Question about GoLive

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message

[…] I am wondering if GoLive is a substitute for what Dreamweaver can do
[…]

Yes, it can. However, if you are an experienced DMX user, then GoLive might be struggle; it has an interface designed by accident. It makes no sense at all.

In article <uvs8e.8217$>,
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

I have done a little work with Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, and I am wondering if GoLive is a substitute for what Dreamweaver can do or if it isn’t designed for full website creation and is more of a supporting program. If I learned Go Live, would that be equally (or more) capable of creating websites like Dreamweaver?

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool on par with (and, in my estimation, slightly superior to) Dreamweaver.

I have used Dreamweaver since version 2.0 and GoLive since it was still called GoLive Cyberstudio, before Adobe acquired it. I still teach both programs. In my estimation, GoLive is the better and slightly more powerful program.

GoLive’s less buggy than Dreamweaver; Dreamweaver’s FTP implementation is quite fragile, and causes problems for many users, and Dreamweaver MX still has a bug introduced in version 3.0 where it will sometimes miscalculate the size of tables which contain nested tables.

Golive makes Web page editing easier in several regards; for example, if you copy an image or a link or a section of HTML code to the Clipboard in Golive, then paste it into another page that is lovated in a different directory, Golive automatically updates all file and link path references; Dreamweaver does not. If you copy an element, such as a rollover, which contains reference to a JavaScript routine, Golive pastes the Javascript routine together with that element when you place it into a new document or a different document, updating the JavaScript routine as necessary if its name conflicts with an existing piece of Javascript; Dreamweaver does not. Golive has what I feel is a better Javascript editor, and makes placing and using elements such as QuickTime movies easier.

Finally, Golive’s site management tools are in my estimation slightly better, particularly for extremely large Web sites.

Both are capable tools, but after using Dreamweaver for many years, I’ve switched to Golive, as I’ve simply found it to be a better program, albeit by a small margin.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

Yes, it can. However, if you are an experienced DMX user, then GoLive might be struggle; it has an interface designed by accident. It makes no sense at all.

Funny–that’s what many critics say of the Dreamweaver interface. 🙂

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"tacit" wrote in message

In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

Yes, it can. However, if you are an experienced DMX user, then GoLive might
be struggle; it has an interface designed by accident. It makes no sense at
all.

Funny–that’s what many critics say of the Dreamweaver interface. 🙂

Probably true. I’ve been marinated in DMX and had to use GoLive at one site. I thought I’d go insane. Maybe I did!

Now that is a great reply.
One question I would like to ask. From Dreamweaver OR Go-live, can you publish direct to the
server like you can on Front Page, or does it all have to be FTP’d?

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <uvs8e.8217$>,
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

I have done a little work with Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, and I am

wondering

if GoLive is a substitute for what Dreamweaver can do or if it isn’t designed for full website creation and is more of a supporting program. If I learned Go Live, would that be equally (or more) capable of

creating

websites like Dreamweaver?

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool on par with (and, in my estimation, slightly superior to) Dreamweaver.
I have used Dreamweaver since version 2.0 and GoLive since it was still called GoLive Cyberstudio, before Adobe acquired it. I still teach both programs. In my estimation, GoLive is the better and slightly more powerful program.

GoLive’s less buggy than Dreamweaver; Dreamweaver’s FTP implementation is quite fragile, and causes problems for many users, and Dreamweaver MX still has a bug introduced in version 3.0 where it will sometimes miscalculate the size of tables which contain nested tables.
Golive makes Web page editing easier in several regards; for example, if you copy an image or a link or a section of HTML code to the Clipboard in Golive, then paste it into another page that is lovated in a different directory, Golive automatically updates all file and link path references; Dreamweaver does not. If you copy an element, such as a rollover, which contains reference to a JavaScript routine, Golive pastes the Javascript routine together with that element when you place it into a new document or a different document, updating the JavaScript routine as necessary if its name conflicts with an existing piece of Javascript; Dreamweaver does not. Golive has what I feel is a better Javascript editor, and makes placing and using elements such as QuickTime movies easier.

Finally, Golive’s site management tools are in my estimation slightly better, particularly for extremely large Web sites.

Both are capable tools, but after using Dreamweaver for many years, I’ve switched to Golive, as I’ve simply found it to be a better program, albeit by a small margin.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Scruff" wrote in message

Now that is a great reply.
One question I would like to ask. From Dreamweaver OR Go-live, can you publish direct to the
server like you can on Front Page, or does it all have to be FTP’d?

Dreamweaver MX can use FTP or WEBDAV. I use FTP. Once you configure the site, it’s a no-brainer. It just plain works. I’ve never had it fail on any of our four servers.

"jjs" wrote in message

"Scruff" wrote in message

Now that is a great reply.
One question I would like to ask. From Dreamweaver OR Go-live, can you publish direct to the
server like you can on Front Page, or does it all have to be FTP’d?

Dreamweaver MX can use FTP or WEBDAV. I use FTP. Once you configure the site, it’s a no-brainer. It just plain works. I’ve never had it fail on

any

of our four servers.

Great, thanks.
I do most everything on FP2003 but I do have DWMX. Just haven’t messed with it.

"Scruff" wrote in message

I do most everything on FP2003 but I do have DWMX. Just haven’t messed with
it.

Use the Sites option and be happy.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:18:11 GMT, tacit wrote:

And now, the alternative view <g> (Note, I’m not going to pick through specific plusses and minuses because both programs have them):

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool on par with (and, in my estimation, slightly superior to) Dreamweaver.

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool almost on a par with (and, in my estimation, definitely inferior to) Dreamweaver. The interface gives an excellent example of how not to design an interface.

I have used Dreamweaver since version 2.0 and GoLive since it was still called GoLive Cyberstudio, before Adobe acquired it. I still teach both programs. In my estimation, GoLive is the better and slightly more powerful program.

I have used DW since version 2 and GoLive since 5. I don’t tech either, but do use them in the real world (though rather less lately). In my estimation DW is the better and more powerful program.

GoLive’s less buggy than Dreamweaver; Dreamweaver’s FTP implementation is quite fragile, and causes problems for many users, and Dreamweaver MX still has a bug introduced in version 3.0 where it will sometimes miscalculate the size of tables which contain nested tables.

DW is less buggy than GL, and it’s interface is far clearer and easier to use. GL doesn’t do templates well, and certainly not as easily as DW. I would use neither program for uploading sites as both are less than helpful and, as Tacit says, DW doesn’t like some sites. In any case, dedicated FTP software is a far better, and more controllable method of upload.

Golive makes Web page editing easier in several regards; for example, if you copy an image or a link or a section of HTML code to the Clipboard in Golive, then paste it into another page that is lovated in a different directory, Golive automatically updates all file and link path references; Dreamweaver does not. If you copy an element, such as a rollover, which contains reference to a JavaScript routine, Golive pastes the Javascript routine together with that element when you place it into a new document or a different document, updating the JavaScript routine as necessary if its name conflicts with an existing piece of Javascript; Dreamweaver does not. Golive has what I feel is a better Javascript editor, and makes placing and using elements such as QuickTime movies easier.

GL makes web page editing hell because the interface is way less than intuitive. OTOH, you can pick up how to use the basics in DW without hardly looking at the manual.

Finally, Golive’s site management tools are in my estimation slightly better, particularly for extremely large Web sites.

GL has site management tools? 😉

Both are capable tools, but after using Dreamweaver for many years, I’ve switched to Golive, as I’ve simply found it to be a better program, albeit by a small margin.

I have recently started to use GL more frequently. Why? Because it helps my workflow – I can take a page or pages from InDesign directly into GL as web pages. Really useful and saves me a lot of time. I can then get useful work done by opening the translated pages in Dreamweaver… 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:18:11 GMT, tacit wrote:

And now, the alternative view <g> (Note, I’m not going to pick through specific plusses and minuses because both programs have them):

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool on par with (and, in my estimation, slightly superior to) Dreamweaver.

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool almost on a par with (and, in my estimation, definitely inferior to) Dreamweaver. The interface gives an excellent example of how not to design an interface.

I have used Dreamweaver since version 2.0 and GoLive since it was still called GoLive Cyberstudio, before Adobe acquired it. I still teach both programs. In my estimation, GoLive is the better and slightly more powerful program.

I have used DW since version 2 and GoLive since 5. I don’t tech either, but do use them in the real world (though rather less lately). In my estimation DW is the better and more powerful program.

GoLive’s less buggy than Dreamweaver; Dreamweaver’s FTP implementation is quite fragile, and causes problems for many users, and Dreamweaver MX still has a bug introduced in version 3.0 where it will sometimes miscalculate the size of tables which contain nested tables.

DW is less buggy than GL, and it’s interface is far clearer and easier to use. GL doesn’t do templates well, and certainly not as easily as DW. I would use neither program for uploading sites as both are less than helpful and, as Tacit says, DW doesn’t like some sites. In any case, dedicated FTP software is a far better, and more controllable method of upload.

Golive makes Web page editing easier in several regards; for example, if you copy an image or a link or a section of HTML code to the Clipboard in Golive, then paste it into another page that is lovated in a different directory, Golive automatically updates all file and link path references; Dreamweaver does not. If you copy an element, such as a rollover, which contains reference to a JavaScript routine, Golive pastes the Javascript routine together with that element when you place it into a new document or a different document, updating the JavaScript routine as necessary if its name conflicts with an existing piece of Javascript; Dreamweaver does not. Golive has what I feel is a better Javascript editor, and makes placing and using elements such as QuickTime movies easier.

GL makes web page editing hell because the interface is way less than intuitive. OTOH, you can pick up how to use the basics in DW without hardly looking at the manual.

Finally, Golive’s site management tools are in my estimation slightly better, particularly for extremely large Web sites.

GL has site management tools? 😉

Both are capable tools, but after using Dreamweaver for many years, I’ve switched to Golive, as I’ve simply found it to be a better program, albeit by a small margin.

I have recently started to use GL more frequently. Why? Because it helps my workflow – I can take a page or pages from InDesign directly into GL as web pages. Really useful and saves me a lot of time. I can then get useful work done by opening the translated pages in Dreamweaver… 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Bueno.

In article <8ff84$4262870d$42a1c5eb$>,
"Scruff" wrote:

From Dreamweaver OR Go-live, can you
publish direct to the
server like you can on Front Page, or does it all have to be FTP’d?

Yes. Dreamweaver’s built-in FTP is quite fragile, and doesn’t talk reliably to some Web servers; GoLive’s built-in file transfer is considerably more robust. However, either program will transfer directly to a Web server.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

Yes. Dreamweaver’s built-in FTP is quite fragile, and doesn’t talk reliably to some Web servers; GoLive’s built-in file transfer is considerably more robust. However, either program will transfer directly to a Web server.

You say that over and over, but I have yet to read _what_ servers it does not talk to properly. And what do you mean when you say "will transfer directly to a Web server"? With what protocol? Until I see specifics, I’m calling you on these points.

In article
wrote:

You say that over and over, but I have yet to read _what_ servers it does not talk to properly. And what do you mean when you say "will transfer directly to a Web server"? With what protocol? Until I see specifics, I’m calling you on these points.

GoLive uses both FTP and WebDAV.

Dreamweaver uses both FTP and WebDAV as well, but its FTP implementation seems to be somewhat b0rken; it was rewritten in Dreamweaver MX 2004, and is considerably more reliable in that version, but Macromedia acknowledges it still has problems. In particular, Dreamweaver’s built-in FTP engine seems to have a lot of trouble talking to RoadRunner’s servers, or to any server set up in such a way that a PWD command returns a 550 response (which is the case on some servers configured on shared IPs). (Interestingly, earlier versions of Dreamweaver have no problem with the latter case, though MX 2004 does.)

Dreamweaver MX 2004 permits SFTP as well as FTP, but the SFTP implementation in the first release of MX 2004 was non-functional with Unix and Linux hosts; I’m told there’s a patch available from Macromedia which corrects this bug.

There is an obscure pathing bug in Dreamweaver MX 2004 which in some cases will cause DreamWeaver to report a "directory not found" error on some Unix servers if the user specifies a directory as
/somedirectory/someothersubdirectory; the fix is to specify the path as ../somedirectory/someothesubrdirectory, which should not be necessary. And finally, Dreamweaver MX and MX 2004 FTP may fail completely with an "Access Denied" error when talking to an IBM AIX server; again, this problem is acknowledged on Macromedia’s tech support site.

Of course, all this may be moot. Adobe and Macromedia have just announced an intent to merge; the new company, provided the merger is approved by the boards of both companies, will be headed up by Adobe’s current CEO. I would say it’s quite likely that Freehand and Dreamweaver will be casualties of this merger, if it goes through.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Thanks a lot to everyone who has offered their opinions. Since I am not much of a user of Dreamweaver or any other web creation design program, and since the consensus is that Golive is a full website creation software, it’s probable that I’ll rely on Golive because of what was said about its easier integration with the Adobe products which I do use a lot.
Now I’ll just have to learn it a bit to get started.
Thanks again to everyone for such great help.

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message

Please excuse this topic here but I imagine that some Photoshop users are familiar with its creative suite and other programs from Adobe. I’m thinking of getting the Adobe Creative Suite CS2, which includes a program called Go Live.
I have done a little work with Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, and I am wondering if GoLive is a substitute for what Dreamweaver can do or if it isn’t designed for full website creation and is more of a supporting program.
If I learned Go Live, would that be equally (or more) capable of creating websites like Dreamweaver?
Thanks for any advice.

I just read that Adobe has decided to purchase Macromedia. http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobeandmacrome dia.html I wonder if now we’ll see the demise of either Dreamweaver or Golive or perhaps a new program that combines features of both.

In article ,
says…

In article <uvs8e.8217$>,
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

I have done a little work with Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, and I am wondering if GoLive is a substitute for what Dreamweaver can do or if it isn’t designed for full website creation and is more of a supporting program. If I learned Go Live, would that be equally (or more) capable of creating websites like Dreamweaver?

GoLive is a full-fledged, fully-featured Web creation tool on par with (and, in my estimation, slightly superior to) Dreamweaver.
I have used Dreamweaver since version 2.0 and GoLive since it was still called GoLive Cyberstudio, before Adobe acquired it. I still teach both programs. In my estimation, GoLive is the better and slightly more powerful program.

GoLive’s less buggy than Dreamweaver; Dreamweaver’s FTP implementation is quite fragile, and causes problems for many users, and Dreamweaver MX still has a bug introduced in version 3.0 where it will sometimes miscalculate the size of tables which contain nested tables.
Golive makes Web page editing easier in several regards; for example, if you copy an image or a link or a section of HTML code to the Clipboard in Golive, then paste it into another page that is lovated in a different directory, Golive automatically updates all file and link path references; Dreamweaver does not. If you copy an element, such as a rollover, which contains reference to a JavaScript routine, Golive pastes the Javascript routine together with that element when you place it into a new document or a different document, updating the JavaScript routine as necessary if its name conflicts with an existing piece of Javascript; Dreamweaver does not. Golive has what I feel is a better Javascript editor, and makes placing and using elements such as QuickTime movies easier.

Finally, Golive’s site management tools are in my estimation slightly better, particularly for extremely large Web sites.

Both are capable tools, but after using Dreamweaver for many years, I’ve switched to Golive, as I’ve simply found it to be a better program, albeit by a small margin.

I also switched from DW to GoLive, and never looked back. In addition to the above points, I find that GoLive’s support for CSS is vastly superior to DreamWeaver. That and the site management tools (including updating links when copying, pasting, or moving files or whole directories) made the difference for me.

Yes, the interfaces are different, but "intuitive" in either case is simply a matter of what you’re used to working with. I’ve used both in production work, and made the switch pretty easily. GoLive is unquestionably the better program.

Diane

How does all of this compare with Front Page?
It seems that FP has a lot of new features.

"Diane Wilson" wrote in message

I also switched from DW to GoLive, and never looked back.

With the coming of the Grand Acquisition, we may all be there in a couple years.

In article <57b9b$42640077$42a1c5eb$>,
"Scruff" wrote:

How does all of this compare with Front Page?
It seems that FP has a lot of new features.

FrontPage is all about features, but it has one fundamental flaw that really limits its effectiveness in creating complex, professional Web sites:

It writes crap HTML.

Since a program that’s designed to edit and create Web pages is all about writing HTML, a Web editor that produces crap HTML is not a good editor no matter how many features it has.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <57b9b$42640077$42a1c5eb$>,
"Scruff" wrote:

How does all of this compare with Front Page?
It seems that FP has a lot of new features.

FrontPage is all about features, but it has one fundamental flaw that really limits its effectiveness in creating complex, professional Web sites:

It writes crap HTML.

Since a program that’s designed to edit and create Web pages is all about writing HTML, a Web editor that produces crap HTML is not a good editor no matter how many features it has.

How does the crap html it creates affect a site?
In what way does it limit effectiveness?
I’ve seen some pretty complex sites that use FP, including one I have designed,
and have had some fairly intense conversations about "dirty/crap html" but nobody has yet to tell me how it actually affects a site negatively. Here ya go FP people. This is exactly what I was talking about.

First:
Have you ever actually learned to program in HTML. And … yes … it actually *is* a programming language. VERY effective pages can be designed with a simple text editor … even including Windows Notepad.

Second:
Have you ever actually looked at the "source code" for a "web page" made with *any* of the Micro$loth Orifice products … including (but not limited to) Front Page, Wurd, Excel, PowerPoint? If so, you will have noted the many, many, *many* items that are included … that obviously have *nothing* to do with the resulting web page.

You then asked:
"… How does the crap html it creates affect a site? …"

When the "programming tool" used to develop a "web page" generates 158 kB of "HTML code" to display twenty lines of text. IMHO: That can be considered "Crap HTML." Especially when that is used as a "wrapper" for the exact same page … that measures 404 kB … as written by Micro$loth Wurd! Total "file size" is 562 kB … for *under* 1,500 characters (or roughly 2/3 page when printed)!

This data is from an actual example of Micro$cum’s "default" HTML generated for a neighborhood "newsletter" that is actually sitting in my in-basket as I write this. I re-saved it in a proper HTML format … and it came out at roughly 1,500 bytes … including the required Header information.

"Scruff" wrote in message

How does the crap html it creates affect a site?
In what way does it limit effectiveness?
I’ve seen some pretty complex sites that use FP, including one I have designed,
and have had some fairly intense conversations about "dirty/crap html"

but

nobody has yet to tell me how it actually affects a site negatively. Here ya go FP people. This is exactly what I was talking about.

In article <jdX8e.16910$>, "RSD99"
wrote:

First:
Have you ever actually learned to program in HTML. And … yes … it actually *is* a programming language. VERY effective pages can be designed with a simple text editor … even including Windows Notepad.

Well, technically, HTML really isn’t a "programming language". The reason is because you can’t really do anything in the way of computational processes with HTML. It’s a language that is interpreted, yes, but only for the purposes of displaying items on a screen. For example, could you write a routine to figure out your taxes in HTML? No, which is why extensions like Java and JavaScript are around to fill in such gaps.

It’s what’s called a "markup language", which means it’s merely used to describe attributes for something. It’s a derivative of SGML. Now on the other hand, a good example of something that is an actual programming language is PostScript.

Second:
Have you ever actually looked at the "source code" for a "web page" made with *any* of the Micro$loth Orifice products … including (but not

I have, and I agree that they are usually formatted extremely poorly, and they have little extra content in them that does the page in question any good. Microsoft’s tagline for the product is "Web Pages Without Programming", which in an of itself is a flawed concept to begin with.

limited to) Front Page, Wurd, Excel, PowerPoint? If so, you will have noted the many, many, *many* items that are included … that obviously have *nothing* to do with the resulting web page.

You then asked:
"… How does the crap html it creates affect a site? …"
When the "programming tool" used to develop a "web page" generates 158 kB of "HTML code" to display twenty lines of text. IMHO: That can be considered "Crap HTML." Especially when that is used as a "wrapper" for the exact same page … that measures 404 kB … as written by Micro$loth Wurd! Total "file size" is 562 kB … for *under* 1,500 characters (or roughly 2/3 page when printed)!

This data is from an actual example of Micro$cum’s "default" HTML generated for a neighborhood "newsletter" that is actually sitting in my in-basket as I write this. I re-saved it in a proper HTML format … and it came out at roughly 1,500 bytes … including the required Header information.

I have to agree with your post, with the exception of my pedantry on one small detail. Personally, I’ll take a text editor like vi or BBEdit over any HTML-authoring suite any day.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:49:35 -0400, "Scruff" wrote:

How does all of this compare with Front Page?
It seems that FP has a lot of new features.

Front Page is great if you have the time to create new themes, (because the ones on FP have been done to death by every amateur web builder on the planet) and time to rewrite all the html FP writes as it’s very, very poor.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:56:38 GMT, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

I just read that Adobe has decided to purchase Macromedia. http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobeandmacrome dia.html I wonder if now we’ll see the demise of either Dreamweaver or Golive or perhaps a new program that combines features of both.

The larger the corporation the more likely it is you’ll get the *worst* of both programs.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"RSD99" wrote in message

First:
Have you ever actually learned to program in HTML. And … yes … it actually *is* a programming language. VERY effective pages can be designed with a simple text editor … even including Windows Notepad.

no, that is why I am asking

Second:
Have you ever actually looked at the "source code" for a "web page" made with *any* of the Micro$loth Orifice products … including (but not limited to) Front Page, Wurd, Excel, PowerPoint? If so, you will have

noted

the many, many, *many* items that are included … that obviously have *nothing* to do with the resulting web page.

You then asked:
"… How does the crap html it creates affect a site? …"
When the "programming tool" used to develop a "web page" generates 158 kB of "HTML code" to display twenty lines of text. IMHO: That can be considered "Crap HTML." Especially when that is used as a "wrapper" for

the

exact same page … that measures 404 kB … as written by Micro$loth

Wurd!

Total "file size" is 562 kB … for *under* 1,500 characters (or roughly 2/3 page when printed)!

This data is from an actual example of Micro$cum’s "default" HTML

generated

for a neighborhood "newsletter" that is actually sitting in my in-basket as I write this. I re-saved it in a proper HTML format … and it came out at roughly 1,500 bytes … including the required Header information.

So in terms of speed, how is it affecting a page, a half second longer to open, or longer?
Does it make things actually not work correctly? Or is it just there to piss off people who know it’s there?
I realize that there may be more bytes on the average page, but does it really translate to a much slower
page load?
FP has so many cool features that I’m wondering what the trade off is, if there actually is one?

I do my entire site in FP, and- – horror of horrors!- – I drag my Word-created .doc files onto an open page in FP from Windows Explorer, but no one has ever found bloated code on my site, at least not enough to be concerned about.

Feel free to look. If I am indeed getting kb after kb of bloated code, I would appreciate being informed about it.

Wally S
www.dipika.org

"Scruff" wrote in message

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <57b9b$42640077$42a1c5eb$>,
"Scruff" wrote:

How does all of this compare with Front Page?
It seems that FP has a lot of new features.

FrontPage is all about features, but it has one fundamental flaw that really limits its effectiveness in creating complex, professional Web sites:

It writes crap HTML.

Since a program that’s designed to edit and create Web pages is all about writing HTML, a Web editor that produces crap HTML is not a good editor no matter how many features it has.

How does the crap html it creates affect a site?
In what way does it limit effectiveness?
I’ve seen some pretty complex sites that use FP, including one I have designed,
and have had some fairly intense conversations about "dirty/crap html"

but

nobody has yet to tell me how it actually affects a site negatively. Here ya go FP people. This is exactly what I was talking about.

In article , "Wally S"
wrote:

I do my entire site in FP, and- – horror of horrors!- – I drag my Word-created .doc files onto an open page in FP from Windows Explorer, but no one has ever found bloated code on my site, at least not enough to be concerned about.

The issue isn’t about "bloat" (at least, I don’t *think* it was). The issue addresses the idea that should one need to go back in and make some manual tweaks (which is commonplace in professional web design), FrontPage’s terrible formatting makes it nearly impossible to do so without having to "really look" for those places where you want to make changes.

A buddy of mine who happens to be a webmaster tells me that he stopped using authoring systems altogether, and as a result, he *saves* time by doing it by hand, and formatting the source texts properly.

Of course, he is a professional, so if you’re not intimiately familiar with HTML and cannot type very fast, I can see why an authoring system might be attractive.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that FP’s output is pretty horrendous.

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes with FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does not mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.

Wally S

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article , "Wally S"
wrote:

I do my entire site in FP, and- – horror of horrors!- – I drag my Word-created .doc files onto an open page in FP from Windows Explorer,

but

no one has ever found bloated code on my site, at least not enough to be concerned about.

The issue isn’t about "bloat" (at least, I don’t *think* it was). The

issue

addresses the idea that should one need to go back in and make some manual tweaks (which is commonplace in professional web design), FrontPage’s terrible formatting makes it nearly impossible to do so without having to "really look" for those places where you want to make changes.
A buddy of mine who happens to be a webmaster tells me that he stopped

using

authoring systems altogether, and as a result, he *saves* time by doing it by hand, and formatting the source texts properly.

Of course, he is a professional, so if you’re not intimiately familiar with HTML and cannot type very fast, I can see why an authoring system might be attractive.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that FP’s output is pretty

horrendous.

Wally S wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes with FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does not mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.
Wally S

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article , "Wally S"
wrote:

I do my entire site in FP, and- – horror of horrors!- – I drag my Word-created .doc files onto an open page in FP from Windows Explorer,

but

no one has ever found bloated code on my site, at least not enough to be concerned about.

The issue isn’t about "bloat" (at least, I don’t *think* it was). The

issue

addresses the idea that should one need to go back in and make some manual tweaks (which is commonplace in professional web design), FrontPage’s terrible formatting makes it nearly impossible to do so without having to "really look" for those places where you want to make changes.
A buddy of mine who happens to be a webmaster tells me that he stopped

using

authoring systems altogether, and as a result, he *saves* time by doing it by hand, and formatting the source texts properly.

Of course, he is a professional, so if you’re not intimiately familiar with HTML and cannot type very fast, I can see why an authoring system might be attractive.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that FP’s output is pretty

horrendous.

Hi Scruff/Wally

I think it is simple really. You are both using FP, happy with the programme, how it works and the results you obtain. So ignore the anti-microsoft people and carry on enjoying what you are doing. People are very opinionated at times, and I really find it a joke the anti-MS people. They are probably jealous that MS makes products that are very easy to use, well featured and generally run reliably. I maintain my computer meticulously and NEVER have instability problems with any MS Office programme. Win XP is amazingly stable for me also.

Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…and knock software that is very intuitive and user-friendly. Maybe those people are as unfriendly as the user-unfriendly programmes they so love?

I just had to say that…too many know-alls in here!

Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:56:38 GMT, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

I just read that Adobe has decided to purchase Macromedia. http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobeandmacrome dia.html I wonder if now we’ll see the demise of either Dreamweaver or Golive or perhaps a new program that combines features of both.

The larger the corporation the more likely it is you’ll get the *worst* of both programs.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

LMAO! You are so positive there Hecate. You make me smile. 🙂

Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

Wally S wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can

read

my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should

I

spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes

with

FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does

not

mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.
Wally S

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article , "Wally S"
wrote:

I do my entire site in FP, and- – horror of horrors!- – I drag my Word-created .doc files onto an open page in FP from Windows Explorer,

but

no one has ever found bloated code on my site, at least not enough to

be

concerned about.

The issue isn’t about "bloat" (at least, I don’t *think* it was). The

issue

addresses the idea that should one need to go back in and make some

manual

tweaks (which is commonplace in professional web design), FrontPage’s terrible formatting makes it nearly impossible to do so without having

to

"really look" for those places where you want to make changes.
A buddy of mine who happens to be a webmaster tells me that he stopped

using

authoring systems altogether, and as a result, he *saves* time by doing

it

by hand, and formatting the source texts properly.

Of course, he is a professional, so if you’re not intimiately familiar with HTML and cannot type very fast, I can see why an authoring system might be attractive.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that FP’s output is pretty

horrendous.

Hi Scruff/Wally

I think it is simple really. You are both using FP, happy with the programme, how it works and the results you obtain. So ignore the anti-microsoft people and carry on enjoying what you are doing. People are very opinionated at times, and I really find it a joke the anti-MS people. They are probably jealous that MS makes products that are very easy to use, well featured and generally run reliably. I maintain my computer meticulously and NEVER have instability problems with any MS Office programme. Win XP is amazingly stable for me also.
Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…and knock software that is very intuitive and user-friendly. Maybe those people are as unfriendly as the user-unfriendly programmes they so love?

I just had to say that…too many know-alls in here!

Brian.

LoL, that’s pretty good. Personally I think that knowledge of html will be a thing of the past as more programs become "what you see is what you get".

In article <e3b59$42643a19$42a1c5eb$>,
"Scruff" wrote:

How does the crap html it creates affect a site?

The biggest problems with the FrontPage HTML, with its scores of nested tables and non-standards-compliant cascading style sheets, is hat it doesn’t always render the way you expect it to in all browsers.

There are other problems as well–for example, if you’re using Microsoft’s pre-defined styles, FrontPage tends to apply those styles over and over again each time you edit a particular file, which adds to the size of the HTML but accomplishes nothing. (FrontPage 2003 is a lot better in this regard; earlier versions were so bad you could actually count how many times a document had been edited by looking at how bloated the HTML was.)

If FrontPage serves your needs, then by all means, use it. But don’t assume that it’s as fully-featured or as capable as a program like DreamWeaver or GoLive. While FrontPage 2003 allows drag-and-drop placement of Flash animations, its support for othe types of objects, such as streaming QuickTime movies, is nonexistant; using objects like this requires coding by hand.

Another problem is its reliance on server extensions for certain functions. The newest version does not require Microsoft’s server-side extensions any more, but many of Frontpage’s features (forms, hit counters, live update, and so on) still rely on these extensions.

If Frontpage works for you, that’s cool…but don’t assume it works for everyone! Features not found i FrontPage but which are found in high-end Web tools may not be necessary to you, but may be necessary to other people.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
Brian wrote:

Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…

"No shortcuts"? BWAH hahaha! Well, there goes your credibility…

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

In article ,
Brian wrote:

Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…

"No shortcuts"? BWAH hahaha! Well, there goes your credibility…
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Yea, Adobe PS without shortcuts would be really something!

In article <unn$>, "Wally S"
wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes with FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does not mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.

Nobody’s saying "your way is bad". All I’m basically saying is that when you have a very large website, with loads of information, FrontPage’s lack of formatting makes adding manual tweaks and fixes much more difficult.

AFAICT, nobody is denigrating or criticizing you for using FrontPage.

In article <unn$>, "Wally S"
wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

There’s not a lot there, but it’s essentially formatted the same way that many of my larger web authoring projects were.

In article , wrote:

Wally S wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes with FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does not mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.

Hi Scruff/Wally

I think it is simple really. You are both using FP, happy with the programme, how it works and the results you obtain. So ignore the anti-microsoft people and carry on enjoying what you are doing. People are very opinionated at times, and I really find it a joke the anti-MS people. They are probably jealous that MS makes products that are very easy to use, well featured and generally run reliably. I maintain my computer meticulously and NEVER have instability problems with any MS Office programme. Win XP is amazingly stable for me also.
Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…and knock software that is very intuitive and user-friendly. Maybe those people are as unfriendly as the user-unfriendly programmes they so love?

I just had to say that…too many know-alls in here!

TRANSLATION: "I’m an OS zealot, because I have nothing else in my life."

In article <6cdea$4264f418$42a1c5eb$>, "Scruff" wrote:

8< SNIP >8

LoL, that’s pretty good. Personally I think that knowledge of html will be a thing of the past as more programs become "what you see is what you get".

HTML won’t become a thing of the past, but it will be yielding a lot to XML.

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

🙂 Ah, the Good Old Days.

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article <unn$>, "Wally S"
wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can

read

my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should

I

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

There’s not a lot there, but it’s essentially formatted the same way that many of my larger web authoring projects were.

Very cool, except for the mac part ;0)

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article , wrote:

Wally S wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can

read

my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why

should I

spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes

with

FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that

does not

mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.

Hi Scruff/Wally

I think it is simple really. You are both using FP, happy with the programme, how it works and the results you obtain. So ignore the anti-microsoft people and carry on enjoying what you are doing. People are very opinionated at times, and I really find it a joke the anti-MS people. They are probably jealous that MS makes products that are very easy to use, well featured and generally run reliably. I maintain my computer meticulously and NEVER have instability problems with any MS Office programme. Win XP is amazingly stable for me also.
Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…and knock software that is very intuitive and user-friendly. Maybe those people are as unfriendly as the user-unfriendly programmes they so love?

I just had to say that…too many know-alls in here!

TRANSLATION: "I’m an OS zealot, because I have nothing else in my life."

OUCH

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article <6cdea$4264f418$42a1c5eb$>, "Scruff"

wrote:

8< SNIP >8

LoL, that’s pretty good. Personally I think that knowledge of html will

be a

thing of the past as more programs become "what you see is what you

get".

HTML won’t become a thing of the past, but it will be yielding a lot to

XML.

Damn, should I learn that instead?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:35:12 +1000, Brian
wrote:

The larger the corporation the more likely it is you’ll get the *worst* of both programs.

LMAO! You are so positive there Hecate. You make me smile. 🙂

Just because I’m a cynic, it doesn’t mean I’m not a realist 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

In article wrote:

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

🙂 Ah, the Good Old Days.

Yes, and you probably noticed I’m even so old school as to use all CAPS in my tags, as well as comments in some places. 🙂

In article <2e5fe$42655ecc$42a1c5eb$>, "Scruff" wrote:

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article <6cdea$4264f418$42a1c5eb$>, "Scruff"

wrote:

8< SNIP >8

LoL, that’s pretty good. Personally I think that knowledge of html will

be a

thing of the past as more programs become "what you see is what you

get".

HTML won’t become a thing of the past, but it will be yielding a lot to

XML.

Damn, should I learn that instead?

I would recommend that you learn both, since they are so closely intertwined these days. Personally, I’d recommend the O’Reilly books for anything on computing. They’re very sensible, have no leanings toward any particular computing platform (not even in their books on operating systems really), and they just tell you what you need to know without shooting a lot of piss and wind at you like so many other books do.

Oh, and as for scripting languages, JavaScript is okay, but I’d recommend that you take a closer look at PHP. Most webmasters seem to have really taken to it.

In article , Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:35:12 +1000, Brian
wrote:

The larger the corporation the more likely it is you’ll get the *worst* of both programs.

LMAO! You are so positive there Hecate. You make me smile. 🙂

Just because I’m a cynic, it doesn’t mean I’m not a realist 😉

I thought a cynic was a realist…<?>

Yeah, it’s snazzy looking formatting, but I wouldn’t give up the convenience of FP for it. I can find whatever I want in my html, and my readers don’t seem to worry much about how my html is formatted.

Wally S

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

In article

wrote:

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

🙂 Ah, the Good Old Days.

Yes, and you probably noticed I’m even so old school as to use all CAPS in my tags, as well as comments in some places. 🙂

Tacit wrote:

In article ,
Brian wrote:

Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…

"No shortcuts"? BWAH hahaha! Well, there goes your credibility…

That was a good response…made me laugh (in a nice way). You know what I meant from a previous discussion: shortcut buttons on the toolbar, not keyboard shortcuts. Just about every programme in existence has keyboard shortcuts…..but at the same time, just about every programme in existence also has buttons for cut,copy, paste, print, plus a several others. Even better programmes have a whole host of customisable shortcut buttons where you can have buttons for anything you like – for people like me who are left-handed and find it a total pain having to let go of the stylus/mouse all the time to do keyboard shortcuts designed to mainly be performed with the left hand.

Nothing wrong with my credibility Mr. Tacit, I just don’t big note myself all the time like you seem to do. I know what I am capable of and quite proud of it.

Brian.

Stephen Edwards wrote:

In article , wrote:

Wally S wrote:

Well, if it’s just a question of the way the code is formatted, I can read my code quite easily. How many ways are there to format code? Why should I spend hours coding by hand when I can get the same results in minutes with FP? True, different people prefer to work different ways, but that does not mean that only my way is good and everything else is dirty and crappy.

Hi Scruff/Wally

I think it is simple really. You are both using FP, happy with the programme, how it works and the results you obtain. So ignore the anti-microsoft people and carry on enjoying what you are doing. People are very opinionated at times, and I really find it a joke the anti-MS people. They are probably jealous that MS makes products that are very easy to use, well featured and generally run reliably. I maintain my computer meticulously and NEVER have instability problems with any MS Office programme. Win XP is amazingly stable for me also.
Adobe lovers in here are happy with a primitive lack-lustre interface with no shortcuts for anything…and knock software that is very intuitive and user-friendly. Maybe those people are as unfriendly as the user-unfriendly programmes they so love?

I just had to say that…too many know-alls in here!

TRANSLATION: "I’m an OS zealot, because I have nothing else in my life."

That is a shame Stephen that you have nothing in your life, I have plenty in mine.

Brian 🙂

Stephen Edwards wrote:

In article wrote:

"Stephen Edwards" wrote in message

Actually, if you’d like an example of what I consider to be properly- formatted HTML, have a look at my teensy web page:

http://www.extremezone.com/~anamorph/

🙂 Ah, the Good Old Days.

Yes, and you probably noticed I’m even so old school as to use all CAPS in my tags, as well as comments in some places. 🙂

Aside from the sarcasm going on in here at the moment, including my own, I enjoyed reading your webpage, thanks for sharing it with us.

All the best,
Brian.

p.s. I am never serious btw, if someone says something smart to me, I send something back, but there is never any malice or anything personal in it. This is just the internet afterall. I really like talking to people from all over the world and hearing their viewpoints.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:27:43 -0000, (Stephen
Edwards) wrote:

In article , Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:35:12 +1000, Brian
wrote:

The larger the corporation the more likely it is you’ll get the *worst* of both programs.

LMAO! You are so positive there Hecate. You make me smile. 🙂

Just because I’m a cynic, it doesn’t mean I’m not a realist 😉

I thought a cynic was a realist…<?>

Cynic: Someone who is critical of the motives of others

Realist: A person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly

Of course those are basic, rather than the philosophical definitions 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…