Posted by Andy Dingley on 12/21/97 11:23

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:14:52 +0100, SpaceGirl
<NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:

>> No. If you care about its presence or absence, then use a code editor,
>> not a WYSISLWSEMPS drag-and-drool interface.
>
>DreamWeaver is a code editor, that happens to have some visualisation
>options.

From the OP's original post, they're designing in the visual view.

>They HELP build a site.

That's debatable. They simplify the process of making a bad fixed-size
site, but I've yet to see DW features (or any WYSIWYG HTML editor) that
encourage _good_ coding of the site.


>Of course, being a web designer of any
>worth you knew that rather than just following the blind trend of
>dissing software because it's the trendy thing to do. Right?

Who rattled your cage ?

I don't know dreamweaver. Bumped into it a few times (just last week for
one, because it was the only editor on the machine I was using). I've
yet to see anything that attracts me to it. The interface of the code
editor is clunky and it doesn't do XML auto closing-tag insertion, which
is one of the few really useful features of an editor that isn't just a
typing accelerator.


>We were working on a site today with some pretty complicated layouts.
>While DW didn't like they layers (divs) we were using (it simply stacked
>them up),

So it "doesn't like" something as fundamental as a <div> and we're
expected to recommend it ?


> applying CSS styles from DW's UI).

DW (and all other WYSIWYGs I've seen) are particularly poor on this.
They have no "styles", as distinct entities. They have HTML elements
(in a trivial DOM) and they have CSS properties. Sometimes they assemble
collections of properties and attach them to elements. But none of this
is a "style", in the sense of a coherent property-set with a meaning to
it, rather than just a coincidental coupling of them.


>After all, a lot of what makes a good site is
>understanding how UI's work, how to make processes faster and easier to
>use

No it isn't - not at all. Making a good site is about the end result
you achieve, not the slickness of the editor you used to do it.

I'm sure that DW is an excellent way to quickly build tables with
pixel-sized cells. And if that's what you think makes a "good site",
then good luck to you.

--
'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Evesham wagn'nagl fhtagn'

[Back to original message]