Easily implemented improvement?

**covoxer** · 24 March 2009, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by richinri

Believe me or not, any change Xara could make to code that will make it easy to read/alter will NOT go unnoticed in the marketplace and in reviews.

Still it goes unnoticed by you. Have you seen code generated by XXP4? If you did, you shouldn't say that we do nothing to improve code readability.

I just don't think that the kind of comment that you suggest can improve code readability.

**covoxer** · 24 March 2009, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by stuart1980

I do not know enough about code to do this myself, which is why I farm this out to an agency. Am I wasting my time though? Would an experienced developer still be able to tidy up the coding behind Xara built sites?

If you do want to go to agency and are ready to pay them, why do you want to use WD at all? Let them do the job. They will do it better than you, no matter what software you use and how much you try.

**covoxer** · 24 March 2009, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by richinri

I strongly believe Xara consider addressing the apparent ignoring of the title tag since it is important for SE rankings.

What do you mean? We do not ignore title element. You can set it in the page properties. You can also set title attribute to any element on your page (though it's not a tag but attribute). I don't know anything else called "title" in html.

**pauland** · 24 March 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by stuart1980

The reason is that better code makes it easier for the google spider to crawl.

Is this really true? I doubt it. A spider will go looking for content, links and meta tags a care little about anything else. I don't see the code produced by XWD as being an obstacle to that and while many have made comments that XWD produces code that is not friendly to search engines, none of them have actually come back to explain further.

If your SEO specialist is having to rewrite your web page CODE very much I'd really question what they were doing. A HTML coder may hate what XWD does, or another developer does with HTML but it may not necessarily impact on google spiders.

There are three ways I know that SEO rankings can be improved.

1) Quality content (and I don't mean nicely laid out HTML tags) that reinforces the business aims of the site.

2) External links and references - showing that others beleive it's a usful site.

3) Paid placement.

I once had a client that paid a SEO specialist to look at a site I made for her business. They came back with the most bland advice which mirrored the content that I'd already written in conjunction with the client, together with meta tag recommendations that named her competitors businesses in an attempt to piggy-back on their searches.

Another client of mine was promised (by a different SEO expert) huge amounts of traffic in return for a large payment. It later became clear that this was done by redirecting traffic through various sites where people were unaware they were being linked through to a site they hadn't asked to visit.

If nothing else, use XWD for prototyping, but I see no need to fear SEO consequences.

Paul

**remi** · 24 March 2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by pauland

Is this really true?

You could also ask: Why should it be incorrect? Nobody can give you a guarantee, just the same as nobody is saying that XWD would be not friendly to search engines or was it really said in this thread? I've just seen the please to make it "better", which is not the same as saying that it would be "unfriendly".

There is also another aspect: If a HTML tool would be so clever to give you the highest rank (I would say that is implied with "make it better"), everybody would use it and then Google has to change their layout, because every website would be the first entry. This would be a really difficult experience for the user, because the user has to scroll from left to right in this case, instead from top to bottom, in order to see the other websites with the same top ranks.

There are books out there about SEO, there are forums, blogs, experts and charlatans - it's simply not possible to get the "truth" without investing time and/or money.

Remi

------------------------
Disclaimer 1:
I don't use Xara Web Designer, therefore it could be, that my answer may not consider the current features of Xara Web Designer.

Disclaimer 2 (necessary these days):
I'm not implying anything I haven't said.

**richinri** · 25 March 2009, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by covoxer

What do you mean? We do not ignore title element. You can set it in the page properties. You can also set title attribute to any element on your page (though it's not a tag but attribute). I don't know anything else called "title" in html.

I was not talking about the title of the pages. I am talking about the title="whatever" portion of element tags. Correct me if I am wrong, but I only see that one can add alt tags and id tags. I don't see how one can add title tags. Did I miss something? I hope so.

**richinri** · 25 March 2009, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by covoxer

Still it goes unnoticed by you. Have you seen code generated by XXP4? If you did, you shouldn't say that we do nothing to improve code readability.

I just don't think that the kind of comment that you suggest can improve code readability.

I never said that. In this thread: http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=37039 someone put in a placeholder thinking everything was fine when it contained 2 header and 2 body sections in the finished HTML. Why? They had the thinking the code didn't matter. I quote from that thread:

If you noticed in my posts I have cautioned against the "I am drawing websites, the heck with the code" thinking. This thread makes clear...again as to why.
A placeholder of html code was inserted and because it showed up - it was assumed all was well but with the code that no one wants to look at - it contained SERIOUS html errors giving 2 header and 2 body sections. Anyone looking at this error would say the person designing the site doesn't have a clue what they are doing. It could have resulted in display issues and certainly wouldn't validate. A search engine could well ignore the page completely as deficient in structure.
Second - search engines use text primarily to "sniff" out your content. The more you convert plain text to images via grouping, the less text the SE has to sniff out the content of your site. It sees image tags without text.
This is why I say XWD is a wonderful tool, but graphics designers need to be aware of these things if they want to be serious about websites. Be very careful with the "who the heck cares about the code" mentality.
It could end up being very embarrassing for you professionally.
Even the first timer or "small guy" wants a site that will validate according to WC3 standards and they want good search engine ranking.
Any insertion of placeholder html could cause your validated code to go south with one cut and paste.
So I say design away with XWD - but DO be aware of at least some code issues so you don't end up screwing yourself or a client out of ignorance of some vital, very basic issues regarding the reality of the web.
There is more in that thread that proves that the code DOES matter and while I can understand not wanting to be a coding designer, one needs to be aware of some aspects of code to avoid looking like a total novice or a fool...especially if you get paid to do websites.

**Soquili** · 25 March 2009, 05:23 AM

Richinri hasn't it occurred to you that the target demographic for Web Designer isn't concerned with any of what you are complaining about?

Web Designer is simply a tool to be used. If it doesn't fit into your tool kit then ignore it and allow those that it does fit use it.

**covoxer** · 25 March 2009, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by richinri

I was not talking about the title of the pages. I am talking about the title="whatever" portion of element tags. Correct me if I am wrong,

Yes, you are wrong. And so, I have to correct you.

Here it is:

**covoxer** · 25 March 2009, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by richinri

I never said that. In this thread: http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=37039 someone put in a placeholder thinking everything was fine when it contained 2 header and 2 body sections in the finished HTML. Why?

You ask me?

I can only guess... And I guess that's because he sees it works well.
But what does it have to do with WD? If user wants, he can put 15 body elements into page in any web authoring tool. Can't he?

So really, that thread is irrelevant to what we are talking here about. Agree?

They had the thinking the code didn't matter.

May be. But html education is far beyond the goals of this product.

I quote from that thread:

Please don't. I read all threads. The link is enough. I know well what was happening there.

There is more in that thread that proves that the code DOES matter and while I can understand not wanting to be a coding designer, one needs to be aware of some aspects of code to avoid looking like a total novice or a fool...especially if you get paid to do websites.

Yes, code matters. Probably that's why we do our best to make WD generated code fully compliant. But we can't forbid users to break it, because there'll be no way for extensions, as you understand.
So what's your point here? We were talking about code readability e.t.c. and here you are switching to criticising unexperienced users... I don't get it.