🚀 go-pugleaf

WWWEB Publishing wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the beta.
> Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the pro's
> and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
> REALLY appreciated.
>
> --
> William Woods
>
> WWWEB Publishing
> Internet Publishing, Promotion and Consulting
> (503) 316-8591
> E-Mail wwweb@navicom.com
> Web Page http://www.navicom.com/~wwweb

Dear William,

Frontpage is a great product for basic HTML
programming, but it can be quite time consuming.
Our company has been involved for almost 2 year's
in developing web-sites and one thing we did was
to develop a language to assist web-masters.

If you like, vist our web-site and download a copy
and it includes an online manual to asssit. The
language is called Forget C.

Visit http://onq.co.nz.

Hope this helps cut down your web-site development
time.


Rgds


Phil

Hi William,

This is only one view, but the weakness of Front Page is the same for all
editing and web-creation tools; it takes you one step away from the actual
code. The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX the
less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.

The strength of Front Page is that if you don't have the time to keep up to
date in each of the many new skills required for cutting-edge, in-your-face
web design, a relatively powerful web-design program that is likely to stay
only one step behind the front wave, and still lets us hack the code
(finally), is a blessing.

Whadda think?
--
Phil James
http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
ClubIE ClubWin

WWWEB Publishing <wwweb@navicom.com> wrote in article
<01bc08b9$381c9320$65718bcd@john.cyberhighway.net>...
> Hi there,
>
> I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the beta.
> Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the
pro's
> and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
> REALLY appreciated.
>
>
> --
> William Woods
>
> WWWEB Publishing
> Internet Publishing, Promotion and Consulting
> (503) 316-8591
> E-Mail wwweb@navicom.com
> Web Page http://www.navicom.com/~wwweb
>

I'm sorry Phil, but I disagree.

Whilst I don't use FrontPage (I use NetObjects Fusion), initially I also
cut code in Notepad. I found that I spent more time worrying about the code
than the "content". With Fusion, at least, I now worry about the content
and let the code worry about itself.

It reminds me a little of the times when Pagemaker and laser Printers first
came out. Every man and his dog who was a "printer" produced bloody awful
flyers, newsletters, price lists, nusiness cards etc. Sure he might have
been a good printer (substitute programmer at will :)  ), but if he had no
idea about design, then well .......

David
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
PC Magazine (Aust) First Looks Contributor
Accredited OzEmail Corporate Web Designers
Freecall 1 800 670 141
WebSite http://www.shazian.com.au/
We do: HTML, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
            VRML, ActiveX, Shockwave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Phil <phil@msn.com> wrote in article
<01bc0bcd$244c1b60$0ae090cc@phils-home>...
> Hi William,
>
> This is only one view, but the weakness of Front Page is the same for all
> editing and web-creation tools; it takes you one step away from the
actual
> code. The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX
the
> less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.
>
> The strength of Front Page is that if you don't have the time to keep up
to
> date in each of the many new skills required for cutting-edge,
in-your-face
> web design, a relatively powerful web-design program that is likely to
stay
> only one step behind the front wave, and still lets us hack the code
> (finally), is a blessing.
>
> Whadda think?
> --
> Phil James
> http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
> ClubIE ClubWin
>
> WWWEB Publishing <wwweb@navicom.com> wrote in article
> <01bc08b9$381c9320$65718bcd@john.cyberhighway.net>...
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the
beta.
> > Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the
> pro's
> > and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
> > REALLY appreciated.
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Woods
> >
> > WWWEB Publishing
> > Internet Publishing, Promotion and Consulting
> > (503) 316-8591
> > E-Mail wwweb@navicom.com
> > Web Page http://www.navicom.com/~wwweb
> >
>

>> The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX the
less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.
<<

  I take just the opposite view. I don't have time to fool around with a
bunch of code. i would much rather put my time and effort into making the
site look good, not playing with html. I don't see how knowing how to make
a paintbrush would make an artist more creative.

Warren Lauzon <WLauzon@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc0c11$bc7b3620$24a993cf@default>...
> >> The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX the
> less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.
> <<
>
>   I take just the opposite view. I don't have time to fool around with a
> bunch of code. i would much rather put my time and effort into making the
> site look good, not playing with html. I don't see how knowing how to
make
> a paintbrush would make an artist more creative.
>

A good artist actually knows a lot about how
paintbrushes are made and quite often they make
modifications to their paintbrushes to achieve a
desired affect. The truly creative artists have all kinds
of paintbrushes with all kinds of modifications done to them.

Not knowing how your tools work means that you may not
be able to achieve the results you want.

Mark Jones

In article <01bc0be2$3ef09580$0100a8c0@wingate>,
David Hague <davidh@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Whilst I don't use FrontPage (I use NetObjects Fusion), initially I also
>cut code in Notepad. I found that I spent more time worrying about the code
>than the "content". With Fusion, at least, I now worry about the content
>and let the code worry about itself.

I -do- hope you're going over the HTML that Fusion creates, because some
of the code that it outputs is truly awful. On the web, code will not
worry about itself; you -have- to make sure it's good, because "WYSIWYG"
applications have proven themselves, time and again, to be incapabile to
producing good output.

The less an application requires you to know about HTML, the worse HTML it
produces. This is a fundamental rule of web design.

>It reminds me a little of the times when Pagemaker and laser Printers first
>came out. Every man and his dog who was a "printer" produced bloody awful
>flyers, newsletters, price lists, nusiness cards etc. Sure he might have
>been a good printer (substitute programmer at will :)  ), but if he had no
>idea about design, then well .......

This -is- a good analogy, to some extent. The problem is that desktop
publishing produces a single piece of hardcopy output. It may end up being
copied numerous times, but it all boils down to that final piece of
output. If it was wretched output, it was wretched output, but that wasn't
due to the creator having a fundamental misunderstanding of the
technology; it was due to him being a bad designer.

Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of output
as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The world's greatest
graphics designer, fooled by companies like NetObjects into thinking that
web pages are just like printed pages, can produce truly wretched designs
because they didn't understand the technology. The difference is that in
DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
browsers aside from his own.

The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

>>Not knowing how your tools work means that you may not
be able to achieve the results you want.<<

  I know how the tools work, but the fact is, is that 95% of building a
site is repetition and standard stuff. I can't see spending a lot of time
writing code for that, especially as prone as I am to typos that take me
forever to track down. If I need something real sexy, I can do it by hand,
but I don't do much of that because all the different browsers don't always
like it.

In article <01bc0be2$3ef09580$0100a8c0@wingate>, "David Hague" <davidh@ozemail.com.au> writes:

|> Whilst I don't use FrontPage (I use NetObjects Fusion), initially I also
|> cut code in Notepad. I found that I spent more time worrying about the code
|> than the "content". With Fusion, at least, I now worry about the content
|> and let the code worry about itself.

We each come at this from our own directions.  I'm one that believes
that the only way you can know the quality of your markup is to write
it yourself.  So I still use a text editor (PFE) and write my own
templates.

And you do learn markup well enough doing this that you stop "worrying
about the code."  I've been doing markup for a long time (13 years), so
tagging text is second nature, and has been for years.
--
Diane Wilson, gender refusnik      |
anon-11149@twwells.anon.com        | Click here if you're not using a mouse.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/     |
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ |

As a matter of course, whilst code is not checked line by line, we do check
all pages in Netscape 2 and 3 as well as IE3 (and also Lynx). You are
right, there are some inconsistencies (forms in IE3 vs Netscape for
example), but overall, I am very pleased with the output of Fusion -
especially version 2.

One major aspect overlooked (so far) in this discussion is that of speed.
One of the other people in this thread mentioned typos and spending hours
to find them. With products like Fusion or Frontpage etc, at least this
does not become a problem and from a commercial point of view, speed is of
the essence - as long of course you do NOT overlook the quality.

I did some testing a while back on one of our sites by creating the site by
hand, followed by FP and then NOF. Visual  and operational results were
pretty identical (altho NOF gave better individual element location
control), but the time factor differences were amazing. Sure it was only a
4 page site, but off memory it was something like 6 hours by hand coding to
2 hours in NOF. That's a lot of potential increased output!

But I think the bottom line is to know your tools AND their limitations. As
long as these factors are taken into account and you don't cut corners to
sacrifice quality, then all should be well by using such tools as NOF and
FP.

David
--
Shazian Enterprises
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited OzEmail Corporate Web Designers
PC Magazine (Aust) First Looks Contributor
Add your page to the OzEmail WebUsers Index at http://www.shazian.com.au
WebSite http://www.shazian.com.au    Freecall 1 800 670 141
We do: HTML, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
           VRML, ActiveX, Shockwave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Christian Wagner <cwagner@io.com> wrote in article
<5cijsm$oba@bermuda.io.com>...
> In article <01bc0be2$3ef09580$0100a8c0@wingate>,
> David Hague <davidh@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >Whilst I don't use FrontPage (I use NetObjects Fusion), initially I also
> >cut code in Notepad. I found that I spent more time worrying about the
code
> >than the "content". With Fusion, at least, I now worry about the content
> >and let the code worry about itself.
>
> I -do- hope you're going over the HTML that Fusion creates, because some
> of the code that it outputs is truly awful. On the web, code will not
> worry about itself; you -have- to make sure it's good, because "WYSIWYG"
> applications have proven themselves, time and again, to be incapabile to
> producing good output.
>
> The less an application requires you to know about HTML, the worse HTML
it
> produces. This is a fundamental rule of web design.
>
> >It reminds me a little of the times when Pagemaker and laser Printers
first
> >came out. Every man and his dog who was a "printer" produced bloody
awful
> >flyers, newsletters, price lists, nusiness cards etc. Sure he might have
> >been a good printer (substitute programmer at will :)  ), but if he had
no
> >idea about design, then well .......
>
> This -is- a good analogy, to some extent. The problem is that desktop
> publishing produces a single piece of hardcopy output. It may end up
being
> copied numerous times, but it all boils down to that final piece of
> output. If it was wretched output, it was wretched output, but that
wasn't
> due to the creator having a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> technology; it was due to him being a bad designer.
>
> Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of
output
> as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The world's greatest
> graphics designer, fooled by companies like NetObjects into thinking that
> web pages are just like printed pages, can produce truly wretched designs
> because they didn't understand the technology. The difference is that in
> DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
> output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
> to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
> browsers aside from his own.
>
> The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.
>
> --
>                   And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
>               Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
>                   Your God has gone, and from now on, |
>     You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com
>

On 27 Jan 1997 10:07:50 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
wrote:

[snip]
>
>Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of output
>as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The world's greatest
>graphics designer, fooled by companies like NetObjects into thinking that
>web pages are just like printed pages, can produce truly wretched designs
>because they didn't understand the technology. The difference is that in
>DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
>output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
>to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
>browsers aside from his own.

So, by your own admission then, the fault lies not with the HTML
editor, but with the author who fails to check his intended results
against the viewers' methods of accessing his page.

Which I believe is the exact same case as the "printer" who's output
is awful for the same reasons.
>
>The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.

Ah,  but they do.  The author is still responsible for the results of
his/her work, n'est ce pas?


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:13:41 GMT, asg@indigo.ie (bonzo) wrote:

>does anyone where I can get a shareware version of front page or is
>there a warez site for it, please I am desparate, thanks for any help


Frontpage is a comercial product.  You should be able to find it at
any computer store.

The beta releases were available for download a while back but even if
you could find one now...  they'd do you no good.  They were
timebombed!  They would cease to function after January 15th I
believe.

You can find some good shareware HTML editors out there but not
FrontPage.



Stuart Rauh
srauh@netins.net
newscenter13@netins.net
http://www.whooncall.com

In article <32eeadd2.31435254@news.prestel.co.uk>,
Rob Cooper <rob@sunscreem.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>Earlier, Christian wrote (talking about a printed dtp'ed
>newsletter)...
>>Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of output
>>as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The difference is that in
>>DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
>>output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
>>to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
>>browsers aside from his own.
>I feel this argument is flawed. All web designers, have the very
>minimum knowledge that, not every will be using (say) netscape, and
>not everyone will be in 800*600*256.

This is just wrong. Having talked to a -lot- of wannabe "web designers",
many of them have -no idea- how different pages look at different
resolutions and color depths, or how different browsers render HTML. You
are assuming knowledge that is not there.

>The web designers need only check
>their pages in IE3, Netscape 2 and 3 and maybe IBrowse (an amiga
>prog.?) at 640*480 and 800*600 and 256 and 16cols.

This is just so wrong, it's almost funny. What about AOL's browser? What
about Lynx? What about the version of MSIE that shipped with Win95?

Have you ever heard of a validator? Do you know what a <DOCTYPE> is? Do
you understand that the "M" in HTML means?

>If it looks ok in all those varies formats then *the code is correct*.
>I dont care that a table is being used, where <br>'s could be used
>instead.

This is also so wrong, it's almost funny. Browsers are -designed- to
attempt to make sense of broken HTML, and they often succeed. But just
because "it looks okay on these browsers" does not mean that the HTML is
valid or that the design is any good.

Table-based layout versus <BR> is not what we're talking about; we're
talking about -invalid HTML-, about designs that simply don't work except
on a limited number of platforms.

>I belive that the progression of web-design away from HTML is
>enevitable and should be embrased.. not grumbled about! Did people
>moan about windows 3.1 being crap because you didn't need to learn dos
>commands to move and copy files? I think not.

No, we moaned about Win3.1 being crap for other reasons.

Seriously, though, what do you propose we replace HTML with? Shockwave?
Acrobat? JavaScript-only pages? What?

>The skill which us html'ers have learnt today, will not simply be
>wiped out because our parents can now produce web-sites with wysiwig
>editors, we will simply have a much better understanding of what the
>wysiwyg editors are upto. I think it can only be a good thing that the
>whole internet business is becoming more and more accessable to not
>computer literate people.

Sheesh. The problem is not that getting into web design is so easy, the
problem is that tools like FrontPage mislead people into believing that
HTML is WYSIWYG, when it's NOT. And statements like yours ("If it looks
ok in all those varies formats then *the code is correct*") do not help
the situation any.

>Moan over... back to reality!

Reality is valid HTML. You seem to have a problem with that.

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

In article <32ed7cea.18311531@news.airmail.net>,
baldeagl <Adstopper@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 27 Jan 1997 10:07:50 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
>wrote:
>>Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of output
>>as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The world's greatest
>>graphics designer, fooled by companies like NetObjects into thinking that
>>web pages are just like printed pages, can produce truly wretched designs
>>because they didn't understand the technology. The difference is that in
>>DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
>>output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
>>to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
>>browsers aside from his own.
>So, by your own admission then, the fault lies not with the HTML
>editor, but with the author who fails to check his intended results
>against the viewers' methods of accessing his page.

The final fault lies with the author, yes. But "WYSIWYG" HTML editors
contribute to the problem by telling web authors that they don't need to
learn HTML, that HTML is WYSIWYG, that the editor will produce decent
output.

>Which I believe is the exact same case as the "printer" who's output
>is awful for the same reasons.

But it's not the same reason. The web author who uses a "WYSIWYG" tool may
be producing lovely, decent output -within that tool-. He just may be
unaware that the tool is misleading him. A person doing DTP with hardcopy
output is not being deceived by his tools; What He Sees Is What He Gets,
and any problems with it are his fault and his fault only.

A person who creates garbage on a WYSIWYG DTP system is guilty of creating
garbage. A person who creates garbage with a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor like
FrontPage -may- only be guilty of believing Microsoft's hype.

>>The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.
>Ah,  but they do.  The author is still responsible for the results of
>his/her work, n'est ce pas?

A web author is always ultimately responsible for his work. The point I'm
tyring to make is that an otherwise excellent visual designer may end up
creating bad web pages because he trusted his tools not to mislead him.

Like I said, the old rules do not apply here. There are no other mediums
where the final output is so dependent on the user's hardware and choices.

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

In article <01bc0cc0$b0f2fd60$0100a8c0@wingate>,
David Hague <david@shazian.com.au> wrote:
[RE: Fusion's HTML output]
>As a matter of course, whilst code is not checked line by line, we do check
>all pages in Netscape 2 and 3 as well as IE3 (and also Lynx). You are
>right, there are some inconsistencies (forms in IE3 vs Netscape for
>example), but overall, I am very pleased with the output of Fusion -
>especially version 2.

But have you actually -gone over the HTML-? Just making sure it looks
okay in a limited set of browsers will tell you -nothing- about the
quality of the HTML, since browsers are designed to make sense of broken
code.

I'd be interested in running some of the output you get from Fusion
through a validator. Even the less-strict ones (like WebLint) would
probably find much to complain about. I also wonder what these pages look
like on browsers that don't support tables (like early AOL browsers that
are still in use in wide numbers).

>One major aspect overlooked (so far) in this discussion is that of speed.
>One of the other people in this thread mentioned typos and spending hours
>to find them. With products like Fusion or Frontpage etc, at least this
>does not become a problem and from a commercial point of view, speed is of
>the essence - as long of course you do NOT overlook the quality.
>I did some testing a while back on one of our sites by creating the site by
>hand, followed by FP and then NOF. Visual  and operational results were
>pretty identical (altho NOF gave better individual element location
>control)

Hmmm. There's nothing an HTML editor can do that you can't do by hand.

>, but the time factor differences were amazing. Sure it was only a
>4 page site, but off memory it was something like 6 hours by hand coding to
>2 hours in NOF. That's a lot of potential increased output!

Yes, but is that increased output worth the possibility that something's
going to go -wrong-, because you've passed control of your HTML over to a
tool?

What happens when you discover that something's broken, you have to go
over everything by hand later? There is a significant risk of having to
spend even -more- time later, to say nothing of the risk of having your
-client- find the problem when you missed it.

>But I think the bottom line is to know your tools AND their limitations. As
>long as these factors are taken into account and you don't cut corners to
>sacrifice quality, then all should be well by using such tools as NOF and
>FP.

Unfortunately, using "WYSIWYG" editors and not going over their output by
hand -is- compromising quality.

I have no problems with people who want to do "rough layouts" or whatever
with FrontPage or Fusion, as long as they check the output by hand and run
it through a validator. If I have to do a large number of complex pages at
once in a very short timeframe, I may end up doing so myself one day. But
trusting an application like FP or Fusion to get it right every time is
-dangerous-.

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

Hi Warren,
I really don't disagree with you. If you are careful not use the portions
of FrontPage that are not yet supported or not yet well-supported by
Netscape, you can stay away from coding HTML forever.

Unless you LIKE blinking text. :-)
--
Phil James
http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
ClubIE ClubWin

Warren Lauzon <WLauzon@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc0c11$bc7b3620$24a993cf@default>...
> >> The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX the
> less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.
> <<
>
>   I take just the opposite view. I don't have time to fool around with a
> bunch of code. i would much rather put my time and effort into making the
> site look good, not playing with html. I don't see how knowing how to
make
> a paintbrush would make an artist more creative.
>
>
>

Hi David,
I really don't disagree with you.
I just get a kick out of getting free JavaScripts and ActiveX Scripts and
sticking them in my pages to see how much they screw up different browsers.
:-)
But I'll bet I'd see it your way if I had to do this for a living!
See ya.
--
Phil James
http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
ClubIE ClubWin

David Hague <davidh@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<01bc0be2$3ef09580$0100a8c0@wingate>...
> I'm sorry Phil, but I disagree.
>
> Whilst I don't use FrontPage (I use NetObjects Fusion), initially I also
> cut code in Notepad. I found that I spent more time worrying about the
code
> than the "content". With Fusion, at least, I now worry about the content
> and let the code worry about itself.
>
> It reminds me a little of the times when Pagemaker and laser Printers
first
> came out. Every man and his dog who was a "printer" produced bloody awful
> flyers, newsletters, price lists, nusiness cards etc. Sure he might have
> been a good printer (substitute programmer at will :)  ), but if he had
no
> idea about design, then well .......
>
> David
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----------------
> PC Magazine (Aust) First Looks Contributor
> Accredited OzEmail Corporate Web Designers
> Freecall 1 800 670 141
> WebSite http://www.shazian.com.au/
> We do: HTML, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
>             VRML, ActiveX, Shockwave
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----------------
>
> Phil <phil@msn.com> wrote in article
> <01bc0bcd$244c1b60$0ae090cc@phils-home>...
> > Hi William,
> >
> > This is only one view, but the weakness of Front Page is the same for
all
> > editing and web-creation tools; it takes you one step away from the
> actual
> > code. The less you actually work with HTML and Java Script and ActiveX
> the
> > less refined (and maybe creative) your pages will be.
> >
> > The strength of Front Page is that if you don't have the time to keep
up
> to
> > date in each of the many new skills required for cutting-edge,
> in-your-face
> > web design, a relatively powerful web-design program that is likely to
> stay
> > only one step behind the front wave, and still lets us hack the code
> > (finally), is a blessing.
> >
> > Whadda think?
> > --
> > Phil James
> > http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
> > ClubIE ClubWin
> >
> > WWWEB Publishing <wwweb@navicom.com> wrote in article
> > <01bc08b9$381c9320$65718bcd@john.cyberhighway.net>...
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the
> beta.
> > > Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the
> > pro's
> > > and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would
be
> > > REALLY appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > William Woods
> > >
> > > WWWEB Publishing
> > > Internet Publishing, Promotion and Consulting
> > > (503) 316-8591
> > > E-Mail wwweb@navicom.com
> > > Web Page http://www.navicom.com/~wwweb
> > >
> >
>

Hi bonzo,

The beta WAS at http://www.microsoft.com/frontpage/
It's not there now, apparently, as the retail version has hit the shelves.
I'm sorry I don't know of an alternative place.

Phil James
http://www.lawcolo.com/phil
ClubIE ClubWin

bonzo <asg@indigo.ie> wrote in article
<32ef8513.30511982@news.indigo.ie>...
> does anyone where I can get a shareware version of front page or is
> there a warez site for it, please I am desparate, thanks for any help
>

Hi Chris,

In reading the thread of this message, it seems prevalent that many good web
page designers because of some inadequacies of HTML editors such as Front
Page still do their base work in textpad.exe or notepad.exe.

What I'd like to share with everyone is that it came very obvious to our
web-design team that HTML is still best done with textpad, however if there
was a "language" sitting behind your textpad application with powerful
commands it could seriously cut down development time.

After 8 months of work "Forget C" was born.

It is a 32-bit server-side programming language which is simple to use for
Win NT and Win 95, and note it is a language, not an application.

We'd be happy for anyone to use this langauge and let us know what you think.

It will become a commercial product after we have finished alpha and beta
testing.

It's a cool concept, and one we'd love for you to have to assist in your
web-site development.

Several examples of Forget C sites :

	http://www.nzwine.co.nz
	http://www.iexchange.co.nz

Download an alpha copy from our site and let us know only if does NOT save
you at least 1/20 th of the normal development time.

http://onq.co.nz

Hope you find this useful.


Kindest Regards




Phil Talbot

>
>   I take just the opposite view. I don't have time to fool around with a
> bunch of code. i would much rather put my time and effort into making the
> site look good, not playing with html. I don't see how knowing how to
make
> a paintbrush would make an artist more creative.
I probably never would've attempted to learn HTML if it wasn't for editors
like Front Page.  But, after buying Backstage Designer, I'm also reading
the book that came with it on HTML and am playing with the code.

Mike

Earlier, Christian wrote (talking about a printed dtp'ed
newsletter)...

>Web design, on the other hand, produces as many different pieces of output
>as there are web browsers and systems that run them. The difference is that in
>DTP, wretched designs are immediately obvious on that single sheet of
>output, while on the web, a design's flaws may not be immediately obvious
>to the designer because he never checked his creation with any web
>browsers aside from his own.

I feel this argument is flawed. All web designers, have the very
minimum knowledge that, not every will be using (say) netscape, and
not everyone will be in 800*600*256. The web designers need only check
their pages in IE3, Netscape 2 and 3 and maybe IBrowse (an amiga
prog.?) at 640*480 and 800*600 and 256 and 16cols.

If it looks ok in all those varies formats then *the code is correct*.
I dont care that a table is being used, where <br>'s could be used
instead.

I belive that the progression of web-design away from HTML is
enevitable and should be embrased.. not grumbled about! Did people
moan about windows 3.1 being crap because you didn't need to learn dos
commands to move and copy files? I think not.

The skill which us html'ers have learnt today, will not simply be
wiped out because our parents can now produce web-sites with wysiwig
editors, we will simply have a much better understanding of what the
wysiwyg editors are upto. I think it can only be a good thing that the
whole internet business is becoming more and more accessable to not
computer literate people.

Moan over... back to reality!

Rob
/-------------------------------------------------------------\
! "God heard you talking in your sleep,                       !
!     God knows all the secrets that we keep" Sunscreem 1996  !
!                                                             !
!    Rob Cooper - 0976 701954 - Rob@sunscreem.prestel.co.uk   !
\-------------------------------------------------------------/

does anyone where I can get a shareware version of front page or is
there a warez site for it, please I am desparate, thanks for any help

"WWWEB Publishing" <wwweb@navicom.com> wrote:

>Hi there,

>I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the beta.
>Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the pro's
>and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
>REALLY appreciated.


>--
>William Woods

The concept behind Frontpage would seem to be that it makes web
publishing acessible to folk who know nothing of the web. It's one of
Microsoft's errors, I believe.

BB
There is only one war, and it's not between the whites and the
blacks, Labour and the Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, or
the Federation and the Romulans, it's between those of us who aren't
complete idiots and those of us who are.

On 29 Jan 1997 18:30:40 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
wrote:

[snip]
>
>The final fault lies with the author, yes. But "WYSIWYG" HTML editors
>contribute to the problem by telling web authors that they don't need to
>learn HTML, that HTML is WYSIWYG, that the editor will produce decent
>output.

Gee....I don't ever recall FP telling me that.
>
>>Which I believe is the exact same case as the "printer" who's output
>>is awful for the same reasons.
>
>But it's not the same reason. The web author who uses a "WYSIWYG" tool may
>be producing lovely, decent output -within that tool-. He just may be
>unaware that the tool is misleading him. A person doing DTP with hardcopy
>output is not being deceived by his tools; What He Sees Is What He Gets,
>and any problems with it are his fault and his fault only.

Bunch of baloney.  If it looks at all screwy in FP, you can guarantee
it looks bad in the browser.  Besides, what fool would create a page
in an editor, not once view it in his/her own browser, ftp to the web
site and put it out there for all the world to see???

You've obviously never even seen FP or you wouldn't make a statement
like that.  FP shows the border on tables even when it's set to 0.  It
shows breaks as an arrow with an elbow in it - very disconcerting the
first time you see it.  FP shows audio embedding as a weird looking
zipper thing on the screen.  It is somewhat WYSIWYG, but certainly not
something anyone would accept as the final product.  Javascript shows
up as a box with a J in it.  CGI shows up as a little man figure.
Colors don't look quite right.  Animated images don't move.  The list
goes on.

AAMOF, the appearance of a well done page in FP, will make you check
many times in the browser to make sure it's right, because it's not
WYSIWYG but WYSIWhat's behind the code it's writing.
>
>A person who creates garbage on a WYSIWYG DTP system is guilty of creating
>garbage. A person who creates garbage with a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor like
>FrontPage -may- only be guilty of believing Microsoft's hype.

A person who produces garbage in FP without knowing it is a fool or
blind.
>
>>>The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.
>>Ah,  but they do.  The author is still responsible for the results of
>>his/her work, n'est ce pas?
>
>A web author is always ultimately responsible for his work. The point I'm
>tyring to make is that an otherwise excellent visual designer may end up
>creating bad web pages because he trusted his tools not to mislead him.

How many times have you seen a painter take one look at his/her
subject and then create an entire portrait?  Let's get really serious
here.  When's the last time you saw a graphics artist create an image
without once checking the results against the original intentions?

You hold FP to a different standard than any other tool in any other
medium.  Why?  I don't know.  You tell me.

Is it hatred for MS?  Or ego over knowing HTML?  I don't know.  But
your opinion of FP is obviously not based on knowledge of the product.
>
>Like I said, the old rules do not apply here. There are no other mediums
>where the final output is so dependent on the user's hardware and choices.

Really?  What about the TV viewer who hits the mute button?  The movie
goer who leaves in the best part to get popcorn?  A novel reader who
skips pages he feels are unimportant?  A magazine reader who skims the
articles?  A newspaper reader who only reads the headlines?

NO "artist", designer, web page author, etc., etc., etc., has control
over the user's choices of viewing his/her product.  To think
otherwise is to display both arrogance and foolhardiness.  The best
you can do is produce something and hope people see in it what YOU saw
when you created it.


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

In article <32f11731.3676855@news.airmail.net>,
baldeagl <Adstopper@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 1997 18:30:40 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
>wrote:
>[snip]
>>The final fault lies with the author, yes. But "WYSIWYG" HTML editors
>>contribute to the problem by telling web authors that they don't need to
>>learn HTML, that HTML is WYSIWYG, that the editor will produce decent
>>output.
>Gee....I don't ever recall FP telling me that.

You haven't read much of Microsoft's ad copy, have you? Do you -really-
want me to dig up some of Microsoft and NetObjects' worst offenses and
mail them to you?

>>>Which I believe is the exact same case as the "printer" who's output
>>>is awful for the same reasons.
>>But it's not the same reason. The web author who uses a "WYSIWYG" tool may
>>be producing lovely, decent output -within that tool-. He just may be
>>unaware that the tool is misleading him. A person doing DTP with hardcopy
>>output is not being deceived by his tools; What He Sees Is What He Gets,
>>and any problems with it are his fault and his fault only.
>Bunch of baloney.  If it looks at all screwy in FP, you can guarantee
>it looks bad in the browser.  Besides, what fool would create a page
>in an editor, not once view it in his/her own browser, ftp to the web
>site and put it out there for all the world to see???

*sigh* Okay, FrontPage and their favorite browser, I should have said. I
know that this happens pretty frequently, because I've been called in to
repair the results on a couple of occasions.

Do you -really- think that the average FrontPage user is knowledgable
enough to use more than one browser? The average FrontPage user doesn't
know a damnable thing about the way the web works, because that's the kind
of person that Microsoft is -marketing to-.

>You've obviously never even seen FP or you wouldn't make a statement
>like that.  FP shows the border on tables even when it's set to 0.  It
>shows breaks as an arrow with an elbow in it - very disconcerting the
>first time you see it.  FP shows audio embedding as a weird looking
>zipper thing on the screen.  It is somewhat WYSIWYG, but certainly not
>something anyone would accept as the final product.  Javascript shows
>up as a box with a J in it.  CGI shows up as a little man figure.
>Colors don't look quite right.  Animated images don't move.  The list
>goes on.

Like I said, I -should- have said "FrontPage and their favorite browser".
There are -hordes- of novices who set things up in FrontPage, look at it
with Netscape -or- MSIE, and then consider it done.

>AAMOF, the appearance of a well done page in FP, will make you check
>many times in the browser to make sure it's right, because it's not
>WYSIWYG but WYSIWhat's behind the code it's writing.

Yes, FrontPage is missing elements when it renders a page, but it -still-
pretends to be "WYSIWYG" in terms of -layout- and -presentation-. You know
this, and I know this, and I wish you would quit defending Microsoft's
misrepresentation of the situation. NetObjects and Netscape (and every
other author of a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor) are equally guilty.

>>A person who creates garbage on a WYSIWYG DTP system is guilty of creating
>>garbage. A person who creates garbage with a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor like
>>FrontPage -may- only be guilty of believing Microsoft's hype.
>A person who produces garbage in FP without knowing it is a fool or
>blind.

Or ignorant. And there a -lot- of ignorant people geting onto the web
these days. I'd name a few, but they've paid me to help them -stop- being
ignorant.

>>>>The web is not like any other medium. The old rules do not apply here.
>>>Ah,  but they do.  The author is still responsible for the results of
>>>his/her work, n'est ce pas?
>>A web author is always ultimately responsible for his work. The point I'm
>>tyring to make is that an otherwise excellent visual designer may end up
>>creating bad web pages because he trusted his tools not to mislead him.
>How many times have you seen a painter take one look at his/her
>subject and then create an entire portrait?  Let's get really serious
>here.  When's the last time you saw a graphics artist create an image
>without once checking the results against the original intentions?

Because the RULES ARE DIFFERENT ON THE WEB. If a visual artist compares a
piece of hardcopy to the original design, he can -see- the difference. If
a newbie HTML author produces something that's great-looking in Netscape
-and doesn't know that other browsers make things look different-, he will
not go ahead and check how it looks with other browsers.

Why is this basic concept so hard for you to understand? I'm not calling
these people stupid, I'm calling them ignorant, and it's companies like
Microsoft who are trying to -keep- them ignorant.

>You hold FP to a different standard than any other tool in any other
>medium.  Why?  I don't know.  You tell me.

I hold -all- "WYSIWYG" HTML editors to the same standard. And the reason I
hold them to a different standard than tools in other mediums is:

<DING DING!> You guessed it! The Rules Are Different Here!

I hold TV's to a different standard than paintbrushes, and printers to a
different standard than speakers. Why? Because The Rules Are Different.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand?

>Is it hatred for MS?  Or ego over knowing HTML?  I don't know.  But
>your opinion of FP is obviously not based on knowledge of the product.

I'll be honest. I've never used FrontPage. But I've seen MS's ad copy,
and, most importantly, I've -seen the output-. I know the kind of garbage
that people with a lack of knowledge and copy of FrontPage can produce.
I've had to clean it up before. I've had to correct people's
misconceptions. I've had to tell prospective clients that no, FrontPage is
not a substitute for knowledge and/or experience.

>>Like I said, the old rules do not apply here. There are no other mediums
>>where the final output is so dependent on the user's hardware and choices.
>Really?  What about the TV viewer who hits the mute button?  The movie
>goer who leaves in the best part to get popcorn?  A novel reader who
>skips pages he feels are unimportant?  A magazine reader who skims the
>articles?  A newspaper reader who only reads the headlines?

Yeah, and what about all those people who aren't even on the web, huh?

Are you -really- this dense, or are you just pretending? The user's
ability to Not Pay Attention is -entirely- different from the modification
of presentation on the client-end that is present on the web. If you do
not understand this, I hope I never have to look at any pages you've
designed.

The only possible analogies to existing media would require ridiculous
extensions to technology; it'd be like being able to pick your own
background music for your fave TV shows, or being able to replace John
Lennon with Mick Jagger on your Beatles albums because you like him
better. The ability to Turn It Off is completely different from the
ability to Change The Presentation.

>NO "artist", designer, web page author, etc., etc., etc., has control
>over the user's choices of viewing his/her product.  To think
>otherwise is to display both arrogance and foolhardiness.  The best
>you can do is produce something and hope people see in it what YOU saw
>when you created it.

Again, if you don't understand the difference between the web's ability to
change presentation to match the user's preferences, and the ability of
people to get up during a movie to go to the bathroom, then you must be a
-pathetic- web designer.

[I'm assuming you're not, in fact, a pathetic web designer, and that you
-do- understand the difference, but that you're being deliberately
contrary for your own purposes. Overly fond of FrontPage, are we?]

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

> The beta releases were available for download a while back but even if
> you could find one now...  they'd do you no good.  They were
> timebombed!  They would cease to function after January 15th I
> believe.

I don't recall if my beta expires on the 31st after 60 days or if it
just expires after the 31st. My copy of the commercial version should be
here tomorrow. I did like many of the upgraded features from v1.1.
--
Byron Funnell - The CADMaker

>>Unless you LIKE blinking text. :-)<<...

  I did my whole website in blinking text!!!  Really cool!! I also made all
the text white on light gray for optimum viewing pleasure. I made my logo
472KB, along with a 489KB .wav file. I even figured out how to make the
borders on frames flash on and off!
  I also made #1 on "Web pages that suck" :-)....

  PS - lest you think that part about the 472K logo and 489K .wav file is a
joke, I actually run across a site that did that.

On 30 Jan 1997 09:21:09 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
wrote:

[snip]
>
>You haven't read much of Microsoft's ad copy, have you?

Precisely zero.  Why would I read ad copy?  They offered the beta
version for free - I downloaded it - I tried it - it worked.  I could
really care less what there ad copy says.  Who believes ads anyway?

>Do you -really-
>want me to dig up some of Microsoft and NetObjects' worst offenses and
>mail them to you?

Not really.  I can browse for them myself. <g>

[snip]
>
>*sigh* Okay, FrontPage and their favorite browser, I should have said. I
>know that this happens pretty frequently, because I've been called in to
>repair the results on a couple of occasions.
>
>Do you -really- think that the average FrontPage user is knowledgable
>enough to use more than one browser? The average FrontPage user doesn't
>know a damnable thing about the way the web works, because that's the kind
>of person that Microsoft is -marketing to-.

I'm really having a hard time deciding if you are just way too
cynical......or damnably arogant.  Since you place all buyers of MS
products in the category of ignorant, gullible fools, I'm leaning
toward the latter.

[snip]
>
>Like I said, I -should- have said "FrontPage and their favorite browser".
>There are -hordes- of novices who set things up in FrontPage, look at it
>with Netscape -or- MSIE, and then consider it done.

Yeah....we're just surrounded by the abominable heathens, aren't we?
It's a wonder we few, we proud, we almighty HTML pros can stand to be
associated with the same medium that allows these dolts to write the
trash they put up. :-(

[snip]
>
>Yes, FrontPage is missing elements when it renders a page, but it -still-
>pretends to be "WYSIWYG" in terms of -layout- and -presentation-. You know
>this, and I know this, and I wish you would quit defending Microsoft's
>misrepresentation of the situation. NetObjects and Netscape (and every
>other author of a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor) are equally guilty.

I don't recall ever defending MS or anyone else for that matter.  I've
only attempted to correct your misrepresentation of a good product.  I
have no idea what MS is representing FP to be as I've never read an ad
or seen anything MS has said about it.  (I guess there must have been
something on the web site, but I really don't recall....it said
free...I said click.

[snip]
>
>Or ignorant. And there a -lot- of ignorant people geting onto the web
>these days. I'd name a few, but they've paid me to help them -stop- being
>ignorant.

Thank God we have you around, else the web would be a desolate place
filled with awful pages made by ignorant people; a veritable wasteland
of trashy output.

Now I'm definitely leaning toward the latter.

[snip]
>
>I'll be honest. I've never used FrontPage. But I've seen MS's ad copy,
>and, most importantly, I've -seen the output-. I know the kind of garbage
>that people with a lack of knowledge and copy of FrontPage can produce.
>I've had to clean it up before. I've had to correct people's
>misconceptions. I've had to tell prospective clients that no, FrontPage is
>not a substitute for knowledge and/or experience.

I'll bet the garbage they put out from FP against the garbage they
write in "pure" HTML any day.  Bet the FP page has less mistakes and
is better looking in more browsers than the first efforts of these
abominable newbies writing their own code after reading "HTML IN THREE
DAYS OR YOUR MONEY BACK" and hurridly putting their first page up.

[snip]

>then you must be a
>-pathetic- web designer.

Would I be anything else in your egotistical eyes?  It's obvious no
one but the great god of web design, your highness, could possibly
measure up to the high standards you hold.
>
>[I'm assuming you're not, in fact, a pathetic web designer, and that you
>-do- understand the difference, but that you're being deliberately
>contrary for your own purposes. Overly fond of FrontPage, are we?]

Actually, I'm already testing some other editors at the present time.
The free beta of FP runs out tomorrow, and I haven't used it in a week
or so.  I'm many pages past that by now.

I'm sure you must be a really nice person in the flesh, but you really
ought to take stock of what you post in these NGs.  You come across as
an arrogant, egotistical know-it-all who can barely stand to sniff the
same air as the common folk who put up their web pages in an exciting
first effort at exploring the wonderful world of the web.

You're probably an HTML ace who can whip together a WC3 page
blindfolded and never miss a lick, but who would want to be around you
all day??


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

Please excuse this post. Things have gotten personal (much to my
displeasure), and I'm taking it elsewhere. Note followups. If "Bald Eagle"
wants to get back to talking about HTML he can change the followups back
to the HTML newsgroups.

In article <32f36463.19724042@news.airmail.net>,
baldeagl <Adstopper@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1997 09:21:09 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
>wrote:
>[snip]
>>You haven't read much of Microsoft's ad copy, have you?
>Precisely zero.  Why would I read ad copy?  They offered the beta
>version for free - I downloaded it - I tried it - it worked.  I could
>really care less what there ad copy says.  Who believes ads anyway?

If you don't know how Microsoft is marketing FrontPage, then how can you
deny that they claim you don't have to know HTML to use it? If you haven't
read their ad copy, aren't your claims as to Microsoft's marketing
strategy kind of... well... worthless?

>>Do you -really-
>>want me to dig up some of Microsoft and NetObjects' worst offenses and
>>mail them to you?
>Not really.  I can browse for them myself. <g>

I'd recommend you do so. It should be enlightening for you to what kind of
target audience FrontPage is pointed at.

>[snip]
>>*sigh* Okay, FrontPage and their favorite browser, I should have said. I
>>know that this happens pretty frequently, because I've been called in to
>>repair the results on a couple of occasions.
>>Do you -really- think that the average FrontPage user is knowledgable
>>enough to use more than one browser? The average FrontPage user doesn't
>>know a damnable thing about the way the web works, because that's the kind
>>of person that Microsoft is -marketing to-.
>I'm really having a hard time deciding if you are just way too
>cynical......or damnably arogant.  Since you place all buyers of MS
>products in the category of ignorant, gullible fools, I'm leaning
>toward the latter.

Your words, not mine. And you're the one who brought up "All MS products";
I'm just talking about Microsoft's strategy with regards to FrontPage, and
other companies' similar tactics.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant. I'm ignorant on a
lot of subjects, and well-informed on many others. What I am interested in
doing is -informing- people who are ignorant about web design, because I
feel that products like FrontPage can harm more than they help.

If wanting to teach others is "arrogant", I guess you must hate schools,
huh?

And yes, I -am- cynical. You get that way, having been in the industry for
so long.

>[snip]
>>Like I said, I -should- have said "FrontPage and their favorite browser".
>>There are -hordes- of novices who set things up in FrontPage, look at it
>>with Netscape -or- MSIE, and then consider it done.
>Yeah....we're just surrounded by the abominable heathens, aren't we?
>It's a wonder we few, we proud, we almighty HTML pros can stand to be
>associated with the same medium that allows these dolts to write the
>trash they put up. :-(

Your words, not mine.

>[snip]
>>Yes, FrontPage is missing elements when it renders a page, but it -still-
>>pretends to be "WYSIWYG" in terms of -layout- and -presentation-. You know
>>this, and I know this, and I wish you would quit defending Microsoft's
>>misrepresentation of the situation. NetObjects and Netscape (and every
>>other author of a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor) are equally guilty.
>I don't recall ever defending MS or anyone else for that matter.  I've
>only attempted to correct your misrepresentation of a good product.  I
>have no idea what MS is representing FP to be as I've never read an ad
>or seen anything MS has said about it.

Then please refrain from trying to correct my claims about MS's marketing
strategy, since you admit to not knowing a damn thing about it.

> (I guess there must have been
>something on the web site, but I really don't recall....it said
>free...I said click.

I presume you're purchasing the full version now that the beta period has
expired?

>[snip]
>>Or ignorant. And there a -lot- of ignorant people geting onto the web
>>these days. I'd name a few, but they've paid me to help them -stop- being
>>ignorant.
>Thank God we have you around, else the web would be a desolate place
>filled with awful pages made by ignorant people; a veritable wasteland
>of trashy output.
>Now I'm definitely leaning toward the latter.

You realize, of course, that there's nothing wrong with being a
professional, either? Should I completely ignore the fact that I have a
lot of experience in the field I'm talking about? Should I treat everybody
as being equally qualified when they are quite obviously not?

Please. I'm a professional, I write web pages, I teach people about the
Internet, I get people connected, I train people. I get paid by people who
are ignorant about the Internet. That's the truth, and if you have a
problem with it, -tough-.

>[snip]
>>I'll be honest. I've never used FrontPage. But I've seen MS's ad copy,
>>and, most importantly, I've -seen the output-. I know the kind of garbage
>>that people with a lack of knowledge and copy of FrontPage can produce.
>>I've had to clean it up before. I've had to correct people's
>>misconceptions. I've had to tell prospective clients that no, FrontPage is
>>not a substitute for knowledge and/or experience.
>I'll bet the garbage they put out from FP against the garbage they
>write in "pure" HTML any day.  Bet the FP page has less mistakes and
>is better looking in more browsers than the first efforts of these
>abominable newbies writing their own code after reading "HTML IN THREE
>DAYS OR YOUR MONEY BACK" and hurridly putting their first page up.

Maybe so. I know that the output from a newbie using FrontPage is usually
better-looking than the -very first- HTML I wrote a few years ago.

The difference is, those people with the books will improve their pages,
because they know it looks bad. They'll look for new resources, and try
harder the next time they code a page. There's not limitations on what
they can try.

With FrontPage, people may not even -realize- that they have problems with
their pages. They'd -protected- from the real issues of web authoring.
There's no reason for them to go any further, no reason for them to care
about the -real- web issues of flexible presentation.

>[snip]

And -what a snip-! You completely changed the meaning of my statement!
BRA-VO!

>>then you must be a
>>-pathetic- web designer.
>Would I be anything else in your egotistical eyes?  It's obvious no
>one but the great god of web design, your highness, could possibly
>measure up to the high standards you hold.

Bullshit. There are lots of people out there to whom I look up to in the
field of web design. I've learned a lot from many, many different people.
One of the things I've learned, by watching it happen over and over, is
that starting out with a "WYSIWYG" HTML editor is extremely harmful. I
don't want to see people out there, people who are excellent graphic
designers, people who could embrace HTML's power, start out on a lousy
tool.

If you think that wanting other people to get a good start in the same
field I'm in, is "arrogant", then I guess I am "arrogant".

>>[I'm assuming you're not, in fact, a pathetic web designer, and that you
>>-do- understand the difference, but that you're being deliberately
>>contrary for your own purposes. Overly fond of FrontPage, are we?]
>Actually, I'm already testing some other editors at the present time.
>The free beta of FP runs out tomorrow, and I haven't used it in a week
>or so.  I'm many pages past that by now.

You might want to re-do your main page, then. I did go ahead and look at
it, and well... It sucks. -BOOOOOY- does it suck. I showed it to lots of
people, professionals and otherwise, and they all went "this sucks". Do
you want the full list of details, or are you willing to just take a
recommendation that you wipe it clean and start over?

>I'm sure you must be a really nice person in the flesh, but you really
>ought to take stock of what you post in these NGs.  You come across as
>an arrogant, egotistical know-it-all who can barely stand to sniff the
>same air as the common folk who put up their web pages in an exciting
>first effort at exploring the wonderful world of the web.

It's really tempted to start insulting you in return, but I'm not going to
do that. These newsgroups are about HTML, so I'm going to stick to telling
you that your web page sucks.

>You're probably an HTML ace who can whip together a WC3 page
>blindfolded and never miss a lick, but who would want to be around you
>all day??

Remember, kids, personal attacks are the last refuge of the incompetent.

Anyway, since we seem to have gotten somewhat off the original topic, I'll
summarize my position:

I think FrontPage, and other similar tools like Netscape Gold's editor and
NetObjects Fusion, are harmful to the web as a whole, in part due to their
nature and in part due to the marketing by the companies that own them.
They mislead customers into thinking that working with HTML is just like
working with a printed document. They do nothing to actually educate
users, and instead hide the workings of the web from them. They masquerade
as WYSIWYG, when in fact they are not.

There is nothing wrong with using FrontPage, Fusion, or any other tool, in
conjunction with other tools and information sources. But Microsoft,
NetObjects, and Netscape would have you believe that their tool is the
only one you need. -That- is the reason that I have a problem with these
tools.

If "Bald Eagle" has a problem with this view, fine. Let him tell me what
his disagrees with. But if he wants to make personal attacks, he can do it
in alt.flame where people interested in HTML won't have to listen to him.

--
                  And in the dawn, there came a song, | Christian Wagner
              Of some sweet lady, singing in his ear, |
                  Your God has gone, and from now on, |
    You'll have to learn to hate the things you fear. | cwagner@io.com

On 31 Jan 1997 13:44:45 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
wrote:

[snip]
>>
>>>You haven't read much of Microsoft's ad copy, have you?

>>Precisely zero.  Why would I read ad copy?  They offered the beta
>>version for free - I downloaded it - I tried it - it worked.  I could
>>really care less what their ad copy says.  Who believes ads anyway?
>
>If you don't know how Microsoft is marketing FrontPage, then how can you
>deny that they claim you don't have to know HTML to use it? If you haven't
>read their ad copy, aren't your claims as to Microsoft's marketing
>strategy kind of... well... worthless?

When have I ever made a single claim re: their marketing strategy?

OK, I'm human....maybe I missed it.  I went back and reread all your
posts (and mine) in this thread (that are still saved on my
newsreader.)  I looked specifically for any mention of marketing
strategies misleading buyers of editors.

I found none.  The first thing that could even be construed as such
was the vague reference to MS "hype" in your message of the 29 th.

If you want to discuss marketing strategy re: FP, I can't.  I know
nothing of it.  But you certainly mislead me, because I never
understood that's what you were referring to.

[snip]
>
>In any case, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant. I'm ignorant on a
>lot of subjects, and well-informed on many others. What I am interested in
>doing is -informing- people who are ignorant about web design, because I
>feel that products like FrontPage can harm more than they help.

Now you've changed horses again.  You're back to arguing the <product>
is the culprit.  It's not.

If MS's marketing strategy for FP is misleading, fine.  But how does
the product itself mislead?  You don't know, because you haven't used
it.  Your charges are baseless because you have no knowledge of the
product.  You've admitted this yourself, and yet you persist in
harshly criticizing it.
>
>If wanting to teach others is "arrogant", I guess you must hate schools,
>huh?

No, I dislike arrogant teachers.

[snip]
>
>Your words, not mine.

Go back and read your posts.  Then point out to me where I've
mischaracterized your statements.

[snip]
>
>Then please refrain from trying to correct my claims about MS's marketing
>strategy, since you admit to not knowing a damn thing about it.

But you never claimed anything of the sort until the message to which
I was responding in the above quotes.  And I've never attempted to
correct any of your claims regarding marketing.  Only your
misrepresentation of the products capabilities.

[snip]
>
>I presume you're purchasing the full version now that the beta period has
>expired?

I'm not sure.  FP has more capability than I need.  I'm evaluating
other products at the present.  I may still purchase FP at a later
date, but only after evaluating a number of products carefully.

[snip]
>
>You realize, of course, that there's nothing wrong with being a
>professional, either?

Apparently you consider it professionalism to insult your own clients.
I do not.

>Should I completely ignore the fact that I have a
>lot of experience in the field I'm talking about? Should I treat everybody
>as being equally qualified when they are quite obviously not?

Equally qualified?  Obviously not.  With respect?  You might try it
some time.  Just because someone doesn't know as much as you on a
particular subject, does not give you the license to call them
ignorant, wannabes, etc.
>
>Please. I'm a professional, I write web pages, I teach people about the
>Internet, I get people connected, I train people. I get paid by people who
>are ignorant about the Internet. That's the truth, and if you have a
>problem with it, -tough-.

Hopefully you only reveal your true feelings about them in forums they
never frequent.  Were I your client and I read your statements here, I
would be looking for a new designer.  You wouldn't get another dime
from me, even if you were the best in the world.

[snip]
>
>Maybe so. I know that the output from a newbie using FrontPage is usually
>better-looking than the -very first- HTML I wrote a few years ago.

So by your own admission, FP is better for a novice than Notepad,
starting out.
>
>The difference is, those people with the books will improve their pages,
>because they know it looks bad. They'll look for new resources, and try
>harder the next time they code a page. There's not limitations on what
>they can try.

What makes you think that a person using FP will never attempt to
improve their page?  Or to learn the HTML behind the output?  Do you
somehow think that FP freezes their brain, and they're incapable of
independent thought?
>
>With FrontPage, people may not even -realize- that they have problems with
>their pages. They'd -protected- from the real issues of web authoring.
>There's no reason for them to go any further, no reason for them to care
>about the -real- web issues of flexible presentation.

Nor is there with Notepad.  It takes an individual who cares about
what they're doing, with a sincere interest in HTML to do that.
>
>And -what a snip-! You completely changed the meaning of my statement!
>BRA-VO!

Lighten up, Christian.  Anyone following a news thread is perfectly
capable of going back and reading the full text if they aren't sure of
the meaning of a statement.  There are no sinister, dark motives at
work here.

[snip]
>
>If you think that wanting other people to get a good start in the same
>field I'm in, is "arrogant", then I guess I am "arrogant".

But you see, you don't just want them to get a good start.  You want
them to get <your> version of a good start.  If they start any other
way, they're pathetic, newbies, wannabes, etc. (your words.)

[snip]
>
>You might want to re-do your main page, then. I did go ahead and look at
>it, and well... It sucks. -BOOOOOY- does it suck.

I'm not surprised you'd say that.

>I showed it to lots of
>people, professionals and otherwise, and they all went "this sucks".

Now this is a wonder.  You were so offended by my comments that you
wanted to move this discussion to alt.flame and yet you took the time
(which I'm sure is valuable) to show my page to "people, professionals
and otherwise and they **all** [meaning at least three] went 'this
sucks'."  Why would you even care?

>Do you want the full list of details,

Sure.  It would be most enlightening.

>or are you willing to just take a
>recommendation that you wipe it clean and start over?

Not without some cogent criticism.
>
>>I'm sure you must be a really nice person in the flesh, but you really
>>ought to take stock of what you post in these NGs.  You come across as
>>an arrogant, egotistical know-it-all who can barely stand to sniff the
>>same air as the common folk who put up their web pages in an exciting
>>first effort at exploring the wonderful world of the web.
>
>It's really tempted to start insulting you in return,

Christian, you completely misunderstand.  I was not, nor did I have
any intention of, insulting you.  I was giving you an honest
evaluation of your presentation in the newsgroups.  Apparently it's OK
for you to say my page "sucks. -BOOOOOY- does it suck." without
considering that an insult, but it's not ok for me to comment on the
way you appear to an objective reader of your posts.

>but I'm not going to
>do that. These newsgroups are about HTML, so I'm going to stick to telling
>you that your web page sucks.

Ha,ha... that's rich.  You can insult me all you want, because after
all that's the purpose of this NG, but I can't insult you unless it
regards a page you've written.  Oh, and BTW, since you've set the
ground rules, make sure you stick to your knitting.  I only want to
see criticism of my HTML, not anything else.
>
>>You're probably an HTML ace who can whip together a W3C page
>>blindfolded and never miss a lick, but who would want to be around you
>>all day??
>
>Remember, kids, personal attacks are the last refuge of the incompetent.

No insult there. :-)
>
>Anyway, since we seem to have gotten somewhat off the original topic, I'll
>summarize my position:
>
>I think FrontPage, and other similar tools like Netscape Gold's editor and
>NetObjects Fusion, are harmful to the web as a whole, in part due to their
>nature and in part due to the marketing by the companies that own them.
>They mislead customers into thinking that working with HTML is just like
>working with a printed document. They do nothing to actually educate
>users, and instead hide the workings of the web from them. They masquerade
>as WYSIWYG, when in fact they are not.
>
>There is nothing wrong with using FrontPage, Fusion, or any other tool, in
>conjunction with other tools and information sources. But Microsoft,
>NetObjects, and Netscape would have you believe that their tool is the
>only one you need. -That- is the reason that I have a problem with these
>tools.
>
>If "Bald Eagle" has a problem with this view, fine. Let him tell me what
>his disagrees with.

I disagree that a tool, which after all is an inanimate object, can
have a bearing or impact upon the entire www that portends of ominous
downfall.  I disagree that <any> tool can do that, even Notepad.

Let's analyze your last statement here, with some slight modification,
shall we?

>There is nothing wrong with using Notepad, or any other tool, in
>conjunction with other tools and information sources. But Notepad devotees
> would have you believe that their tool is the only one you need.
>-That- is the reason that I have a problem with these tools.

Does it still make sense to you?


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

WWWEB Publishing wrote:

> I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the beta.
> Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the pro's
> and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
> REALLY appreciated.

About the only complaint about it is that it hacks up the code
to fit MS's view of the world.  However, it still plays well when
most other browsers do the view.

It strikes me as being a useful tool for when the time pressures
are very great, but the result is somewhat of a compromise.

Depending upon the pressures one is other is the basis of whether
or not one should go for it.

I am not a fan of MS, but I rather liked many of it's features.

I currently use emacs with a greatly hack-up html-helper-mode
and pencil and paper to keep track of everything.

--
Jim Tom Polk
EMail:-	 jtpolk@camalott.com  Home:- http://camalott.com/~jtpolk
Maintenance and Support for B & B Internet Services:-
Sweetwater Texas Finest:-	http://camalott.com/~bbcomp/
	Phone: 915/235-2055	Fax: 915/235-3688
JTPages Web Page Authoring and Design
	http://camalott.com/~jtpolk/jtpages/jtpages.html

In article <32f3c7e8.4748491@news.hunterlink.net.au>,
Robert G. Eldridge <robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
)Q2. Does the product allow the user to use elements and attributes
)that are not in the html 2.0 standard (but are in the 3.2 one)?
)
)I ask these questions as a lot of pages that I visit include:
)<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
)and also include:
)<meta name="GENERATOR" c>

But what doctype should it include if it allows tags which aren't in 2.0
or 3.2 (like frames and marquees)?
--
 / Scott Drellishak                                        sfd@nwlink.com \
| "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."  |
|                 "Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness."                 |
 \                  "Dah dweeee, dah-dah-dah dwee, dow!"                   /

I've got to jump in on this thread, because frankly it is one of the
funniest things I've read in a LONG, LONG time in this newsgroup.  I've
been coding HTML for nearly 2 years now, I started out using notepad and
quickly found a better text editor to deal with.  Right now I use
FrontPage 97 - you have no idea how powerful this product actually is
until you use it for a few weeks - and PFE, the god of all text editors.
 I code ALL of my HTML in Frontpage, then further edit it with PFE as
I've been writing ASP apps since the release of IIS 3.0.

I tried out Fusion for a couple of days and was pretty inpressed with it
in many ways, but felt the way it handled graphics and the menu buttons
was far to constraining for the type of sites I build, and as the first
verison didn't support frames, I gave it up.

However, for someone who is JUST coding HTML somewhere and isn't trying
to create the mother of all web pages which use the newest features on
the web, WHY should he or she need more than FrontPage 97?  It comes
with a built in editor which gives you better functionality than notepad
and does all the messy work of creating tables and whatnot for people
who haven't learned the way HTML works.

> >I think FrontPage, and other similar tools like Netscape Gold's editor and
> >NetObjects Fusion, are harmful to the web as a whole, in part due to their
> >nature and in part due to the marketing by the companies that own them.
> >They mislead customers into thinking that working with HTML is just like
> >working with a printed document. They do nothing to actually educate
> >users, and instead hide the workings of the web from them. They masquerade
> >as WYSIWYG, when in fact they are not.

Anyone who wants to be profecient in HTML will eventually read SOMETHING
on HTML besides using FP or they WILL create crappy sites.  They'll know
it too, because they'll look at their site with their browser and
compare it to good ones on the web and think, wow, I wish my site could
do that.  But that is only for the diehard people who actually care
about creating cool sites.  The entire point of the web is to produce
information.  While a well designed site will initally draw in a croud,
and a good naviation system is essential, who cares if the site LOOKS
nice.  I'd much rather have a site which has the info I'm looking for
than does a great job of NOT giving me what I want.

> >
> >There is nothing wrong with using FrontPage, Fusion, or any other tool, in
> >conjunction with other tools and information sources. But Microsoft,
> >NetObjects, and Netscape would have you believe that their tool is the
> >only one you need. -That- is the reason that I have a problem with these
> >tools.
> >
> >If "Bald Eagle" has a problem with this view, fine. Let him tell me what
> >his disagrees with.
>
> I disagree that a tool, which after all is an inanimate object, can
> have a bearing or impact upon the entire www that portends of ominous
> downfall.  I disagree that <any> tool can do that, even Notepad.

Actually, I'll have to disagree with you there, using a product like FP
could cause the downfall of the web, and the internet.  Frontpage
documents tend to be anywhere from 50% to 200% larger than they need to
be due to inefficient use of HTML tags.  An increase in file transfer of
that much in every document on every website could easily clog up even
the largest internet pipelines thus bringing down the entire internet...
though maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong way.

Perhaps, what Christan is saying is that products like FP no matter what
they claim are optomized for THEIR browser - Netscape Gold produces code
optimized for Netscape browsers, FP produces code for IE browsers.  As
each of these companies try to diverge the web to only support their
standards, their Web development products will have options which only
support THEIR platform - as an example, FP supports VBScripting
functionality - no one in their right mind would develop a client side
VBScript app - except on an Intranet - if they wanted a large number of
people to be able to use it.  For the person who doesn't understand the
difference between JScript, JavaScript and VBScript, or Java and
ActiveX, using a browser specific development product locks them into a
certain group of viewers which they may have no idea they are publishing
to.  This IS the problem in using tools which are first generation
editors to build new sites on the web - they don't work.  You're better
off using a text editor to code Active Server Pages than spending the
time to build it in something like FP.

To both of you, Feel free to check out MY website @
http://xeno.net/lemcon/, which does --NOT-- SUCK.  Unless of course
you're running a slow system.... (I love client side theadings on the
Mac)

Ben Ziskind
Information & Decision Systems
Carnegie Mellon University
http://xeno.net/lemcon/
http://xeno.net/

  So in other words, you think that HTML and the web should be left to the
Gurus?  I guess that is one way to justify charging $250 a page for
something that takes 5 minutes to do in FP97.

>
> The concept behind Frontpage would seem to be that it makes web
> publishing acessible to folk who know nothing of the web. It's one of
> Microsoft's errors, I believe.
>
> BB

On 2 Feb 1997 02:40:35 GMT, "Warren Lauzon" <WLauzon@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>  So in other words, you think that HTML and the web should be left to the
>Gurus?  I guess that is one way to justify charging $250 a page for
>something that takes 5 minutes to do in FP97.

Read the whole thread, Warren.  There's more than one that feels that
way in these groups.


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

I can see both sides of this argument to a large degree having read all the
threads (I think). What mystifies me is the reason a web page is created in
the first place.

In effect, the various thoughts in the thread remind me of a flame match I
had as a contributing edior to a local newspaper some years ago, where I
made the point that any "Farmer Brown" who wrote an Excel macro - no matter
how simple - could classify himself as a "programmer". One person in
particular took volatile exception to this, saying that a true programmer
had degrees, years of experience etc.

My point is, if you set out to do something, no matter what tools are used,
if the end result is what you intended, then the job is done. Surely, the
end result in this case is to create a web page or web site that does its
job. If the satisfaction of this is purely the "quality" of the code
underneath, then this seems to be leading towards elitism to me. I knew
once a programmer - and a damn fine one at that - who went into business
for himself. He went bust because the quality of the code "was never good
enough". As such the jobs he got never got done on time.

The quality of a web page / site is based by the majority on the quality of
its content. Full Stop. If I create that quality in Fusion, FrontPage or vi
does not matter a cracker if U ask me. As long as the contents run
successfully on all the platforms I could expect it to, without problems,
the client is happy, the viewing public is happy, then I am happy.

I am one of these therefore, that whilst admitting to having a personal
leaning towards perfection as much as possible, I also understand the
commercial implications, and have therefore, after many hours of testing
different products, chosen to use Fusion as my particular platform as a
commercial decision. So far, after about 12 commercial sites in 4 months, I
have no reason to regret this, and nor do my clients.

David
--
Shazian Enterprises
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited OzEmail Corporate Web Designers
PC Magazine (Aust) First Looks Contributor
Add your page to the OzEmail WebUsers Index at http://www.shazian.com.au
WebSite http://www.shazian.com.au    Freecall 1 800 670 141
We do: HTML, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
           VRML, ActiveX, Shockwave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Jim Tom Polk <jtpolk@camalott.com> wrote in article
<32F2FEEC.4922CAB@camalott.com>...
> WWWEB Publishing wrote:
>
> > I am debating buying the retail version of FP97. I already have the
beta.
> > Now I know this is asking a lot, but, could someone here give me the
pro's
> > and con's of this program? If you would respond via e-mail it would be
> > REALLY appreciated.
>
> About the only complaint about it is that it hacks up the code
> to fit MS's view of the world.  However, it still plays well when
> most other browsers do the view.
>
> It strikes me as being a useful tool for when the time pressures
> are very great, but the result is somewhat of a compromise.
>
> Depending upon the pressures one is other is the basis of whether
> or not one should go for it.
>
> I am not a fan of MS, but I rather liked many of it's features.
>
> I currently use emacs with a greatly hack-up html-helper-mode
> and pencil and paper to keep track of everything.
>
> --
> Jim Tom Polk
> EMail:-	 jtpolk@camalott.com  Home:- http://camalott.com/~jtpolk
> Maintenance and Support for B & B Internet Services:-
> Sweetwater Texas Finest:-	http://camalott.com/~bbcomp/
> 	Phone: 915/235-2055	Fax: 915/235-3688
> JTPages Web Page Authoring and Design
> 	http://camalott.com/~jtpolk/jtpages/jtpages.html
>

On 2 Feb 1997 05:00:47 GMT, "David Hague" <davidh@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>I can see both sides of this argument to a large degree having read all the
>threads (I think). What mystifies me is the reason a web page is created in
>the first place.

[snip]

This entire article was very well put.  I couldn't agree more.


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 01:55:03 GMT, Adstopper@toobad.bozo (baldeagl)
wrote:

>If MS's marketing strategy for FP is misleading, fine.  But how does
>the product itself mislead?  You don't know, because you haven't used
>it.  Your charges are baseless because you have no knowledge of the
>product.  You've admitted this yourself, and yet you persist in
>harshly criticizing it.

Please excuse me for butting in. I also have no knowledge of the
product itself.

Q1. Does the product itself insert a <!doctype...> itself?

Q2. Does the product allow the user to use elements and attributes
that are not in the html 2.0 standard (but are in the 3.2 one)?

I ask these questions as a lot of pages that I visit include:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
and also include:
<meta name="GENERATOR" c>

If the answer to both questions is YES then IMHO the "product itself"
misleads.

If it's up to the user to select the <!doctype> declaration then an
awful lot of users have got it wrong.



Robert G. Eldridge  Cardiff NSW Australia
robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/%7Eddrge/

Gosh!

Thank you!

--
David Hague AAWPA
Shazian Enterprises
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited OzEmail Corporate Web Designers
PC Magazine (Aust) First Looks Contributor
Add your page to the OzEmail WebUsers Index at http://www.shazian.com.au
WebSite http://www.shazian.com.au    Freecall 1 800 670 141
We do: HTML, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, Perl,
           VRML, ActiveX, Shockwave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

baldeagl <Adstopper@toobad.bozo> wrote in article
<32f42429.215420@news.airmail.net>...
> On 2 Feb 1997 05:00:47 GMT, "David Hague" <davidh@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >I can see both sides of this argument to a large degree having read all
the
> >threads (I think). What mystifies me is the reason a web page is created
in
> >the first place.
>
> [snip]
>
> This entire article was very well put.  I couldn't agree more.
>
>
> baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
> http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
>
> "Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
> are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."
>
> From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer
>

In article <32f39fda.13947585@news.airmail.net>, Adstopper@airmail.net wrote:

>On 31 Jan 1997 13:44:45 -0600, cwagner@io.com (Christian Wagner)
>wrote:

<snip>

>>You realize, of course, that there's nothing wrong with being a
>>professional, either?
>
>Apparently you consider it professionalism to insult your own clients.
>I do not.
>
>>Should I completely ignore the fact that I have a
>>lot of experience in the field I'm talking about? Should I treat everybody
>>as being equally qualified when they are quite obviously not?
>
>Equally qualified?  Obviously not.  With respect?  You might try it
>some time.  Just because someone doesn't know as much as you on a
>particular subject, does not give you the license to call them
>ignorant, wannabes, etc.
>>
>>Please. I'm a professional, I write web pages, I teach people about the
>>Internet, I get people connected, I train people. I get paid by people who
>>are ignorant about the Internet. That's the truth, and if you have a
>>problem with it, -tough-.
>
>Hopefully you only reveal your true feelings about them in forums they
>never frequent.  Were I your client and I read your statements here, I
>would be looking for a new designer.  You wouldn't get another dime
>from me, even if you were the best in the world.

Hi Paul. If I may step in for a second: Doesn't "ignorant" simply mean
"having no or little knowledge of"?
If you'd call me ignorant on the subject of say, quantum mechanics, I'd
agree with you whole-heartedly. I wouldn't consider it insulting at all. If
I would, *I* would be the arrogant one.
If I'd want someone to create a webpage for my company, it would be because
I KNOW I'm ignorant of HTML.

<BIG SNIP>

Sander Tekelenburg
tekelenb@euronet.nl
http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/

On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 06:44:36 GMT, robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au
(Robert G. Eldridge) wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 01:55:03 GMT, Adstopper@toobad.bozo (baldeagl)
>wrote:
>
>>If MS's marketing strategy for FP is misleading, fine.  But how does
>>the product itself mislead?  You don't know, because you haven't used
>>it.  Your charges are baseless because you have no knowledge of the
>>product.  You've admitted this yourself, and yet you persist in
>>harshly criticizing it.
>
>Please excuse me for butting in. I also have no knowledge of the
>product itself.
>
>Q1. Does the product itself insert a <!doctype...> itself?

Yes.  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
>
>Q2. Does the product allow the user to use elements and attributes
>that are not in the html 2.0 standard (but are in the 3.2 one)?

It allows the author to use elements and attributes which are neither
2.0 or 3.2.  None of the present "standards" are anywhere near as
up-to-date as the latest elements and attributes which are available.

Tell me truthfully, do you think web page authors should wait for the
standards to catch up with the market before they use such things as
<FONT FACE> and <FONT COLOR>?  Neither of these will pass even a 3.2
validator or the "latest" DOCTYPE - <"-//WebTechs//DTD Mozilla
HTML//EN">.

To me there's a certain snobbishness to this insistence on adherance
to standards which are dramatically behind the development of the
language.  The DOCTYPE is good for defining a document which adheres
to a certain standard, but totally useless for defining many of the
documents existing today.  JavaScript is excluded.  So is font face
and color.  And ActiveX.  Several other recent developments are out.

If you want to write pages which adhere strictly to a defined doctype,
fine.  But why should I be restricted to that?  For example,
bgproperties=fixed is an MSIE only tag.  Should I not use it simply
because it's undefined?  It affects no other browser but MSIE, but the
effect in MSIE is a nice one, IMHO.
>
>I ask these questions as a lot of pages that I visit include:
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
>and also include:
><meta name="GENERATOR" c>
>
>If the answer to both questions is YES then IMHO the "product itself"
>misleads.

Misleads whom?  Only someone who 1) reads the source and 2)
understands the markup language fully enough to know those are not
"correct" usage of a doctype.

How does it affect the page itself?  Or the viewer's perceptions and
enjoyment of the page?  Not one whit.  All it does is irritate the
purists.
>
>If it's up to the user to select the <!doctype> declaration then an
>awful lot of users have got it wrong.

An awful lot of users have a lot of other things wrong too.  What are
we going to do?  Start up the web police to stop them from making
mistakes and misusing the language?


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

On 2 Feb 1997 09:47:33 GMT, address@bottom_of.message (Sander
Tekelenburg) wrote:

[snip]
>
>Hi Paul. If I may step in for a second: Doesn't "ignorant" simply mean
>"having no or little knowledge of"?

Of course it does.  Unfortunately, some people consider it a
pejorative, because they are ignorant of its meaning. <g>

In Greek, "idiotes" means unlearned.  In English, if you call someone
an idiot, you might get punched in the mouth.

I'm not sure of the roots of ignorant, but it could well derive from
the negating of "gnosis", which means "knowledge" in the Greek.
Ignorant has come to mean "stupid" to some people however, even though
it's true meaning hasn't degraded that far yet.

>If you'd call me ignorant on the subject of say, quantum mechanics, I'd
>agree with you whole-heartedly. I wouldn't consider it insulting at all. If
>I would, *I* would be the arrogant one.

And you would be right, but again, there are many who, not
understanding the correct meaning of the term, find it offensive.

>If I'd want someone to create a webpage for my company, it would be because
>I KNOW I'm ignorant of HTML.

Obviously a good reason for seeking outside assistance.  But let's be
honest.  Not <every> client a web page professional solicits is going
to be as understanding or forgiving of your <correct> use of the
language.

Imagine, if you will, that Christian had been called in to assist a
company which had attempted, unsuccessfully, to put up a web page.
Christian, with his intimate knowledge and extensive experience (I'm
not joking <or> making fun here) spots the trouble spots immediately
and is able to get the pages up and running in no time.

The client is ecstatic.  His pages are up.  His presentation is top
quality.  His forms work exactly the way he wants them to, and his hit
counter is going through the roof.  Christian is his hero, when it
comes to web pages.

He now begins to expand his horizons and plans even bigger and better
things for his site, because he knows he has Christian to guide him
through and make it all work successfully.

Then one day one of his employees says, "Hey, boss.  Come here and
look at this."  He then shows him a post in this newsgroup, which he
has begun monitoring in an attempt to understand html better, where
Christian has clearly stated that his clients are "ignorant".

How warm do you think the feeling he now has toward Christian will be?

What are the chances he'll begin looking for <other> web professionals
to begin work on his new plans?

That's my only point.  Some things, while true, are better left
unsaid.

If we're going to discuss HTML let's do it.  But let's drop the scorn
and derision towards the "newbies", "wannabes" and "ignorant" people
who aren't as knowledgeable as we are.  Every man, regardless of how
knowledgeable he is on a subject, was at one time a "newbie", a
"wannabe" and "ignorant"; even the experienced pros.

After all, some of them are monitoring these groups and reading the
articles and seeing the attitude of professionals.  I imagine some
will leave with a very bad taste in their mouths.

How will we teach them <then> what correct markup is?


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, baldeagl wrote:

> >Q1. Does the product itself insert a <!doctype...> itself?
>
> Yes.  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">

As I'm sure you know, this asserts that the content shall comply
with RFC1866, i.e HTML2.0.

> >Q2. Does the product allow the user to use elements and attributes
> >that are not in the html 2.0 standard (but are in the 3.2 one)?
>
> It allows the author to use elements and attributes which are neither
> 2.0 or 3.2.  None of the present "standards" are anywhere near as
> up-to-date as the latest elements and attributes which are available.

It depends what you mean by "available".  HTML3.2 documents the
elements that you could reasonably expect to be available on the
browsers currently in use by WWW readers, in the sense that they
were supported by the browser versions that were current sometime
in the first half of 1996.

You'd certainly be nearer your target if you were to claim adherence to
HTML3.2, if there isn't a public DTD that describes what you are
adhering to.  B.t.w if there isn't such a DTD, whose fault do you
suppose that might be?   Didn't Microsoft tell us they were committed
to standards?

> Tell me truthfully, do you think web page authors should wait for the
> standards to catch up with the market before they use such things as
> <FONT FACE> and <FONT COLOR>?

The advisability of using those is a question in its own right. Let's
not get side-tracked.

> Neither of these will pass even a 3.2
> validator or the "latest" DOCTYPE - <"-//WebTechs//DTD Mozilla
> HTML//EN">.

Well, of course that isn't a public DTD, merely someone's best
efforts to reverse-engineer one.

> To me there's a certain snobbishness to this insistence on adherance
> to standards which are dramatically behind the development of the
> language.

No, it's the browsers that are dramatically behind the development of
HTML.  They refused to implement the nice things in HTML3.0 that many
authors and users wanted; how about the extensions in Cougar?
 How about implementing a bit more of the full TABLE RFC?  Most of the
stuff you are discussing isn't HTML at all.  I've nothing at all against
the other stuff, used in appropriate places, but it's wrong to confuse
them with HTML.  That goes for CSS1 just as much as it goes for
Livescript, ActiveX, Java, you-name-it.

>  The DOCTYPE is good for defining a document which adheres
> to a certain standard, but totally useless for defining many of the
> documents existing today.

HTML is an SGML application.  It says so in the IETF and W3C documents.
Every SGML application has a DTD.

> JavaScript is excluded.  So is font face
> and color.  And ActiveX.  Several other recent developments are out.

You are confused.  The DTD doesn't have to describe the syntax of
javascript, stylesheets, etc.; they have to comply with the SGML
parsing rules, but apart from that they are just lumps of amorphous
stuff that come between an opening tag (e.g <SCRIPT>) and a
closing tag (e.g </SCRIPT>).

<FONT ...> attributes can be trivially incorporated into a vendor-
defined DTD.  So, where is it and what's it called?

And none of this addresses the original question of what advantage is
gained by declaring stuff explicitly as HTML2.0 when it obviously isn't.
It would be better for the vendors to issue an official DTD for their
stuff, or, as a temporary palliative, to advertise some fictitious
DOCTYPE, or none at all[*] than to explicitly advertise compliance with
RFC1866 when no such compliance is intended.

[*]Strictly speaking, as Tina will no doubt remind us, the absence
of a DOCTYPE, together with a Content-type: of text/html, implies
HTML2.0/RFC1866 compliance.

[Sun, 02 Feb 1997 17:12:29] [baldeagl]

> <FONT FACE> and <FONT COLOR>?  Neither of these will pass even a 3.2
> validator or the "latest" DOCTYPE - <"-//WebTechs//DTD Mozilla

  The COLOR attribute to the FONT element is fully valid HTML 3.2, and would
as such pass any validator.


> An awful lot of users have a lot of other things wrong too.  What are
> we going to do?  Start up the web police to stop them from making
> mistakes and misusing the language?

  No - hopefully it is possible to educate businesses and corporations to
the fact that alot of so-called web designers are doing crappy work.


--
  Tina Marie Holmboe
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the   /                tina@htmlhelp.com  /
opinions expressed are mine, and should  / http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Etina/  /
in no way be associated with the WDG.   /         The Web Design Group      /

On 2 Feb 1997 19:59:57 GMT, tina@htmlhelp.com (Tina Marie Holmboe)
wrote:

[snip]
>
>> An awful lot of users have a lot of other things wrong too.  What are
>> we going to do?  Start up the web police to stop them from making
>> mistakes and misusing the language?
>
>  No - hopefully it is possible to educate businesses and corporations to
>the fact that alot of so-called web designers are doing crappy work.

Are we educating them in this newsgroup?  Is that it's purpose?

I thought it was to learn and discuss the language and hopefully
become more proficient and correct in it.

I really doubt many businesspersons are reading this group or even are
aware of its existence.


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

In article <32f75841.37464618@news.airmail.net>, Adstopper@airmail.net wrote:

>On 2 Feb 1997 19:59:57 GMT, tina@htmlhelp.com (Tina Marie Holmboe)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>> An awful lot of users have a lot of other things wrong too.  What are
>>> we going to do?  Start up the web police to stop them from making
>>> mistakes and misusing the language?
>>
>>  No - hopefully it is possible to educate businesses and corporations to
>>the fact that alot of so-called web designers are doing crappy work.
>
>Are we educating them in this newsgroup?  Is that it's purpose?
>
>I thought it was to learn and discuss the language and hopefully
>become more proficient and correct in it.
>
>I really doubt many businesspersons are reading this group or even are
>aware of its existence.
>

Now you do seem to contradict yourself though. You just pointed out that a
client might read HERE, that the web designer he hired might label (some
of) his client(s) "ignorant".

Peace

Sander Tekelenburg
tekelenb@euronet.nl
http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/

On 3 Feb 1997 05:31:46 GMT, address@bottom_of.message (Sander
Tekelenburg) wrote:

[snip]
>
>Now you do seem to contradict yourself though. You just pointed out that a
>client might read HERE, that the web designer he hired might label (some
>of) his client(s) "ignorant".

Here's my thinking:

When making comments <about> one's clients, one should <assume> they
will hear them.  When making comments one hopes one's clients will
hear, one should choose a forum where one is <certain> they will hear
them.


baldeagl@airmail.net (Paul Schmehl)
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

"Certainly the pleasures of youth are great, but they
are nothing compared to the pleasures of adultery."

From "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer

Adstopper@airmail.net writes:
>On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:49:57 GMT, "Alan J. Flavell"
><flavell@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>>HTML is an SGML application.  It says so in the IETF and W3C documents.
>>Every SGML application has a DTD.
>
>And your point is?

The point is: If Netscape Communications had published a DTD for their
extensions, and people who wrote Netscapisms into their pages used this
<!DOCTYPE>, no-one would complain.

As long as they don't, Netscapisms aren't HTML.

- Tor Iver

--
Substitute Assistant CEO of Opening Tins of Dog Food of the DNRC.
toriver@pvv.org * http://www.pvv.org/%7Etoriver * Rush: Cut to the Chase
"I'm old enough not to care too much about what you think of me
But I'm young enough to remember the future and the way things ought to be"

[Mon, 03 Feb 1997 03:17:59] [baldeagl]

> Are we educating them in this newsgroup?  Is that it's purpose?

  I wish I knew which newsgroup you are referring to. There are 4 of them
in the Newsgroup line.


> I thought it was to learn and discuss the language and hopefully
> become more proficient and correct in it.

  That is correct - and that is what we do. We also spend a little time
each day attempting to correct the impressions that newcomers get from so
called 'web designers' that pop in here and scream bloody hell about how
to indent with blockquote's and soforth.



> I really doubt many businesspersons are reading this group or even are
> aware of its existence.

  Possibly correct, but many of the people that might *work* for those same
businesspersons *are*, I would venture to guess, reading this group. And those
people better be professional, or else...


--
  Tina Marie Holmboe
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the   /                tina@htmlhelp.com  /
opinions expressed are mine, and should  / http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Etina/  /
in no way be associated with the WDG.   /         The Web Design Group      /

The main problem with using FONT FACE is that the user
may not have your selected FONT on their computer.

I have run into this a lot on the Microsoft web site. I am running
MSIE 3.01 WIN95 and Microsoft frequently uses fonts
that are not standard for WIN95. Doesn't make a whole lot
of sense.
--
Mark Jones

baldeagl <Adstopper@toobad.bozo> wrote in article
<32f4c7e8.488765@news.airmail.net>...
> Tell me truthfully, do you think web page authors should wait for the
> standards to catch up with the market before they use such things as
> <FONT FACE> and <FONT COLOR>?  Neither of these will pass even a 3.2
> validator or the "latest" DOCTYPE - <"-//WebTechs//DTD Mozilla
> HTML//EN">.

On 3 Feb 1997, Mark Jones wrote:

> The main problem with using FONT FACE is that the user
> may not have your selected FONT on their computer.

Maybe.  Some readers consider that the problem is that the user may
indeed have the font that you call for, when they would prefer to use
the quality font that they had carefully selected and purchased.

The author is, after all, likely to call for a font that most
users already have, rather than a rare and expensive one that
a discerning reader might have carefully chosen.