How the Hell do I indent a paragraph!

NetObject Fusion's excellent WYSIWYG

That's a joke, right? ;o)

The problem with most editors is that people ASSUME that there really IS
such a thing as WYSIWYG on the web. It's a myth.

-Darrel
It's far and away the best WYSIWYG editor I've ever used, if one believes
there is such a thing. ;-) Have you tried it? You might be surprised.
http://www.netobjects.com/

In fact, my partner and I decided to purchase NOF over DreamWeaver because she
was/is _not_ an HTML coder, and had no interest in understanding the
complexities of HTML, CSS, scripting, or compatibilty with user agents, or OS
platforms. She was a pure author. Her statement to me was; "I want to work as
if I'm using Word". NOF cost us $200 more than DreamWeaver, at the time, but we
purchased it because DreamWeaver still required an understanding of the
structure of the tables and table cells in the (WYSIWIG-like) design view.
Also, DreamWeaver's IDE is too inimidating to her.

The drawback was that NOF doesn't have remote team collaboration, so she had
to come over to my place everytime she wanted to put in content. If Contribute
had been available at the time, I would have purchased a copy for her and used
DreamWeaver for me to work over the Internet.

Chris

On 19 Jul 2004 in macromedia.dreamweaver, ChrisRi wrote:

Sure. This is one I put together 2 or 3 years ago for a poor kid
with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy using NOF 5 (NOF 8 is now available):
http://www.tristangraham.com/.

The HTML on that page alone is ~30K, and if you're aiming at a dialup
audience, your whole budget for the page (html + images + external js +
external CSS + any other 'stuff) is 40K.

This is the code from the beginning of the first table:

<TABLE border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=78 nof=ly>
<TR valign=top align=left>
<TD width=5 height=20>
<IMG src="./clearpixel.gif" width=5 height=1 border=0></TD>

"nof=ly" is, to the best of my knowledge, nonexistant in the HTML spec.
"height=20" is invalid html. Attributes aren't quoted. And I could go
on.

But take a look at the table structure - there are cells all over the
place. That's fragile structure to view, and somewhere between difficult
and impossible to maintain or update.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

Originally posted by: Newsgroup User
On 19 Jul 2004 in macromedia.dreamweaver, ChrisRi wrote:

Sure. This is one I put together 2 or 3 years ago for a poor kid
with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy using NOF 5 (NOF 8 is now available):
http://www.tristangraham.com/.

The HTML on that page alone is ~30K, and if you're aiming at a dialup
audience, your whole budget for the page (html + images + external js +
external CSS + any other 'stuff) is 40K.

At the time, the consideration was not page weight, although I agree it should
have been considered. Our major concern was compatibilty with browser versions.
but, the point is now moot to me as I don't maintain this site any longer.

This is the code from the beginning of the first table:

TABLE border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=78 nof=ly
TR valign=top align=left
TD width=5 height=20
IMG src="./clearpixel.gif" width=5 height=1 border=0></TD

"nof=ly" is, to the best of my knowledge, nonexistant in the HTML spec.

think it's pretty obvious that "nof" stands for netobjects fusion, so this was
some tag that was used by the app to generate, or manage code that got left
over. Remember, this was NOF 5, and now we're at NOF 8. I'm hoping _small_
little glitches like this have been fixed by now. 'Course I don't use NOF
anymore, so I can't verify that for ya. Either way, it's not required, and has
no adverse affect on the functionality of the page, whether in, or out.

"height=20" is invalid html.

Not exactly invalid - it's depricated in 4.01, but still works in IE6 (not
that that's any justification to keep using it)
(http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_td.asp). It's recommended to use CSS
instead. I can't recall, but it might _not_ have been depricated back when I
made the site.

Attributes aren't quoted. And I could go on.

That's ok - this was really more about WYSIWYG editors than it was about
getting constructive <cough> critisism about a web site that was built years
ago, and that I no longer am responsible for. (Actually the thread was about
indentation!)

But take a look at the table structure - there are cells all over the
place. That's fragile structure to view, and somewhere between difficult
and impossible to maintain or update.

It's a no brainer to maintain and update becuase you would be using NOF! I
wouldn't want to touch the code, otherwise.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

Have you tried it? You might be surprised.

Do they still update that software?

From what I remember it produced INCREDIBLY bloated, table-based layouts.

In fact, my partner and I decided to purchase NOF over DreamWeaver
because she
was/is _not_ an HTML coder, and had no interest in understanding the
complexities of HTML, CSS, scripting, or compatibilty with user agents, or
OS
platforms.

No offense, but then she has no business building the pages, then.

Again, there is no such thing as WYSISYG for the web. The apps that claim to
do that, pretty much consistently let users build bloated, non-structural,
poorly accessible markup. This isn't a good thing.

As you mention, DW + contribute would probably have been the best solution
if it were available at the time.

Of course *the* best (not always more affordable, though) solution for
anyone that doesn't want to deal with HTML is to build a good content
management system for the site.

-Darrel

In fact, my partner and I decided to purchase NOF over DreamWeaver
because she
was/is _not_ an HTML coder, and had no interest in understanding the
complexities of HTML, CSS, scripting, or compatibilty with user agents, or
OS
platforms.

No offense, but then she has no business building the pages, then.


None taken - it's a matter of opinion, right? I will say that I Contribute 2
was designed for _just that_ - non coders who don't want to know anything about
the underlying code-level structure of Web site construction. But, they should
still have knowledge and understand of the abstracts of building Web sites:
accessability, media types, layout design, colours, and such. And, these are
the things she understood. She was a really good graphics artist, too, so that
took a lot of weight off my shoulders, 'cause I suck!

But, I still believe Web development software is going to evolve into
something that can be used by non-coders. And, it'll come from client demand to
put more control of publishing content into the hands of the subject experts,
and leave only the underlying technology in the hands of the Web developer.

Anyway, I'm simply asking everybody here to try the demo of NOF 8 to check out
their <cough> WYSIWYG editor for themselves. I'm not a NOF evangelist, and I
haven't used NOF since version 5. Personally I'm a DreamWeaver guy, now. I
would only ever use NOF again if I were doing work with a non-coder (and
probably would choose Contribute 2, with, as you say, a solid Web management
plan).

.oO(ChrisRi)

So, in the
future, users should worry less and less about understanding HTML, just as
those who use word processors never think about it.

This would require editors that write reasoanable and valid code. I
doubt this will ever happen (and I doubt that it's possible at all).

Creating good, small, fast loading code _always_ requires hand work.

Now, if you could combine DreamWeaver with NetObject Fusion's excellent
WYSIWYG,

.... and it's crap of generated code ...

An image, for example,
will stay exactly where you dropped it, with no table cell sizing, or spacing
to worry about. And, if you want to move the image 5 pixels to the left, just
highlight the image and tap the left arrow 5 times. It'll stay in place.

Forget about WYSIWYG, the WWW is _no_ DTP.

Micha

This would require editors that write reasoanable and valid code. I
doubt this will ever happen (and I doubt that it's possible at all).

Yes and know. DW can make quite clean and valid code.

The bigger issue is structuring the content with the proper markup. Few
people know how to do this...in ANY editor (be it DW or MS Word).

Forget about WYSIWYG, the WWW is _no_ DTP.

Agreed. The issue here is that content writers shouldn't be concerned with
visual look at all. Hence they have no NEED for a WYSIWYG tool.

Only the visual designers should be worried abut the visual layout, and they
should either know HTML or be working side-by-side with HTML writers to get
to the solution.

-Darrel

None taken - it's a matter of opinion, right?

Well, sure, but it's a basic design principal in many ways. If one is only
concerned about the visual aesthetic, then the rest of the design solution
is most likely sub-par.

But, I still believe Web development software is going to evolve into
something that can be used by non-coders.

I really hope not. Like I said, look at MS Word. FEW, if any folks use MS
Word correctly. Everyone *thinks* they can use it, but no one truly can use
it to produce well formatted, structured documents.

And, it'll come from client demand to
put more control of publishing content into the hands of the subject
experts,
and leave only the underlying technology in the hands of the Web
developer.

This is where proper design and implementation of content management systems
in critical.

I do agree with you, the content writers should have no worries about HTML.
They SHOULD only worry about well structured writing. So, they know when to
use headlines, lists, quotes, etc. Whether they know these in the HTML
sense, or in the WYSIWYG sense is irrelevant, but they MUST know how to make
a well structured document.

A good CMS can then store this structure either in HTML, or some other SGML
language.

-Darrel

.oO(darrel)

This would require editors that write reasoanable and valid code. I
doubt this will ever happen (and I doubt that it's possible at all).

Yes and know. DW can make quite clean and valid code.

<p>hello world</p>



But OK, I agree. Even the most terrible div-soup can be valid, even if
it makes no real sense in the end.

The bigger issue is structuring the content with the proper markup. Few
people know how to do this...in ANY editor (be it DW or MS Word).

Yep.

Micha