be put to prison for not providing a full service! One of the ways to outlaw such "web designers" is to inform clients that proper coding is a normal thing and they should always ask for impartial review of their paid work.
Click to expand...
Not the way the world works. Full service to you may mean different things to different clients. Impartial reviews? From who?
 
Steve-Hostirian said:
Not the way the world works. Full service to you may mean different things to different clients. Impartial reviews? From who?
Click to expand...

Agreed. But the neighbor's kid scenario is more of a reality than most mite think. I also run into people who have done their own sites. Don't get me wrong, some are great, but others look like @#$%^& yet they keep them simply because they're proud of doing it themselves.
 
What looks bad to some may look great to others.
The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of sites online don't require any special coding or professional design. They are recreational or small business sites that serve a function that is sufficient to the user.

It's absurd to think that there is some deficiency in these sites just because the "code" isn't up to par.
Who cares.

If a company that would actually suffer from a poorly coded site tries to go on the cheap then that is their problem. It will show in the long run.
 
Again, what looks like @#$%^ to you may look fine in their eyes. That's what makes the world go around - variety - contrast. If I see a site I don't like, I just move on.
 
And the vast majority of the time if you don't like the look of the site it has nothing at all to do with the coding.
Aesthetics are far more important in my opinion.
 
Blue said:
If a company that would actually suffer from a poorly coded site tries to go on the cheap then that is their problem. It will show in the long run.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that every site should be a beautiful work of art, only that those who wish to appear professional online and who would actually suffer from a poorly designed/coded site reconsider things a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top