On 30 May 2007 04:45:48 -0700, EMAIL REMOVED wrote:

>DW writes bad web pages? I disagree.

So who wrote the 2 errors on your homepage? Did (as I suspect) DW slip
them in when you weren't looking, and _because_ you're using DW this
sort of thing is so isolated from you that you simply don't realise.

On May 30, 3:37 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 04:45:48 -0700, p...@paulwatt.info wrote:
>
> >DW writes bad web pages? I disagree.
>
> So who wrote the 2 errors on your homepage? Did (as I suspect) DW slip
> them in when you weren't looking, and _because_ you're using DW this
> sort of thing is so isolated from you that you simply don't realise.

errors?
one warning for a missing alt?

Gwin wrote:

> errors?
> one warning for a missing alt?

A missing alt attribute is not a warning -- it is an error.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 96 days, 16:06.]

Non-Intuitive Surnames
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/0...tive-surnames/

On May 31, 9:21 am, Toby A Inkster <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
wrote:
> Gwin wrote:
> > errors?
> > one warning for a missing alt?
>
> A missing alt attribute is not a warning -- it is an error.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS

Very debatable.

Plus, if using DW properly, soon as you paste in or inert an image, it
prompts you for an alt tag. If you forget when writing by hand, no
prompt. First time you notice anything is missing is when you
validate. You are far LESS likely to miss something in DW.

I can hand code X/HTML almost blindfolded, but DW is a m***ive
timesaver so I tend to build all sites in that (well, okay, I mostly
build sites in Flash these days).

On 31 May, 09:39, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:

> You are far more likely to make a mistake when hand coding.

I'm not advocating the pointy stick here, just a good editor.

Choose the right editor and you can have as in-code validation as you
could wish.

> DreamWeaver is a fantastic tool,

It's expensive, it's not free (my editors are), and you're paying a
lot of money to buy WYSIWYG you don't even appear to be using.

This thread has gone from:
"I need a WYSIWYG and I can't afford DW"
to
"Just use a text editor, they're better and they're free"
and now to
"If you use DW you can get a text editor _and_ all the fun of paying a
huge amount of money for it"


> DreamWeaver CS3 is even better, as you can copy and paste layers,
> images and selections directly from PhotoShop or Illustrator and it
> works out the rest for you.

Sounds awful. Even having Potatoshop in the office is one of the worst
things you can do to a web design shop. You're only one click away
from static .psd design briefs and that whole world of 2000-era
chopped-up-bitmap sites.


> One thing we rarely use in DW is WYSIWYkindaG layout; we work in code
> view.

So why not use one of the better text editors out there and save
yourself some money too?

I wrangle dev and build tools for a medium-sized Java shop doing
Agile. Maybe a hundred people who see code, three continents, vast
available budget to do it with. We very rarely use any dev tool we
spend over $10 on. Not because we're cheapskates (we don't have to be
if we don't need to), but becauuse the open source stuff is actually
the best product around.

On May 31, 10:57 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 31 May, 09:39, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:

> > DreamWeaver CS3 is even better, as you can copy and paste layers,
> > images and selections directly from PhotoShop or Illustrator and it
> > works out the rest for you.
>
> Sounds awful. Even having Potatoshop in the office is one of the worst
> things you can do to a web design shop. You're only one click away
> from static .psd design briefs and that whole world of 2000-era
> chopped-up-bitmap sites.

Not if you're a good designer. Anyone can make a mess given
professional tools, but only professionals using professional tools
make them sing and dance. All our sites start of as either Illustrator
or PhotoShop, be the end results Flash or HTML, DVD or print. Here's
an example;

I work up a layout for a client, and the client signs off the
PhotoShop documents. I then p*** this to another designer, who designs
a logo for me in Illustrator. The Illustrator document is embedded as
an editable smartobject inside of PhotoShop. I finish up the design,
so it to the client. The client wants the logo changing a bit. So I
have the other designer edit the Illustrator file. I don't need to do
anything else, the PhotoShop document updates the smart object all by
itself. I create a composit layer in PhotoShop with just the site
banner visible, containing the logo. Copy the selection, paste it into
a template layout (in CSS) that I have in DreamWeaver CS3. DreamWeaver
opens an import panel, and in two clicks the image is correctly sized
and saved into the dev copy of my site. Now at any point if the client
wants changes to either the layout or the logo, we can edit it and
have it updated in the site in a few minutes... saving LOTS of time
and h***le.

> > One thing we rarely use in DW is WYSIWYkindaG layout; we work in code
> > view.
>
> So why not use one of the better text editors out there and save
> yourself some money too?

Because most text editors wont let me build quick DB queries, layout
tables, or build my CSS for me. I can manage the entire site, all
elements, all media, from within DW AND share those resources across
and entire studio AND integrate it (including images) with CVS and
VersionCue for version control. I don't even need to think about it,
which is the way it should be -- I should need to worry about the
mechanics of the workflow; I'm a designer. Design is more important.

> I wrangle dev and build tools for a medium-sized Java shop doing
> Agile. Maybe a hundred people who see code, three continents, vast
> available budget to do it with. We very rarely use any dev tool we
> spend over $10 on. Not because we're cheapskates (we don't have to be
> if we don't need to), but becauuse the open source stuff is actually
> the best product around.

It's a real shame to think of all that time you are wasting then
Think of the money you could save in the long term.

On May 31, 11:23 am, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net>
wrote:

> It's a real shame to think of all that time you are wasting then
> Think of the money you could save in the long term.

Actually that's unfair. It depends on the job at hand; that defines
your workflow. I don't build epic sized applications, I build
multimedia stuff. When working on project that use Java, we tend to
use Eclipse. When we are working on .NET stuff we use VisualStudio.
The *front end* is always in DW though.

"Andy Dingley" <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote in message
news:EMAIL REMOVED...
> On 30 May 2007 04:45:48 -0700, EMAIL REMOVED wrote:
>
>>DW writes bad web pages? I disagree.
>
> So who wrote the 2 errors on your homepage? Did (as I suspect) DW slip
> them in when you weren't looking, and _because_ you're using DW this
> sort of thing is so isolated from you that you simply don't realise.
>

actually, that code wasn't written be me- its part of the banner ad for the
find madaline campain. fixed now. So you cant blame DW for that. Plus DW
doesnt add and code to my pages because i use it in code view.

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com

SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> an editable smartobject

I cringe every time I see something labeled "smart". It's often just
wishful thinking.

--
Berg

On May 31, 12:57 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> > an editable smartobject
>
> I cringe every time I see something labeled "smart". It's often just
> wishful thinking.
>
> --
> Berg

It's a bad name I think too. If you prefer, "#includes for graphics"