Coding HTML by hand versus using Dreamweaver or Frontpage
Discussion
Right, for those who say it's faster to code by hand, please show me a page you have created by typing in the HTML and how long it took you. I will try to create the same page in Dreamweaver and I will be honest about how long it took me.
Or, simply write up a description of a page, and we can try to code it manually or using Dreamweaver/Frontpage and post how long it took us.
I am an intermediate-level Dreamweaver user. Nothing special. I barely understand CSS, and the whole point is...I don't need to. I can create and format text, place pictures, links, and tables, and modify the cells of a table.
I don't really know Frontpage, but I am sure I could muddle my way through it. It's a Microsoft product so I usually give it a wide berth.
I am not talking about the perfectly optimised code--just stuff that works.
Or, simply write up a description of a page, and we can try to code it manually or using Dreamweaver/Frontpage and post how long it took us.
I am an intermediate-level Dreamweaver user. Nothing special. I barely understand CSS, and the whole point is...I don't need to. I can create and format text, place pictures, links, and tables, and modify the cells of a table.
I don't really know Frontpage, but I am sure I could muddle my way through it. It's a Microsoft product so I usually give it a wide berth.
I am not talking about the perfectly optimised code--just stuff that works.
Ah, this old chestnut 
I used to roll my eyes at people who claimed to code in Notepad but having used Frontpage and Dreamweaver for quite a long time, I've now joined those that code by hand.
Pages like this:
www.pistonheads.com/sales/list.asp?s=314
just wouldn't be possible in Dreamweaver without understanding CSS. If you've gone that far, you start to get frustrated with the WYSIWYG tools.
I used to roll my eyes at people who claimed to code in Notepad but having used Frontpage and Dreamweaver for quite a long time, I've now joined those that code by hand.
Pages like this:
www.pistonheads.com/sales/list.asp?s=314
just wouldn't be possible in Dreamweaver without understanding CSS. If you've gone that far, you start to get frustrated with the WYSIWYG tools.
So, how long would it take you to code this by hand, versus using Dreamweaver (both methods with CSS)?
I am presuming that the panels along the top, bottom, left and right are include fields--if so, ignore those. That leaves the middle. Which seems to be a table or two. Assuming you had the style sheets available, I am thinking it's still far, far quicker to create the page in Dreamweaver?
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Wednesday 12th April 18:04
I am presuming that the panels along the top, bottom, left and right are include fields--if so, ignore those. That leaves the middle. Which seems to be a table or two. Assuming you had the style sheets available, I am thinking it's still far, far quicker to create the page in Dreamweaver?
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Wednesday 12th April 18:04
I have alway coded HTML by hand. There again I come from a programming background not a web development graphics background and I dont do much web stuff. The problem if find with Dreamwever is that it creates very cluttered HTML. Take a look at www.sensible.co.uk can you do that in Dreamweaver? Note it does not use tables for layout and I would want to be able to do that in Dreamweaver.
Hmm, looking at that page, it seems that each line is a link to a new page. Dead easy to do. The surrounding stuff is just includes. The cascading menu would have to be imported javascript code, which is easy to do.
Another way of doing it would be to design buttons and have them linked to each other.
All in all, yes, it's easy to do in Dreamweaver. I would use a table to control the layout.
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Wednesday 12th April 18:37
Another way of doing it would be to design buttons and have them linked to each other.
All in all, yes, it's easy to do in Dreamweaver. I would use a table to control the layout.
>> Edited by orgasmicliving!! on Wednesday 12th April 18:37
Coding a single page may or may not be faster in Dreamweaver vs. doing it by hand, that's not really the point.
I have a number of simple templates that I use, each of which can be customised using a single style sheet. In this way I can very quickly generate a site using an existing template.
Thus far, it's no different to dreamweaver, and timing wise it's down to the individual - I can type at something like 60-70wpm which obviously means I can hand code a lot faster than someone who pecks away with two index fingers.
The argument is not just one of speed - it's one of flexibility and ultimately of control. Dreamweaver will always do things the way it wants to - and that might not be the way I want it - what then?
For instance, I no longer use tables if I can avoid it. Certainly not for controlling layout. My code is lighter, faster and more efficient as a result - to some that's bragging rights but not to me, it's important.
Without exception, every single site I see that makes me think "wow, that looks great" has been written by hand using CSS.
Dreamweaver is a great product if it does what you need, but I strongly believe that if you are a web designer by trade (which as it happens it's not my primary source of income) then Dreamweaver limits what you can do, and once you learn HTML and CSS, dreamweaver does not offer any workflow or efficiency advantages.
All my (not so humble I guess) opinion, but one that's backed up by the experience of almost every web designer I've encountered.
I have a number of simple templates that I use, each of which can be customised using a single style sheet. In this way I can very quickly generate a site using an existing template.
Thus far, it's no different to dreamweaver, and timing wise it's down to the individual - I can type at something like 60-70wpm which obviously means I can hand code a lot faster than someone who pecks away with two index fingers.
The argument is not just one of speed - it's one of flexibility and ultimately of control. Dreamweaver will always do things the way it wants to - and that might not be the way I want it - what then?
For instance, I no longer use tables if I can avoid it. Certainly not for controlling layout. My code is lighter, faster and more efficient as a result - to some that's bragging rights but not to me, it's important.
Without exception, every single site I see that makes me think "wow, that looks great" has been written by hand using CSS.
Dreamweaver is a great product if it does what you need, but I strongly believe that if you are a web designer by trade (which as it happens it's not my primary source of income) then Dreamweaver limits what you can do, and once you learn HTML and CSS, dreamweaver does not offer any workflow or efficiency advantages.
All my (not so humble I guess) opinion, but one that's backed up by the experience of almost every web designer I've encountered.
I'm not quite sure of the point of this thread - there are horses for courses, and tools like Dreamweaver are not universal solutions.
If it floats your boat, fine - not me personally, but then coding web pages is not a competition.
Personally I like C#/ASP.NET, although it does make hosting a little less competitive. A web site we manage required a new button on the toolbar. The design house had coded up stuff in Photoshop or somesuch and sent us a whole pile of images - but the toolbar was already generically coded in C#, so it was a 1-line addition to put the new entry in.
5 seconds. Beat that in Dreamweaver
Structure over instancing every time...
If it floats your boat, fine - not me personally, but then coding web pages is not a competition.
Personally I like C#/ASP.NET, although it does make hosting a little less competitive. A web site we manage required a new button on the toolbar. The design house had coded up stuff in Photoshop or somesuch and sent us a whole pile of images - but the toolbar was already generically coded in C#, so it was a 1-line addition to put the new entry in.
5 seconds. Beat that in Dreamweaver
Structure over instancing every time...
orgasmicliving!! said:
So, how long would it take you to code this by hand, versus using Dreamweaver (both methods with CSS)?
I'd do it quicker by hand.
Don't get me wrong, Dreamweaver's a great tool but for anything complex I'll now do it by hand as I know what is required and the WYSIWYG bit isn't actually doing anything for me other than getting in the way of what I want to achieve.
Also, being a database driven page it's easier to code it by hand in XHTML and drag the data in.
Bah! How many years did you spend in school for C? How many hours did it take you to learn HTML?
I can do 90% of the same stuff in Dreamweaver after 30 minutes. And when C# or HTML gets superceded by the next new thing, then how many hours will have been wasted? Sure, you will retain some design principles and algorithm design and optimisation techniques, but the time invested in learning syntax =++ etc., will have been completely wasted.
PetrolTed makes a valid point--once you get fast enough, it gets in the way. Fair enough, but we are talking about getting up to running speed in the first place. For that, Dreamweaver is a better tool than trying to learn HTML. I suppose once you do it long enough, if you look at the code, you will pick up the HTML and then you can shed your Dreamweaver training wheels. But until then, trying to write HTML by hand is like trying to start off on a Ducati when you don't even know how to ride.
Possibly we are looking at different sides of the same coin.
I can do 90% of the same stuff in Dreamweaver after 30 minutes. And when C# or HTML gets superceded by the next new thing, then how many hours will have been wasted? Sure, you will retain some design principles and algorithm design and optimisation techniques, but the time invested in learning syntax =++ etc., will have been completely wasted.
PetrolTed makes a valid point--once you get fast enough, it gets in the way. Fair enough, but we are talking about getting up to running speed in the first place. For that, Dreamweaver is a better tool than trying to learn HTML. I suppose once you do it long enough, if you look at the code, you will pick up the HTML and then you can shed your Dreamweaver training wheels. But until then, trying to write HTML by hand is like trying to start off on a Ducati when you don't even know how to ride.
Possibly we are looking at different sides of the same coin.
orgasmicliving!! said:
Bah! How many years did you spend in school for C? How many hours did it take you to learn HTML?
I can do 90% of the same stuff in Dreamweaver after 30 minutes. And when C# or HTML gets superceded by the next new thing, then how many hours will have been wasted? Sure, you will retain some design principles and algorithm design and optimisation techniques, but the time invested in learning syntax =++ etc., will have been completely wasted.
PetrolTed makes a valid point--once you get fast enough, it gets in the way. Fair enough, but we are talking about getting up to running speed in the first place. For that, Dreamweaver is a better tool than trying to learn HTML. I suppose once you do it long enough, if you look at the code, you will pick up the HTML and then you can shed your Dreamweaver training wheels. But until then, trying to write HTML by hand is like trying to start off on a Ducati when you don't even know how to ride.
Possibly we are looking at different sides of the same coin.
Again I'll repeat, I don't know what your point is. You like Dreamweaver, and you think you can do what you want in it quickly? Fine. Off you go. It's not a competition.
I've 25+ years experience of software engineering. (Not a brag, just a fact). The principles there are of abstraction, reuse, information modelling, and these happen to be applicable to a lot of web design issues, rather than concentrating on laying out pictures.
I've used tools in many domains where there are WYSYWIG approaches to design, and language approaches to design. Both are valid - but languages are more powerful. The ideal is to have an environment where you can use both. Unfortunately if you try and switch between code and WYSYWIG in Dreamweaver you're not going to like it...
Size Nine Elm said:
I've 25+ years experience of software engineering. (Not a brag, just a fact). The principles there are of abstraction, reuse, information modelling, and these happen to be applicable to a lot of web design issues, rather than concentrating on laying out pictures.
I wouldnt claim to be good at web design, graphics etc. But given a graphical layout and the UI rules I can produce it. What I Dislike about dreamweaver and just about every other code generator I have ever come across be it C++, Assembler etc is the total inelegancy of the code produced. I have alway worked by the rule that if it cant be easily understood and modifed by hand after the code is generated then the tool is not useable.
plasticpig said:
I've 25+ years experience of software engineering. (Not a brag, just a fact). The principles there are of abstraction, reuse, information modelling, and these happen to be applicable to a lot of web design issues, rather than concentrating on laying out pictures.
I wouldnt claim to be good at web design, graphics etc. But given a graphical layout and the UI rules I can produce it. What I Dislike about dreamweaver and just about every other code generator I have ever come across be it C++, Assembler etc is the total inelegancy of the code produced. I have alway worked by the rule that if it cant be easily understood and modifed by hand after the code is generated then the tool is not useable.
Indeed. Typially I find GUI tools are great for prototyping. You can quickly chuck stuff around, not get too bothered about the functionality or the details. And for some projects, the GUI tool prototype is actually good enough to use as a deliverable.
But not for real work...
Undoubtedly you can throw a page together in Dreamweaver, or indeed Frontpage, quicker than a developer can hand code a page using HTML/CSS, but I think you're missing several crucial points.
Firstly cross-browser compatibility. Although this isn't the issue it used to be in the IE/Netscape days, there are still some subtle differences between the way that IE and Firefox works, especially when it comes to DHTML.
Reuse - a page is a page, but very few pages are built from scratch, most are in a template form and incorporate elements from code libraries built on previous projects by other developers.
Maintenance. This is fine if you are using Dreamweaver and only Dreamweaver, but what if you want to add dynamic elements or hand-coded segments to pages?
Search engine optimisation. Dreamwearver code is not as efficient as hand written code. Your search engine positioning will suffer.
Firstly cross-browser compatibility. Although this isn't the issue it used to be in the IE/Netscape days, there are still some subtle differences between the way that IE and Firefox works, especially when it comes to DHTML.
Reuse - a page is a page, but very few pages are built from scratch, most are in a template form and incorporate elements from code libraries built on previous projects by other developers.
Maintenance. This is fine if you are using Dreamweaver and only Dreamweaver, but what if you want to add dynamic elements or hand-coded segments to pages?
Search engine optimisation. Dreamwearver code is not as efficient as hand written code. Your search engine positioning will suffer.
ATG said:
Pah. Next thing you lot'll be saying is that you use prefab web servers like IIS and Apache. Socket code written in 6502 assembler. It's the only way.
Fond as I am of the 6502 instruction set - my final year project for my degree was based around it, long time ago now though
- it wouldn't be my first choice for writing a socket layer and webserver. plasticpig said:
What I Dislike about dreamweaver and just about every other code generator I have ever come across be it C++, Assembler etc is the total inelegancy of the code produced.
While saying a positive thing about a microsoft product goes against the grain, MASM does produce machine code that matches the assembly your write. Occasionally it will go off on flights of fancy (LEA can upset it), but it's generally pretty reliable.
MS Visual C/C++ is another story, it writes dreadful assembly language.
I use the hybrid approach - I code by hand but in Frontpage. Why? Frontpage has a great CSS facility (and I use it quite a bit). I also like Frontpage's ability to display the code (the color coding scheme). It keeps me from making stupid mistakes such as forgetting endquotes on a style tag, etc. I also do a lot of php stuff and since I've associated php pages with Frontpage, it makes editing php a snap.
I hardly ever go into the WYSIWYG section of FP any more. No need.
ErnestM
I hardly ever go into the WYSIWYG section of FP any more. No need.
ErnestM
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff