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:julie brodeur/mccready <jool -at- petting-zoo -dot- net> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 3 Sep 2001 12:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, John Posada wrote:
> 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.
That's true; however, most WYSIWYG tools add their own "cruft" which can
be undecipherable to another WYSIWYG tool. So if you're using Frame and
then using Save As HTML to create a Web page, and you're handing the
project (or part of the project) off to me, I had better be using Frame as
well. I _could_ export/import the file (say, into MS Word), but the
original HTML will probably get pretty messed up. You and I would have to
agree on a common, simple template that minimized export/import
problems--and that template might be too limited to ultimately meet our
needs. In this example, it would be more efficient if we just both used
the same WYSIWYG tool to begin with.
When two or more people need to edit or update the same files, I think
it's a real time-saver for everyone to be using the same WYSIWYG tool to
create their content.
> 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?
It's quite often the tool, I'm afraid. I can be really diligent about my
application of paragraph styles, but Homesite 4.0 is _still_ going to use
<div> tags everywhere, and Word 2000 is _still_ going to add XML coding to
my HTML.
> 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 seem to recall that an earlier version of DreamWeaver actually added a
bunch of tags that Homesite 4.0 (or maybe 3.5) did not.
Sorry if I didn't get the essence of this thread or repeated some things
people have already mentioned.
And I hope John doesn't get mad at me for taking some of his comments out
of context. ;)
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.
