which web designer is better for you? 4

[onpnt]

I was in a pretty heated debate the other day at a convention I attended on the fine line if you will between a programmer vs. a designer that uses DreamWeaver or FrontPage software for development. The main topic was the idea of who is more intimate with the final product.

Being a programmer for many years I of course had the side of a programmer that wrote a site from notepad or such a tool has far more feel of what is going on and how things are set up in that site then a developer that used a software package to create a site. Of course the gurus promoting FrontPage where at my throat about this concept. The whole thing started with my big mouth mentioning FrontPages problems in just about every aspect of web design but that's another subject.

I'd like to here some views on this topic from all of you. Am I wrong in saying that a programmer that writes the page is more in-depth on what is happening verses a designer using development software forms the site?

Of course this excludes software needed for graphical needs. I am strictly referring to things of a scripting and formatting nature.

This can even be directed to many questions I've seen in "how do I get started in this business and what tools do I need to start?" A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.

http://www.onpntwebdesigns.com

admin@onpntwebdesigns.com

 

[xutopia]

onpnt,

Ultimatly the best choice is a good notepad type programmer with experience.

FrontPage tiles loads of MS specific tags just like Dreamweaver deals with everything in a bloated way. Anybody who uses FP or DW (or similar) should know what he is doing and most likely will get so sick and tired of cleaning up afterwards that he will stop using a wysiwyg tool and go the notepad way.

FP and DW do allow faster developement despite what any person might say. However it only is true for very small projects.

Bigger projects require good programmers.

I guess a good question that could follow this is "what does an ultimate web design team consist of?" Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[Wullie]

Hi Guys,

"what does an ultimate web design team consist of?"

A team of competent programmers sitting round a fire with a copy of frontpage in it... Wullie

sales@freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.searchit-now.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell

 

[coldfused]

Ok i'm game..

"what does an ultimate web design team consist of?"

carlsatterwhite@orlandomediasolutions.com

 

[onpnt]

I second that A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.

http://www.onpntwebdesigns.com

admin@onpntwebdesigns.com

 

[MrGreed]

I gave yah a star Wullie, for making me really laugh.

I would agree that an Editor never gives you the control of coding it from scratch. But Editors are good for people who don't have the "drive" to learn the code and or are dare I say "Management".

I love to code by hand. I love complete control.

And I'll state FRONTPAGE SUCKS!, it bites, it is the anti-christ.. And I like Microsoft and some of their products, but "FrontPage", please. "did you just say Minkey?, yes that's what I said."

MrGreed

 

[Tarwn]

I am going to have to agree with the general trend here, not because I am an agreeable kind of guy, but because I have been in that exact argument before. I nearly took a time based challenge one time against a frontpage'r too...I think I might have been able to get done first, but we'll never know.
When writing the page by hand you often will end up with not only a less bloated file size, but also a less bloated processing time (partially file size, partially choice of cuntins). When a small error occurs you can generally track it down and fix it, rather than open up your wysiwig and shuffle components around until it naturally disappears on it's own.
It also impresses the heck out of customers when you can sit down on their computer with a copy of notepad and bring up a decent template while they watch.

As a side note, I never liked wysiwig editors, and will barely put up with MS .Net Studio (because I have to). I know a lot of programmers will jump on the Forte/Borland/MS/and on and on tool wagon, but I hate it when code that does things that I don't expect because it's been generated by the good 'ol cookie cutter method. To me wysiwigs are just pure laziness.

I like cookies, but it's much more fun to make them yourself and lick the bowl than to buy them in a bag.

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)

 

[Tarwn]

Btw:
Point of explanation before anyone asks
WYSIWYG: What you see is what you get
WYSIWIG: What you see is what ID 10-T's get

Either that Or I spell phonetically

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)

 

[xutopia]

The basic web design dream team.

1. a usability engineer (à la Jakob Nielsen),
2. a graphic artist (someone who studied in arts),
3. a back end programmer (JSP, PHP or another language),
4. a front end programmer (DHTML/CSS/JS guru),
5. a copywriter (to write better text than I),
6. a tester (techno geeks apply),
7. and an administrator (With no secrets to apache).

The software used by the dream team would mostly be open source and to make everything perfect the graphic artist would be on a mac, back end programmer on Linux, administrator on freebsd and tester on windows with VMWare installed. Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[coldfused]

Well my two cents for what it's worth..I know you guys are mostly all hand coders and I respect that..But the "WYSIWYG" programs as you guys call them taught me to understand html, and eventually hand code as much as time permits..I went to school to be a graphic designer..I have taught myself web design, without dreamweaver as a guide, I would still be far behind..

So for whats it's worth those programs that you guys look down on for making the trade that you worked so hard to learn, more easier and maybe less respectable in your eyes:

Puts food on my table and pays my rent..

Now granted I went to school to be a graphic designer, but now days a graphic designer is also the web designer(not backend for the most part), a copywriter, a typesetter, front end programmer somewhat(for I have learned alot of html, css, and a tiny bit of js), better understand usability or i'm screwed, and also the tester (for I better test on as many platforms and browser situations that I can)..

But without you guys being here to guide me through all the stupid questions, I would still be just a graphic designer..

My two cents..

carlsatterwhite@orlandomediasolutions.com

 

[colcrys]

This is not in defense of FP or DW - well not really but sort of I guess.

When I did my first site for a company I worked for all I could use was FP. At that time - about 4 years ago - I was actually impressed with what was possible and once that first site was actually published - all 20 pages - I felt OK with myself.

Then I began to learn more about what was going on 'behind the scenes' but creating full code from scratch ...well it was a long time before I was even knowledgeable enough to try and clean up the jumbled code that MS created.

Still though, it gave me a basic format to use to go further in understanding what was going on.

I built a lot of test sites that never got published of course just to try and learn a bit more but maybe it is because I'm now over 50 that a lot still escapes me as far as pure coding is concerned.

For the company I work for now - and sorry but I'm part of the evil that is 'management' (cue the sounds of crying children and panicked horses) - I have also built this company a site (this one about 60 pages) and yes, I used FP, DW, Notepad, 3 different graphic programs, DHTML and Java scripts from others, help even from the very knowledgeable on this and other forums, and a partridge in a pear tree.

FP just for the basic format of a site, Notepad to write the copy, DW to check for errors in the code, and the others for what one would expect.

So the site is up and running and has been for about 2 years, it has gone through many changes in look and feel and we have had over a million hits since January this year.

It isn't perfect of course and I keep trying to make it better but it is 'out there' and our company is making money from it.

So although FP and DW (which is [DW] STILL hard for me to get to grips with for other then checking code) make those with the knowledge to do things in a more 'pure' way grit their teeth and turn up their nose in revulsion - without them to provide at least a basic platform from which to delve further into the inner workings of things 'net' I think many that use them to learn would not be able to do so.

Bloated code? Yes. Ugly graphics? Yes. More like bicycle training wheels? Yes. Totally devil-spawned curses on humankind? No. Able to be used to at least get a company on the net without having to pay large amounts of money to 'pure' programmers? Sorry people but Yes.

How much would you professionals charge to build and maintain say a 60 page site? No question it would probably be much better then the one I built - but I am sure much more expensive (and I am also sure worth the expense) and in the bottom line of most companies the cost is still paramount. I would actually like to be able to give charge of the site over to someone else but when we did try that last year what we got was 'their' vision - and little useless pictures flying around the site - and not our company vision.

Shouldn't one use as many of the tools that are available as possible? Especially if one is not a professional?

That being said there is still the 'other' problem. Look at all of the sites floating around that are built by 'designers and programmers' and that are to me the detritus of the net (nothing personal here people) - you know the ones with such ridiculous toys as Active X or Macromedia entrance pages, pages 'designed' to showcase the talents of the designer rather that the company they were built for, graphics the size of houses that take two cups of coffee to download - all of which are of course still possible with FP, DW et al. If a site is designed to showcase graphics and the creativity of the designer then it should do so - if a site is supposed to showcase the company for which it was written then the designer should remove their 'personal' touch as much as possible and this is seldom done it seems.

I really would love to be able to sit down and write and design a site the 'pure' way as you guys can - I really would - but I can't (yet). So for me, I have to say that the programs that make it easier for us beginners to at least feel that we have been able to accomplish something are better than not being able to do anything because we don't understand the 'pure' way - and we don't really deserve to be ostracized because we use wysiwyg progs.

 

[Wullie]

Hi mate,

As much as I understand you stance, there is one thing that I don't agree with.

and in the bottom line of most companies the cost is still paramount.

As with any professional trade, you get what you pay for, the cheaper way does not always mean that it is the better way.

Let's say that a company is sending out brochures to high profile potential clients, would they hire an external printer company or make them themselves with the crappy old printer in the cupboard?

Or, what about a leak in a pipe? A blocked drain? Do they go to the local DIY store or hire a professional?

A site is an advertisement for your business and you only get one chance to make a good first impression on a potential customer.

Hope this helps Wullie

sales@freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.searchit-now.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell

 

[Wullie]

colcrys

One more thing,

How much would you professionals charge to build and maintain say a 60 page site?

Just as a little test, could you estimate how long the site took you to make in total amount of hours, and then multiply that by your wage. (I don't want to know how much you get paid, just an approx overall figure)

You might just be suprised at the amount that the company paid you to design that site.

Hope this helps Wullie

sales@freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.searchit-now.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell

 

[cian]

No disrespect to WYSIWYG developers but to really understand whats going on you need to get down and dirty with the code.
Not saying hand coders make better sites, just saying that hand coders have a greater appreciation of what does what in the code.

Some of the code that certain WYSIWYG tools produce is really disgusting! I personally wouldn't consider any alternative to just writing the code myself.


É
::

http://www.endamcg.com

::

http://www.endamcg.com/finland-gaa

 

[xutopia]

I should try downloading the latest DW (FP is still lame I saw a site recently made with their latest version and laughed).

I heard DW came a long way but unfortunatly it is still not giving me a lot of control. Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[Tarwn]

colcrys[/b[ - I agree with some of your reasoning on using FP and other WYSWYG editors, my only problem is that these editors are extremely limited and I have had to many jobs where I had to go in and "fix" an FP generated page.

When it comes to learning HTML, yes I think they are helpful. When it comes to decoding WYSWYG generated code, don't feel bad, up until recently these editors made code so nasty to look at that I couldn't decode them without a large amount of time and effort.

I definately agree there are to many sites showcasing the "designers" talent, and I have never been one to be impressed by unnecessary and annoying javascript or activeX controls.

The fact that you did use notepad in creating your site makes you no longer a member of WYSWYG dependant group we spoke of.

Concerning web site development, in a plain text editor (Editplus) I have actually had days where I exceeded 100 lines per day.

-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)

 

[RISTMO]

I think that 100 lines a day is not extraordinary. I recently made a full design for a site in under 3 hour(without graphics)...and that was without having any idea where to start or finish when I began. Usually, it is faster. I use includes so I fix one page and the whole site changes itself--no page by page copying and pasting. What I am saying is that it is just as fast or faster to use Textpad and write the code from scratch and you get much better results. See above for some of the results. Also, something that I like is that when you code your pages by hand, you remember where you put certain things and why you did it that way. You can open your page, go exactly to a spot, and see the problem is seconds (if it's a missing ";" hours;-)). With fontpage, I know you can go to a certain point in your pages, but you have never seen the code, so it all looks like gibberish (and it probably is!), making it very hard to fix errors.

Rick

 

[Tarwn]

Sorry about the bold, and that should have been hour not day, I must not have been to terribly awake at the time --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
For my next trick I will pull a hat out of a rabbit (if you think thats bad you should see how the pigeon feels...)

 

[colcrys]

Hi all,
All too true that for someone for whom designing sites is their bread and butter, having a deep understanding of pure code and the ability to make code 'cleanly sing and dance' must be considered as the only viable option but....and this could be seen as negative but it is the way of things - the majority of sites floating around on the net are not written by professionals and without the various FP clones the net would either be really empty (which could be a VERY good thing mind you) or all of the professionals would be living next door to Little Billy G because of the extra work they have (such a state which I can appreciate the professionals would like).

This is always going to be one of those issues where there are three distinct 'camps' - pure coders, FP/DW et al proponents, and those in the middle that do a mixture of both (the group I only have the knowledge to be in).

Perhaps as the 'net community develops so will the various progs to allow one to become part of the community without being embarrassed or getting their hackles up because they are being looked down on by those that have a full understanding of the 'mystique' of pure code.

I feel that ultimately though it is the mind of the designer that is the most important - their creativity that allows what they envision to be made manifest - and however they achieve that, as long as it 'looks' on the surface as they envisioned it; and using whatever tools they could utilize; is all that matters.

Fortunatley, there are forums 'out there' such as tek-tips (and I say this loosley mind as I don't believe there are any other forums like tek-tips...at least I haven't found any) where the knowledge pool is so vast and is accompanied by the willingness to share that knowledge freely and usually done without a condescending attitude.

In time (hopefully) ......

 

[CapnSteve]

The reason these editors even work is because HTML is a pretty simple language. I say take the time to learn to code by hand (even if you learn by watching the editor). When you get into more complicated stuff like Perl, you'll be very glad you did.