Real Men
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Oct 14, 2006 10:52 AM EDT |
There's been a lot of discussion of what app is best to develop web pages, and,
it always ends up with "'real men' (the professionals?) use text based apps to develop web pages". No one doubts that a text editor of some sort is necessary for the task, but I really need to point out some presumably obvious points. Tuxchick (Carla) has recently done a number of posts, and even this short article on the very poor visual aspects and shortcomings of various websites which were developed by those 'professionals', I'm assuming, for real money. It's obvious that someone isn't paying much attention to how the page really appears to the world. While one can blame the touted coding abilities of these guys, I think it has to be considered that there is very probably another more obvious reason. The web is, after all, mostly VISUAL, but web developers primarily use text based tools and code to make the product. At least one app has a decent WSWG interface, but, they refuse to use that tool. And why won't they use it? Realistically this can only be compared to someone deciding to use a text editor to write a jpg.. Possible, but... It would be insane not to use one of the excellent graphics editors. I code pages pretty well myself, but, without constant and annoying cross referencing, the process of constructing a web page is time consuming and often inaccurate. Without a constant accurate visual reference, I contend that these guys are, quite literally, working in the dark. Professional? I don't think so. NVU, for one, is acknowledged by all to produce good, clean, compliant code, while still allowing one to edit the code. I'm at a loss to understand why the professionals still abhor it as a working tool and continue to cling to their blind environment. Again, not very professional at all, just plain stupid for not using the best tool in their kit. If this attitude is typical of the professional developers, no wonder most sites are a mess. |
| jdixon Oct 14, 2006 7:32 PM EDT |
jimf: There's no need to use a WSWG tool to compose the web pages, but common sense dictates viewing the pages (using the browsers your viewers will be using) to see what they look like. This simple step would solve most of the problems Carla mentions. It's also a good idea to test them over a dialup link, though that concept seems to have gone by the wayside years ago. |
| jimf Oct 14, 2006 9:03 PM EDT |
> There's no need to use a WSWG tool to compose the web pages Of course that is your choice, but, I still find it counter intuitive. If nothing else it's an extra step moving from editor to browser. I agree also with you that some of these guys don't seem to give the page more than a glance. |
| jdixon Oct 14, 2006 9:22 PM EDT |
> If nothing else it's an extra step moving from editor to browser. Yes, but if a developer is more comfortable developing in a text environment, that's probably still faster than it would be if they switched. It really comes down to personal choice on which development environment to use, but checking your page when you get done should be mandatory, no matter what environment you use. You can't count on even a WYSIWYG editor matching any given browser. You have to check. Right now there are at least three versions of IE to worry about, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Lynx. All of them should be checked against, as should the ability to load the page over a dialup connection. |
| jimf Oct 14, 2006 10:15 PM EDT |
> All of them should be checked against, as should the ability to load the page over a dialup connection. Agree |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 16, 2006 2:57 PM EDT |
Two points:Quoting:Realistically this can only be compared to someone deciding to use a text editor to write a jpg.. Possible, but... It would be insane not to use one of the excellent graphics editors. A flawed comparison. A JPEG looks the same on all systems. A website does not look the same in all browsers - even if you discard browser bugs alltogether. Also, there's only one JPEG stream that leads to a certain image. With HTML/CSS you can do the same basic layout in over a dozen certain ways - each with upsides and downsides. If you edit with a text editor you get to choose which method you use. Quoting:NVU, for one, is acknowledged by all to produce good, clean, compliant code, while still allowing one to edit the code. Good, clean and compliant is usually not enough for a professional product. It has to be perfect or at least the best possible (within the specific requirements of the project). Finally, if you write by hand then you know the source intimately. That makes debuggin browser specific rendering issues ten times faster - if not more. Most web developers should be able to tell you that browser specific issues can take up over half the time. So, it's a big difference. |
| dcparris Oct 16, 2006 3:00 PM EDT |
C'mon guys! Everyone knows that web pages should be written using Assembler. Just ask Paul Ferris! |
| jimf Oct 16, 2006 3:13 PM EDT |
> Finally, if you write by hand then you know the source intimately. Well, all except how it looks visually ;-) NVU gives you complete access to the code. Believe me, I'm paying attention to the code too... And, checking in at least 3-4 browsers. > A website does not look the same in all browsers So having a tool that shows you nothing is preferable... Sorry, that won't fly. At least NVU give you immediate feedback of the likely outcome. I think what angers me most is that 'some' refuse to comply to standards, making it almost impossible to 'see' a final product. We really 'should' have standards that would allow an app similar to a graphics editor. What exists just encourages errors all around. |
| jimf Oct 16, 2006 3:15 PM EDT |
> Just ask Paul Ferris! I always hated those green screens ;-) |
| devnet Oct 16, 2006 5:52 PM EDT |
I develop all my joomla templates using NVU. It's easy and fast and gives me the most ability. If I want to 'code it like real men' I just use the source. If not, I can drag and drop. Then a quick tidy of the code using tidyhtml and I'm set. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 16, 2006 10:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:We really 'should' have standards that would allow an app similar to a graphics editor. We have. It's called PDF (the format that is - not the app). Anyway, I tried NVU about a year ago and I didn't really like it. It doesn't support the way I build websites (I use a lot of PHP with the HTML split across a range of Smarty templates - total separation of logic and design). In my opinion a tool should follow the workflow, not the other way around. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!