|
Grex > Web > #6: Tools for Creating Web Pages | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Tools for Creating Web Pages
| 
Mar 2 23:13 UTC 2007 |
For those of you who make web pages - what tools do you use?
|
| 22 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 22:
|
Mar 2 23:16 UTC 2007 |
I use Emacs. It has a *TERRIFIC* nxml-mode for editing XHTML and a
reasonable css-mode for editing CSS. I also use Firefox's web-developer
extension for trying out various CSS options. (You can edit CSS and see
the effect instantly.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 2 of 22:
|
Mar 2 23:41 UTC 2007 |
Does emacs have an ftp extension for editing files on remote websites?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 22:
|
Mar 3 02:20 UTC 2007 |
Can the Pope play Towers of Hanoi?
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 22:
|
Mar 3 13:04 UTC 2007 |
Re #2: Never used one, but it seems like a natural thing that somebody
would have implemented, and a Google search indicates that remote editing
extensions to Emacs exist. See e.g. Jeremy Zawodny's blog post on "Tramp:
Remote File Editing in Emacs".
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000983.html
Re #3: Pffffttt!!!!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 5 of 22:
|
Mar 3 16:05 UTC 2007 |
I use vi(m).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 22:
|
Mar 3 22:22 UTC 2007 |
This item was started in part because I asked about Composers for web
pages that require no knowledge of HTML. Dreamweaver was suggested. That,
however, costs $400! I have used the free Netscape Composer quite a bit
for web pages for several organizations. From the standpoint of creating
just an informative newsletter for web posting, without many
bells-and-whistles, it is just fine. It has some features, though, that I
would like more control over, such as line length. What else is available?
I sort of look at Composers as I do WORD. Noone writes WORD documents
inserting all the control codes by hand. We all use a WORD Composer - MS
WORD. Why will this not be the future of web pages?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 7 of 22:
|
Mar 4 03:41 UTC 2007 |
Well, Word costs about the same. Try using your faculty discount to get
software from Computer Stores.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 22:
|
Mar 4 03:46 UTC 2007 |
Good point on the cost of WORD - but of course it has much more utility to
many more people than does a Composer. Still Netscape Composter IS free, and
makes nice pages. Somewhere between free and $400 would appear to be a good
price.
Speaking of my faculty discount - MS Office X M costs $10. Dreamweaver is not
offered.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 9 of 22:
|
Mar 4 04:07 UTC 2007 |
If you're looking to create really slick websites, you need to know HTML
along with javascript, CSS, and probably a good CGI language.
Dreamweaver gets you close to not having to know these things by hiding
them beneath it's own interface. If you don't learn HTML/JS/CSS/CGI, you
would still need to learn Dreamweaver.
Dreamweaver is for professional web design, and is priced accordingly.
If you want to just post information to the web, most office programs
export to HTML.
I think the future will improve things. The idea is to get to a point
where the substance and formating of a webpage are completely seperate
such that substance can be created and published with a consistent format.
|
eprom
|
|
response 10 of 22:
|
Mar 4 16:43 UTC 2007 |
As far as a WYSIWYG program, I really liked Netscape Composer. I've
played around with various demo versions of Dreamweaver and haven't
been too impressed (for the cost). Probably hands down the worst of
the bunch is MS Frontpage. If you look at the HTML code after you
built a webpage, it looks like garbage. I deleted that POS off my
computer and did a defrag, just to make sure it was over-written.
I just use notepad or pico, then alt-tab over to a browser and refresh
the page to see how I like the changes. I used to use just plain HTML,
but Cascading Style Sheets have made designing and re-editing webpages
a breeze. The only book related to web design I keep around now, is the
O'reilly "CSS Pocket Reference".
I disagree with nate, I think JS, CGI and Flash are very much optional
for creating a spiffy website.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 11 of 22:
|
Mar 4 16:52 UTC 2007 |
> I deleted that POS off my computer and did a defrag, just to make sure
> it was over-written.
For some reason I now have a picture in my head of you beating the crap
out of a copier with a baseball bat. :-)
> I think JS, CGI and Flash are very much optional for creating a spiffy
> website
Maybe we have a difference of opinion in what constitutes "spiffy". :-P
|
kingjon
|
|
response 12 of 22:
|
Mar 4 19:32 UTC 2007 |
I agree with the last of #10: Javascript, Flash, or CGI are IMO optional at
best for creating a website I'd want to look at. In fact, for me they are
counter-productive to that effect.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 22:
|
Mar 4 20:07 UTC 2007 |
Okay. Any have any spiffy websites that they view on a regular basis
that do not use Javascript, Flash, or CGI?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 14 of 22:
|
Mar 5 00:42 UTC 2007 |
Well, as I half-implied in #12, "spiffy" to my mind either a) is synonymous
with "minimalistic" (like the Grex web page if it weren't so cluttered) or b)
isn't a compliment.
|
glenda
|
|
response 15 of 22:
|
Mar 5 06:58 UTC 2007 |
Re #6: I got the full Macromedia Suite for under $200. Education rates, I
had STeve pick it up for me at the MSU bookstore, but that seemed to be the
normal cost for the education version.
I prefer to do the raw html in either notepad or wordpad, but do use
Dreamweaver when I am going to be do fancier stuff and then edit the code.
I do most of my tables using percentages so that they don't force sideways
scrolling. Dreamweaver wants to make tables and cells fixed pixel widths,
so I have to change them all after I get the basic setup the way I want it.
It has a few other quirks that I usually change as well. I have used other
tools, but prefer Dreamweaver when I go that route.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 22:
|
Mar 5 18:03 UTC 2007 |
(Continuing with the drift for a bit...)
Re resp:13 and related - It all hinges on the deinition of "spiffy",
which according to answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/spiffy)
means "Smart in appearance or dress; stylish", or in hacker slang, "Said
of programs having a pretty, clever, or exceptionally well-designed
interface."
If one's definition of "smart in appearance" means "displaying effects
achievable only with Javascript and Flash" then of course, any spiffy
site would have to use those technologies. But my concept of "smart in
appearance" is broad enough to include sites like The World Wide Web
Consortium (http://www.w3.org), which doesn't use any Javascript or
Flash at all as far as I can tell but which has a nice appearance and an
interface that makes for easy navigation.
|