Editing software

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: Editing software

webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om writes:

reasonable alternative, everyone seems to agree that MS stuff sucks. I
think I knew that but was in denial. Although several of you, or at
least two, said FP 2003 wasn't half bad.

FP 2003 isn't half bad - *IF* you know enough about HTML coding to know
what traps to avoid and how to avoid having FP2k3 generate those traps
behind your back.

It's a Catch-22 situation for a lot of folks, unfortunately - they don't
know HTML very well, so they use FP. But FP isn't very useful for real
sites unless you know HTML well enough to work around FP's problems.

What I am really after is a "one size
fits all" tool that will let me create "good" sites, that will
actually validate without recoding a zillions lines of code.

There is no magic "make web site" application that will do the work for
you - and that *is* what you're asking for here, something that will do
the work of a web developer.

what I heard. So, what do you (all) recommend for professional banner,
logo, graphics, etc...creation?

Photoshop + ImageReady is what most professionals use.

But, once again - there is no magic "make professional banner" button.
Pros don't need one; it's a matter of design skill and aesthetic sense
that makes the real difference, not the tools.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[pegasusflightresources@gmail.com]

Re: Editing software


Sherm Pendley wrote:

webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om writes:
>

reasonable alternative, everyone seems to agree that MS stuff sucks. I
think I knew that but was in denial. Although several of you, or at
least two, said FP 2003 wasn't half bad.

>
FP 2003 isn't half bad - *IF* you know enough about HTML coding to know
what traps to avoid and how to avoid having FP2k3 generate those traps
behind your back.

But there's always the chance that you can miss that, and in SEO, that
can mean a waste of resources. It does require a great knowledge of
HTML, and that is why I find that Dreamweaver is a perfectly reasonable
alternate. Dreamweaver doesn't generate those "traps", and yet
generates good quality web pages and gives the possibilities of hand
coding, drag and drop WYSIWYG editing, and both combined.

>
It's a Catch-22 situation for a lot of folks, unfortunately - they don't
know HTML very well, so they use FP. But FP isn't very useful for real
sites unless you know HTML well enough to work around FP's problems.
>

What I am really after is a "one size
fits all" tool that will let me create "good" sites, that will
actually validate without recoding a zillions lines of code.

>
There is no magic "make web site" application that will do the work for
you - and that *is* what you're asking for here, something that will do
the work of a web developer.

I can partially argue this point, as I found that Dreamweaver (the drag
and drop portion of it) makes the web site quite well for you, although
the types of web pages are very limited (I have learned to hate ASP).
If it allowed for more types of web pages, then it could be considered
the ultimate "one size fits all" tool. Otherwise, there are some good
web sites that have dynamic code makers so that you can design your web
page, and the site generates the code for you so that you can just take
that and put it into Notepad, or something like it, and have the web
page done. I've only seen a couple of these, but I've heard about tons
of them. The two that I've seen are the Yahoo Page Creator, and the
Google Web Site Creator. Yahoo seems reasonable, and you can modify
the source code. I haven't tried too much with Google, but it looks to
be a clean cut source code creator, although it only gives you the end
product preview.
Even with these programs, the job still requires some skill, but one
only needs to read the basics of HTML.

>

what I heard. So, what do you (all) recommend for professional banner,
logo, graphics, etc...creation?

>
Photoshop + ImageReady is what most professionals use.
>
But, once again - there is no magic "make professional banner" button.
Pros don't need one; it's a matter of design skill and aesthetic sense
that makes the real difference, not the tools.
>
sherm--
>
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

It is true that banners are primarily designed by hand, and there is no
oversimplified tool for creating them. This job requires a lot of
artistic ability (which I definitely don't have), and so there cannot
be a tool that makes it easy, as computers still don't have the ability
to think artistically.

I have the honor to remain your most humble and Ob't Sv't in our war
against the King.

--
Patrick Reilly
1st Coy.
Colonel Seth Warner's Regiment

[Sherm Pendley]

Re: Editing software

"pegasusflightr esources@gmail. com" <pegasusflightr esources@gmail. comwrites:

Sherm Pendley wrote:

>webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om writes:
>>
>FP 2003 isn't half bad - *IF* you know enough about HTML coding to know
>what traps to avoid and how to avoid having FP2k3 generate those traps
>behind your back.

>
But there's always the chance that you can miss that, and in SEO, that
can mean a waste of resources. It does require a great knowledge of
HTML, and that is why I find that Dreamweaver is a perfectly reasonable
alternate. Dreamweaver doesn't generate those "traps", and yet
generates good quality web pages and gives the possibilities of hand
coding, drag and drop WYSIWYG editing, and both combined.

DW's templating and site-management tools are also fairly decent, although
they do fall short of being a full-fledged content management system. I use
it myself from time to time - mostly it depends on whether I'm creating
static content or templated "snippets" to be used to generate dynamic pages.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Jobe]

Re: Editing software

Chuck,

Text font is to bold for me.

Banner looks like Powerpoint animation.

But design remains personal and subjective :)

br

Johan

https://www.Web-garden.be

webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om wrote:

Johan,
>
"-I would work on the the content font."
Can you elaborate, please?
>
I thought the banner looked pretty cool, but then I like velvet Elvi
<gAn alternative?
>
Chuck
>
>
On 18 Oct 2006 10:44:46 -0700, "Jobe" <johan.jobe@gma il.comwrote:
>

Chuck,

Personaly I use Dreamweaver 8. But 80% of the time I`m writing directly
in the code page.
I started webdesign something like a year ago. In the mean time I´'m a
strong believer of code knowledge. There is no better way than writing
code.
But saying this, it takes a incredible amount of time to study HTML and
CSS.
You mention the word "dynamic" site...meaning you will have to spend
expensive time in learning PHP and MySQL.

It's not finished...How can you make an attractive site without
Photoshop?

For me the most difficult thing is...making choices. Should I go for
HTML/CSS, PHP, Flash,....

Some comments regarding the site:

-I would work on the the content font.
-The banner doesn't look professional to me
-The color of the right column (black° may be different.

Best regards

Johan
www.web-garden.be Exploring webdesign
David E. Ross wrote:

webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om wrote:
Hi all,

Without opening a HUGE can of worms, I just wanted to get some ideas
of what others are using professionally to create websites
commercially. For years I had used Homesite and never migrated to
Dreamweaver or ColdFusion. My limited abilities notwithstanding , I
have moved to FrontPage 2000 (forget validation) and now to MS
Publisher. Am I essentially bringing a knife to a gun fight here?

I have a very limited budget and want to be able to create dynamic
websites for potential clients. What is the best balance between cost
and effectiveness with ease of use as a prime consideration?

Chuck

PS: I've got my helmet and flak jacket on, go to my website and tell
me just how bad you think it is. www.wallstreetsoftware.com
cd

>
I use Wordpad to hand-code my HTML and CSS. I develop my pages in a
mirror on my PC, which replicates the same file structure as I have on
my ISP's Web server. This allows me to review and test my pages before
uploading them to the server.
>
This does not work with SSI scripts. For those, my ISP allows me to use
a secure Telnet session into my account on their Web server. I use vi
to hand-code UNIX Korn-shell scripts and test them via the Telnet session.
>
Of course, no everyone knows how to hand-code HTML and CSS. I've looked
at Nvu at <http://www.nvu.com/>. It seems to generate HTML that passes
W3C validation. I don't particularly like the way Nvu formats the
source HTML (the visual appearance) and the fact that it always inserts
closing tags that are optional (e.g., </pat the end of a paragraph
that is immediately followed by another paragraph). However, if you
want a tool to generate Web pages that are suitable for all browsers,
you might consider Nvu, which is freeware.
>
A list of freeware tools is at
<http://www.anybrowser. org/campaign/abtools.html>; this includes a
discussion of the tools. There is also W3C's Amaya at
<http://www.w3.org/Amaya/>.
>
--
>
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>
>
Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[RobG]

Re: Editing software

webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om wrote:
[...]

PS: I've got my helmet and flak jacket on, go to my website and tell
me just how bad you think it is. www.wallstreetsoftware.com

From your page:

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaS cript">

The language attribute is deprecated, type is required. Use:

<script type="text/javascript">


The start of your script:

function clock() {
if (!document.laye rs && !document.all) return;

will specifically exclude Firefox (and Mozilla, et al) from showing the
clock. I have no particular interest in seeing a clock in a web page
(it's pretty pointless, modern computers have clocks that the user can
display if they wish) but that seems a rather silly exclusion.

The only requirements for your clock are basic support for the built-in
javascript Date object and document.write, both of which are supported
by every browser of any note in the last 10 years. If you really want
to, feature detect for those features and leave it at that. Don't
assume that because a browser doesn't admit to support for two
particular proprietary (and quite outdated) features that they can't run
the rest of your script.

The javascript in the page can be greatly improved, try:

news:comp.lang. javascript


--
Rob

[web-novice@wallstretsoftware.com]

Re: Editing software

RobG,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I have learned
more on this newsgroup than in the last ten years of coding by myself.
As if it weren't completely evident, I am completely self taught. I
began in 1994 using the Robin Hood method of Web design. I would steal
a website and strip it of original identifying information replacing
it with my own. In the process I picked up many of the nuances of HTML
code mostly by osmosis. Unfortunatley, I picked up many bad habits
along the way. Now, I would never consider stealing another's design,
but still appreciate a well designed site and will try to incorporate
parts in my own design. Java script is a bugaboo, and I'm still
struggling. Thanks for the tips.

Chuck


On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:49:18 +1000, RobG <rgqld@iinet.ne t.auwrote:

>webmaster@wall streetsoftware. com wrote:
>[...]

>PS: I've got my helmet and flak jacket on, go to my website and tell
>me just how bad you think it is. www.wallstreetsoftware.com

>
From your page:
>
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaS cript">
>
>The language attribute is deprecated, type is required. Use:
>
<script type="text/javascript">
>
>
>The start of your script:
>
function clock() {
if (!document.laye rs && !document.all) return;
>
>will specifically exclude Firefox (and Mozilla, et al) from showing the
>clock. I have no particular interest in seeing a clock in a web page
>(it's pretty pointless, modern computers have clocks that the user can
>display if they wish) but that seems a rather silly exclusion.
>
>The only requirements for your clock are basic support for the built-in
>javascript Date object and document.write, both of which are supported
>by every browser of any note in the last 10 years. If you really want
>to, feature detect for those features and leave it at that. Don't
>assume that because a browser doesn't admit to support for two
>particular proprietary (and quite outdated) features that they can't run
>the rest of your script.
>
>The javascript in the page can be greatly improved, try:
>
news:comp.lang. javascript

[web-novice@wallstreetsoftware.com]

Re: Editing software

Johan,

Thank you for your objective observations. I value such input. For
some reason I tend to migrate toward Time New Roman in almost all
printed documents. I really don't know why. As you said it must be a
"personal and subjective" choice. I'll rethink it. I'm working on a
new banner using a graphic jpeg file with an overlay of the text
message. Thanks again.

Chuck

PS: Thanks for the link to web-garden, very informative. I've
bookmarked it for future reference. Is that you, or just a reference?
cd


On 22 Oct 2006 13:16:55 -0700, "Jobe" <johan.jobe@gma il.comwrote:

>Chuck,
>
>Text font is to bold for me.
>
>Banner looks like Powerpoint animation.
>
>But design remains personal and subjective :)
>
>br
>
>Johan
>www.Web-garden.be
>
>webmaster@wall streetsoftware. com wrote:

>Johan,
>>
>"-I would work on the the content font."
>Can you elaborate, please?
>>
>I thought the banner looked pretty cool, but then I like velvet Elvi
><gAn alternative?
>>
>Chuck
>>
>>
>On 18 Oct 2006 10:44:46 -0700, "Jobe" <johan.jobe@gma il.comwrote:
>>

>Chuck,
>
>Personaly I use Dreamweaver 8. But 80% of the time I`m writing directly
>in the code page.
>I started webdesign something like a year ago. In the mean time I´'m a
>strong believer of code knowledge. There is no better way than writing
>code.
>But saying this, it takes a incredible amount of time to study HTML and
>CSS.
>You mention the word "dynamic" site...meaning you will have to spend
>expensive time in learning PHP and MySQL.
>
>It's not finished...How can you make an attractive site without
>Photoshop?
>
>For me the most difficult thing is...making choices. Should I go for
>HTML/CSS, PHP, Flash,....
>
>Some comments regarding the site:
>
>-I would work on the the content font.
>-The banner doesn't look professional to me
>-The color of the right column (black° may be different.
>
>Best regards
>
>Johan
>www.web-garden.be Exploring webdesign
>David E. Ross wrote:
>webmaster@walls treetsoftware.c om wrote:
Hi all,
>
Without opening a HUGE can of worms, I just wanted to get some ideas
of what others are using professionally to create websites
commercially. For years I had used Homesite and never migrated to
Dreamweaver or ColdFusion. My limited abilities notwithstanding , I
have moved to FrontPage 2000 (forget validation) and now to MS
Publisher. Am I essentially bringing a knife to a gun fight here?
>
I have a very limited budget and want to be able to create dynamic
websites for potential clients. What is the best balance between cost
and effectiveness with ease of use as a prime consideration?
>
Chuck
>
PS: I've got my helmet and flak jacket on, go to my website and tell
me just how bad you think it is. www.wallstreetsoftware.com
cd
>
>>
>I use Wordpad to hand-code my HTML and CSS. I develop my pages in a
>mirror on my PC, which replicates the same file structure as I have on
>my ISP's Web server. This allows me to review and test my pages before
>uploading them to the server.
>>
>This does not work with SSI scripts. For those, my ISP allows me to use
>a secure Telnet session into my account on their Web server. I use vi
>to hand-code UNIX Korn-shell scripts and test them via the Telnet session.
>>
>Of course, no everyone knows how to hand-code HTML and CSS. I've looked
>at Nvu at <http://www.nvu.com/>. It seems to generate HTML that passes
>W3C validation. I don't particularly like the way Nvu formats the
>source HTML (the visual appearance) and the fact that it always inserts
>closing tags that are optional (e.g., </pat the end of a paragraph
>that is immediately followed by another paragraph). However, if you
>want a tool to generate Web pages that are suitable for all browsers,
>you might consider Nvu, which is freeware.
>>
>A list of freeware tools is at
><http://www.anybrowser. org/campaign/abtools.html>; this includes a
>discussion of the tools. There is also W3C's Amaya at
><http://www.w3.org/Amaya/>.
>>
>--
>>
>David E. Ross
><http://www.rossde.com/>
>>
>Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
>into your E-mail? Use PGP.
>See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>