Namo or Dreamweaver?

[pduggan]

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?

[garyallred]

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.

[jon spain]

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

[dalel]

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

[dk_art]

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

[dalel]

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

[gidgit]

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

[pduggan]

<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?

[gidgit]

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]

[dalel]

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