-
The WD HTML structure furore
Part 1:
There is a really interesting debate going on at the moment on these forums over the structure of the code generated by Xara’s WD HTML export.
From the coder’s point of view, the tag soup HTML is not very useful if you want to edit the code or make use of it elsewhere. From the WYSIWYG point of view, the code structure is irrelevant and what is seen and experienced by the user at design time and in browsers is all that’s important.
Web Designer (WD) was designed to approach the creation of websites differently to the historical method of hand coding or editing HTML text; it was intended to allow maximally-precise WYSIWYG creation of websites using a graphical interface and without having to know or see any HTML code at all, thereby modernising and maturing the creation of websites and making it possible for the masses. The design is such that any edits to HTML are thus to be done in WD and not an HTML editor. This of course limits the HTML output to only what WD can support in this version.
It seems to ensure maximum WYSIWYG output, of many tried methods of HTML code structure, the one implemented produced the most similar results in browsers to what was seen in WD, thereby satisfying WYSIWYG criteria better. The code structure is very different from how it would look if hand coded and, as a consequence, is much less well formatted or layout-efficient, and is the primary cause for complaint by coders. Most modern websites are graphics dominated than text dominated; the additional overhead this different and less efficient HTML structure brings is very small in terms of what is measured at download time in such common graphics-dominated situations, with the time taken to download a typical HTML file being less than the time taken to download even the smallest single graphic image. Therefore this additional overhead is not a valid criticism of WD’s HTML code structure choice.
If the user is only ever to use WD to make graphics dominated websites (which applies to the majority of the target audience) then the internal HTML structure is completely and utterly irrelevant. Given that this is only what WD was designed for, the criticisms by coders about the HTML structure are completely invalid when placed in context. It seems as though coders are complaining about the code simply because it’s different and relatively inefficient (but immeasurably practically so at browse time), but totally failing to appreciate the situation—which is the new approach to website making within the limits of the goals of WD. I've seen no evidence that the code structure is in any way significantly worse than if coded by hand from an observer’s point of view when viewing the page in a browser.
Text heavy sites may be a different story however, it may be argued; the tag-soup overhead may increase substantially to increase HTML file sizes. But this is unlikely to be so significant as to cause browsing problems; my own website is extremely text heavy (tens of thousands of words—far bigger than most text heavy sites I’d bet, and only 10% complete) with pretty large HTML files as far as HTML file sizes go, yet the site loads very fluidly, confirming my point completely.
The hostility to the WD generated HTML seems to stem from the unique history of HTML; unlike say the analogue of not hand coding PDF document layout anymore (if at all), coding HTML has always had a set-in-stone approach of hacking HTML at a textual level. When such familiarity is subjected to (innovative) change whereby something familiar has to be relearned, such that there's an initial shred of effort required to get the same results until the new process is learned, there is bound to be resistance. But it’s also the apparent rape of the familiar ‘art’ of HTML hacking that coders seem to be having personal issues with, causing the furore, rather than there being any measurable substance to the criticisms. The code is different and less efficient (artistic), therefore it’s deemed bad, but this totally misses the point of the new approach, which is HTML editing entirely within WD without ever seeing code at all.
If WD’s code isn’t suitable for subsequent editing (going against the whole point of using WD to generate it), then don’t use WD to create the code—it’s so easy. Xara have even alluded to this by devoting a part of the marketing section of their website to the benefits WD can offer to ‘professional’ website makers (a.k.a. old fashioned died-in-the-wool code-head HTML hackers), by allowing working, dynamic mock-ups instead of static Photoshop mock-ups.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Part 2:
In defence of the coders I’d say that WD is not yet a total substitute for HTML coding by hand, not for the nonsensical, and utterly irrelevant, foundationless reasons presented so far, but because of the relatively limited functionality; HTML editing can produce any kind of website, WD is mostly suited for graphics heavy websites that the masses produce. Xara are surely aware of this and have probably even talked about its limitations somewhere. But this is version 1, and it’s early days. (Incidentally I mentioned this ‘just-released-and-thus-not-as-feature-rich-as-future-versions’ fact to someone recently and Xara was then accused of doing a ‘Microsoft-esque’ ‘beta’ releasing of full products, which is of course nonsense given that this is a finished, fully working product capable of doing exactly what it says on the tin). In sympathy for the coders: ideally, a second export type could be developed for future versions (or even for Xtreme) which exports in a format coders prefer albeit less WYSIWYG, granting the best of both worlds and reducing the whingeing. This kind of thinking, and approach to constructive criticism is likely to be far more productive and conducive to getting what is desired.
Anyway, this summary is likely only going to be preaching to the choir, but I guess the responses will tell. Oh and just a disclaimer in case I'm walking on eggshells: my polite, albeit passionate post was intended to be an expression of an evidence-supported opinion and not intended to offend or flame so please don’t interpret it that way if your opinion is different. I shouldn’t have had to have said that, but well…you know…sensitive topic it seems.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
I'm not sure if this thread is a statement or a rant at WD criticism!
You have some good points there, but the frustration at WD critics of the HTML generated code is understandable but misses a few points.
For inexperienced web developers (=main target audience) it's not obvious without an understanding of HTML (which WD sidesteps, to it's credit) why WD doesn't behave like other web editors - after all it's human nature to home in on the downside (yes WD has downsides) and forget the substantial benefits. Without some HTML knowledge people can't appreciate that the WYSIWYG nature of WD is at the expense of producing HTML code that would be frowned upon professional web developers and compromises interoperability with other technologies (for example in dreamweaver my designs can include blocks of text that could automatically be replaced by other content by using the design as a template and replacing a text block with data from a content management system - something that the WD generated HTML makes virtually impossible).
WD also produces designs that are of fixed size, making it totally unsuitable for liquid layouts - not a coders lament, but a designers lament.
Lastly, in terms of accessibility the output from WD is not really friendly to screenreaders and the like.
I make these points (as others have) not to take away from the great program that WD is, but to say that while WD is great at what it does, it achieves it's goals by compromising support for things that may be important to some, particularly in a corporate/business/technical environment.
WD is a great program and many will find it ideal for their websites and at the least others will find it great for prototyping web layouts.
Paul
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Yes, the WD also can't do your home work, cook, dump the trash and pay your taxes. :D
Why all the criticism is based on things that WD is not supposed to do? Do we advertise it of being able to create dynamic designs? Is it priced too high with curent functionality? Be objective please. Thank you.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
...while WD is great at what it does, it achieves it's goals by compromising support for things that may be important to some, particularly in a corporate/business/technical environment...
Yes this is a good point which I acknowledged above on behalf of coder criticisms in paragraph 1 of part 2 (regarding limitations contrasting with design goals for WD version 1), but it is addressed in the last paragraph of part 1.
I'd bet that eventually when the WYSIWYG approach can simulate everything HTML coding can do, it will become the dominant approach to website making given its superiority in speed, WYSIWYG design and fewer pre-requisites (HTML knowledge) (analogously to what happened to the process of text editing, and PDF generation which is entirely WYSIWYG now and never coded). Until this time though, the coders are somewhat right in their criticisms of WD's lack of functionality, but not really for the poorer (almost petty--or at least pettily presented) reasons we've seen so far, such as size overhead problems and that the code structure is merely different (rather than the consequences of being different)
This conclusion is being echoed quite a lot now (at least by me); it's hard to think of any new arguments for either side at the moment. I think just waiting to see how the WYSIWYG approach develops in spite of the criticisms (constructively) presented above is the best thing to do now rather than further repetition of the same arguments.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
John... I think Xara Web Designer is an absolute snip at the price considering what you get for your money. Things like a flash form generator or a photo gallery can cost almost as much for one module, so I don't see where people can grumble about XWD. If, as one might expect, an updated release that incorporates some of the things people are asking for comes along in the not too distant future at small cost or (better still, a free upgrade), great! In the interim, while you're beavering away, making it happen, I'll bet the competition are busy trying to figure out how to emulate XWD's text flow around objects.
As I've said before, I teach web design using a WYSIWYG product to 15-16 year olds, the course specifications state quite clearly that ANY web authoring tool can be used as long as it's not an export from a word processing (Word) or publishing program (Publisher)... so I could quite happily use XWD if we had it in college.
In the early days of the internet, HTML authoring programs were all there were, they've got a big head start, but WYSIWYG is the accepted norm for most anyone but industry professionals. It would be interesting to be having this debate in five years time.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
Lastly, in terms of accessibility the output from WD is not really friendly to screenreaders and the like.
In what way? Unless the text is converted to graphics before exporting to html or ALT tags are not filled in (which they can be), it is not clear to me why this should be the case.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Screen readers such as Opera's 'Speak' feature, pause at the end of each line </DIV> causing unintended and awkward punctuation to a passage.
Otherwise it works fine.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
covoxer
Yes, the WD also can't do your home work, cook, dump the trash and pay your taxes. :D
Why all the criticism is based on things that WD is not supposed to do? Do we advertise it of being able to create dynamic designs? Is it priced too high with curent functionality? Be objective please. Thank you.
LOL, the problem is that the inexperienced (in html terms) users love what WD can do (rightly so) and have expectations from other software that it works like a web editor (after all it makes web pages).
How can an inexperienced user tell what WD is "not supposed to do"? Does it list those things in the advertising?
I think WD is a great program with great features, but limitations when used "for what it's not supposed to do". I would say that I'm completely objective.
If you want WD for what it does well you will be very happy with WD. If it's bought for "what it's not supposed to do" you will be frustrated. It's perfectly reasonable for people to ask about doing things when they don't understand what WD is not meant to do.
Paul
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pauland
LOL, the problem is that the inexperienced (in html terms) users love what WD can do (rightly so) and have expectations from other software that it works like a web editor (after all it makes web pages).
Now is there a problem? You are trying to protect interests of people who are actually happy with this software and it's limitations. Is it so that most unexperienced users need dynamic sites? Looking at current www I can't say so. There are quite a lot of static commercial sites of the large companies. Never mind the smaller ones, and personal/family sites. Obviously, this is enough for many unexperienced users. Others will not use WD but appropriate tools.
Quote:
How can an inexperienced user tell what WD is "not supposed to do"? Does it list those things in the advertising?
If it's not clear from advertising (where wysiwyg is metioned quite often), then there is manual, this forum and 30 day trial for every one interested to figure out what WD can do.
Quote:
I think WD is a great program with great features, but limitations when used "for what it's not supposed to do".
Every software has limitations in functionality. This desn't make it bad.
Quote:
I would say that I'm completely objective.
I don't think so. Why? Because you express what you would like it to be, as if it is what it was meant to be, but somehow it was screwed up. It wasn't. This version of WD was not developed for dynamic layouts.
Quote:
If it's bought for "what it's not supposed to do" you will be frustrated.
Well, we have 30 days trial, don't we? Do you by anything, especially software, if you don't know if it suits your needs? I believe you don't. And I don't think that all the unexperienced users do.
Quote:
It's perfectly reasonable for people to ask about doing things when they don't understand what WD is not meant to do.
Yes. They ask, we answer. Don't we? But how the criticism can help? Who can it help?
For example, you say that absence of support for dynamic layouts is bad. But is it? Is the price of the WD good? Would it be just as good for everyone, especially those who are perfectly happy with static designs only, if it was much higher because of more functionality added? You can't be sure here, right? So, good or bad, everyone has to decide for them self.
One more thing, there are many people buying WD without reading manual or otherwise understanding its limits. But that's only because the features they have seen on demo movies are already worth paying this price. They will not be disappointed to find out limitations in the capabilities that already excess their expectations.
Of course there are exceptions, some people may get something wrong, like some may expect it to be just an ordinary authoring tool with some advanced features. This can't be avoided. But the wast majority seems to get it right.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
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.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
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
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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 :rolleyes: ).
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
"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.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
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.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
covoxer
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 :rolleyes: ).
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.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nickydude
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 :)
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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
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
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Who? Me not happy of people asking questions? :eek: You must be kidding, right? :D
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!
:rolleyes:
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
covoxer
Who? Me not happy of people asking questions? :eek: You must be kidding, right? :D
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!
:rolleyes:
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.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Yes, experts don't need WD for creating their product. Well, may be for prototyping. And that's how the advertisement says. And experts don't ask questions because they know answers. :) But here they had started to criticise the program, and I had to oppose the critics because otherwise, unexperienced users reading that thread could be confused that the program is bad because the expert said that it is.
And one more yes - some unexperienced users had already encountered web authoring tools so they do know that there has to be code editor and it's a mandatory thing. Of couse they will wonder why there's no code editor in WD. Afterall, it's not the way they were told it has to be before. :)
And I'm doing my best answering questions of this kind. :rolleyes:
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
I suspected when WD was first mentioned that this might be a case where an explanation (somewhere if not in the marketing) of what WD is not intended to do may have been beneficial given that it is approaching website creation by going against a very established grain and was bound to face fierce initial opposition. While it's not common practice to market the relevant limitations of a product (which I think is industry standard dishonesty really that most companies buy into thoughtlessly fearing harm to their product), this lack of doing so here seems to have helped fuel the furore.
Related: whenever I see someone advertising how great a product is (any kind of product a consumer can buy in the world), the one question that always comes to my mind when they've finished showing us what marvelous things it can do is: "what are the limitations of your product?", i.e. what important things aren't you telling us? I've always thought it's dishonest to not explain the key limitations of anything you're selling to people, no matter what it is. Companies don't probably because they think it will harm sales. To me it would illustrate honesty and true care for the customer by providing a better picture of what they will get, and instills my confidence in them.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
I think the point that everyone has forgotten is that at the end of the day, "CONTENT IS KING!", it matters not how your site is generated, it's content that matters... static layout, dynamic layout, CMS driven, whatever... if you don't keep your content fresh, people don't come back to your site, why don't we set the furore aside and let John get on with developing XWD to the next level.
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor were any of the other "industry standard" authoring tools which are "mature" inasmuch as they have had numerous releases, Fusion ELEVEN springs to mind! It's good that John (and Charles) take part in this forum but to have to justify why things are done in a particular way is a little unfair, if they didn't raise their heads above the parapet, this discussion would have died a death already.
XWD is a mere "fledgling" application, it's three days old... look at it this way, what is it, less than a year ago that Xtreme 4 introduced HTML export, consider the advances that have been made in the interim to produce XWD.. where will we be in another twelve months?
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Maybe software companies should start putting disclaimers on their advertising like pharmaceutical companies do in the US.
This product does not produce HTML you're going to like.
That program will eventually put your computer at a standstill.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Long threads like this bring in lots of search engine activity. This makes the thead higher and higher in the search results.
With all the comments about bad HTML many people will not purchase the program incorrectly thinking it is not worth their time nor money.
I know everyone claims to only want to make the application suitable for their use. But continuing to rehash the same comments only make it more likely the program will never reach it's initial potential because of the comments.
Just my .02 cents US. I Spent many years in the USAF and was daily briefed to suspect almost everything has an ulterior motive. It did save my butt many times. ;)
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Soquili
Long threads like this bring in lots of search engine activity. This makes the thead higher and higher in the search results.
With all the comments about bad HTML many people will not purchase the program incorrectly thinking it is not worth their time nor money.
I know everyone claims to only want to make the application suitable for their use. But continuing to rehash the same comments only make it more likely the program will never reach it's initial potential because of the comments...
You could be right, but I think it's a small concern. Most people probably won't base their buying decisions on one or two thread's contents alone. Plus these arguments are quite two-sided as well, providing balance. But you're right to echo what I was saying above about the unhelpfulness of repeating the same arguments though (but the solution is not to lock my thread like the other similar threads; it will just pop up elsewhere and cause more repetition).
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
(but the solution is not to lock my thread like the other similar threads; it will just pop up elsewhere and cause more repetition).
Indeed. It will pop up anyway. And not once.
Remember how it was after XXP4 release? And then html was a secondary feature, and the overal response was much lower than we have with WD. ;)
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
covoxer
Who? Me not happy of people asking questions? :eek: You must be kidding, right? :D
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!
:rolleyes:
Okay so my original thread was closed and now this one carries on the same stuff and often misses my original point. :rolleyes:
I can see the html - at least the small part of html that WD uses. My concern is that a lot of the tags that make up the HTML language are not implemented in WD.
When you look at a web page and that has multi-columns your eye can quickly scan the page and tell you that the item you are interested in is down there in column 2, so that's where you start reading. A blind person using a screen reader would have to wade though all the stuff from the beginning until he finds the bit he wanted.
A proper screen reader can parse the HTML in the page and allows the blind user to listen to the headings and choose the article that he wants. Headings at different levels give an indication of importance.
HTML can give structure and many people believe that the correct use of tags like <h1> can help with search engine ranking. People look at web pages - search engines, screen readers and the like look at html.
When you design in WD and say you type in "My Vacation" and make it 24pt and stick it where you like and then put a para below it you have created a wee structure. However, behind the scenes the heading you created is effectively just the same as the para following it. Some designers only care about what's on the surface but for others what lies below may be just as important.
For my work I have to make an effort to keep my web pages structured and accessible and this is also true for government sites and companies across the world as there are legal requirements on Service Providers' sites.
Here's a quote relating to websites and the Disability Discrimination Act (UK)
"Can you be sued? Basically, yes. The RNIB has approached two large companies with regard to their websites. When they raised the accessibility issues of the websites under the DDA, both companies made the necessary changes, rather than facing the prospect of legal action (in exchange for anonymity)."
"The courts will also no doubt take guidance from the outcome of an Australian case in 2000, when a blind man successfully sued the Sydney Olympics15 organising committee over their inaccessible website. (The Australian Disability Discrimination Act quite closely resembles that of the UK's.) UK courts may also take into account the New York case against Ramada.com and Priceline.com16, who were also successfully sued over the accessibility of their websites."
Here's an excerpt from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative:
"For Web developers using today's authoring tools, development of accessible Web sites first requires an awareness of the need for Web accessibility, then a deliberate effort to apply WCAG 1.0. It may require working around features of authoring tools that make it hard to build accessible Web sites. For instance, some authoring tools still produce non-standard markup, which can be a barrier for accessibility. Authoring tools that conform to ATAG 1.0 provide built-in support for production of accessible Web sites."
In the other thread there were references to luddites and it was suggested that Xara might develop WDanal for people like me. You may not like what I say but look around the web community and see what others say on accessibility, document structure and html. Go to Adobe, try Microsoft, check out the best developer/designer site http://www.sitepoint.com/ - don't just take what is said on these forums as gospel or good practice.
I have stated that I think WD can do some fantastic things but for my day job it is not really suited. I have not asked for my money back. For many years I have been using Xara products - Webstyle, Xara X1, Xara3D 6, Xtreme Pro 4 and I bought WD without a trial because I trust Xara products.
For many people WD is the perfect tool and maybe it will be for me one day.
Thanks for listening
Luddite Ron
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
I am really excited about the product and its future. My question is this.
If I was to design the layout and functionality of a website and later pass it to a web programmer to add additional features not found in WD, Is this possible to do?
Also I know once this is done the code can not be taken back into WD, correct?
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
To Luddite Ron:
Well, you have told all this before, why to repeat? To hear all the same answers again? Ok, you don't ask anything here actually so no answers, but few comments to clarify some things.
1. Sites produced by WD are accessible. I have already demonstrated this. The blind person can read the site and understand information on it. Even without special attention form the designer in that case. With attention it may be even better. So all those talks about inaccessibility are irrelevant.
2. You refer to Microsoft regarding accessibility guidelines? Then check www.microsoft.com with W3C validator. Guess what? It's invalid. What about www.adobe.com ? Invalid again. Go to http://www.sitepoint.com/ you say? I did - 64 errors, site invalid... :rolleyes:
As you correctly pointed out, there is W3C accessibility initiative, but it is not mandatory, while compliance to the html standards is mandatory. So how can you refer to someone in optional question, when he cant grasp the basic requirements?
3. Finally - we respect your opinion. You are not forced to use any software if it doesn't suit your needs. This is not that big deal as you try to make it look like.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
behzad
If I was to design the layout and functionality of a website and later pass it to a web programmer to add additional features not found in WD, Is this possible to do?
This depends on what features are about to be added and on the programmer willingness to do it with this code. So the crrect answer can give you the programmer when you show him html generated by WD and explain what you want to add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
behzad
Also I know once this is done the code can not be taken back into WD, correct?
Correct. But some kinds of code developed by programmer can be embedded into your WD document. Just the way you embed snippets.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Maybe the best thing to do is show them the demo site made by xara and see what they think of the code and if they can work with it.
I am thinking more like CSS , database etc.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
behzad
Maybe the best thing to do is show them the demo site made by xara and see what they think of the code and if they can work with it.
I am thinking more like CSS , database etc.
Yes.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
For those interested in the details of the Court Case quoted above the outcome was:
SOCOG was ordered to engage the following by 15 September 2000:
including alt text on all images and image map links on its Web site
providing access to the Index of Sports from the Schedule page
providing access to the Results Tables to be used on the Web site during the Sydney Olympic Games
SOCOG refused to comply with the order and was later ordered to pay Bruce Maguire $20,000 for its refusal to comply
From:http://www.contenu.nu/socog.html
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hexen53
Here's an excerpt from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative:
"For Web developers using today's authoring tools, development of accessible Web sites first requires an awareness of the need for Web accessibility, then a deliberate effort to apply WCAG 1.0. It may require working around features of authoring tools that make it hard to build accessible Web sites. For instance, some authoring tools still produce non-standard markup, which can be a barrier for accessibility. Authoring tools that conform to ATAG 1.0 provide built-in support for production of accessible Web sites."
....
For many people WD is the perfect tool and maybe it will be for me one day.
Luddite Ron
Hello Luddite Ron,
i have sait this in an other thread:
I' m in websites business since 2000 and started first with a WYSIWYG Editor called Visual-Style from Symantec - it had one of the cleanest and best W3C conform standard codes for a WYSIWYG Editor.
Then i turned over to NetObjects Fusion - every W3C validation test failed but every browser-test with the average market browsers stayed the testing so why worry - and i created the same site i had created with Visual-Style in less than half of the time and with the same optical professional result - and this is important for my customers, because they pay every minute and hour i design their sites, so it saves the money of my clients.
The big question in business is:
What are my customers and their customers - what did they need?
If they want a barrier-free website i do not use XARA Web Designer, because it can not reach this goal; for this i use Fusion or Joomla or other tools - we webdesigners cannot only live with one program even if the name is Dreamweaver - The customers of today want fast results and maybe a solution wich cannot be handled only from one tool - but XWD can help to create a site fast and if you only take the design aspect:
Exactly like i want it - if i need to add H1 formating or other things i had to have a next website-editor to edit this for instance in DW - it worked
- i cannot count the moments i opended a joomla template in DW to change its look and design to modify it for the need of a customer....
So if this is a thing wich has to be done with a professional CMS why not even with a less professional tool.
O.K. One thing i totally share with you is the need of H1; H2 and so on formattings - this is something wich should be a program setting by default.
I think the developers created a very good program from the designers point of view, but maybe it depends on this that in the beta-team there are not so much website-developers involved wich earn their dayly money with it, so they cannot hear the voices and the needs from us - here is one suggestion how easy H1, H2 formatings can be implemented in this program.
Michael
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
covoxer
To Luddite Ron:
Well, you have told all this before, why to repeat? To hear all the same answers again? Ok, you don't ask anything here actually so no answers, but few comments to clarify some things.
1. Sites produced by WD are accessible. I have already demonstrated this. The blind person can read the site and understand information on it. Even without special attention form the designer in that case. With attention it may be even better. So all those talks about inaccessibility are irrelevant.
Hi John
I was repeating what I said because the new thread was misrepresenting what I originally was talking about - confusing it with a desire to code html or to see the html.
You are correct when you say that WD pages pass accessibility checks. Not all of them all the time but not much worse than other sites. I tried them with Wave, TAW (not so good), Site Valet etc. But these automated tests also need to be done in conjunction with a human check.
Gary's pages come up with no accessibility issues in WAVE http://wave.webaim.org/ but when you select "Outline View" you will get the message " This page has no headings or document structure so an outline cannot be generated" (their red). The "Structure/Order View" is also quite interesting when compared to more traditional html pages. The "Text-only View" doesn't show the text properly, clipping the beginning of each line.
It is true that Sitepoint and others do show some accessibility issues but they do make a great effort to be correct - use WAVE to look at the "Outline View" and "Text-only View" in sitepoint.com and it is clear to see the structure of the information.
I have no great desire to keep harping on about accessibility/structure so I will shut up.
LR
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xhris
You could be right, but I think it's a small concern. Most people probably won't base their buying decisions on one or two thread's contents alone. Plus these arguments are quite two-sided as well, providing balance. But you're right to echo what I was saying above about the unhelpfulness of repeating the same arguments though (but the solution is not to lock my thread like the other similar threads; it will just pop up elsewhere and cause more repetition).
Xhris there was no mention of any intent to close your thread. I was attempting to have people see the futility of all the posting. It is like a treadmill...you can walk or run for hours but you never actually get anywhere other than the treadmill.
John is providing excellent feedback but some are not interested in hearing it, only in repeating their own desires.
The application is only a few days old. Give it time to evolve. Take time to use it for what it was designed to do and make note of the areas that could be improved. After careful analysis compose a recommendation for improvements and give things time to be evaluated for feasibility.
The immediate posting of perceived deficiencies appear to be more of a knee jerk reaction rather than a considered evaluation. Repeating the same statements does not mean anyone will receive a different answer.
Give the Xara Team time to evaluate and test and re-evaluate and re-test if needed.
No program can be everything to everyone.
As a professional Web Developer there are a wide selection of tools to use. Use the design abilites of Web Designer if they can be used in your work for prototypeing if nothing else.
Even if every suggestion put forth by the professional web developers were to be emplimented you would still need other tools for some aspects of your work.
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Hi Michael
I have tried a variety of tools and my most recent is EW2 but I haven't had much time to get to grips with it. I did try loading a sample exported WD page into EW2 but I didn't find it at all easy to select stuff except in the code window!
The headings business: I had thought that if you highlight a piece of text and made it whatever size you need and rightclicked for a popup to choose the tag.
In the code for that text there is a <div> that sets the font sizes etc, followed by the <div> that positions the text and maybe they could be combined to include the font size in the heading:
<h1 class="t1" style="left: 200px; top:300px; font-size: 24pt;">My Heading</h1>
...or something like that but sometimes the first <div> has positional elements too so maybe I am oversimplifying a lot
Anyway the style sheet would need to be adjusted to make the styles of all the headings the same as the body.
Headings may be easier to implement as they are usually short and on one line whereas lists or even <p>s I can imagine would be complicated.
Cheers
Luddite Ron
-
Re: The WD HTML structure furore
Hmm, thread's getting kind of long, but what the hey, one more post...
After having read the entire thread I think it could be summed up with, "Pick the right tool for the job." When I need to do work that will involve a dynamic ASP.NET data-driven site, I use Expression Web and Visual Studio 2008/Visual Web Developer because they have excellent support for that technology (and Dreamweaver has so little as not to count). For other sites, including those with dynamic PHP applications, I might opt for Dreamweaver CS4.
Now, for those occasional small local business 4-5 page "brochure site" contracts, or local clubs, civic organizations, etc., it appears that with XWD I will be able to turn out the kind of attractive, static sites that such clients are interested in having in significantly less time than it would take in the more sophisticated programs.
Granted, I probably won't want to bring them into either DW or EW, but then, why would I want to? The client couldn't care less what the HTML looks like, and wouldn't recognize it if he saw it. If he needs mods, open it up in XWD and change it. I could probably add some limited dynamic capabilities with the placeholder feature using PHP if needed. The client gets what he wants, I get paid, evahbody happy.
You don't use a carpet tack hammer to do framing, or a roofer's hatchet to hang drywall. I haven't even downloaded the trial of XWD yet, but I have checked the sample site and run it through Cynthia Says and the w3c validator, and I'm impressed. I wouldn't use it for a dynamic site, but I can think of a number of sites I've done that would have been quite handily accomplished in XWD.
That said, can I raise one more hand for a little bit of semantic markup? At least the heading tags would be a nice start... ;-)
Nice job, John, and I'm looking forward to what is yet to come. Now, off to download XWD and start experimenting...
cheers,
scott