Web Site programming

[hodgy]

There's a lot of anti-WYSIWYG going on here. Let's not forget that the problem is not with the WYSIWYG idea itself but with the failure of web development tools to deliver it.

WYSIWYG is perfectly viable (and essential) in application GUI development - nobody would expect to code up the layout of a Swing or .Net form.

On the internet: for historical reasons we are saddled with 'markup language', of one kind or another, which does not sit easily with WYSIWYG. If I am composing a user experience I really do not want to worry about document formatting and structure (HTML), I want to just put images and controls where I need them to be. Today this is not straightforward.

It turns out that *ML (e.g. XML) is more useful for information exchange (i.e. systems integration) than it is for making nice GUIs. Conversely, *ML of any kind is not best suited for making functionally rich applications.

Markup language, by its nature deals with document structure first and foremost. Internet applications inherited *ML as the default GUI but that does not mean that it is suitable for today's internet applications.

For this reason we have seen the development and proliferation of rich technologies like ActiveX, Applet and Flash. IMO, *ML is an internet legacy that will eventually go away or be fenced back into its comfort zone.

The alternative is that someone develops designer interfaces that are WYSIWYG and are easy to use, genuinely hiding the underlying *ML. Personally I think that *ML will eventually die as a GUI media although its offspring (e.g. XML) will (rightly) live on as integration protocols.

 

[six7s]

There's a lot of anti-WYSIWYG going on here. Let's not forget that the problem is not with the WYSIWYG idea itself but with the failure of web development tools to deliver it.

Curious twist

You seem to be acknowledging that, with regard to the web, browsers, etc, no WYSIWYG apps actually exist yet, but then go on to say

If I am composing a user experience I really do not want to worry about document formatting and structure (HTML), I want to just put images and controls where I need them to be

And you can

Simply create your own interface. The FSM only knows how succesful you'll be, but you can have a go

However, if you want to avoid reinventing the wheel and rely on browsers (aka User Agents), then you must be - if not worried - at least concerned about the multitude of interfaces that can be used to view your work

On the internet: for historical reasons we are saddled with 'markup language', of one kind or another, which does not sit easily with WYSIWYG.

I assume you mean on the world wide web, an invention accredited to Tim Berners-Lee who, as a the director of the w3c, is seemingly committed to the development of HTML4 (and 5), yep, mark-up languages... concerned with CONTENT, not with PRESENTATION (that's what CSS is for) and not for behaviour (that's what client and/or server side scripting languages are for)

For the rest of the (non www) net, you can use whatever you like

Internet applications inherited *ML as the default GUI

This sounds impressive, until you realise its meaningless

A mark up language is no more a Graphical User Interface than an alphabet is a poem

 

[Earthborn]

Let's not forget that the problem is not with the WYSIWYG idea itself but with the failure of web development tools to deliver it.

No, the problem is that WYSIWYG is a concept that does not apply to webpages, as it is a concept originally from applications that were intended for making documents for print. Perhaps a better term would be WYSOSIWYGOP: "What You See On Screen Is What You'll Get On Paper". It works for anything that will have a fixed lay-out, uninfluenced and uninterpreted by the hardware with which it is delivered to the reader.

Webpages (and GUIs too) are very different. A webdesigner can't actually control what the reader will see on his/her screen. Any attempt to control it will result in something that is not readable to at least some subsection of the audience. Whether what appears on screen resembles what the webdesigner intended it to look depends on the user's settings, browser, screensize and other factors. It's WYSMNAABWSES: "What You See May Not At All Be What Someone Else Sees", which is why a WYSIWYG webeditor is a flawed concept from the start. A webpage lay-out can only be a suggestion of what it might look like to a (hopefully) large number of people, but the user's computer and the user decide what it will actually look like to them. WYSIWYS: What You See Is What You Suggest. The webdesigner has no ultimate control over what it will look like.

That's why it is important to seperate the lay-out from the content. For print, it is less crucial because content and lay-out are both blots of ink on paper. But for webpages there may be a myriad of ways in which someone wants to use the information on it, from tiny to big screens, from low to high resolutions, various aspect ratios, or perhaps no screen at all, from primitive to sophisticated browsers. It is the task of the webdesigner to design the websites in such a way that it can be rendered in many different ways and still be understood by the person trying to get to the content.

 

[six7s]

Perhaps a better term would be WYSOSIWYGOP: "What You See On Screen Is What You'll Get On Paper". It works for anything that will have a fixed lay-out, uninfluenced and uninterpreted by the hardware with which it is delivered to the reader.

Even this is a bit of a stretch...

A media="print" stylesheet can works wonders, but not miracles

The first person to provide a link to a site that prints the same on Opera, Firefox, IE, Konqueror and Safari (even just the latest versions will do, on one platform) will receive a free chocolate fish, every day for a month

Whether what appears on screen resembles what the webdesigner intended it to look depends on the user's settings, browser, screensize and other factors. It's WYSMNAABWSES: "What You See May Not At All Be What Someone Else Sees", which is why a WYSIWYG webeditor is a flawed concept from the start.

That's why I like WYSIWTF

 

[hodgy]

Curious twist

Good, I hope to derail the concensus.

You seem to be acknowledging that, with regard to the web, browsers, etc, no WYSIWYG apps actually exist yet, but then go on to say

They exist but are not very good (hence this thread)

Simply create your own interface. The FSM only knows how succesful you'll be, but you can have a go

Precisely, as much as I am blessed with his noodly appendage, I cannot forsee his tomato-saucee plan, that is in the spiritual realm.

However, if you want to avoid reinventing the wheel and rely on browsers (aka User Agents), then you must be - if not worried - at least concerned about the multitude of interfaces that can be used to view your work

I don't understand this comment in relation to the previous discussion.

I assume you mean on the world wide web, an invention accredited to Tim Berners-Lee who, as a the director of the w3c, is seemingly committed to the development of HTML4 (and 5), yep, mark-up languages...

Yes

concerned with CONTENT, not with PRESENTATION

Which I just said (sort of) - that's a legacy position on the internet, presentation is also now important. By presentation I mean useability, accessibility and so on. Under mass consumption these things are essential, not nice-to-have.

(that's what CSS is for)

Quite: I just need to figure out my styles in text (including hex colouring) then type it in everywhere I want to apply it - simple - No, you wouldn't put up with that in normal app programming.

and not for behaviour (that's what client and/or server side scripting languages are for)

Of course - i'll just knock up a bit of Javascript and PHP - job done. Just need a good text editor then....

'Internet applications inherited *ML as the default GUI'
This sounds impressive, until you realise its meaningless

Why is it meaningless? I am making a serious point that markup language is essentially a legacy technology of the internet and is not implicitly its future. We use it today because it is pervasive, not because it is good.

A mark up language is no more a Graphical User Interface than an alphabet is a poem

Exactly - A markup language is a good way to represent documents (and data for systems integration) but is not inately suited for GUI.

 

[hodgy]

No, the problem is that WYSIWYG is a concept that does not apply to webpages,

) well, yes.

Why - because webpages are a legacy technology. That does not mean that WYSIWYG is bad or irrelevant, it just means that it has been traditionally hard to apply it to webpages. That is not a shortcoming of WYSIWYG, it is a problem with webpages.

I do not want to write php, javascript and html and imagine what my page is like - I want to drag and drop controls and see what my page is like. I want a free canvas upon which I draw out the user experience - I do not want to care about the number of cells in the preceeding row forcing my buttons to be very very small. I do not want to be surprised that my label text has just turned to 48 pt font and moved violently to the right for no apparent reason.

I not want to have to have to be some kind of html guru or graphic designer just to lay out a form that I could do in 5 minutes in VBA.

 

[six7s]

They exist but are not very good (hence this thread)

Well, there are apps that are marketed as such... but none of them actually 'do what it says on the tin'...

However, if you want to avoid reinventing the wheel and rely on browsers (aka User Agents), then you must be - if not worried - at least concerned about the multitude of interfaces that can be used to view your work

I don't understand this comment in relation to the previous discussion.

It was in response to "If I am composing a user experience ... I want to just put images and controls where I need them to be"

By presentation I mean useability, accessibility and so on.

Oh... so not presentation then

I see

Under mass consumption these things are essential, not nice-to-have.

I agree. See post #39

Quite: I just need to figure out my styles in text (including hex colouring) then type it in everywhere I want to apply it - simple - No, you wouldn't put up with that in normal app programming.

Unless you're using VB.Net or such like

But, I digress.

"then type it in everywhere I want to apply it"

Do you mean assigning classes as in

<p class="myClass">
	Hello World
</p>

and not for behaviour (that's what client and/or server side scripting languages are for)

Of course - i'll just knock up a bit of Javascript and PHP - job done. Just need a good text editor then....

What was your point here?

Why is it meaningless?

Ummm... because there is a distinct absence of meaning

I am making a serious point that markup language is essentially a legacy technology of the internet and is not implicitly its future.

You are still erroneously fudging the terms www and internet

Call me old fashioned but, in the absence of a crystal ball, I'll opt to develop web sites - not apps (what this thread is about - note the OP was written by a newbie) using industry standards, thanks

Hello gang,
I'd really like to learn how to build/design web sites.
What are the programming languages that I'll need to learn and what are some excellent books to read on the subject?
Eventually I'd like to design websites with nice graphics, have comment sections written by guests, maybe some animation, hyperlinks and of course written text that I'll update on the site.

Regards,
Yair

Who said anything about 'implicit'?

Oh! You did!

Is that genuine Scottish straw your using?

We use it today because it is pervasive, not because it is good.

I use it cos it works

Exactly - A markup language is a good way to represent documents

Wow! Really?

(and data for systems integration)

Big words

What do they mean, in this context?

but is not inately suited for GUI.

Still got plenty of straw then?

 

[Earthborn]

That is not a shortcoming of WYSIWYG, it is a problem with webpages.

Webpages are not the problem. The reason WYSIWYG works is because of the shortcomings of paper. WYSIWYG means that the program that renders the view on screen is the same as the one that renders it for the printer.

I do not want to write php, javascript and html and imagine what my page is like - I want to drag and drop controls and see what my page is like. I want a free canvas upon which I draw out the user experience - I do not want to care about the number of cells in the preceeding row forcing my buttons to be very very small. I do not want to be surprised that my label text has just turned to 48 pt font and moved violently to the right for no apparent reason.

What you want is for webpages to behave more like paper. Fixed sizes, fixed proportions, fixed colours, fixed fonts and the user having to accept whatever you designed. You don't want to allow the user to read the information in a 48 point font if s/he wants or needs to. You want to prescribe what the user experience must be, even if it means making it difficult for some users to experience it at all.

I not want to have to have to be some kind of html guru or graphic designer just to lay out a form that I could do in 5 minutes in VBA.

You can make the form in the same 5 minutes in HTML if you give up trying to lay out and start marking up, and if you do give that up your form will be more accessible and useable as well.

 

[six7s]

...webpages are a legacy technology

Please identify an alternative technology that will output, as easily and as well as html + css, ONE 'content' file to the following range of media types:

• speech and sound synthesizers
• braille tactile feedback devices
• paged braille printers
• small or handheld devices
• printers
• projected presentations, like slides
• computer screens
• fixed-pitch character grid, like teletypes and terminals
• television-type devices

 

[Earthborn]

Which I just said (sort of) - that's a legacy position on the internet, presentation is also now important. By presentation I mean useability, accessibility and so on.

Usually what is meant with "presentation" in discussions on webdesign is what the webpage looks like; which fonts and which colours are used where they are placed. "Accessibility" is basically how well the website holds up when all this "presentation" is removed. Does it still communicate the same information when someone cannot see the colours, uses different fonts or a screenreader? "Accessibility" is therefore the opposite of "presentation"
"Useability" may mean that navigational aids are deliberately placed in places where users expect them (in which "presentation" may help), but may also mean that the same information can be used across a huge variety of devices (in which "presentation" usually only hinders).

Quite: I just need to figure out my styles in text (including hex colouring) then type it in everywhere I want to apply it - simple - No, you wouldn't put up with that in normal app programming.

I happen to think that CSS is needlessly complicated and hideously verbose (not to mention that its standards are poorly implimented in most browsers) but I do understand that the whole point of it is that styles are placed centrally in one file, so that one does not have to type it in everywhere one wants to apply it.

Why is it meaningless? I am making a serious point that markup language is essentially a legacy technology of the internet and is not implicitly its future.

I think it is more likely that mark-up will become increasingly important. The variety of devices that can access the web is only going to increase, and therefore the same content will have to be presented in many more forms then today, on many devices that may not be able to present with GUIs, fonts or colours.

Exactly - A markup language is a good way to represent documents (and data for systems integration) but is not inately suited for GUI.

Of course not. Graphical user interfaces are graphics, and furthermore user interfaces. Mark-up languages are ways to organise information, not to present them graphically. The information may be presented graphically, but also in other ways, such as sound. I don't think mark-up languages are the outdated legacy technology here, as I think organising information will continue to be important, even if the current user interface paradigms are long gone.

 

[ImproperUsername]

I like to do my websites with Active Server Pages. I see .NET making tremendous advances however. I feel very comfortable with ASP but my daughter assures me that .NET is also easy to learn. I have a pathetic set of tutorials at equineexpo (dot) com (slash) aspexamples

Sometimes I write code with notepad, sometimes I use a code generator and sometimes I use Front Page. Sometimes, I just want to use WYSIWYG and get it over with. A very good free editing program is HTMLkit.

 

[BenBurch]

Problem is it can only ever be WYSISWYG. What you see is SOMETIMES what you get.

This is the entire reason for the proliferation of flash sites.

I haven't fallen prey to that as I try to make everything work in the simplest of browsers; you ought to be able to at least navigate it in lynx and it ought to look OK in dillo.

 

[six7s]

This is the entire reason for the proliferation of flash sites.

It is one reason

I strongly suspect that the most significantreason is that there are oodles of self-taught web-wizards (with no understanding/appreciation whatsoever for usability, functionality, accessibility, etc) who are all too eager to show off their copy-and-paste skills in an attempt to impress the world with their stunning all bells and whistles style 'designs'

 

[ynot]

Problem is it can only ever be WYSISWYG. What you see is SOMETIMES what you get.

This is the entire reason for the proliferation of flash sites.

I don’t understand this comment. Could you please explain why “WYSISWYG is the entire reason for the proliferation of flash sites” - Thanks

 

[six7s]

I think BenBurch means that (unlike html + css + javascript combinations) an author can use Flash to dictate not only the content but also the presentation (fonts, colours, widths, heights, etc) and the behaviour (onLoad, onClick, onBlur, etc)...

So, the output is WhatYouHardCodeIsWhatTheyGetAndTheyCanLikeItOrLumpIt

 

[ynot]

I think BenBurch means that (unlike html + css + javascript combinations) an author can use Flash to dictate not only the content but also the presentation (fonts, colours, widths, heights, etc) and the behaviour (onLoad, onClick, onBlur, etc)...

So, the output is WhatYouHardCodeIsWhatTheyGetAndTheyCanLikeItOrLumpIt

Thanks - haven't got in to Flash. I've heard that it's not very search engine friendly, is this so?.

 

[ynot]

I think BenBurch means that (unlike html + css + javascript combinations) an author can use Flash to dictate not only the content but also the presentation (fonts, colours, widths, heights, etc) and the behaviour (onLoad, onClick, onBlur, etc)...

So, the output is WhatYouHardCodeIsWhatTheyGetAndTheyCanLikeItOrLumpIt

double post

 

[six7s]

Thanks - haven't got in to Flash. I've heard that it's not very search engine friendly, is this so?.

Indeed

Unlike html (text) files, Flash creates binary files (as per JPEGs) so, unless the author supplements the content with alt text, search engines having NOTHING to index

For more reasons to approach with caution, see:

What's wrong with Macromedia Flash?

For most Web surfers, Flash is the blinking, animated frosting on Web sites. Now Macromedia wants to make it the whole cake.

The software maker is pitching Flash MX, the new version of the software to be announced Monday, as a one-stop resource for designing entire Web pages and associated applications. The update signifies a greatly expanded role from Flash's initial function as animation software.

I think this is a terrible idea, and said so on GranneDev. Some people pushed back and wanted to know why I thought it was a bad idea. I think this table illustrates why building entire Web sites in Flash, or even injudicious use of Flash, is a bad idea.

table

 

[ynot]

Indeed

Unlike html (text) files, Flash creates binary files (as per JPEGs) so, unless the author supplements the content with alt text, search engines having NOTHING to index

For more reasons to approach with caution, see:

What's wrong with Macromedia Flash?

Thanks - I'm thinking of buolding a large site with PHP/Mysql. Are the pages generated by this able to be freely spidered. Hope I'm not being a pain.

 

[six7s]

Thanks - I'm thinking of buolding a large site with PHP/Mysql. Are the pages generated by this able to be freely spidered

I think so but I don't know

However, I do know a very good place to start looking for answers

Results 1 - 10 of about 798 from webmasterworld.com for spider php mysql


webmasterworld » PHP Server Side Scripting » Moving website from .htm to .php/mysql
Anyone experienced decline in SERPs?