The WD HTML structure furore

[covoxer]

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.

[Xhris]

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.

[w00dy]

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?

[dogbertbh]

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.

[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.

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.

[Xhris]

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).

[covoxer]

(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.

[Hexen53]

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

Here's the short reconstruction of this debate:

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

Okay so my original thread was closed and now this one carries on the same stuff and often misses my original point.

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

[behzad]

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?

[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.

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...

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.