|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 11/25/96 11:49
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> Edwin van der Vaart wrote:
>
>> Dreamwaver is a nice editor for beginners,
>
> If beginners begin with Dreamweaver then they'll find it very difficult
> to learn to do things properly.
>
> DW perpetuates two huge myths:
> - HTML is hard
> - HTML needs expensive tools.
> Neither of these has any justification.
>
> Dramweaver is a poor tool. It teaches lots iof mis-truths, it
> encourages poor coding and it discourages good CSS use. It's often
> advocated as "a powerful tool for commercial use on short timescales",
> which might have had some justification for 3.2 <table> code in the
> last century, but is no longer the case.
>
I agree, in fact I would expand that to encompass all 'WYSIWYG' editors
including the better ones like NVu. Even when used for quick mockups
since at best they embed inline CSS, or worse presentational markup that
after you remove I find easier to just hand-code in the first place.
> It's also advocated that "poor naive little users" _need_ the
> hand-holding of Dreamweaver because their little heads will explode if
> we ask them to work in a smarter manner, even though this is admittedly
> a little more thought. I'd suggest (having personally taught
> "community access web design courses") that they need the cash they
> would have wasted on buying it a lot more!
>
The HTML is really very simple, rules are few and simple. Mostly only a
handful of of elements are commonly used. The CSS part can be a bit
daunting for the the beginner, but one would hope that it will improve
as A) CSS evolves, B) more browsers (I'll be kind) comply. c) modern
practices of web design start taking advantages of A & B so beginners
can see more valid real world examples.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|