The WD HTML structure furore

[pauland]

Perhaps someone besides covoxer can help me out here? I'm actually not a critic of WD in any respect but I understand why people ask about features WD doesn't support and why some people might expect it to support those features. Does that make me a critic?

Covoxer: I actually like the WD program. It does what it does very well. I don't understand why you would regard me as a critic.

[GerryI]

Well, questions like these make you sound like a critic...

> How can an inexperienced user tell what WD is "not supposed to do"? Does it list those
> things in the advertising?

Advertising very rarely lists things a product can not do. It is generally accepted that a product does the things the advertising says it does and does not do other things. If it does happen to do other things then the user is getting a bonus.

Gerry

[covoxer]

Perhaps someone besides covoxer can help me out here? I'm actually not a critic of WD in any respect but I understand why people ask about features WD doesn't support and why some people might expect it to support those features. Does that make me a critic?

Covoxer: I actually like the WD program. It does what it does very well. I don't understand why you would regard me as a critic.

Oh, I'm sorry if you were not trying to criticize it. I have misunderstood your intention then. Probably because of the whole atmosphere around this thread and the thread that had spawned this one.

So, how can I help you? (I know you've said besides me, but still, perhaps I can ).

[dogbertbh]

"Depositing $.02 now"

I read the original thread and was kind of confused.

"Are they saying that the HTML isn't editable?"
It's not an HTML editor. Xara never said it was.

"Are they saying the HTML doesn't look right when it's being edited elsewhere?"
Maybe that's how it needs to look for XWD to work. I truly don't know.

"Are they saying it's too much code"
Too much for whom? Not for ME! The target demographic.

I think there's too much worry here about the CODE. XWD has virtually NOTHING to do with code. If you're going to make a simple website with graphics saying 'Here's who we are and what we do' it's AWESOME!

I have Dreamweaver. I rarely used it because it was too complicated for me. I wanted it to be more like what XWD is. I never complained, though. Because that's not what they told me it was.

[nickydude]

I have Dreamweaver. I rarely used it because it was too complicated for me.

For me it's the other way around. I use an old version of DW and very rarely used the 'Design View' (which was a sort of WYSIWYG) as it rarely turned out how I wanted it to look when I did, therefore I got used to the 'Code View'. I think this is where this argument is stemming from. Using most other WYSIWYG editor you couldn't get the right look without going into the code and tweaking it. I personally would like to see a more structured html output (or at least an option) but the way WD works is fine with me as long as it truly is WYSIWYG.

[pauland]

Oh, I'm sorry if you were not trying to criticize it. I have misunderstood your intention then. Probably because of the whole atmosphere around this thread and the thread that had spawned this one.

So, how can I help you? (I know you've said besides me, but still, perhaps I can ).

LOL, I bought the program two days ago. I don't have a bad thing to say about it, but I do understand why others may not understand it.

I also have Dreamweaver CS3 and I see these as complimentary products. I would certainly use XWD for prototyping and straightforward static sites.

[dogbertbh]

I personally would like to see a more structured html output (or at least an option) but the way WD works is fine with me as long as it truly is WYSIWYG.

There's the REAL issue.

I don't even want to SEE the HTML

[pauland]

Well, questions like these make you sound like a critic...

> How can an inexperienced user tell what WD is "not supposed to do"? Does it list those
> things in the advertising?

Advertising very rarely lists things a product can not do. It is generally accepted that a product does the things the advertising says it does and does not do other things. If it does happen to do other things then the user is getting a bonus.

Gerry

You're quite right Gerry. I wasn't seriously suggesting that Xara should say what it doesn't do. I simply asked the question because covoxer seemed unhappy that some people were raising questions about things XWD wasn't designed to do. How would they know it's not designed to do something?

I bought the SW two days ago and haven't a bad thing to say about it, but I do understand why people ask the questions that they do.


You guys are really close to the software and understand it well and the implications of the design. Others are not so fortunate and will ask questions and criticise. Whatever they do, it's till a great program that performs well with some clear limitations.

Paul

[covoxer]

Who? Me not happy of people asking questions? You must be kidding, right?

Here's the short reconstruction of this debate:

user: Where's the html code? I don't see it.
covoxer: You are not supposed to see it.
expert: Yes... This is bad!

[pauland]

Who? Me not happy of people asking questions? You must be kidding, right?

Here's the short reconstruction of this debate:

user: Where's the html code? I don't see it.
covoxer: You are not supposed to see it.
expert: Yes... This is bad!

The average user doesn't care about the html if everything works. They love XWD because it frees them from the complications of HTML. XWD is a great solution for them and they form the vast majority of people.

The "expert", a minority case, wants to do more with the pages than XWD does and wants HTML structured in a more 'traditional' way. For people like that XWD is not for them and indeed XWD would be a bad solution for their specific needs.

Both views are right and valid.