The WD HTML structure furore

[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

[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.

[Zenarcher]

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

[Hexen53]

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

[Hexen53]

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

[Paladin]

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

[RTK]

I don't know John (covoxer)... However, I have read ALL of his posts here at TG... How about a reality check please? The man is not stupid, ok? It should be obvious if you read his posts... He knew/knows exactly what he's doing.

The code generated by Xara WD is not there to mess with some code purists', visually impaired's or know-it-all's head. IT IS merely the result when you make it possible for ANYONE (even your grandma) to create a nice looking website. PERIOD.

I just don't get the code whining... It is what it is -- the average individual will see the end result with all the nice 'huffen-puff' ™. It looks good = smiles all-around for the concerned parties.

As for the concern of the visually impaired... Yes, optimally you want everyone to see your artwork and read your writing but it's never going to happen -- you can take that one to the bank. No matter what legislation, people will do what THEY CAN DO.

Heck, I'm supposed to keep my stairs clean for the mailman... I don't always do that on all the days in January and February, so I lose out on some mail... However, I would TRY to look for solutions if I knew that 100% clean stairs helped me feed my kids. It's a choice I make... Ok, so the mailman hates me -- I'll live with it.

People are struggling and getting ripped off every day when it comes to getting small and nice-looking websites designed and online. Xara XD makes it possible for everyone to get things done for an insignificant amount of money. Oh, the horror!

Personally, I like CMS solutions as my websites have hundreds/thousands of web pages; to clear things up a bit (I'm not a "fan boy"). Instead of whining about "code"... How about just whining about (the customary...) things that don't work in terms of WYSIWYG implementation? THAT can be worked on...

Xara WD is a real solution for many people. It might not be the right for you or me... Well, that's just how it is, isn't it? So, some of us have to make do with other solutions.

Give Xara and John some credit, please! Why not focus the whining about execution? It's much more constructive (and fun to lurk and read about).

My two (ignorant) 2 cents worth.

Risto

[Ross Macintosh]

It seems to me that most people with experience in coding (html or whatever) have absorbed the idea that there is virtue in clean, elegant, code. They take efforts to achieve that elegance and take tremendous pride in achieving it. To them, and like-minded people, the elegance of their coding reflects on their professionalism and level of skill.

Along comes Xara-WD with a true WYSIWYG approach that makes more intuitive the creation of graphically complex web pages that are very cross-browser compliant. Great - No? Well, it's great for most people who want to create graphically complex web pages that are very cross-browser compliant. Also great for people who just seek a relatively simple tool for creating their not-so-complex web designs.

As I understand it the program achieves its WYSIWYG results by using code tags to precisely locate each line of text, image etc. It is an established approach that is "compliant" with standards but one which some experienced coders have a distaste for. To them the underlying html of the generated pages isn't clean and elegant enough, and they would be embarrassed to submit it for peer review. They feel the code would reflect poorly on their professionalism. Importantly, it isn't that the code is wrong - it just doesn't reflect the hand-coder's art of trying to distill an elegant simplicity in how their code is written. The truth is that without utilizing the same approaches Xara-WD takes in regard to code, those hand-coders would be relatively hard-pressed to achieve graphically complex designs with the same cross-browser fidelity. Those that could, would have to be very skilled, and would likely have a work flow considerably longer than what the designer who adopts Xara-WD will have.

It reminds me of the early days when CorelDraw & Xara came on the market. The established programs for graphic design were Illustrator / Photoshop on the Mac platform. To those 'Pros' using CorelDraw or Xara was rejected even when the upstarts were easier to use, faster, and offered better features. There were users who said f**k the status quo and went with CorelDraw and Xara for their commercial work. In their work flow they saw the benefits. Today the situation and opportunities are similar. The arrival of Xara-WD gives web designers & wannabes an opportunity to discover the work flow improvements Xara-WD offers and leave those happy with their Dreamweaver etc. to their own path.

Thanks Xara for developing an effective WYSIWYG web design tool.

Regards, Ross

[remi]

@Ross:
A fair and objective summary.

@Ron (hexen53):
The main problem is, a critical debate about the lack of semantically meaningful HTML and proper use of CSS within Websites exported from Xara Webdesigner doesn't make sense, as long as new users are so enthusiastic about the new Xara Web Designer and are seeing criticisms as an attack. If I understand it right, even now some members are starting to see "dark goals" behind our criticism. Such a misrepresentation would be not fair, but unfortunately, this is a normal reaction you can see very often.

@Risto:
I agree with you, that John (covoxer) has given some answers and NOBODY has said the he is stupid, OK?!
It's also more than understandable that some (not all) of his statements are to oppose against our review of his own work (the HTML export filter), instead of accepting our arguments. I have no problems with that, but as I said before, I know that there are better ways in order to reach the goal. It needs some time to develop other approaches and you can be sure that Xara will hear some compliments (not only from my side), whenever Xara Web Designer will be there.

@Bob (Soquili):
I agree with you, that we should give Xara a little time to sell some licenses. Maybe we're able to start another discussion in 6-12 months about the generated HTML code. This should not be a real problem, because the problems with the HTML code will not go away within this timeframe (and maybe in the meantime there will be more insight).

If we're trying to discuss these facts further on, than I'm sure that the knowledged (X)HTML/CSS experts will not only be held responsible for

• a bad mood of other members, but also for
• the whole business success of Xara Ltd. and maybe
• the worldwide business crisis and furthermore
• the global warming during the last 100 years (which is surely just the result of our increased discussion activity).

In the meantime everyone should make his own experiences.

Remi

[visual-net]

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