DW2004 VS FrontPage2003

[francis]

Maybe we should stop being so snotty? (http://mvp.wiserways.com/2003/compare.htm) That chart has been put together by a MS MVP, so there's going to be a "let's choose these features that FrontPage has" bias. Macromedia used to do a similar chart for DW, but I can't find it at all now. Still, the DWMX2004 feature set (http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/productinfo/features/) is pretty good.

FP2003 does seem a great deal better, especially when compared to Adobe's GoLive (although they only list GoLive 6 and not the new GoLive CS).

:unsure: Apparently I am now a "super member" now I've got past 250 posts. Maybe that actually means I need to get a life? :unsure:

[David]

Originally posted by francis@Feb 18 2004, 10:25 pm
Apparently I am now a "super member" now I've got past 250 posts.* Maybe that actually means I need to get a life? :unsure:
No comment ;)

Yes, FrontPage 2003 does seem to be getting some warm reviews. I haven't looked at it myself and there's little chance of it arriving at the University anytime soon. Seems to me that MS must have changed their strategy for FP development. It doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea since they had their market sector well sussed. Or am I missing something?

[Tom]

I changed from FP2000 to DW about 6 months ago. DW has undoubted advantages and it is great to be free of those dreaded FP extensions. The features of FP I miss are (1) the general simplicity of the programme - it feels more like a word processor, which is comfortable for authors (2) FP has superior site management facilities - because it keeps track of everything you do it knows how to manage every link.

I think the University has a general license for Microsoft Office and Server products which lets us have the latest versions of everything when they appear. So I look forward to FP2003. As mentioned in yesterday's seminar, the thing which continues to surprise me is that Word cannot be used as a stand-alone web authoring programme.

[Phil]

The University does do alright by Microsoft; we do have a site licence of Office 2003, including FrontPage. I shall start putting it on the T205 machines tomorrow if anyone wants to take a look (can't speak for deployment schedules for the other labs, of course).

[David]

Thanks Phil, that would be great. I'm currently teaching web design to 3rd year BA using FrontPage XP and I keep finding myself saying "if we were using Dreamweaver we'd be able to..." or "...this is actually easier in Dreamweaver".

[francis]

Originally posted by Tom Turner@Feb 19 2004, 7:31 am
FP has superior site management facilities - because it keeps track of everything you do it knows how to manage every link...

As mentioned in yesterday's seminar, the thing which continues to surprise me is that Word cannot be used as a stand-alone web authoring programme.

DW's site/link management tool is excellent, although as I do more and more serverside work, I get more irked that it doesn't parse that when checking links. I'd love to see how FP works, if it really is better.

I'd be amazed if Word didn't become a fully fledged web authoring tool (although they keep adding more and more functionality). Having the two separate apps creates 2 revenue streams for MS, whether that be people just buying Word and FP, or people buying a different, more expensive Office suite. I can't see that ever happening - and if it did, you'd end up with a behemoth of a product that would probably scare off the average home user.

[Tom]

All they need to do is (1) stop Word from producing such rubbishy code (2) incorporate a FTP programme with Windows Explorer (3) put in something to create top and side navigation. Then lots of people could create small websites without having to learn any new software. Perhaps I should send an email to the Chief Software Architect with this proposal for adding to his wealth. :huh:

[francis]

Do you think that people who used Word to produce websites would really care about the quality of the code? I'd guess that if people were serious about creating a site, they'd probably go for FrontPage and up.

[Tom]

I think you are right, Francis, that MS' reason for not fully enabling Word for web authoring is that they want to sell FrontPage as a separate product. But if the assult on the MS bottom line from open source software continues they will have to think about making their products more consumer-friendly. I feel about as enthusiastic about starting with a new piece of software as I used to about opening up the chapter of my car manual dealing with carburetors.

We have half a dozen secretaries in the office. They are all good with Word. One of them is starting to struggle with FrontPage. If they could all publish good .htm from Word then the School's content management and document organisation would be much easier.

Phil is making it possible for them to enter content via .php but I think it would be simpler if they could do it with the software they already know: Windows Explorer and Word. And what would the school do if Phil succumbed to a bus?

[David]

Originally posted by Tom Turner@Feb 19 2004, 7:45 pm
All they need to do is (1) stop Word from producing such rubbishy code (2) incorporate a FTP programme with Windows Explorer (3) put in something to create top and side navigation.
Tom, Windows Explorer *is* already a FTP client. Just open any folder in XP and you can type in a FTP address into the address bar and...

Essentially, in XP, Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer are one and the same thing.

And I agree with Francis, I really don't think Word users care about code. If the document looks OK, what's the problem.

[Tom]

Gosh - thank you for the information! I recommend anyone in the group who has not already done so to try this.

Can you tell me if there is also a way to structure the permissions so that different people have access to different parts of the directory?

With regard to Word html code, the main point is that .htm files can be three times as large as they need to be, and for people without broadband this is still an issue.

The use of Word to create .htm files is also much clumsier than it need be with regard to graphics. And the lack of convenient navigation components is a serious drawback. Surely you would never recommend Word in its present form as a web authoring programme?

Phil: what to you think about showing Pat how to do use FTP? She could place copies of documents which staff need to see in a common area. Or do you intend to use your, proprietory, content management system for this? Take programme documents as an example. I have a pile of them in a dusty corner of my office but am never confident if they are up to date. Ditto for my lists of staff addresses and charts showing course codes. Life would be simpler if I could find the latest copies on the intranet. My room would be tidier too.

[francis]

Originally posted by Tom Turner@Feb 20 2004, 7:07 am
Surely you would never recommend Word in its present form as a web authoring programme?

Right tool for the right job:

http://www.websitearchitecture.co.uk/storr/forumimgs/hammerscrewdriver.jpg

(taken from Worth1000 (http://www.worth1000.com)'s "If Women Ruled" photoshop competition)

I don't see why I'd ever recommend a word processing application for web design, just like I'd never recommend using Dreamweaver to create written documents

[Tom]

I have used shoes on nails and knives on screws, and worse. When a job has to be done one has to use whatever is available.

My point is that, for example, our shool secretaries should be creating and publishing web documents and groups of web documents - but should not need to learn DW or FP.

[Phil]

It is possible to let the secretaries publish straight to the internet / intranet via mapping of drives (so they can save stuff to, say, the i:\webdocs\minutes). However there is an issue here in maintaining the whole appearance of the site. If they can publish the Word doc as it appears on their screen so it appears like that on the web then thet are effectively designing the page, too.

I'd like to forward two alternatives:

either make it part of a kind of content management system where they update the text only (i.e in a database). This information is then rendered by some template page which does fill the accepted appearance criteria.

or, they just "save as" the word document in the appropriate web directory for access as a link to that word document. The page itself is just a list of the Word documents that exist there.