Web design tools question.....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm about to jump into some web site design on my own. MS of course has their main web design software that they offer. The main two options I've found thus far are.....

-I've found a 2003 copy of FrontPage for $100. Also, it appears you can get an upgrate to MS Expression Web for about $80.
-The new software (MS Expression Web) is running about $240.

Are there any other web design tools that are available? Pros/cons of the various tools? Any help is appreciated.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pros/cons of the various tools?

Con: If you use MS FrontPage, you'll be mocked incessantly by web veterans.
(Seriously. I don't think I've heard anybody say anything good about it in years)

[wade moore]

Con: If you use MS FrontPage, you'll be mocked incessantly by web veterans.
(Seriously. I don't think I've heard anybody say anything good about it in years)

True...

Although to an extent, I think using a tool will get you mocked a bit by a certain segment no matter what..

Here's a question - what exactly are you looking for? Do you know html and you're looking for something as an aide, or what?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's a question - what exactly are you looking for? Do you know html and you're looking for something as an aide, or what?

Very good question.

What you're hoping to accomplish probably does more to dictate the "right" answer(s) than anything I can think of.

[lordscarlet]

I haven't used Front Page in a long time, but that's because it has always sucked so bad. I haven't used Expression at all. Dreamweaver is decent, but I haven't used much outside of that. In my opinion you shouldn't be using it for anything more than color coding your HTML and maybe having a "preview" of what you're writing. In Dreamweaver you can have a split panel where one shows your HTML and the other shows what your HTML displays as you change it. You should not be using a "web design tool" to "draw" a page.

[lordscarlet]

dola: Textmate for Mac OS X is an excellent code editor. There is an editor out for Windows now that uses the same plugin engine. I forget the exact name, but I could look it up if you're just looking for a sophistacted code-writing tool.

[wade moore]

and ls proves - it's a matter of what you're looking for ;)... As he answers assuming that the person writing the code is actually writing the code, rather than needing a WYSWIG that does all of the work for them - very different functions.

[Yellow5]

NVU is well rounded, open source and free. WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) style editor and manager.

hxxp://www.nvu.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

True...

Although to an extent, I think using a tool will get you mocked a bit by a certain segment no matter what..

Here's a question - what exactly are you looking for? Do you know html and you're looking for something as an aide, or what?

I'm a relative newbie on HTML. I took a 3 day course a year or so ago, but never used the skills after that. I'm willing to dive back into the language, but you are correct in that I'm hoping to use it as an aide to create a personal web page.

I'm looking for a good way to get started. Being mocked is not a great fear of mine. :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

NVU is well rounded, open source and free. WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) style editor and manager.

hxxp://www.nvu.com

Thanks. I'll take a look at that.

[lordscarlet]

and ls proves - it's a matter of what you're looking for ;)... As he answers assuming that the person writing the code is actually writing the code, rather than needing a WYSWIG that does all of the work for them - very different functions.

You mis-read me if this is your interpretation. You should be writing code or doing nothing at all. You should never, ever use a WYSIWYG for page layout. The closest you should ever get is to mockup a design in photoshop (or whatever) and cut out images where necessary to be placed via coded HTML.

[wade moore]

You mis-read me if this is your interpretation. You should be writing code or doing nothing at all. You should never, ever use a WYSIWYG for page layout. The closest you should ever get is to mockup a design in photoshop (or whatever) and cut out images where necessary to be placed via coded HTML.:rolleyes:

[lordscarlet]

:rolleyes:

I do not accept this eyeroll. You baited me into it. :)

Seriously, though. This is like... Man I wish I were better at analogies.

Sanjaya being good enough to get a record deal. There you go. :) He gets on stage, wears a pretty outfit, and the words to a song leave his mouth in what is the appropriate rhythm (for the most part at least). That's enough, right?

[wade moore]

I do not accept this eyeroll. You baited me into it. :)

Seriously, though. This is like... Man I wish I were better at analogies.

Sanjaya being good enough to get a record deal. There you go. :) He gets on stage, wears a pretty outfit, and the words to a song leave his mouth in what is the appropriate rhythm (for the most part at least). That's enough, right?

For a business, yes... but if it's just someone's personal website, *shrug*.. I don't see how it really matters...

[lordscarlet]

For a business, yes... but if it's just someone's personal website, *shrug*.. I don't see how it really matters...

If you have ever visited myspace you should see why it matters. :)

[wade moore]

If you have ever visited myspace you should see why it matters. :)

So you're saying if you're not a real "web developer" you shouldn't be allowed to have a spot on the interweb?

:rolleyes:

[lordscarlet]

So you're saying if you're not a real "web developer" you shouldn't be allowed to have a spot on the interweb?

:rolleyes:

Correct. :)

HTML is not hard to learn and Front Page (in particular compared to other tools) puts invalid tags and characters into your HTML.

If you're posting to a blog, just grab an existing template and write your entires with a WYSIWYG, fine. But if you're "...about to jump into some web site design on [your] own." it sounds like you should take the time to learn to do it properly.

[Antmeister]

Correct. :)

HTML is not hard to learn and Front Page (in particular compared to other tools) puts invalid tags and characters into your HTML.

If you're posting to a blog, just grab an existing template and write your entires with a WYSIWYG, fine. But if you're "...about to jump into some web site design on [your] own." it sounds like you should take the time to learn to do it properly.

I know what you are saying when it comes to layout, but using a WYSIWYG is not the most evil thing in the world, especially when it comes to streamlining work and Dreamweaver has been the standard for web developers/designers for years.

But as Yellow5 pointed out, there are some good open source applications that you can use. If you find yourself comfortable with NVu, I would suggest looking for a template that you can alter to suit your needs. Here is a listing of sites that have some templates:
http://almarks.com/masterlinks/index.php?c=171

If you want to get a primer on HTML/XHTML/CSS, I would suggest going to the following link to refresh yourself on the basics:
http://www.w3schools.com/

If you are looking into getting into more advanced stuff (like Javascript, AJAX, etc), you can send me a PM for some links and there are others here that would probably send you theirs as well.

[Antmeister]

Oh and yeah, do not use FrontPage. It writes a lot of unneccessary code and most of the time the code usually works best for Internet Explorer. So in most cases it is not cross-browser compliant. Meaning that it would have problems with other browsers.

[lordscarlet]

I, unfortunately, have not used any of the open source stuff. I use Visual Studio at work (I'm not going to recommend a multi hundred dollar product for HTML writing. :) ) and Dreamweaver on occasion. At home I am in love with textmate while writing rails stuff. But, as we both said, Front Page writes horrendous markup, so avoid it like the plague. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mizzou BBf -- see what I mean about mentioning FrontPage? ;)

If you're just looking for something functional to put some personal stuff on the web, and you aren't trying to impress anybody with your nifty coding abilities or hoping to do anything fancy, I'd suggest one of two things:

1) Many web hosts have templates that you pretty much plug your stuff into & voila, you're on the web.
2) WYSIWIG editors serve the purpose fine in a lot of cases like (I think) you're describing. I've used the Composer element of the Netscape suite for several years now & it's been plenty for most of my occasions.

Again, it really goes back to what you're looking for as an end result.

[sabotai]

FrontPage? LOL, OMFG n00b!

[BrianD]

FrontPage? LOL, OMFG n00b!

hxxp://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070407

I'm not really mocking you, I just wanted an excuse to post this link. :)
(CTRL+ALT+DEL comic, could be NSFW)

[PackerFanatic]

Con: If you use MS FrontPage, you'll be mocked incessantly by web veterans.
(Seriously. I don't think I've heard anybody say anything good about it in years)

Much truth here...

[Coffee Warlord]

So you're saying if you're not a real "web developer" you shouldn't be allowed to have a spot on the interweb?

:rolleyes:

YES! GOD YES! MAKE IT ALL STOP! :)

Yes, I'm an elitist when it comes to development. Notepad, pico, or nothing!

[daedalus]

Yes, I'm an elitist when it comes to development. Notepad, pico, or nothing!vi, bitches.

I spit upon emacs. F'n control keys.

[Coffee Warlord]

Screw vi AND emacs. Pico for the win.

[daedalus]

Back to seriousness . . .

I personally think vi (well, vim) is the one editor to rule them all when it comes to anything text -- including developing web pages. And, really, please do so on a *nix box running tcsh.

On the other hand, as wade said, if it's for a personal website, shrug, so long as you get to say what you want to say without, ummm, having too damn many moving objects (hate those fuckers).

[sterlingice]

Oh and yeah, do not use FrontPage. It writes a lot of unneccessary code and most of the time the code usually works best for Internet Explorer. So in most cases it is not cross-browser compliant. Meaning that it would have problems with other browsers.

I'm going to second or third or whatever we're up to on the "Do NOT use Front Page as it puts in garbage code to screw over other browsers" comment. Same goes for the web neophytes who use Word- same problem with lots of garbage code that anyone using a Mac, Firefox, and/or Opera won't be able to look at.

I'm a huge fan of Dreamweaver, tho not everyone needs to drop $300, or whatever it costs when you don't have a free site license sitting around, on personal web pages or anything. Really powerful interface that lets you code or get lazy and just "paint" up some stuff.

If you're not a HTML veteran, use a WYSIWYG editor. But make sure it has multiple panes so you can see the code as it makes things on the screen. That way you're learning and when you know the rules, you can better bend them to what you want.

Also, I love the text editor crowd. Then again, they also still think that terminal windows and command prompts are the way to go even if we have these silly GUI's sitting around to make life easier. Don't get me wrong- vi hacks are scary fast- they can come up with a page of code with about a dozen keystrokes. But for the rest of us who don't have 5 years to learn every shortcut or are working our way up there, tools like WYSIWYG web editors are nice as there's less rope to hang yourself with when learning.

SI

[daedalus]

Also, I love the text editor crowd. Then again, they also still think that terminal windows and command prompts are the way to go even if we have these silly GUI's sitting around to make life easier. Don't get me wrong- vi hacks are scary fast- they can come up with a page of code with about a dozen keystrokes. But for the rest of us who don't have 5 years to learn every shortcut or are working our way up there, tools like WYSIWYG web editors are nice as there's less rope to hang yourself with when learning.hey, as the resident vi-dork and the person who brought up vi(m) in this thread, i also mentioned that it's all good to use WYSIWYG.

[lordscarlet]

Back to seriousness . . .

I personally think vi (well, vim) is the one editor to rule them all when it comes to anything text -- including developing web pages. And, really, please do so on a *nix box running tcsh.

On the other hand, as wade said, if it's for a personal website, shrug, so long as you get to say what you want to say without, ummm, having too damn many moving objects (hate those fuckers).

I love vi as much as the next guy, but I love textmate 10x more. And vi is certainly not for the faint of heart.

As for the people calling us(me?) elitists, well... I don't come to your job and act like I can do it and put it in front of the world for millions to see. :) What happens when you go to sites developed this way? You laugh, send it to your friends, laugh some more, and then never go to the site again.

[wade moore]

I love vi as much as the next guy, but I love textmate 10x more. And vi is certainly not for the faint of heart.

As for the people calling us(me?) elitists, well... I don't come to your job and act like I can do it and put it in front of the world for millions to see. :) What happens when you go to sites developed this way? You laugh, send it to your friends, laugh some more, and then never go to the site again.

A personal site done on WYSWIG say dreamweaver is like a beer softball league... maybe you and the casual fan don't want to go see it, but for the people involved it's great fun... Sure Major Leaguers scoff at it, but lets have some perspective...

[JonInMiddleGA]

You laugh, send it to your friends, laugh some more, and then never go to the site again.

Actually, I'd say that depends a great deal on the purpose of the site and/or the purpose of the site visit.

If I'm going to look at somebody's personal page so I can see pictures of their new baby, as long as I can find the pics I'm cool with it.

I'd be much more prone to point & laugh if I saw a personal site that someone clearly spent much more money & time on than the couple of hundred hits a year they'll get could ever justify.

Function. Function. Function.

I can't say that I've ever looked at someone's website just to see what sort of (overly) complex mess they can make of it. That's what espn.com is for.

To pay a pro for a personal website, or invest heavily in high-end software, or spend dozens of hours on something that won't be seen dozens of times, makes no more sense than someone paying me to handle the advertising for their single-family yard sale.

[lordscarlet]

Actually, I'd say that depends a great deal on the purpose of the site and/or the purpose of the site visit.

If I'm going to look at somebody's personal page so I can see pictures of their new baby, as long as I can find the pics I'm cool with it.

I'd be much more prone to point & laugh if I saw a personal site that someone clearly spent much more money & time on than the couple of hundred hits a year they'll get could ever justify.

Function. Function. Function.

I can't say that I've ever looked at someone's website just to see what sort of (overly) complex mess they can make of it. That's what espn.com is for.

To pay a pro for a personal website, or invest heavily in high-end software, or spend dozens of hours on something that won't be seen dozens of times, makes no more sense than someone paying me to handle the advertising for their single-family yard sale.

If you want to put up pictures of your kid use flickr, kodakgallery or something of the like. If you want a blog use blogspot. Hell, if you want a homepage us googlepages. They've handled all of the function for you. They are free for the level of storage that most people need.

[Pumpy Tudors]

If you want to put up pictures of your kid use flickr, kodakgallery or something of the like. If you want a blog use blogspot. Hell, if you want a homepage us googlepages. They've handled all of the function for you. They are free for the level of storage that most people need.
What if I have my own storage space? What if I have a domain name? What if I have an idea for a basic layout? What if I don't like Flickr's or Kodakgallery's color schemes? What if I don't want people to see my pictures displayed the way that those sites want to display them? What if I know what I want the page to look like, but I don't know enough HTML to do it?

What if these pictures were of my nephew's graduation last Saturday, and I want the family to be able to see the pictures with my layout? They're all itching to see the pictures of little Orson's big day, and I don't want them to wait while I learn some more HTML?

Call me a puddle of goo, but I don't see the problem here.

[Antmeister]

What if I have my own storage space? What if I have a domain name? What if I have an idea for a basic layout? What if I don't like Flickr's or Kodakgallery's color schemes? What if I don't want people to see my pictures displayed the way that those sites want to display them? What if I know what I want the page to look like, but I don't know enough HTML to do it?

What if these pictures were of my nephew's graduation last Saturday, and I want the family to be able to see the pictures with my layout? They're all itching to see the pictures of little Orson's big day, and I don't want them to wait while I learn some more HTML?

Call me a puddle of goo, but I don't see the problem here.

Yeah, I don't really understand where lord scarlet is coming from when he talks about laughing at someone who has less experience designing pages.

Jon summed it up perfectly when he says it is all about the site's function. There are plenty of sites that are weak in design, but heavy in terms of function and tend to do quite well. I mean look at the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/) and then look at Aint It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/) and then Craigslist (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/).

The Drudge Report is the worst of them, yet it gets more hits than most commercial sites. And in your line of thinking everyone must be laughing at his poorly designed, yet successful website. Most web developers/designers could only wish that they can draw that much traffic.

My point is that no one starts as an expert and since Mizzou wrote that he wanted to get back into it shows that he is willing to learn. If a WYSIWYG is going to help along with the process, then what exactly is the problem.

[lordscarlet]

Yeah, I don't really understand where lord scarlet is coming from when he talks about laughing at someone who has less experience designing pages.

Jon summed it up perfectly when he says it is all about the site's function. There are plenty of sites that are weak in design, but heavy in terms of function and tend to do quite well. I mean look at the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/) and then look at Aint It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/) and then Craigslist (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/).

The Drudge Report is the worst of them, yet it gets more hits than most commercial sites. And in your line of thinking everyone must be laughing at his poorly designed, yet successful website. Most web developers/designers could only wish that they can draw that much traffic.

My point is that no one starts as an expert and since Mizzou wrote that he wanted to get back into it shows that he is willing to learn. If a WYSIWYG is going to help along with the process, then what exactly is the problem.

I was going to bow out of this, but you brought up some good points. And some clear misunderstanding of my statements. I would not criticize any of the sites above. They have valid (if poor and outdated) HTML on their sites, and this is the POV I'm coming from. I also read Mizzou's post as being geared toward HTML in some professional aspect. To me there's no excuse for taking a shortcut if that is the case. If it's a personal site I understand people are just going to use WYSIWYGs and never look at the source. But if it's in anyway for a professional reason, I think you should at a minimum take a look at the code created and familiarize yourself with proper HTML.


(and, as I'm sure someone will do, Drudge at least is not quite valid.. but my point has never been about design, it's about proper HTML)

[Antmeister]

I was going to bow out of this, but you brought up some good points. And some clear misunderstanding of my statements. I would not criticize any of the sites above. They have valid (if poor and outdated) HTML on their sites, and this is the POV I'm coming from. I also read Mizzou's post as being geared toward HTML in some professional aspect. To me there's no excuse for taking a shortcut if that is the case. If it's a personal site I understand people are just going to use WYSIWYGs and never look at the source. But if it's in anyway for a professional reason, I think you should at a minimum take a look at the code created and familiarize yourself with proper HTML.


(and, as I'm sure someone will do, Drudge at least is not quite valid.. but my point has never been about design, it's about proper HTML)

No, I don't think I am misunderstanding. Mizzou stated this was for a personal site.

I'm a relative newbie on HTML. I took a 3 day course a year or so ago, but never used the skills after that. I'm willing to dive back into the language, but you are correct in that I'm hoping to use it as an aide to create a personal web page.

Shortly after that you wrote this in response to wade more:
You mis-read me if this is your interpretation. You should be writing code or doing nothing at all. You should never, ever use a WYSIWYG for page layout. The closest you should ever get is to mockup a design in photoshop (or whatever) and cut out images where necessary to be placed via coded HTML.

You didn't say anything about writing valid HTML and you cannot tell me that The Drudge Report is what you consider to be good layout design, yet it serves it purpose. On top of that you don't necessarily have to write any code if you find an HTML template and skin it. It is a good way for beginners to put something together really quick and learn the ins and outs of good markup (well at least the sites that I suggested).

While I understand your concerns of always having good markup, it is somewhat misplaced in this thread. And this section is why I even responded to this:
If you want to put up pictures of your kid use flickr, kodakgallery or something of the like. If you want a blog use blogspot. Hell, if you want a homepage us googlepages. They've handled all of the function for you. They are free for the level of storage that most people need.

Considering that he mentioned that he wanted to learn, why in the world would he want to use those outside services? I know you believe that he wants to shortcut, but believe it or not there are ways you can shortcut without have to write much code by simply using good templates.

[gstelmack]

I would like to know what "proper" HTML is. Aren't there like 5 different versions or something? And they keep changing what the "correct" way is to do things like color a row? So much of HTML has been deprecated and replaced (a lot of it by style sheets, some by XHTML) that it's hard to know what is "proper", and frankly it's confusing to track down this info if you are just trying to learn; there are lots of tutorial sites that appear to be outdated, so they all contradict each other.

And for professional stuff, you aren't really using HTML, are you? It's either ASP or PHP, isn't it? The HTML is just a wrapper to place the code in that generates the HTML for display for you.

I do know where lordscarlet is coming from, though. I handcode a lot of stuff because most WYSIWYGs screw up lots of stuff. I've been in Visual Studio and changed something in the header to Bold, but Bold then became the default style and it generated a whole bunch of "remove Bold" commands in the HTML for my normal body stuff, thus bloating the page size. I've had similar experiences with other editors. Of course, I also do very basic pages as I *HATE* graphics-heavy pages that make finding information difficult (plus I suck at graphics), so it's not a big chore for me.

[BrianD]

I've always thought that it was much easier to start with a WYSIWYG editor and then pay attention to the code it creates. It is easier to learn how to code by observing this and making some small adjustments. Much harder to try to learn to create all the propler tags from the ground up. Even when you know how to do HTML, I think it is easier to use a WYSIWYG editor and then clean up the tags directly rather than starting from scratch.

[lordscarlet]

I didn't mean to come of quite so asshole and cavalier. I did say WYSIWYG only and that is my mistake. If I knew of a decent WYSIWYG editor I wouldn't feel quite so adamantly. For a personal site.. I don't know.. I'll just not say anymore.

For professional stuff.. You are still writing HTML. Even if ASP, PHP etc are the wrapper, you are still generating HTML. If you're using .NET they try to hide that in controls, but seeing as that it's microsoft, even that HTML is pretty crappy at times. "Proper" HTML would be relative to when it is written. In 1999 that would be HTML 4.0. Today that would be HTML 4.0 with thing such as FONT tags deprecated and no longer in use. I think Greg's .NET example is prime to where there is a problem. I never, ever use the Designer mode in Visual Studio. It creates hideous markup. Take the extra time, as a developer, to learn to write proper HTML and hopefully proper css-based design practices. (These last statements apply specifically to professional level pages, not personal pages -- well, to anyone writing code such as php, asp, .net, etc)

[lordscarlet]

I've always thought that it was much easier to start with a WYSIWYG editor and then pay attention to the code it creates. It is easier to learn how to code by observing this and making some small adjustments. Much harder to try to learn to create all the propler tags from the ground up. Even when you know how to do HTML, I think it is easier to use a WYSIWYG editor and then clean up the tags directly rather than starting from scratch.

I definitely take issue with that statement. If you know HTML and the current standards and practices then a WYSIWYG is only going to create more work. If by "know html" you know that a <strong> tag makes something bold, then maybe.

[BrianD]

I definitely take issue with that statement. If you know HTML and the current standards and practices then a WYSIWYG is only going to create more work. If by "know html" you know that a <strong> tag makes something bold, then maybe.

I certainly don't generate HTML professionally, but for the personal stuff and the small projects I have done, I have found it easier to use the WYSIWYG editor and then clean it up. I'm sure there is a point where you get so good at it that this is no longer the case. In the greater context of the original post, I don't think we need to worry about getting to that point.

[lordscarlet]

I certainly don't generate HTML professionally, but for the personal stuff and the small projects I have done, I have found it easier to use the WYSIWYG editor and then clean it up. I'm sure there is a point where you get so good at it that this is no longer the case. In the greater context of the original post, I don't think we need to worry about getting to that point.

Yes, I took this overboard and I apologize. There are other things that get me worked up over this that had nothing to do with the original (or subsequent) posts.

[adubroff]

I didn't mean to come of quite so asshole and cavalier. I did say WYSIWYG only and that is my mistake. If I knew of a decent WYSIWYG editor I wouldn't feel quite so adamantly. For a personal site.. I don't know.. I'll just not say anymore.

For professional stuff.. You are still writing HTML. Even if ASP, PHP etc are the wrapper, you are still generating HTML. If you're using .NET they try to hide that in controls, but seeing as that it's microsoft, even that HTML is pretty crappy at times. "Proper" HTML would be relative to when it is written. In 1999 that would be HTML 4.0. Today that would be HTML 4.0 with thing such as FONT tags deprecated and no longer in use. I think Greg's .NET example is prime to where there is a problem. I never, ever use the Designer mode in Visual Studio. It creates hideous markup. Take the extra time, as a developer, to learn to write proper HTML and hopefully proper css-based design practices. (These last statements apply specifically to professional level pages, not personal pages -- well, to anyone writing code such as php, asp, .net, etc)

VS2005 generates (supposedly) XHTML compliant markup. You can specify whether you want it transitional or strict, I believe. I haven't written a lot of ASP.NET in 2005 yet, but I think they've made a lot of strides or are at least trying. If you compare Visual Interdev to Visual studio 2005 they are clearly on the right road at Microsoft. They tend to take the brunt of criticism due to market position and it's not always right. I've seen Dreamweaver generate javascript that wasn't browser compatible too...

Ultimately, if you're learning and writing for your personal website I think it's a lot like how you write for a personal email or note....it might not be perfect English, but the ultimate goal is to be able to communicate. As such, WYSIWIGs (in my book) are fine and will get the job done 9 times out of 10.

[lordscarlet]

VS2005 generates (supposedly) XHTML compliant markup. You can specify whether you want it transitional or strict, I believe. I haven't written a lot of ASP.NET in 2005 yet, but I think they've made a lot of strides or are at least trying. If you compare Visual Interdev to Visual studio 2005 they are clearly on the right road at Microsoft. They tend to take the brunt of criticism due to market position and it's not always right. I've seen Dreamweaver generate javascript that wasn't browser compatible too...

Ultimately, if you're learning and writing for your personal website I think it's a lot like how you write for a personal email or note....it might not be perfect English, but the ultimate goal is to be able to communicate. As such, WYSIWIGs (in my book) are fine and will get the job done 9 times out of 10.

I gained this habit before 2005 and I have just started using it. But 2005 has made leaps and bounds in other areas, so I wouldn't be surprised. Unfortunately this (to my knowledge) does not translate into affordable apps such as Front Page. And things such as ButtonLists still suck in the layout realm, LinkButtons are still won't work without javascript, and many other crappy things. And if you think I was angry about auto-generated HTML, don't get me started on auto-generated Javascript or the designer here that says "absolutely no developers should do design" and yet thinks she can write javascript. :)

[adubroff]

And if you think I was angry about auto-generated HTML, don't get me started on auto-generated Javascript or the designer here that says "absolutely no developers should do design" and yet thinks she can write javascript. :)

I've been there. This designer must get around. :)

[GoldenEagle]

I am strictly a developer and have no design skills at all. Our designer builds out a design in photoshop, has the client approve, and then builds it out in frontpage. I think he may use expression or whatever now. He takes out all the generated stuff that frontpage puts in there.

When I am just wanting to play around with HTML, I use notepad++. It is an amazing tool. I think if you want to learn web design, you need to be able to do your own html to fully understand what is going in to your design.

[Yellow5]

I use notepad++. It is an amazing tool.

I just started using this and love it. Simple, powerful, plug-in support and free.

[Antmeister]

...When I am just wanting to play around with HTML, I use notepad++. It is an amazing tool. I think if you want to learn web design, you need to be able to do your own html to fully understand what is going in to your design.

Normally I would agree with this, but why I suggested going about learning with a WYSIWYG is that you can hand code all you want with a WYSIWYG and immediately see how it will look. This comes in very handy for layout above anything else.

Since most developers today are using an XHTML/CSS combination to position their chunks of code on a page, it would be difficult for a beginner to understand how everything comes together when you are not using tables. That is why I suggested using templates at first after learning some of the basic markup. That way they would know how to nest the div tags properly.

[MrIllini]

I vote Dreamweaver.

[lordscarlet]

When I am just wanting to play around with HTML, I use notepad++. It is an amazing tool. I think if you want to learn web design, you need to be able to do your own html to fully understand what is going in to your design.

I think this is what I was trying to say, only put less rudely. :)

[GoldenEagle]

I vote Dreamweaver.

Dreamweaver is good for coding. You can not beat the options for making the code look the way you want it to. The built in FTP client is great. That being said, I just use it at work. I would not pay very much for it and certainly not what they ask for it.