Re: Front Page Fussy

[Jeff Wiggin <wiggin -at- RPI -dot- EDU>]

John Gilger wrote:
> What is the point about all of this malarkey about Front Page?  We all
> use different tools for different tasks.  What difference does it make
> which tool we use if we produce a quality product with it.  ("Quality"
> means the customer accepts it, in this case.)
The issue is that non-compliant HTML is not always readable in all
browsers, causing problems for users in various situations, and that
FrontPage and other editors are known to create code that is problematic
in this respect. By any criteria I know, that equals *low* quality.

I personally think the reliance on "WYSI-Sort-of-WYG" editors is the
scourge of the Web. Okay, sometimes they write compliant HTML. In my
experience usually not -- and when they do, it is a bloody mess to
behold. The bottom line is *really* (if we can only bring ourselves to
admit it) that most people are too lazy to learn writing good HTML, and
opt for the "quick and easy" way out. The "easy" way often becomes the
hard way, though, when the page is not readable or usable in certain
browsers, or needs to be edited and is opened in a different program.

A larger problem IMO is the assumption underlying the development and
now widespread use of WYSIWYGs: the Web should conform to "page layout"
standards of design, and HTML should help us achieve that. But HTML is
not a layout tool; by definition it is a "markup language." The
advertisers apparently have convinced 90% of web users and developers
that "cool" web sites are the visual equivalent of a magazine ad. This
approach to web "design" is the cause of a lot of functional ugliness on
the Web, and hopefully it is on the way out as more people familiarize
themselves with basic principles of usability and hypernavigation.

Microsoft is very aware of the above points, it seems -- and especially
of the fact that people want the quick and easy (read: shortsighted) way
out. So, they are providing a tool that mangles HTML in such a way that
makes users of the program reliant on the tool itself. This, I think, is
a BIG issue. If FrontPage were to disappear off the planet tomorrow, a
lot of people would be in very big trouble -- or would at least be in
for some big headaches. Microsoft is counting on this reliance, which,
in a perverted sense, I guess can be seen as an effective business
strategy. More intelligent, it seems to me, is to develop a product that
benefits everyone in the long term, not only Microsoft. Instead, in the
interest of "profit now" they choose to market a product that in many
cases actually rewards people both for "writing" poor HTML and for
remaining ignorant of the fact that they are even doing so. (And, if the
argument still is not clear enough: poor HTML = usability problems =
frustrated users = low "quality.")

One last issue that I'm not 100% sure about but would expect to be true
concerns bandwidth. I would guess that loading times as a whole are
faster on sites that have "cleaner" HTML (e.g., <B>This sentence in
bold.</B>) as opposed to the bloated mess reluctant users of FrontPage
have witnessed and reported (<B>This</B><B> sentence</B><B> in</B><B>
bold.</B>). This could even mean the difference of seconds per page,
which doesn't sound like a lot but adds up over the course of browsing a
site. Most users won't even wait around for those few precious extra
seconds. Is that what you want for your customers' sites?

Regards,
Jeff W.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeffrey R. Wiggin, M.S.
Technical Communicator
mailto:wiggin -at- rpi -dot- edu


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=