free web development software to teach web design

McGintyMcGoo

Greetings

If you were to teach a basic webdesign course to a class of students that had PCs but only had MS Office on them and Internet access (and no budget to buy anything else), what would you do? (no jokes please )

Would you use a online web creation wizard type site? MS Word (:eek:)??
A GUI is most definitely needed for these guys as they would need to do the minimum amount of coding (so text editors are a no go). The students do not plan on making a career out of this.

McGintyMcGoo

ianhobo

can you install other free software packages if you so choose?

If you can, i reckon microsoft visual web developer express edition would be good.
It free, for individual and commercial usage!

Goodshape

Mozilla SeaMonkey is an 'all in one' solution which includes Firefox type browser and decent visual HTML editor.

Winters

Notepad++ and a browser of their choice (or whatever is allowed on the machines).

Would never teach anyone using a GUI program. It leads to messy, bloated and just useless sites that do not work. If you *have* to sue a GUI then I would go with Seamonkey. Microsoft programs for web code just .. no, I cannot describe just how bad the code they output is.

If they are in any way interested in web design then (X)HTML code is the only way to go. Its not like html is hard.

nellyshark

Winters wrote: »

Notepad++ and a browser of their choice (or whatever is allowed on the machines).

Agreed

Axwell

How long do you have to teach it for? You could look at doing it by first showing them the examples above or using a non GUI version then downloading a free trial of Dreamweaver and showing them that so they get an idea of both methods. Im sure there are other free trials available of other software also

ianhobo

Winters wrote: »

Notepad++ and a browser of their choice (or whatever is allowed on the machines).

Would never teach anyone using a GUI program. It leads to messy, bloated and just useless sites that do not work. If you *have* to sue a GUI then I would go with Seamonkey. Microsoft programs for web code just .. no, I cannot describe just how bad the code they output is.

If they are in any way interested in web design then (X)HTML code is the only way to go. Its not like html is hard.

But the OP wants a GUI

I got the impression this was a class for a group of 16 year olds, just to give them the bare bones basics about what goes on?

The OP said they aren't going to pursue it long term, so would you not get "more" (quantity as opposed to quality ) by using some sort of WYSIWYG editor?

I do think that in the long run you are far better learning "by hand" as such.
But if its for a short or young class, this approach could loose favour VERY quickly!

Maybe the OP could tell us who its aimed at?

Winters

The level/experiance/age is very important as to weather to use a GUI or not. A GUI might be useful for a couple of classes so as they can see what they are doing before moving them into coding "by hand" so as they can get a greater feel and understanding of what they are doing.

Tbh, any one can write a word document, align up pictures and Save As -> HTML. The idea of a GUI/WYSIWYG editor is that you dont actually need any knoweldge or classes to be able to use it. Anyone who can use Word can make a webpage. This is why we use GUI/WYSIWYG editors in content management systems. So you dont need to know how to code to be able to make a webpage work.

But also, by going over some basic 'by hand' and using example basic CSS the students (if they are in that age category) might understand how bebo/myspace skinz work which they will love you forever

squibs

Deffo notepad. Explain high-level xhtml and css principles on the first night and show them nicely formatted example code for 2 really basic pages with some css styling. Modify the css and refresh both pages. Then show them the same document in word, and what the html looks like.

Do a poll.

Evict the neanderthals.

Failing that - look at NVU. It's free, but not being developed further. Kompozer is a slightly updated version. Both are open source wysiwyg editors, but IMHO they only serve to show that wysiwyg html editors don't work. Dreamweaver is getting there, but has a way to go (that'll be several hundred euro per seat, less with an educational version).

Seth Brundle

I had to do something before with advertising & PR groups. We used DW4. Maybe you could pick up a legal copy on ebay for pennies.

ianhobo

squibs wrote: »

Evict the neanderthals.

?

I'm sensing irony here.............

Just because somebody doesn't understand something immediately is no reason to "evict" them.
Rather than those who don't understand, it generally tends to be those who don't understand because of their un-willingness to participate and lack of effort who perform poorly. Those who don't understand but are willing participants always do end up "understanding"

mewso

Winters wrote: »

Microsoft programs for web code just .. no, I cannot describe just how bad the code they output is.

Not Visual Web Developer which produces standards compliant code, warns about accessibility issues and so on. I think people should learn web development/design using notepad too but I don't like ill-informed statements either. By all means point out that Word produces crap as does Frontpage but lets not make sweeping statements.

Winters

musician wrote: »

Not Visual Web Developer which produces standards compliant code, warns about accessibility issues and so on. I think people should learn web development/design using notepad too but I don't like ill-informed statements either. By all means point out that Word produces crap as does Frontpage but lets not make sweeping statements.

Thats strange for MS seeing as though not even Internet Explorer 8 will be in ****ing standards mode EVEN with a correct DOCTYPE. Your going to have to use a optional metatag. An MS program producing proper standards complient code is laughable when their browser doesnt even properly support it.

Anyone I know or have ever worked with has never used a Microsoft program like 'Visual Web Developer' to develop sites. A basic text document editor has always been perfect. Much more control of html and css which is what you want. I dislike having to spend half my days fixing site cutup's and removing unnecessary code

M450

I tought myself the basics using a nice combination of notepad++, firefox browser and this simple tutorial:

http://www.w3schools.com/html/

Easy peasy... although it is very basic!

nellyshark

SeaMokey?

mewso

Winters wrote: »

Anyone I know or have ever worked with has never used a Microsoft program like 'Visual Web Developer' to develop sites.

They probably don't develop .net sites then but saying everyone you know has not used it does not qualify you as an expert on it. VWD is of course aimed at asp.net developers but it works fine for developing ordinary html pages. It's free. Check it out. Nothings perfect but VWD is a good product MS or not. I'm not discussing IE here. If you want to discuss the failings of IE then fine I won't argue with you.

yeraulone

musician wrote: »

Nothings perfect but VWD is a good product MS or not.

+1

squibs

Quote:
Originally Posted by squibs
Evict the neanderthals.

?

I'm sensing irony here.............

Just because somebody doesn't understand something immediately is no reason to "evict" them.
Rather than those who don't understand, it generally tends to be those who don't understand because of their un-willingness to participate and lack of effort who perform poorly. Those who don't understand but are willing participants always do end up "understanding"

No irony there - ask Alanis. Just being a little tongue in cheek. I think we're both in agreement about students not understanding. There are two possible conclusions from the demo - "this one is easier (I'm bored)" and "that one will save me time and grief in the long run (tell me more)".

My point is that a side by side demonstration will quickly and clearly illustrate the relative pros and cons of xhtml/css from-the-ground-up and Word. You can cobble something together very quickly in Word, but by the same token, you can stack bricks much quicker if you dont bother with cement.

If it was one class, I'd say stick with NVU or Frontpage (still wouldn't touch word), but the OP is giving a course. The basics can be taught, and the students can be designing basic but clean sites, and understand what is going on, in a course running about 8 weeks.

With something like NVU, working with wysywig, small change can completely break the layout. Students won't understand what the underlying code is doing and the undo has a nasty habit of not working.

egan007

Open source alterantives to dreamweaver

http://www.osalt.com/dreamweaver

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=dreamweaver+alternative&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

seamus

squibs wrote: »

If it was one class, I'd say stick with NVU or Frontpage (still wouldn't touch word), but the OP is giving a course. The basics can be taught, and the students can be designing basic but clean sites, and understand what is going on, in a course running about 8 weeks.

This is kind of my feeling on it too. Doing the site in Word (for example), isn't teaching the basics of web design. What you're doing is showing people how to write a document in word and save it as HTML.

I think X\HTML is one of the odder document formats. RTF and the open document formats would be a nightmare to author from behind. HTML though is easy to author from a WYSIWYG editor initially, but if you want to make a change later on, best of luck. The efficiency of using a WYSIWYG editor reduces drastically, the more content you add. It might seem counter-intuitive, but most visual tools just don't seem to be capable of handling complex layouts. Or perhaps more correctly, without seeing the code behind, it's very difficult to know exactly how your new object will affect the resto of the page.

Perhaps it's because web pages are no longer static content - they're generally expected to be interactive to some degree. Or perhaps it's because they contain a large amount of invisible elements - empty divs and pixel gifs - that they're not suited to visual authoring.