TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: HTML editor: does everyone need to be on the same page?
Subject:Re: HTML editor: does everyone need to be on the same page? From:John Posada <jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 3 Sep 2001 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
A few thoughts:
I'd like to take this argument away from FP specific and direct it
toward WYSIWYG because that was the initial argument...see the
following paragraph.
--- Peter <pnewman1 -at- home -dot- com> wrote:
> John Posada wrote:
>
> > > Secondly, I think the attitude that everyone on the writing
> > > team should be using the same tool to produce code with
> > > is dangerous; proprietary WYSIWYG editors almost always
> > > impose idiosyncratic code that can render your finished
> > > product accessible only to a specialized audience. If that
> > Sorry, but this argument is getting old and it is doodoo....
> > ...
> > I'll create a perfectly usable and feature-rich web page in FP
> > (although I can do it in NP too, though in 1/4 the time) and I
> > challenge you to not be able to use all the functionality on that
> > page by any mainstream or even nearly mainstream browser that can
> > read standard 3.2 or 4.0 html code.
> >
> > You may not like some of the underlying code or how the code
> > for the page is arranged, but only a very small portion (single
> > digit percentage) of people viewing web page even know about
> > View -> Source and even less care.
> Products such as Front Page and Publisher certainly do a fine job,
> for what they are. They clearly make it easy for those without a
What the WYSIWYG authoring tools are, is a tool. What they produce is
up to the expertise and imagination of the user. There is nothing
within the capabilities of FP or any WYSIWYG editor that prevents
someone from producing a feature-rich and perfectly presentable web
page.
> lot of technical coding experience to produce a web page or DTP
> document. They also make it easy to produce a quick and dirty
> prototype, that might be used as a final. I also know folks who
> can spot a Front Page site simply by it's look and speed, or
I can also spot a some documents made with Word or with Frame, or
sometimnes, an image that was produced by Illustrator. Does that mean
that since I can recognize the authoring tool, that the authoring
tool is at fault, or is it the user?
BTW...I think the reason that many FP web sites are recognizable is
that since the program is relatively cheap is an MS product, and
comes with templates, when a beginner needs a web authoring tool,
they pick FP. What you are seeing is the result of a beginner, not
the result of the application. That same beginner would produce the
calibre of site using notepad or DW.
I'd venture to say that some you sites you are looking at, where it
never dawns on you that the site is produced by a WYSIWYG authoring
tool, are. Do a View-Source more often when you don't think a WYSIWYG
authoring tools is involved and you may find out that the name of
that tool is appearing in the Metatag more and more. It happened to
me a couple of days ago. Attractive corporate site, some Flash, lots
of scripting...there was nothing on the site to indicate that it was
a FP site.
> lack thereof, of loading. I agree with your comment about
> the "Notepad HTML coder." The Notepad coder is as much of
> a production guy as a punch card programmer. However, I think that
> we agree that other products such as Dreamweaver have a legitimate
> user base. I also think that there products such as Dreamweaver
> and Hot Metal that put out more efficient code and allow for
> greater artistic license.
Dreamweaver is a WYSIWYG authoring tool, and therefore, should be
included with the type of applications quoted in the opening
argument. However, artistic license is in the mind of the author. As
I said above, there is nothing within the capabilities of an WYSIWYG
authoring tool to prevent someone with the experience from producing
a high-calibre site.
=====
John Posada, Senior Technical Writer
"I am a bomb disposal expert. If you see me running, try to keep up." mailto:john -at- tdandw -dot- com, 732-259-2874
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
+++ Miramo -- Database/XML publishing automation. See us at +++
+++ Seybold SFO, Sept. 25-27, in the Adobe Partners Pavilion +++
+++ More info: http://www.axialinfo.comhttp://www.miramo.com +++
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
