Max,
I said that FP was a GOOD product. I have never said that it is a perfect
product or that it is the only one that people should buy. In my original
post on this topic I mentioned several others and I said that Hot Dog is a
good tool also. I was impressed with the features and capabilities of Hot
Dog, I just didn't like all the silly dog related icons and the barking
noises they used (maybe they have changed that since I last looked). They
were cute and I thought it was clever.... for about 5 minutes, then I
realized that I before I could use a button I had to stop and think about
what the picture represented.... hello uninstaller, goodbye Hot Dog. What
sounded good in the write up wasn't so good when I realized that the program
was forcing me to learn a whole new "picture language". before I could use
it.
And that's why I've been asking Kevin to supply some URLs so I/we can see
what areal world GoLive page looks like. It is like the old saying that "a
picture is worth a thousand words" I can read all day but seeing the
finished product
is much more enlightening. <grin>
As I said before, I have no experience with that product and can only go by
what is documented on their web site. And what I saw in the GoLive code.
There were many different blank gifs used. IMG SRC tags used names
beginning with blank1.gif all the way up to blank33.gif. Which is why I
assumed that it created many different sized images. I tried viewing
several of those gif files to see what was different, but it is hard to see
a file that is a ....... blank...... gif. <grin>
BTW, in experimenting with FP 2000 I have found that it can also place
images using pixel addressing. But it uses a DIV STYLE tag with x and y
coordinates. This is nice, because there are no blank gifs and no tables
needed, BUT now the "surfer" must use a version 4 browser (MS -or- NC). So I
don't think I will use this feature because I do not like forcing people to
upgrade thier browser software (even if it is free).
So how 'bout it Kevin?
Will you please post the links to some of the sites that you have designed
and published?
Jim Meagher
=====
Micro Solutions Consulting Member of The HTML Writers Guild
http://www.ezy.net/~microsol International Webmasters Association
410-543-8996 MS Site Builder Network - Level 2 member
=====
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Timchenko <>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] Good HTML Editor
> Hello Jim,
>
> Monday, September 27, 1999, 12:34:01 AM, you wrote:
>
> JM> Some might argue that GoLive gives more precise control of graphic
> JM> placement, but when you consider that ALL graphical editors must
ultimately
> JM> reduce the file to HTML (which is a MARKUP language not a LAYOUT
> JM> language)...
>
> Some of them do (by the way, HTML has a lot of layout elements; just
> consider all those Deprecated tags in HTML4 specification). But there
> are already editors that place objects with CSS, and their number will
> grow.
>
> JM> ...they ALL end up with a table of rows and columns. The only
difference is
> JM> that GL uses various sized blank gifs for padding where most systems
use the
> JM> NBSP. In my mind, that small amount of extra precision is not worth
the
> JM> trade off. All those different sized blank gifs just add to the
complexity
> JM> of the HTML code AND....blank or not, gifs take more time to download
than
> JM> four character text commands.
>
> Let me disagree. In good design, pixel-wise control of objects' position
> matters. Only the transparent GIFs and tables can achieve this <at
> present>. Try changing a font size in any of nbsp-formatted pages...
You'll
> see what I mean. By the way, only one GIF is actually used - a
> transparent 1x1 GIF, resized by browser.
>
> A good editor would give a choice of position methods - either using
> the nbsp or the gifs...or even CSS. Not FP nor GoLive do. And as for the
> complexity - what is more difficult, reading 20-30 nbsp-s or a single
> 500-pixel GIF bar? And the GIF takes only 47 bytes...
>
> JM> All versions of FP have built-in hoverbuttons.
> JM> GL has "step by step instructions for creating your own
> JM> rollover buttons"
>
> And with Notepad, it is a quite simple cut-and-paste operation. Of
> course, built-in is good, but it also would not let you to create a
> "monitor" picture, for example - you have a premade dialog box,
> and you probably can't add extra HTML in the dialog and have to go to
> 'source edit mode' (i don't know how's it called in FP) anyway.
>
> In some way, using "built-in" features is alike to using free clipart.
> Anyone knows these free images by heart, and if one wants to draw
> something by himself, he'll have to learn from the start. It makes life
> easier at the beginning but at some stage one realizes that he can't
> achieve anything more on this level, can't advance.
>
> JM> I'm sorry Kevin, but I just didn't see anything that demonstrates GL
is a
> JM> superior product. In fact, it seems to have less features for a whole
lot
> JM> more money.
>
> FP is not perfect too. But I nevertheless agree that FP is a good
> package for website management and construction - take its workgroup
> features for example - they're almost as good as of specialized
> applications. But GoLive is not bad too. And Netscape Composer works
> for many people who don't make complex sites. And Notepad ("no one
> messes with my HTML code" approach). And SiteDesigner. Arachnophilia.
> HotMetal. And don't forget the HotDog...
>
> The number of these programs is growing. Almost all of them have a
> trial version - 30 days, at least. My advice is to download them one
> at a time and evaluate the features. Eventually, one will find the
> program, or combination of them, that fits him and his site best.
> That's my advice to the author of the original post.
>
Curious about the people moderating your
messages? Visit our staff web site:
http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html
|
