Front Page Extensions??????

Mr_Skint_2

I must admit that blinky is correct, but in saying that it still has its problems
thats why WYSIWYG editors have an HTML view to tweak the code.

Or you would just do a site in design view then upload as if the code was that
good you wouldn't need a HTML view, but I do think Dreamweaver is better than FP

F1F1

Mr_Skint wrote:

FP2000 is a bit er well junk really so is 2003, you wanna upgrade to 2002.

Don't think I'd bother, but thanks for the info. I don't know anything about 2002 but 2003 at least seems to have a few more DW-like functions such as split-screen for coding and design.

wolfman

F1F1 wrote:

That's the first time I've heard anyone refer to Dreamweaver's code as poorly structured. It's only the industry standard.. I agree that hand coding produces the cleanest code but who wants to hand code a large site? <ok, ok, some do.. > I agree most people only care about how the site looks. But surely it would have to perform well? Especially if it was a business site? Most internet users are in a hurry to get the information they want and they want the site to work well for them.

Dreamweaver can be quite messy at times. If you want control over you code, and like to keep it nicely formatted/clean then hand coding is the only way to go. The first thing I do when using editors like Dreamweaver and Visual Studio.Net is turn off any of the auto formatting, and set it to default to code view not WYSIWYG.

Mr_Skint_2

F1F1 wrote:

Don't think I'd bother, but thanks for the info. I don't know anything about 2002 but 2003 at least seems to have a few more DW-like functions such as split-screen for coding and design.

Its all basically the same GUI. :beer:

F1F1

wolfman wrote:

Dreamweaver can be quite messy at times. If you want control over you code, and like to keep it nicely formatted/clean then hand coding is the only way to go. The first thing I do when using editors like Dreamweaver and Visual Studio.Net is turn off any of the auto formatting, and set it to default to code view not WYSIWYG.

We hand coded websites at college using Notepad and DW. Quite liked the benefits of hand coding in DW.

blinky

F1F1 wrote:

But surely it would have to perform well? Especially if it was a business site? Most internet users are in a hurry to get the information they want and they want the site to work well for them.

It depends on how savvy the business is. Sadly many business (particularly small ones) are more interested in how the site looks than how easy it is to use and to find. Many still think that you set up a website and the money starts magically rolling in.

F1F1

blinky wrote:

It depends on how savvy the business is. Sadly many business (particularly small ones) are more interested in how the site looks than how easy it is to use and to find. Many still think that you set up a website and the money starts magically rolling in.

And they're probably the ones who have the animated gifs, irritating sound and the blinking <and very possibly multicoloured> text. IMO usability's very important and accessability needs to be considered too. Like anything else someone buys, a website should be fit for its purpose. So if it's a business site it should work properly and should achieve reasonable rankings. However, as you say, putting the website up is only the start - the website needs to be included in the overall marketing strategy.

blinky

I agree with what you say but for most small businesses the website is purely an ego-boost (so they can say "I've got a website").

What's not uncommon is for them not to care about how it does in search engines, usability etc but only about the asthetics, no matter how carefully the importance of such factors . Then they complain a few months later when it's not making them any money.

budgetflyer

You can download "free" templates at http://www.steves-templates.com/
cuts down a lot of work.
I have started using NVU, its open source and seems to do the job.