|
|
Posted by Tim Streater on 11/09/07 18:39
In article <2a218$47349d5b$40cba7a3$22128@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <cf5cd$47348ca8$40cba7a3$12630@NAXS.COM>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ed Jensen wrote:
>
> >>> I tried doing things the Ivory Tower way (i.e., Separate content and
> >>> layout!, Tables are for tabular data only!, etc.), but I found the
> >>> experience time consuming and frustrating beyond any measure of good
> >>> sense.
> >> Maybe because you don't know your tools: HTML/CSS/JavaScript Knowledge
> >> is power. Why would you expect to "build a house" when you knew nothing
> >> about carpentry? And expect to be successful? Don't want to learn, then
> >> do what people do when they what a house but don't want to invest in
> >> learning carpentry, hire a carpenter.
> >
> > I have to say I am inclined to sympathise with Ed. Why should the tools
> > be HTML/CSS/JavaScript? Just because Word, FrontPage etc generate crap
> > HTML does not invalidate the idea of a WYSISYG approach to generating
> > web pages (for example).
> >
>
> The point is if you need a "shed", a small simple website is not that
> hard to do, period. There are plenty of good, free, well constructed
> templates out there that all you have to do is paste in your content!
> You can modify the the style as time, skill, and interest allow.
>
> WYSISYG editors in general build poorly constructed, bloated markup,
> overly positioned, difficult to maintain (where edits==rewrites), and
> usually browser-specific sites.
I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. It does not, however, invalidate
the point. It just means there is a yawning gap in the market.
For me a website is a means to an end, no more. You're in danger of
making it the end itself.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|