Namo or Dreamweaver?

I am a graphic designer by trade for years but new to web design. I have used FrontPage to show my clients work in process for input or approval. It is also my "portfolio" for new clients to see. I continue to have requests to design web sites and I know that FrontPage is not the way to go. I have Dreamweaver/Fireworks and also Namo because of the positive comments I have seen on the site. At this point I have not spent enough time in either to draw my own conclusion but I am about to move in that direction. Can anyone give me there opinion as to which program to go with and why. Any and all comments are appreciated.

Gary Allred
www.theoriginalorg.com
gary@theoriginalorg.com

I am a graphic designer by trade for years but new to web design. I have used FrontPage to show my clients work in process for input or approval. It is also my "portfolio" for new clients to see. I continue to have requests to design web sites and I know that FrontPage is not the way to go. I have Dreamweaver/Fireworks and also Namo because of the positive comments I have seen on the site. At this point I have not spent enough time in either to draw my own conclusion but I am about to move in that direction. Can anyone give me there opinion as to which program to go with and why. Any and all comments are appreciated.

Gary Allred
www.theoriginalorg.com
gary@theoriginalorg.com

haha,this could prove to be a explosive topic here GA...

something like asking which image editor to use... give the wrong answer here and...look out hehe

I will answer this from my viewpoint to get the ball rolling here...

IMHO, Namo and FP compliment each other very nicely... and if you are already used to FP then Namo is the way to go...

I used to be concerned about just which editor was the proper choice mainly because of all the negative hype surrounding FP's code, but I still found it easier to use than DW...so I stuck with it...then found Namo and have never looked back...but..but...what about the extra lines of code older versions of FP may generate bla bla...?

Here's my take...

I have seen really tight coded pages that were not very appealing to look at, and I have seen pages with slightly bloated code look very nice...of course I have also seen the opposite as well [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I believe that as long as the page looks and works well cross browser, cross platform, then great... and... all things considered, a larger than necessary image file size will add more to the loading time than will a few extra lines of code...if in fact this ends up the case resulting from the editing approach you take...:)

HTH

Gidgit's Blog

Dale

Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

http://www.namo.com/

The correct answer is of course TextPad, as any fule kno. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[or insert other preferred text editor of your choosing.]

Seriously, though. If you're just putting together your own stuff and want to get a page that works up quickly, DW is okay I guess; haven't tried Namo.

If, on the other hand, you want to make any claim to be a Web Designer(TM), there is no excuse not to learn HTML (followed by CSS, followed by JavaScript) yourself. The code generated by your WYSI-probably-a-bit-like-WYG editor may look daunting, but if you learn how HTML is properly written it's not hard at all.

I would love to agree with you here Andrew, but...

fact is, I have seen many sites done with FP, DW, Namo...that are evry bit as nice as those which were hand coded... speaking of handcoded sites, many of those are really done via cut and paste from a glorified text editor and not really done via the ole keyboard...

next we will be suggesting that it is only a "ful" that uses Flash or Swish to design swf, the "real pro's" hand code...

The "Handcode vs WYSIWYG" debate is every bit rediculous as is the "PS vs all other image editors" debate...the faithful on each side have thier views, to which they should be respected...

What ever worx for ya...

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

As an artist I am more concerned about a quality layout and good looking functional site. I have customers who have had their web sites designed by people that certainlt know web design but they are not satisfied because they are still left with a "ho-humm" looking site. I realize that WYSIWYG has its draw backs but I have friends that are great at "hand coding" and know little about putting together a good looking as well as function site. At this point in my career I have a 3D program, Xara (I now use Corel) and PhotoImpact to learn, so I am spread rather thin. At some point I hope to also get a handle on hand coding, but not right now.

Thanks for the continued input.

Gary Allred

And I think I picked up Dreamweaver much faster as a result, and I can use it's features better than a non-hand coder, because I know easily how to tweak it.

However, good design isn't hand coding, it's good design.

I went the programmer route to web design, and I am playing catch-up on designing. I wish I had had some design training first. Using a WYSIWYG editor is just fine if you have killer design and good content.

Dale

Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

Dale, you are a breath of fresh air in a very old debate...it isn't often a coder will fess up to what you have just stated here... truly remarkable in fact... I applaud your honesty [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I know that the correct approach would be to have the best of both worlds here, tight code and killer design...but... if one could only have one or the other, I would rather be designing [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

now then, if I could only find that design key...

IMHO good coding is a prerequisite of good design. If a site's not well coded, it's not well designed for the web. Personally I find many sites overdesigned and prefer not to have to download the acres of sliced graphics that some designer thought looked professional. To which I could add that too many sites seem to be designed like fixed layout printed brochures, with no more flexibility than lumps of concrete!

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

I also see many sites that are over designed and many under designed - that is still the reason I am wanting to learn web design. I do see many over designed probably because the artist/coder gets software that will do so much they want to add a little bit of everything - make it flash, move and make noise. But every once in a while I see a well designed and under stated web site that you just want to stop and look at. The bells and whistles are good but only when used in the right place for the right reason. I am nowhere near this finish line but this is my goal, whether using WYSIWYG or hand coding.

Of Namo and DWMX, I'd say go for DW now because their current pricing is ridiculous for such enormous power. In the past, I thought of switching to Namo but I found them very difficult to deal with, recently offering an upgrade price higher than the new owner's price!

However, there's a new verion of NOF almost any day now, which looks good. For dynamic sites, I suspect that DW will be much, much easier but I'm really not in that field. At least, not yet. For purchases before 15 June, the NOF pricing looks good (and I have no shares or anything else)!

May I suggest you go look at

http://www.gotfusion.com/default.html

and have a look at the new features and the pricing. Maybe tell us what you think.

Just my 2p (and no surrender)

Jon

Over design and under design have nothing to do with whether you are a good coder or not. I am glad I can hand code, because that gives me a much greater possibility of finding solutions, and greater flexibility of function, such as Javascript.

I tend to design the type of site that I like to visit; no nonsense, fast loading, clean and clear navigation with the ability to get to EVERY page from any page, easy to find the info you want, and no annoyances like popups, screwy navigation, animated gifs, etc.

I have noticed that artists tend to overdesign, but not always. Programmers/hand coders tend to design more for functionality, ease of navigation, etc. I tend to design to avoid annoying visitors, and provide easy navigation, and a site that loads fast and tells them what they want to know with a minimum of clicks and searching. Every time I want to add graphical elements or bells and whistles, I hesitate to slow the process, because I have a tendency to leave a site immediately if it is slow, has popups, or is a pain to navigate or find what I'm looking for.

And we all need to add more and better content.

Dale

Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

I'm not even gonna enter this debate. I had quite a maddening experience many months ago here dealing with some rather childish hand coders who were incredibly insulting to me personally ( so brave from behind the monitor 1000's of km away aren't they). Also, recently I had placed a link to my site on google groups where someone in my area was looking for an affordable site and a hand coder came in and pointed out a bunch of "errors" including the fact that it failed the wc3 validator. Yet he didn't point out the errors on the other peoples' sites which they showed. I found this incredibly rude and told him so.

I've seen a ton of sites which I could pick apart on usability issues or just plain design ( and yes if I'm gonna stare at a website for a while reading stuff I want it to look nice) including the guy who picked at my site in the above situation ( his site by the way was a solid color screen with lists of texts links running down the page and a Canadian flag gif in the upper left corner .... yet I didn't tear his site apart publicly even though it warranted it (IMHO) ... especially considering he butted his nose into somewhere he should have stayed the hell out). These offending sites include some from large businesses and WYSIWYG editor users and hand coders.

Maybe we should all go flash ( or swish ... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) and wouldn't have to deal with this issue again. Then it would be just whether the site was good or not.

Dang looks like I entered the debate ...

PS ... not all hand coders are like this but these few were just arrogant little jerks who ended up throwing around insults that 10 year old school kids might use in the playground!

David K ... www.dkingdesign.com http://www.dkingdesign.com/stuff/signature.jpg

I'm a hand coder, and I'd be nuts to not use Dreamweaver now that I can see what it is capable of, especially doing global changes to all pages of a site. DW's table code can be excessive, but so what? The time I save using Dreamweaver gives me plenty of extra time to tweak tables. Using DW is fast, fast, fast, and so far I haven't forgotten how to code! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Ever add a button or link, and have to change the same code in 20+ pages? It's a pain to do it page by page, and a waste of time if you've got DW to do it for you. Change it on one page, and it changes the code on all the pages, just like that!

I haven't run into any obnoxious hand coders here, but I have run into some arrogant boneheads who think their way is the best way, regardless.
I pay them as much attention as they deserve.

I've seen some great sites that were also incredibly simple code-wise, but were fast loading, easy to navigate, full of interesting content, and provided a good service and good information.

Dale

Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

Isn't it grand to be able to voice one's opinion?

Nope, no obnoxious handcoders here thank goodness, but... with regards to the arrogant "boneheads" ( most probably refering to me [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ) who IYO think thier way is the only way, well... if one suggests that a certain anything is so, then it is so until someone else comes along and proves different...or improves upon such.

I value opinions, those of the closed minded variety, as well those of a open mind, and find that much is to be learned from both sides...

What I don't find too appealing is name calling, and or arrogance displayed in a manner that would suggest that people should be ignored for thier opinions...this leads to control mechanisms being put into place that for all intensive purposes do more harm to the community than the postings done by those who feel they have contributed in a positive manner.

You do present a good set of point regarding the many sites which do have good code, perhaps are not the tops in thier field in the astectic appeal, but deliver great content...heck, I gain more research information from sites such as this, than anywhere else... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Gidgit

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ever add a button or link, and have to change the same code in 20+ pages?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But of course! Which is why I find NoteTab Pro's disk search-and-replace function so useful...

I'd have no problem at all with any WYSIWYG web editors if they all produced standards-compliant code. Likewise no problem with any browser that interpreted it all properly. So compatibility problems could become a thing of the past if only the software manufacturers all played ball...

But comparing web editors to image editors is like comparing apples to pears. Product, not process, is what matters for images whereas process is part of the product for web design (or should be if only we could all see the standards as our friends). Put another way, it doesn't matter if I use Photoshop or Xara to produce a JPEG (or Sibelius or Finale to produce a musical score) because the programming's completely irrelevant to the quality of the finished product. But it does matter that websites adhere to standards because they have to interact live with their visitors according to predefined rules and our users may suffer if they don't (and certainly will if we allow the standards to become meaningless!). Whether your sites are produced by hand coding or WYSIWYG editors matters not a jot in the end, but the quality of the code does (irrespective of the quality of the appearance). For that reason if nothing else, and with all respect to some members of these forums, I continue to be both puzzled and perturbed by professional web designers who can only use WYSIWYG editors and either can't or won't make the effort to learn HTML, CSS et al. To which I should add that it's not programming and it's not difficult ('Petestack' first saw the light of day just three weeks after starting to teach myself from scratch), but it will add immeasurably to your understanding of what you do, even if an authoring tool remains your preferred method of working.

Peter

Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?

Namo Web Editor, give it a try

If you wish to hand code it's there for you, if you are looking for a WYSIWYG it's there, and if you like cool tools for table creation through to image gallery creation, Namo has it... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Of course, since I am programmer trained and have hand coded, I agree that pro web designers should eventually learn their way around HTML and Javascript, at the very least. It isn't difficult, but it does take time.

I was in computer college for the last 2 years, so I haven't wanted to get back to studying and learn CSS just yet. I understand the non-hand-coder viewpoint, and don't yet feel I *need* CSS to create good sites. I have tried to learn more about the design (graphic) aspect of web design.

If they want to do it WYSIWYG and they get good results, I see no problem with that. It does pay to learn more to get more control, though.

Dale

Why, I’m afraid I can’t explain myself, sir, because I’m not myself, you know...
- Lewis Carroll

haha, I have to agree with you Dave, it can get pretty ugly when people start bashing sites... constructive criticism is great when asked for...but to viciously rip a person's site apart or throwing insults around etc.is a sign of other problems non site related... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

a new release of NOF? thanks jon I will be sure to check it out...

[This message was edited by gidgit on June 07, 2002 at 09:46.]

I am a DW user (HotMetal until a couple of years ago) but I drop into an editor (TextPad) a lot of the time.

TextPad (or similar) is indeed great for replicating minor changes, but the DW template is the easiest way to rebuild a site quickly. The new MX release will improve on that further with parent and child templates - a site template and a section template, for example.

I also use MS Access and VBA to generate html (not dynamically), and PHP for dynamic pages. For both of these, hand-coding skills are essential.

I agree with this coding and design split - too often you see a book called 'web page design' which turns out to be html only. And perhaps all about jpg compression. Yes, the designer needs those skills - just as a system designer needs to understand something about programming and databases. But to me design is a different beasty.

And I agree with the views on the difficulty for us techies to come up with something good but original and not either over or under designed.

www.bricksandbrass.co.uk

Im a Cartoonist and Web Designer and Ive used Dreamweaver and frontpage and I do html to but when it come raw power of performance and ease of use check out Photo Webber you can do all the stuff that they mentioned Flash Javascript Xml Dhtml rollover popups E commerece and works with photo shop dreamweaver Xara PaintShop.I understand were your Coming from when you said so much to learn so little time.But you allready got the clients and if you want to keep'em make sites with good taste not that taste good!In other words if an't broke don't fix it.Thats progress [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] photowebber home page

kenneth bernardo

200 bucks for Photo Webber? Not likely...

Namo is cheaper, and has much more to offer...much more...

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Well, entering into the debate outta nowhere, I'd have to say that hand-coders do have a bit of an edge, AS LONG AS THEY'RE OPEN-MINDED ENOUGH to make sure they can use the WYSIWYG editors as well. I've always been a hand-coder (seeing as how I started out in x86 Assembler, Machine Language, punch cards (man, I'm dating myself here, huh?) and so on. But I've also taught DreamWeaver and FrontPage. I'm still the sort to stick with UltraEdit or TextPad, or even PICO or vi, but I've always made sure I've kept up my abillity to jump into a WYSIWYG editor if needs be.

Now, if you're a hand-coder who summarily dismisses these tools, you're quickly heading to a pit of despair when you look at code generated by these tools. Sure you can understand it, work with it and use it, but the whole time you'll be grumbling about how crappy it is. I know, cuz I do that all the time. The fact, though, is that it's NOT necessarily crappy - it's just different. DW, for example, tends to optimize its code to work with its many other features - and if you never use those features, you're ending up with heavy code. It also tries to match whatever browser config you tell it you're targetting. Well, a hand-coder may not get into such heavy-handed coding, and they may bend the rules of a browser to favour formatting in another browser. Put it through Weblint and Weblint will scream. Put it into a browser, and the browser happily chugs away. Now, the person who only does hand-code will know these tricks, but will scoff at someone who doesn't. The person who WYSIWYGs it won't know these tricks, but will be able to pump out craziness in half the time, with one-eighteenth the effort. That person will laugh at the hand-coder, while the guy sits there and works on properly abstracted code, mixed with his crazy cross-browser compatibility issues and so on. And both will happily grumble about the other all the way to Tuesday.

Frankly, both sides make me wanna puke from time to time. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The reality of it is that both have advantages and disadvantages. I, myself, have always found hand-coding to be easier because I can use a lot of tricks that a WYSIWYG editor (yes, even HomeSite/DW) will bark at. I can also integrate my code well with things like Struts or PHP or what-not, without much problem. If I build a page right, then I don't have to worry about updating issues cuz I can use a search-and-replace tool like BKReplaceEm or just grep it. I've spent the time and learnt the tricks.

I could tell a non-hand coder to do the same thing, and the really good ones would be able to do it - no prob. And they'd be smart enough to know how to make their code act the way they want it to, even if they're not going in there by hand.

It's the people who don't take the time to get to know WHAT the WYSIWYG editor is doing that make hand-coders itch (and as a result, most of us bark at ALL WYSIWYG folk - which is wrong of us, and I apologize on behalf of us all). And it's hand-coders who fail to realize the power of these apps which make WYSIWYG folk scream in frustration and want to throw a Sun server out the window. I think at the heart of the debate, people have to keep this fact in mind.

I have people who work under me who would cry murder if they didn't have a DW license. I have others who turn red with rage whenever they see the DW icon. They all work together, and do it well, because we insist that they are familiar with each others way of working. That way they can give each other code that they can work with, or at least give each other a heads-up if there's a problem. If someone creates a custom JS function which is 10k lighter than the same thing put out by DW, they let the WYSIWYG developer know, so that they use that function, instead of the native DW function. If a DW developer denotes a dynamically inserted section of the page, they make sure they are aware of what the code looks like in order for the hand-coder to make sure he doesn't kill it or is very careful when working around the includes. It's not hard, folks - it just takes patience.

But getting back to my original point - the reason I feel that hand-coders have a bit of an edge is that we HAVE to do it the hard way. We have to take the time to figure out all those little things that a WYSIWYG editor will do for us...especially when it comes to those little undocumented tricks. I've learned a lot from teaching DW - there are a lot of things it can do which I wouldn't have even bothered thinking about doing. But once I realized it could be done, I went out and tried to figure out easier, cleaner ways to do it - basically, I rewrote the code to scale it down to what was needed. Sometimes it's a good thing to have code that's bare-bones. I once created a DW page that was 47 KB and did the same thing by hand in under 10 KB. Then again, I once coded a site by hand in one week, and did the exact same site in less than half that time with DW. Where the edge comes in is that if I were to do that same site again now, it would take me just over a day by hand...and still just under half a week with DW. Mainly because it had a lot of little tricks I used, and the site had to be integrated with a PHP back-end, and so on. Each of these things would have to be done, tweaked, integrated, then re-tweaked with DW, then tested. By hand, it's just a matter of build, integrate, test. The first time around, it's freakin' annoying. The second time around, it's simple. The first time around with DW is simple. The second time around it's simple. But the ramp-up is scary.

In the end, I'll stick with my hand-coding. But I'll keep up with WYSIWYG editors, as well. And I'll never crap on a WYSIWYG person for his/her preference - I'll just hope they're enterprising enough to want to truly understand what's happening behind the scenes as well as they understand the interface of their app.

Anyway, now that I've sounded like a pompous ass for long enough, I'll let the debate run its own course. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]


hth,
Deep (just a guy)
<font face="arial" size="2">
Pradeep Kumar Nair, B.Math
Interactive Developer
http://www.bluespark.com
ICQ: 39102360
</font>