Dreamweaver vs. Front Page

2»

Comments

  • DogSoldierDogSoldier The heart of radical Amish country..
    edited November 2003
    a2jfreak, good post. I'm not gonna convert any notepad/editpad/editplus users to DW and noone's gonna convince me to use notepad. (I really wouldn't want to contemplate what would happen..) Using DW is all about efficiency, I like editing, saving and uploading changes through the DW FTP and seeing the changes in realtime.

    BTW, I don't know about the latest versions of FrontPage, but the 98-99 versions I used were really quite horrible. Talk about bloat.

    The title of this thread should be renamed "Dreamweaver vs. NotePad"
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited November 2003
    DogSoldier: Yeah. I'm not going to (nor am I even attempting to) convert anyone. Dreamweaver has plenty of nice features and I actually like the program; I just don't find much use for it personally.

    I think most of us agree Front Page really isn't the tool to use. If you need/want the GUI stuff, ditch FP and use Dreamweaver.

    (BTW, UltraEdit does have FTP capabilities.)
    I do need to keep a browser[/url open to the document I'm editing so that I can refresh after making changes but that's not really an issue for me but to some it might be.

    I say: to each his own. Let me be and I'll let you be. I don't see how someone can tell me I'm wrong when it comes to what makes me comfortable and what I like. It's like telling someone they're wrong for liking the color pink or wrong for liking an old chair.
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    My $0.02

    I know jack about HTML so for me Dreamweaver is pretty good to learn cause you can use the split view and when you create the page you can see what code is being inputted so you learn latter on. As for people that use Notepad, you could always just use the code view, delete everything, put what you want to put and when you need the GUI part, just change the view, create what you want to create and just go back to the code only view. Pretty easy.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    Heheheh... I can't stand when editors close tags automatically... I'm so used to closing them myself that when an editor closes the tag, I wind up with two closing tags!
  • maxanonmaxanon Montreal
    edited November 2003
    I guess it depends on how long you've been coding html. I go the way of jesus freak and use notepad/dreamweaver. Thank the lord for the reload button.

    If you're asking, I would say dreamweaver kicks all things out of the room. The only problem is that you won't learn HTML, just point and clicking. Which is good, if you want to spend more time on the design than on the coding. But you won't be a html god after 10 years of using dreamweaver.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    I learned all my HTML from dreamweaver. Started WYSIWYGging my way through web design, always watching the code to see what was happening. Over time, I started memorizing the code that it was creating by point & click.

    In about 6 months I didn't need point and click, and I was debugging dreamweaver's few eccentricities at the code level. Now I just use DW because it's light on time, and easier to see what I'm doing.
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    a2jfreak had this to say
    Besides, I just created a macro (html::strong) in UltraEdit so that when I hit Shift+.+S (which is < s) I get < strong >< /strong > appearing on the screen with the cursor positioned between the two so I can continue typing.

    I type <b> then go back and do a global search & replace to <strong>.:D
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    Thrax had this to say
    I learned all my HTML from dreamweaver. Started WYSIWYGging my way through web design, always watching the code to see what was happening. Over time, I started memorizing the code that it was creating by point & click.

    In about 6 months I didn't need point and click, and I was debugging dreamweaver's few eccentricities at the code level. Now I just use DW because it's light on time, and easier to see what I'm doing.

    Same here

    ~Cyrix
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited November 2003
    What do you do if you really meant < b >? :)

    TD, if you haven't tried UltraEdit you should give it a whirl. It has a 45-day evaluation period to try before you buy. Just go to www.ultraedit.com and download it.
    TD_Isles had this to say
    a2jfreak had this to say
    Besides, I just created a macro (html::strong) in UltraEdit so that when I hit Shift+.+S (which is &lt; s) I get &lt; strong &gt;&lt; /strong &gt; appearing on the screen with the cursor positioned between the two so I can continue typing.

    I type &lt;b&gt; then go back and do a global search & replace to &lt;strong&gt;.:D
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    <b> is deprecated in HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. I use EditPlus, very similar to UltraEdit. It has autocomplete, keyboard shortcuts, and syntax coloring.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited November 2003
    < b > is deprecated? Sheesh! What is the world coming to! So am I going to have to "strong" my text in Word in the future too rather than "bold" it?

    // Edit: Woops, I used the deprecated < b > but w/out the spaces around the b so my whole text was bol^H^H^Hstronged. ;D
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    I wondered why my b tag wasn't working in something. I can't remember what it was. Why "strong" though. Sounds very amaturish....

    NS
  • KwitkoKwitko Sheriff of Banning (Retired) By the thing near the stuff Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    <strong> is used for accessibility reasons. I read on W3C, which sets the HTML standards, that it had something to do with screen readers. I wish I could find that damn article again.

    Found this:
    From an accessibility standpoint, <b> and <i> tags are not suggested as aural browsers (browsers that read content aloud) will tonally emphasize words that have these tags. Not so with the <b> and <i> tags.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    Surely that is an issue that is fault of the narration software creators, not the standard, and now everyone has to suffer for it?

    ...

    NS
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited November 2003
    That quote doesn't even make sense and its two sentences contradict each other. The first says < b > and < i > are tonally emphasized. The second says that isn't the case with < b > and < i >. Which is it?

    Also, wouldn't you want (:D) them emphasized tonally? They're sure emphasized visually.
Sign In or Register to comment.