WYSIWYG versus pure coding Poll - Page 3 - HTML Forums

Giselle · 02-11-2007, 02:50 AM

Hand coding is no doubt the best way, but for beginners WYSIWIG can be very helpful...

Horus_Kol · 02-11-2007, 05:19 AM

WYSIWYG is okay for rapid prototyping, i guess - and figuring out how to get certain effects by looking at how the code changes for a given design feature...

still, I do my prototyping by hand these days.

pj_anf · 02-21-2007, 01:35 PM

I have a serious bug in my behind about this debate. While in school they are teaching all these students to use things like Dreamweaver, or Frontpage.. and the built in css editing ability, etc.... the code they dump out is horrible! But the real problem comes when you want to go off and use this code to do more exciting stuff and aren't sure how to integrate it.

I learned HTML back when it was born so I never got into the WIZZY stuff... Which luckiy made my transition from college to the real world extremely simple. I have a friend in college right now on the verge of a breakdown because they never learned css/javscript/(jsp,asp,php) by hand at all.... Companies trying to bring her in as an Intern are laughing at her wondering what good she can do if she can't even write the code to build a website. It's sad really.

Now don't get my wrong, I think the WIZZY's have a place in the world for those new to web development and that will never go much farther than a 10 html page website. But anyone that is considering more in depth or moving in the market of IT doing this stuff, they are in for a world of pain when they suddenly realize they are months of knowledge behind.

Pegasus · 02-21-2007, 02:51 PM

PJ, I'm going back to school to learn more about web design. There are some things I haven't been able to teach myself because I don't normally need them. Javascript, forms and objects are three that come immediately to mind. The programme I'm taking will cover all those things, by hand.

What annoys me about the HTML course, though, is that it uses tables for layout and deprecated tags, <font> etc. CSS is actually part of the second year programme. <shudder> Now, I don't mind tables for some things, simple layouts and such. I've used them before, but to teach HTML wilthout teaching at least the barest of CSS seems to be a bit redundant. Why add all those tags and garbage to your code when you don't need to? I've given people an overview of how to set up a site without using tables in less than an hour and they have the bare bones of it set up themselves in two.

Maybe I'll have a word with the instructors about combining the courses. I'm looking to get a job within the school boards, so maybe I can spend some time teaching kids the way things *should* be done.

I'm not sure that I'd call it unprofessional not to know how to code by hand. I know several people who work in the business and they have a whole list of prefab scripts that they've picked up over the years and just cut and paste the information into the page. It's not being lazy or anything. I've been told that that's "working smart". It takes less time to look up and copy a code, for the most part, than it does to write it.

Peg

GarrettW · 02-22-2007, 08:15 PM

notepad++ FTW!!!1!1
not to mention paint shop pro 9. it has been good to me.
although i'm thinking about learning the gimp.

but regarding my path to knowledge:
I started out in ... oh, 1999 i guess, with FrontPage Express which came with Windows 98, making pages that looked like -- you guessed it, something straight out of the 90's. anyway, I thought my program was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I gradually became increasingly reliant on the "View HTML" screen to do things I couldn't do otherwise. however, i can't think of any certain point when i switched over to the nitty-gritty. it was a gradual process that just happened as i was more and more exposed to what really was HTML.

make sense?

Vege · 02-23-2007, 01:54 AM

Still, im not a shame to admit that i create complex forms and table structures with NVU then paste it into my normal editor, sometimes it's not worth the thinking to make form table structures.

prospero · 04-22-2007, 03:09 AM

I use Dreamweaver in design mode to get text and pictures in but you can't beat code view to get what you really intended.

<h1> · 04-22-2007, 04:07 PM

I must admit i was a pure coding fan, following strict web-standards etc, but have come to realize that the WYSIWYG can be a very useful time saver, when absolutely "strict" isn't at all neccessary, even still, dreamweaver can give u valid HTML. On a smaller scaler, when i need to slice up an interface in no-time, I have used Firework's built in slicer that outputs tables and sliced images.
A full wysiwyg also gives you a tool to work with designers effectively, especially when changes are needed. I have recently come to realize I am soughta wasting my time in the work environment typing out every bit of code, not saying that I'm a slow typer, just that i've seen how using a wysiwyg editor can be used to save so much more time, and effectively make more money, in which sense, it is very useful.
So then, I plan to master the dreamweaver, bang out as many websites as i can, and leave the hard-coding for the special ones

I am sold.

darksidepuffin · 04-22-2007, 08:05 PM

I code by hand only -- I've been down the WYSIWYG road, and it's an unpleasant street filled with hoodlums and internet explorer fans.

I do, however, concede that WYSIWYG is useful for mockups and the like, however I feel that until WYSIWYG becomes standards compliant and appropriate for use in cross browser scenarios, it has a limited place in serious web development.

That being said, I know people who, through either lack of time or [current] ability, simply can't hand code everything. In that case, it's a learning tool -- generate the code, look at it, play with it, and modify it -- learn by trial and error..then wean yourself off of it.

GarrettW · 04-23-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonicpuffin

... I've been down the WYSIWYG road, and it's an unpleasant street filled with hoodlums and internet explorer fans.

that ... lol ... now that is a quoteable quote.
i'm writing that down.

<h1> · 04-23-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonicpuffin

I do, however, concede that WYSIWYG is useful for mockups and the like, however I feel that until WYSIWYG becomes standards compliant and appropriate for use in cross browser scenarios, it has a limited place in serious web development.

When last did you slap out a layout in dreamweaver? It is not the wysiwyg but the user that create invalid html, in much the same way as hard coding invalid code. If you know how to use the software, it will give you standards compliant code. If you don't know what u doing, it will give u invalid html, and therin the problem lies, not with the software.

denegibson · 04-23-2007, 04:52 AM

I think there's a difference between a web designer and a web developer.

Personally I code by hand, the tool I used to use most was Notepad++, though since I mostly use Quanta+ or TEA

Johnboat · 04-26-2007, 03:37 PM

To all the notepad lovers here. I just want to point out that I am currently reading Designing with Web Standard by Jeffery Zeldman and I just read a paragraph all about Dreamweaver and web standards and I can say that Dreamweaver does fully support web standards since the MX version.

Now I hand code more (almost 85% of the time) than I ever had in my life now adays but I still like to use dreamweaver because it makes designing a site much more efficient.

denegibson · 04-26-2007, 03:43 PM

I don't particularly like notepad though I just prefer to code by hand.

Also remember that a tool is only as good as the person using it.

<h1> · 04-26-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denegibson

Also remember that a tool is only as good as the person using it.

That's hit the nail on the head.

I would also like to add to what i've said, that although WYSIWYG may be more efficient, I find it hard to work with both the WYSIWYG and the generated code, like it's either making the entire site in Dreamweaver or making the entire site by hard coding, I can't do a combination of both.
With that said, I have resorted back to hard coding, as the code I create with CSS and divisions is so much more cleaner than tabular layouts, and is schemantically easier to work with. So that is my final decision, hard coding. I will still play around with Dreamweaber if ever that skill is needed in the "corporote web world", where time takes preference to quality, but otherwise i'd prefer creating better code at the end of the day