HTML Editor Recommendations Needed

[Alex Ethridge]

I am looking for a WYSIWYG HTML editor.[nbsp][nbsp]Please, no scolding about learning code.[nbsp][nbsp]I have no desire to learn code.[nbsp][nbsp]The trend is toward WYSIWYG and in just another few years, you won't be able to find anything that will even show code to you.

That said, I need answers to the following:

1.) What WYSIWYG editors do you use and recommend?

I have FrontPage 98 but, have never used it.[nbsp][nbsp]I have read that it inserts code into HTML documents that makes them NT Server dependent.[nbsp][nbsp]

2) Is this true?
3) If so, is there an easy way to prevent it from doing this?

The basis for question #3 is that many word processors offer the option to save documents in their own proprietary format or in DOS text format.[nbsp][nbsp]My thought is that maybe there would be a way to save an HTML document in standard HTML format as opposed to Microsoft's own NT Server dependent format in FrontPage 98.[nbsp][nbsp]Do you sort of understand my reasoning?

[Charles Capps]

I don't know about NT-dependent, but FP98 just loads it down with unnessecary HTML commands.[nbsp][nbsp]I reccomend Dreamweaver.
------------------
"Okay, so I'm not "SANE" so to speak, but uh... I'm the lovable kind of psycho"
http://solareclipse.net/

[Alex Ethridge]

Is DreamWeaver WYSIWYG?

I've heard that it has a steep learning curve.

What say you?

[Deb]

For all of those looking to explore beyond the "common list" here's three links to have handy only if you feel like trying new things and downloading some new editors ;)

Brent's Big List of HTML Editors
http://users.aol.com/brentleim/htmledit.htm
(Brent took the time to rate the editors.. and give a short explanation of them)

List of different HTML Editors for Mac
http://www.uni.uiuc.edu/~ilya/HTMLAppl.html

Mag's Big List of HTML Editors
http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/knowlton/LDSBC/webclass/editors.htm

Enjoy!
Deb

p.s. Yes, Dreamweaver is WYSIWYG and also provides the ability to see the code.. it has a lot more 'buttons' than most..but that's because it does so much more than most.. it's consider one of the best, if not THE best editor available right now..
[This message has been edited by Deb (edited 06-28-99)]

[Alex Ethridge]

Thanks, Deb.[nbsp][nbsp]As always, you're the greatest there at FQ.

I'll look at these lists and surely seriously consider DreamWeaver.

Again, thanks!

[Binky]

I like the idea of WYSIWYG, too. But I tried them all and kept going back to my text editor.

Then I found Dreamweaver!!!

I love it.

[WayneK]

Dreamweaver...........the learning curve is a bit steep but not that bad..

[Ron]

Frontpage does not insert anything making it suitable for NT only. (If it did, I wouldn't be at FQ, I guess.) In fact, it doesn't insert anything unusual if you avoid using the special FP components. (Which I also do, else I wouldn't be at FQ.)

[JE]

Have you tried Under Construction 98. It is not in the making any more, but the editor is the BEST. I have it, and can send it to ya if you want it. I have used this editor since September, and have experimented with other ones.

This is definitely the best, I should offer it for download at my site..hmmmmm....................

Any way buddy-good luck.

JE
------------------
http://www.blazing-hot.com

[Rich]

The trend is toward WYSIWYG and in just another few years, you won't be able to find anything that will even show code to you.

ROFL - famous last words....

"This PC thing is just a fad, real people have no use for computers." -- circa 1980

"Now with 1MB RAM and 400MB hard drive this computer will last for years; there's no way all this capacity will ever be used." -- circa 1989

Now my vote: Dreamweaver is the best IMHO.

Rich

[Alex Ethridge]

It looks like folks here like Dreamweaver over anything else.[nbsp][nbsp]I downloaded it tonight.[nbsp][nbsp]I don't know what I'm looking at but, I'll give it a try.

Rich

As for WYSIWYG being a fad in HTML editors and code being here to stay, I will remind you of something you may or may not be able to recall.[nbsp][nbsp]I will ask you if you know these commands:
ECHO ATDT5555555>COM2
ECHO ATH>COM2
ECHO AT&F>COM2
ECHO ATX0>COM2
ECHO S7=90>COM2
ECHO S20=180>COM2

There are hundreds of these commands and if you did modem communications 10+ years ago, you had to know all of them and be able to recall and type them instantly at a DOS prompt without time for referencing them from a book or whatever.

These commands are used today in modem communications just as they were 15 years ago.[nbsp][nbsp]They ALL still work now just as they did then.[nbsp][nbsp]These commands and these commands only are what modems respond to; however, we have a fad called a Graphic User Interface that shields us from these commands being sent to the modem.[nbsp][nbsp]But, when you dial up your ISP, the command the modem responds to is ECHO ATDT5555555>COM2.[nbsp][nbsp]The modem doesn't understand a "click" or two--just the AT command set.

Yes, there are some of these commands you can access from certain screens in control panel; but, the AT commands and S registers we have access to aren't the hundreds that are used every session, they are a precious three or four or so.[nbsp][nbsp]Have I made my point?

GUI and WYSIWYG are here to stay and will eventually replace every cryptic thing we do with computers--and web pages.[nbsp][nbsp]The day is coming with web page editors, just as it did with modem communications, that you will never again see any code whatsoever.

Time will prove this.

[Justin]

I know a little about AT commands and S registers - heck, the first thing I do when I configure a modem is add S11=50 so it dials faster (50 ms pulses). On my old 33.6 I had to crank the DTR up to about 2 seconds, as the .2 seconds wasn't long enough (kept getting my connection dropped). I don't remember the command for that one but it's in the manual somewhere...

But here's the problem - those commands are still there and always will be - not everyone uses a GUI all of the time when working with a modem (although most do, including myself). But when you get to HTML, there's one major difference: cgi scripts that output HTML. And of course PHP, which has been accused itself of being a fad...

You could not program in any scripting language without knowing HTML - I don't know of any WYSIWYG Perl or PHP coding programs, and I seriously doubt that FP's extentions will ever take care of bulletin boards, etc.

I have nothing against WYSIWYG, I just choose not to use it, as my entire site is filled with PHP and Perl, and could not have been done any other way than hand coding, simply because the scripts have to peice together parts of code to make the resulting HTML document.

I'm not sure that I fully agree that the trend is toward WYSIWYG - especially for those who've been around on the net for a while, but even those who haven't like to learn the code (I've only been on the net about a year). I think that as long as there are users who are always curious when they see a program run, wondering how it works, dying to get into the code, it will be the same as HTML.

I kinda doubt that there will be a day anytime soon when people can't view their own code, nor the code of other sites. No matter what creates the code, the result is a file that must be placed on a server, etc, and there's always going to be text editors hehe :)

I am the type to always want to fix things myself, be it a VCR, a car, a PC, a program, or a web site - and if they weld the hood shut, I'll be upset about it - so I doubt it will happen. They have already succeeded in making it easy for a user who does not care to look under the hood to not have to do so, and there's no problem with that, but those who want to change the oil or rebuild the motor should be able to if they so please (just like you can in fact check out the full AT string sent to your modem if you know where to look, or you fire up that old Z-Modem or Telix program :))[nbsp][nbsp]Hand coding is here to stay, I'm afraid, and I'll see to it myself lol ;)

Anyway, that's my 57 cents for the day - again, I have no problem with WYSIWYG (except I hate typing that acronym), and I think it's great that we are at a time where a user does not have to care what's under the hood - just put it in drive and go - I just doubt the 8-track will ever replace the CD - er, you know what I mean :)

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[Alex Ethridge]

Justin,

Your points are valid; however, I didn't ask for a WISIWYG Perl programming tool; although, when a really good one is available, I'll probably get it too.[nbsp][nbsp]All I want to do right now is HTML.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll get my Perl from another source.[nbsp][nbsp]Ex: I use UBB at my site.

Yes, there will be those who want to know what's under the hood.[nbsp][nbsp]I have the head off my engine as I write this with a shiny reworked one ready to be bolted into its place.[nbsp][nbsp]Not that I think it is fun; it isn't, but needs to be fixed.

Yes, there will always be those who want to see the code; but, it is getting more difficult to find and access as time goes by.[nbsp][nbsp]There are thousands who write word processors and millions who process words, who don't care to know how it works.[nbsp][nbsp]There will be thousands who will retain and otherwise learn AT commands and S registers while there are millions who want to browse the net and don't care to ever see an AT command.[nbsp][nbsp]In the beginning, it was not at all so.

The general public will demand and get GUI and WYSIWYG because it is the masses that have the money the developers are trying to get; and that will be what drives the market.

Remember DOS?[nbsp][nbsp]Yes, it's still there; but, compare the percentage of computer users who use it today with the percentage who used it five years ago, and then ten years ago.[nbsp][nbsp]We've got Windows (GUI & WYSIWYG) now because that separates the consumer from his money better than DOS.[nbsp][nbsp]I don't know even one program developer today who developes DOS programs.[nbsp][nbsp]Five years ago, you couldn't find one who didn't.

So, I say again, the trend is toward GUI & WYSIWYG, with programming code becomming more obscure and eventually, all but impossible to access.

So, as a beginner in this HTML thing, I'll take WYSIWYG.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll learn only enough code to tweak what the WYSIWYG processor can't do.[nbsp][nbsp]I can get my first page turned out in a few hours with WHSIWYG.[nbsp][nbsp]If I were doing the same thing in raw code, it would take me weeks to learn enough code to get that first page out.[nbsp][nbsp]For now, I don't care to dig any swimming pools with a teaspoon.

[Justin]

I agree that for a beginner, WYSIWYG is probably the best way to go - I don't intend to knock the idea at all - I am a programmer myself, and it is my job to keep the user from having to care how any of it works - my users don't care about DirectX technology or ActiveX controls, etc - all they care about is they can mix and fade mp3's :)

Same with my web sites, and the scripts I write and distribute - heck, my banner ad script is one of the easiest to set up. No files to edit or anything - it does it all by itself. I personally love being on this side of the fence - the one making it easier for users to use software without having to pop the hood :) I think it's great when a person knowing very little about programming or even computers in general is able to use something I wrote with ease - I love programming the GUI that everyone uses :)

In all honestly, people like you (and 99% of the population I guess) are the ones keeping people like me (as well as auto mechanics, airline pilots, and any other job that most prefer not to do) in business... I personally like being on the back end of things, making sure the rest of the world doesn't have to worry about things like API callbacks, window handles, registering OCX's and DLL's, the registry, etc - they just click and it works. It's the same with hosting, HTML/PHP/Perl scripts, or anything. Someone has to be the one making it all work (someone has to write the WYSIWYG editor - a project I almost was going to attempt...) and it's best if they actually enjoy doing it, and get some satisfaction from the users when it's all working as it should.

I guess it's like the saying, "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it" - only some of us (the geeks hehe) like to do it - there's a satisfaction in knowing that people are doing productive things witht the things I've written, and not having to worry or care about the internal workings. That is the ultimate reward (which is why most of the stuff I've written are freely available).

So I do fully agree that a GUI interface is awesome - it allows people to use computers in a friendly way - and I have fun writing programs like that, although web programming is becoming my favorite now.

So please, by all means, use whatever is easiest and most productive for you :) I agree, there is no sense in learning to code it yourself if it will only slow down your work.

And good luck with replacing the head - to me that would be fun hehe - I just did brakes, replaced a headlight, did a tuneup, installed my CD player and subwoofer, and fixed the heater controls in my car and I wish there was more work to do on it - I love working on cars! It helps relieve the stress from programming when I need to get away from the PC for a while :)

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[Deb]

FutureQuest has really made me fat, dumb and happy when it comes to my site.

Now THAT'S a noteable quoteable! ;)

[Alex Ethridge]

Hey, Justin,

Wanna' relieve some stress?[nbsp][nbsp]I got a cylinder head you can probably get really relaxed with.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll even be the gopher that keeps the coffee, tea and soft music going.

I have been doing on-site computer maintenance, repair and upgrade for the last four years.[nbsp][nbsp]I too am glad when most people don't care to or don't know how to do these things.[nbsp][nbsp]That keeps me in work.

As for the banner scripts, I might be interested if I can ever get my site off the ground.[nbsp][nbsp]It has been a running site for several months now; but, I have mostly neglected it.[nbsp][nbsp]As a matter of fact, I haven't FTPed into it in so long, I don't remember how.[nbsp][nbsp]Actually, it's just a BBS related to my wife's work right now--using UBB.[nbsp][nbsp]UBB's control panel allows me to do what little I have done or have wanted to do.

If FutureQuest was like the other web hosts I've tried before I settled here, I certainly wouldn't have had time to forget how to FTP into the site.[nbsp][nbsp]FutureQuest is like a dream.[nbsp][nbsp]Just set it up and it will run by itself--no maintenance at all--unless, of course, you just want to.

FutureQuest has really made me fat, dumb and happy when it comes to my site.

[lisa]

Hi All,
[nbsp][nbsp]I came in here to see about the Text Editor....WOw!! Reminds me of my Site. Anyway, I have been using Front Page 98 as a short cut until I feel competent to try my own. I am in the experimental stages, and every day to me is[nbsp][nbsp]a new learning experience.
[nbsp][nbsp]I do remember DOS, as a matter of fact my last computer didn't have Windows, and that was in 96'. I was proud of my DOS ability, but have gotten very fat and lazy since then.
[nbsp][nbsp]Anyhow, I would love to know where I can get Dreamweaver, I have been using GWD Text Editor, and the truth is I think it is easier at times to write your own, even if it is time consuming, at least you know what is there from the start.
[nbsp][nbsp]When I first tried FP I was puzzled by it too! So if someone will tell me where to get Dreamweaver, I would really appreciate it! Thanks a Bunch! Lisa[nbsp]

[Charles Capps]

You can download a trial version of Dreamweaver from http://www.macromedia.com/[nbsp][nbsp]It's available in most (good) stores as well.[nbsp][nbsp]:)
------------------
"Okay, so I'm not "SANE" so to speak, but uh... I'm the lovable kind of psycho"
http://solareclipse.net/

[lisa]

[nbsp] Charles,
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]I stopped in at Macromedia to get the download. I saw the price for the full program. My question, will the trial program be just as good?? Or are the good parts missing so you HAVE to buy the High Dollar version?? It does look like a program that I could use. I tried Page Mill and had problems Uploding and found it confusing. Is Dreamweaver easier to understand than Page Mill? Thanks, Lisa

[Terence]

My question, will the trial program be just as good?? Or are the good parts missing so you HAVE to buy the High Dollar version??

The trial version is fully functional.

In my opinion, Dreamweaver 2 is far superior to Adobe PageMill.

[Charles Capps]

I use Dreamweaver when constructing demo sites...[nbsp][nbsp]It is a very powerful program, and quite complex.[nbsp][nbsp]Takes a bit getting used to.[nbsp][nbsp]It's VERY well worth the money.
The trial version is not crippled in any way, and works perfectly.[nbsp][nbsp](AFAIK)[nbsp][nbsp]
------------------
"This is like being nibbled to death.....by CATS...."
http://flare.solareclipse.net