|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 11/12/05 10:49
"code_wrong" <tac@tac.co.uk> wrote:
> the code is pretty much unreadable but it does act pretty much as a
> WYSIWYG web page editor ...
Why "but"? You listed two separate problems.
_Advanced_ authors can use even WYSIWYG editors, if they know what they are
doing. Novices should stay away from them.
> why do we not see more pages created this
> way? ..
People who want WYSIWYG use FrontPage,
> On the small test I did it does not cause Firefox any display
> problems ...
This most probably describes the inadequacy of your testing more than
anything else.
> so why not? .. it would be great for kids .. they already
> use word for word processing .. why not just save a document as an htm
> file and then post it onto a web site?
Why should they create web pages without understanding what they are doing
and how the web works? To be _very_ ashamed after 10 years when they
understand that but cannot remove their old pages from the archives that
are publicly available?
As WYSIWYG tools in general, using Word for web authoring can be quite useful
and appropriate when carried out by a competent and careful person. For one
thing, Word has good spelling (and grammar) checking capabilities, though you
are apparently not interested in such matters. Word can also turn
preformatted text into a table, add language markup, etc. Of course, being
competent and careful includes using "Save as filtered" and cleaning up the
result by removing the <style> element that contains CSS-like mess, and
writing a good style sheet instead.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|