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.

+=-.
| Max Timchenko [MaxVT]
| [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
| (ICQ) 238-6792
|
| Freelance website and graphics designer
| Max Webdesign at http://maxwd.hypermart.net
|
| Editor - Graphics artist
| NOSPIN group
+=-.

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/staff.html