Need advice - XWD vs other WYSIWYG editors

[RedBopete]

I have used XWD for creating many nice websites, and so far all of my customers have been very happy, except one. This customer wants to be able to edit the HTML pages himself in a text editor, even though I explained that he couldn't because I can't import his changes back into XWD. I'm being told that every other WYSIWYG editor (Dreamweaver, Front page, etc.) allows "backwards-compatibility" where HTML pages can be changed outside of the WYSIWYG editor, then loaded back in, and have the changes show up. Now I'm being blamed for using "bad web design software".
Since I don't use any other web design software, does anyone out there know if it is true that other web design software can safely and correctly import external changes?
Thanks in advance.

[mwenz]

Dreamweaver and its competitor, Expression Web, are decidedly not wysiwyg editors.

FrontPage was a wysiwyg editor (mostly) and also allowed one to edit at the code level. But reimport into FP was always spotty. FP was depreciated and is not a viable editor for neither modern sites nor browsers. Most all hosting providers have either stopped or are stopping FP support for the types of features that depend upon FP extensions (things like shared borders, menus, etc., etc., etc.).

If the customer desires to be able to edit code on his own, and not necessarily content available from a CMS, then your only real options are:

(1) Customer purchases XARA,
(2) You design in DW or EW or another html editor.

Even with option #2, the customer really, really, ought to own the same software as there are issues with editing outside the DWT in DW or EW if that feature is used for the site.

Good luck. Mike

[pauland]

Now I'm being blamed for using "bad web design software".

Doesn't sound like the greatest of customers and I think if I was involved in the blame game with a customer, we would be parting company.

Mike has essentially spelled out the situation. It's a little unfortunate because clients make assumptions and they often aren't right. In this case your client assumes that because other software does something, then so does your toolset.

On the positive side, customers who want to edit HTML should be avoided at all cost - you don't want to be picking up the pieces after they screw things up and then blame you.

[RedBopete]

Thanks everyone - your insights have been very helpful. And this wasn't a case of the customer assuming something - I made it very clear that editing the HTML wasn't an option *before* we agreed to go forward with the site development. I even used placeholders to create sections on some pages that could be updated by simply uploading a new graphic or external text file.

[mwenz]

Red,

The placeholder, swap out is a good method with WYSIWYG editors. And it can extend to placeholders reading an HTML file. So within certain limitations, you could do a pseudo blog that the customer can create html to his hearts content, upload the file (with the same name) and he gets changes.

I was thinking about the situation this afternoon when my mind got blitzed in InDesign. I was wondering if it is actuall additional content or changing existing content the customer desires. Two completely different things.

With the former, I think I would propose--at no cost to you--to change to a WordPress or Joomla site. If the latter, the placeholder thing can be made to work well (enough). A blend of the two means integrating a simple CMS into the site, or the main static pages being a gateway to the CMS that he can update at will.

Good luck. I can begin to get prickly when scope or intent changes significantly enough to go back to the drawing board.

Take care, Mike

[philphoto]

I was just watching a video and update on Adobe Muse (beta) and the arguments are even being addressed at Adobe. Muse is trying to meet the needs of designers, much like Xara WD7 does. Your customer sounds like a bit of a blow hard. Perhaps he knows enough html to get into trouble? I agree with Mike that DW is NOT wysiwyg! If I ever came at loggerheads with DW it was always my wanting to do something and DW saying NO! I hate the restrictive rules of coding. I can do it, I hate it, too plain, too dull, too boring. The arrogance of some codeslingers that even call DW sloppy is too much. The experts are saying that in 5 to 10 years, coding will not even be possible outside of a package like Muse, or Xara WD7. So -- in my opinion that customer should go find someone else to stroke his starved ego. It sounds like you have done all you can. In my opinion -- take your site and go -- some folks you just can't afford to do business with, he can run you through the wringer to the point you pay him for the privilege of building his site and that is not a workable arrangement in my view. Philphoto