Neowin.net

Well, as a person that still relies on WYSIWYG editors (i.e. Frontpage), there's this audience that just wants to get their message out to the Internet audience - period. No worrying about complying to 'standards' or anything. Some people don't have the knowledge or the time to write up clean code themselves.

Most of the WYSIWYG browsers assume that their audience uses IE, unfortunately.

(Minor note: I find it strange that their site, generated with their software, displays OK on IE and Opera, but has a glitch with the positioning of one of the images when viewed in Firefox. This behaviour was exhibited in yet another WYSIWYG program I used: pages displayed fine in IE and Opera, but not Firefox.)

Last edited by 99705 on 25 May 2005 - 02:37

I agree with you megamanXplosion. Just look at all those useless styles in the source not being used. I want my precious bytes back! lol

I have no problems with a WYSIWYG interface for creating web pages, I'm open to new ideas to improve productivity and bring global communication possibilities closer to the average user. I enjoy seeing innovation, increased productivity, and overall "leetness" - what I do not enjoy is seeing company after company after company creating practically the same program which the same problems. 99% of the software developers creating this software don't know the first thing about web design and development; they know how to use it but they don't know who it works. That is a crucial problem, in my honest opinion.

While the average person using this program would not be worried about standards, they would be if they knew about them. I don't think people using these programs should have to learn standards, the program should do it for them. Following standards helps improve the chances of the site remaining usable as browsers update their rendering engines. In order for a site that is built with this program to work in future browsers the user has to inevitably learn web design themselves and implement the changes by hand or suffer the consequences; that shouldn't be necessary, it defeats the whole purpose of these programs.

Following standards also ensures that web sites remain small and fast. Like zonemen stated, the site that sponsors this program is coded like pure crap. The time it took for the users of this program to create that site, could easily be used by a hand-coder to create the same thing but at only 1/5 of the size. 99% of the WYSIWYG editors out there create bloated code which results in users waiting longer for pages to load. As more and more pages get added to the site, it is practically impossible for them to avoid paying for higher hosting costs to help them keep their pages online because they quickly take up the amount of space and bandwidth they're given. Most hand coders take pride in how lean their code is because they can typically store 5x as many pages on the same hosting account compared to those who use WYSIWYG editors; and the overall satisfaction from the users is typically a lot higher as well.

Accessibility is another key area where most WYSIWYG editors fail. Ask someone with severe visual impairments to browse the site above using their preferred tool (screen reader, braille display device, etc.) and they will be unable to (technically speaking they will be able to but everything is out of order from how we would read it and the page would make absolutely no sense). Ask someone with slight visual impairments, they will have a hard time because they won't be able to make the font size bigger (unless they're aware of such rare browsers as Opera which actually magnifies pages). Ask someone with arthritis or other physical disabilities, they will literally be in pain trying to use the site. This may not seem important to the average user of a WYSIWYG editor, it is important to the people who suffer from these problems and it should also be important to those who develop WYSIWYG editors. For the small-time business person who just makes to give themselves an online presence, this could make the difference between getting a sale and not. The people who develop WYSIWYG editors should be more responsible with what they hand to people.

I love the concept of WYSIWYG editors because they hold so much potential, but very rarely does a WYSIWYG editor actually come close to reaching it. If WYSIWYG editors created bloat-free code that was standards compliant and accessible, I would welcome them with open arms; their is nothing wrong with improving productivity and making web page creation an enjoyable hobby. I just wish that WYSIWYG editors catered to everyone's needs and not just the person using the software directly, the current situation stinks like cow pies.

That's just my opinion, of course.

You're preaching to the choir, man. You're preaching to the choir.

I agree, but too many does it that way so I always create a folder where the name consist of the product name and product version/build separated by a space. That way I get a consistent overview of my downloads and where they reside, and avoid collisions.

What annoys me more is those who write version numbers with a leading 'v'....grrrrrr....

http://www.nvu.com/ <-- 3rd best WYSIWYG I have ever used. Dreamweaver can't be beat, and Visual Web Developers is getting there.