Printable View
I am new to web design, my concern would be, and maybe you experts in web design can help me out.
My concern is that the code Xara Web designer outputs is it understandable and done cleanly for any web designer to go in and add or edit using dreamweaver or other authoring software?
Is the code efficient, expandable, editable in dreamweaver and other authoring software?
Hi Behzad,
If you have Xtreme 4.0 or Xtreme Pro 4.0 open one of the Web Templates from the Clipart Gallery and export it as a website (html).
If you can open that export in Dreamweaver and edit it you can do the same with an exported website from Xara Web Designer.
The first attached image shows an exported Xtreme web template that is open in Microsoft Expression Web. It can be edited in Expression Web, but it is much easier to edit in Xtreme.
The second attachment shows the same exported website html open in Visual Studio 2008 for editing.
I do not have Dreamweaver so I cannot test the Xtreme created website in that application.
However the two different applications I have for editing existing html code can work with the Xtreme export and I'm sure they can work with Web Designer export as well.
That is great. Yes I am very excited about this program.
Being more a web page creator than a designer, the only thing I will like to see changed is the layout for the various DIV's should be in the CSS file rather than directly on the HTML page.
I agree there billa, a seperate style sheet with all CSS instead of on each page like WebStyle used to do would be a lot better. I usually ended up making my own CSS and copy & pasting.
You can analize html generated by WD looking at these two sites, completely done in this software:
http://www.xaraxone.com/webxealot/workbook75/index.htm
http://webdesigner.xara.com/
WD automatically generated the CSS and link? Brililant!Quote:
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="index_htm_files/default.css" />
Behzad I think you will find that editing Web Designer created code will be much easier to edit within Web Designer rather than any outside editor.
Because something can be done is not a reason that it should be done.
When asked a question I will provide an answer as I did previously in this thread. However, the answer is just to show it is possible although it may never be the logical way to approach or solve an issue. :D
Thank you, yes I agree, but I was thinking on doing the design work, the basics and passing it on to a programmer. I had a friend of mine who is a pro coder to look at it, he said it looks ok. :)
If I may, I think the issue is more can someone without Web Designer take ownership of the code and maintain it using "traditional" means. I'm still skeptical that WD can/will provide for every possible aspect of every web page design; at some point I expect there will be things that are outside WD's scope that will have to be hand-jammed after the fact.
Couple that with some web designers will hand off the code to an owner, who might maintain it themselves or hire someone else to do that job. WD making code that doesn't make such a scenario a hair-puller would be a strong selling point to skeptical HTML-savvy designers.
Sounds like it'll pass that test, which is good. WD marketers, take note!
If someone creates a website using say Dreamweaver and they hand that off to a client to maintain. Doesn't the client usually use the same program? Probably because the developer specified that is what was used.
If you use Web Designer and inform the client that is the program used to create the site. Would they not be inclined to purchase that application. For one reason it is more affordable.
Another point to consider, it is much easier for a client to learn and use Web Designer than Dreamweaver.
Of course there are some clients that would not maintain the site in either case. :eek:
Good points, certainly. I'm a software engineer by education and background and when I think of maintaining code it's with an IDE that's little more than a text editor with some debugging tools. I guess visual HTML development tools are more commonplace than I expect.
I was taught HTML in Notepad so I've always looked at it from a coder's standpoint. Time to get all WYSIWYG methinks. :D
I agree Spinny. I've used IDE tools for decades and actually like touching the code.
However not many of us are left that like digging into the guts of things.
People want to drop images, type a little text and make it look pretty without getting their hands dirty. ;)
There is a symbiosis in that some people create the templates and some people use the templates. Mutual co-existance. :D
I hear you. SOme of my concern about WD came from a few years back when I played with a WYSIWYG web designer called Cute Site Builder. The code it generated was a patchwork nightmare with frames, no style sheet, three versions of each page (never did untangle why) and not a hint of w3 compliance. Guess it's made me skeptical of such things.
I picked up a copy of CoffeeCup's Visual Site Designer the other day, and it's nice (and standards compliant) but my impression is you lay out the basic visual elements in the WYSIWYG editor, generate the code with the style sheet stuff automagically created for you (saves tedious counting and measuring), and then if you want to add the good stuff you switch to their HTML editor, which is like a coding IDE.
Again, that colored my attitude about what WD will bring to the table: it sounds like it's supposed to be a one-size-fits all solution and I'm not sure I believe in those. I'm always ready to learn differently.
so in another word your saying the code that this program produces will drive seasoned programmers mad trying to sort things out or the other way around? :confused:
As moderator of the MenuMaker and WebStyle forums many of the questions I have answered over the years dealt with how to integrate the output of those applications with Dreamweaver and Frontpage, and to a lesser extent other WYSIWYG editors. In 2004 when MM and WS were released they integrated easily. As newer versions of DW and FP were released things didn't always go as planned.
Usually the answer was to hand edit the DW or FP generated code to include the line of code to place the javascript files for MM and WS menus.
Web Designer has the capability for people to create web pages more visually than any other WYSIWYG program I have encountered. The placeholder feature should allow practially any snippet and plug-in available more easily than other programs.
I have great expectations for Web Designer. So far my tests have not disappointed me. :)
My pre-release copy may not have all the added features. Just today there were updates to the information at http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dcz...btkrj&hl=en_GB
Behzad that is NOT what has been said.
Web Designer code is easily read and understood by seasoned HTML coders.
I did this with WebStyle. Used a template then changed it in DreamWeaver. No doubt I'll do the same here, which is good. :)
No, not at all. I spoke negatively about the code that CSB created, but the other two mentioned here (the CoffeeCup one and Xara's WD) produce w3-compliant code. That means anyone who knows the HTML standard well should have no problem understanding the code directly without needing to resort to the original tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by behzad
Another question: does Xara's WD produce/use a proprietary-format working file during development (and export the HTML when asked), like pretty much every other design tool out there, or does it operate directly on the native HTML at all times (which so far as I know no program does)?
I am really excited about this program.:)
behzad, just open the Workbook created in WD, right click and View Code. You'll see exactly what XWD produces. :)
The HTML is only created when exported. The native file format for Web Designer is one of Xara's. Web Designer can use .xar or .web files. The native save format is .web.
Got it.
Yeah, I'm interested in this release, too. I only just bought a bunch of Coffee Cup web design stuff (it was at their support forums that I first heard of Xara, actually), but I won't be able to resist grabbing this one, too--especially at the price.
I just thought I would stick my nose in this thread and give my opinion, for what it's worth.
For myself, I use a 10 year old html editor to do my modifications (siteaid), but I found the hardest part of doing a web page is the conception, what colour scheme, background, where and what images, etc, etc, etc., which I would do roughly on a piece of paper first, which is still not a bad idea in my opion.
Once the conception or plan has been made, the rest if relatively simple using whatever program you use. If you give your site to somebody else to maintain it just may be easier for that person to redo your whole site in his program rather than fooling around with your code, as long as he has access to all the folders with your images, etc. Using a wysiwyg program it would probably be only a matter of a couple of hours to redo the site.
The biggest mistake I have run accross is where two or more persons have access to the site to make modifications. Person one modifies a page and uploads it and person 2 will modify the same page and upload it, over writting the modifications made by the first person. The only way to get around this is with good communication or else downloading every page from the web before you modify it yourself, and then upload the modified version.
The best of the best in my opinion is if only one person is responsible for maintaining and modify the site. If you wish somebody else to maintain it, it may be better to let them build it. Make your design in xara, save it as a jpeg and show it to them; I want this like this, put this image here, linking to there: You did the hard part, the creation is relatively simple............frank
One nut to crack--and I'm not even sure this is possible, given the scope of the problem space--would be the ability to reverse-engineer existing HTML code and from that build a WYSIWYG version compatible with an editor such as WD for editing. If the code were strictly compliant the problem space would almost be tractable, but still. I can dream, right? :cool:
Classic configuration management problem, and one that has to be dealt with by any development team regardless of the project and/or language they work in. Many traditional coding tools these days integrate with a configuration management system that forces you to "check out" the portion of the code base you're going to work on, and won't let anyone else check it out until you've committed your changes and checked it back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seagull
Alas, those types of configuration management tools are either too expensive or too arcane for the web development world, which seems to be long on graphics designers and artists and short on traditional software engineering practices.
Sorry, my software geek side coming out. :rolleyes:
Yes, you can dream. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Spinny
I think that you'll find your Coffeecup investment well worth while as it'll slot very nicely into Xara Web Designer to provide the interactive elements that aren't there (yet)! As soon as XWD is released, I'll knock up a site from a template incorporating a form and some video. I spent lunchtime loking at the XWD videos and for current Xtreme users, XWD is going to be a walk in the park!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinny
w00dy aka Colin Woodcock
Coffeecup Ambassador
The right description is Concurrent Versioning System or Source Code Management and it's most used by developers. See also the Wikipedia article about CVS and Revision control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinny
But in order to work with multiple editors on a website, a Content Management System is the right tool (and most of the companies know that). See also the Wikipedia article about CMS.
Remi
Now the primary question is where shall I find the time to play with all these marvelous new toys?
@Remi: the general term for the concept as I learned it is Source Configuration Management (SCM), but given this is a graphics design-oriented board I could already hear people's heads hitting the tables as they fell asleep. I figured I was already getting too geeky so kept my little rant general. :cool:
Hehe, I was a little bit confused, because I often use SCM as "Software configuration management" (the difference is the word "software" instead of "source"). But it seems to be correct, to use also "Source configuration management".
Regards,
Remi
Heh. Kein Problem, weil Ihr Englisch noch ganz besser als mein Deutsch ist. ;)
You could consider something like this: http://www.editwrx.com/ if you want to make portions of a XWD site editable.
I sometimes use it to allow users to alter selected parts of their site and it works pretty well.
If you're going to get into sizeable content managed sites, then I wouldn't think that the XWD developers really see it as the optimum solution, surely the answer there is to go for something like Joomla with a commercial template from someone like Rocketthemes.
That statement was true at the US$49 price point. I just read about the 2-month intro price for XX4 owners: US$29. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinny
I can pick up a copy of this with loose change in my sofa.
My two cents worth after over 12 years of doing websites:
1. FORGET about editing sites in more than one program that produces code. I guarantee you in short order you will be pulling your hair out with one thing or another breaking. You save, export or import - something changes and you will be going nuts.
If you edit ANY site produced with anything but a plain text editor, save yourself hours and just get the EXACT VERSION of the program that produced the code or do a rewrite.
Trust me on this.
At one point Editwrx was limited to IE - don't know if that has changed. But I find Snippit Master to be a better choice for this or use PHP includes.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by w00dy