Enygma Registered User
#31

I'd disagree there adam. If the ratio of dynamic:static now is 9:1 and say it was 3:1 six or seven years ago, think about what it's going to be in another few years. There are probably going to be very few static HTML sites(if any).

Besides who would you rather hire? Someone who knows HTML/XHTML inside out or someone that knows how to use Dreamweaver and a little HTML.

I'd suggest to anyone, if they want a career in Web Design/Development then don't bother with a WYSIWYG for a while, get to know HTML to the point where you don't need a WYSIWYG at all. If you just want to put up a website use DW or FP.

dahamsta Banned
#32

I'd disagree there adam. If the ratio of dynamic:static now is 9:1 and say it was 3:1 six or seven years ago, think about what it's going to be in another few years. There are probably going to be very few static HTML sites(if any).

Actually, I was saying the ratio was the other way around. Think about it, the majority of sites out there are static. The majority of webmasters don't understand HTML, never mind XML. Sure, Yahoo! and MSN get the most hits, but the "true" Internet is still absolutely enormous.

Besides who would you rather hire? Someone who knows HTML/XHTML inside out or someone that knows how to use Dreamweaver and a little HTML.

This is going to sound like horseputty, but it's not - I honestly don't care. As long as they can produce results and are willing to learn how to work with their counterparts in programming, they'll get a job with me. Design should be separated from programming anyway.

I'd suggest to anyone, if they want a career in Web Design/Development then don't bother with a WYSIWYG for a while, get to know HTML to the point where you don't need a WYSIWYG at all. If you just want to put up a website use DW or FP.

That's /kind of/ what I was saying, but I don't think telling people not to use WYSIWYG is constructive. I learned HTML from Netscape Composer. I learned how to /correct/ it out of curiousity. WYSIWYG is a tool, just like Notepad or vi. If it accelerates productivity, get to know it, it's your friend. Being a purist is all well and good, but if we all relied on it, we wouldn't have half the web.

adam

1 person has thanked this post
Enygma Registered User
#33

but if we all relied on it, we wouldn't have half the web.

And this is a good thing because.....

Oh and vi is *NOT* a tool


Don't mind me, I'm just kidding.

#34

Originally posted by dahamsta
Actually, I was saying the ratio was the other way around. Think about it, the majority of sites out there are static. The majority of webmasters don't understand HTML, never mind XML. Sure, Yahoo! and MSN get the most hits, but the "true" Internet is still absolutely enormous.


Fairly immaterial to the point really. If you consider Tripod and Geocities sites to be the “true” Internet, fair enough. But they don’t put food on the table.

As I said already, I'd consider a WYSIWYG adequate for a hobbyist or one time developer, but not if you have any ambition in the field. Reliance on such tools will ultimately limit not only your skill base, but also your understanding of Internet development. You may be able to go for £200 - £1,000 HTML sites, but you’ll never get even the £40k sites, let alone sites for blue-chips that still bring in up to half a million pounds plus, even today.

Ambitous? Perhaps. But you won’t get a job in one of the firms that do those types of sites either. You’ll either end up in a design firm that does WebDev on the side or as a freelancer, being squeezed at all sides due to the ease of entry into this market. You won’t have an edge.

Above all, you’ll never be able to give that extra functionality for a client unless someone else does it, or even have a true understanding of the client-server model.

Years ago, I remember a Dreamweaver freelancer who proudly showed me his password protected ASP site, produced using Drumbeat 2000 (forerunner to Ultradev). The password protected bit was done in client-side JavaScript... he just couldn’t get his head round the whole client-side vs. server-side thing, even after I showed him how easy it was to hack. Why would he need to? Dreamweaver had always hidden all that techie stuff from him.

Design should be separated from programming anyway.

I agree. Completely. Designers should deliver the screens as layered PhotoShop images to a junior (HTML) programmer to cut up and code up – by hand. Slower, but optimised, especially if server-side scripting is added to it.

That's /kind of/ what I was saying, but I don't think telling people not to use WYSIWYG is constructive.

Perhaps I was being a bit purist, but the danger with WYSIWYG’s is they’re the easy shortcut. A frightening number of developers never progress from them as a result.

If you’re looking for the quick fix, use one by all means, if you’re going for the long haul, then I’d advise against a WYSIWYG, but to go for a text based tool such as WebSpinner or EditPlus2.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!