Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

angsuman — Wed, 21 May 2008 03:28:09 -0000

> Yes, today such a thing seems incredibly stupid (but you can still try it, in WordPress there’s a little button marked “HTML” — click it and then you too can experience what developing Web sites in 1994 was like).

Call me stupid, but I still prefer hand-coding html where possible. It creates much cleaner html. Actually most of us use templates of some kind when developing web applications. Even creating a WordPress theme will require you to muck in good old html.

As for WordPress blogging, my preference is to use the plain text view. However with the latest version of improved WYSIWYG editor, I may switch.

On a different note I am not too fond of drupal myself as it tends to get rather complicated when you try to tweak it , extensively if I may add, to your needs. ModX fits my requirements much better. It is more powerful and yet simpler than Drupal. Have you tried it?

In any content management system you still need to design the templates in HTML.

So Expression still has a place for web developers, if not for content writers.

Does Expression generate clean HTML?

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

mga — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:23:46 -0000

absolutely agree with daniel. dw user here. code view most of the time. i teach web design and pretty much start with notepad. imo, if you want to be a REAL web designer/developer you need to get (i guess "stupid" in scoble's opinion) your hands on the *ML code. i have not downloaded expression * (can't find any compelling reason to do so yet and certainly a "must install .net 2.0" is a deterrant).

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Daniel Mcskelly — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:46:33 -0000

I'm glad to hear it :)

My point, inexpertly (OK, drunkenly) expressed, was that WYSIWYG tools require the operator to learn how to work around the weaknesses of the tools and, in the case of mark up languages at least, you're better of learning the language itself, no matter what flavour of *ML it may be.

I tried out FP, DW, and a few other packages with smaller market share in my early webdev career, and it was apparent to me (and to almost every other professional web type person I know) that you're better of learning the roots of the language rather than how a particular tool generates it.

Once again I'm not saying there's no place for these applications - I've tied my gran up in the basement for weeks but she still refuses to maintain her family photo album in anything other than dreamweaver - but to dismiss other means of generating HTML documents as idiotic is a pretty short sighted view point, in my opinion.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Robert Scoble — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:33:30 -0000

Daniel: XHTML wasn't out when I was a FrontPage user. Keep in mind I haven't used FrontPage since 1998.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Daniel Mcskelly — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:29:15 -0000

Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren’t 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

That's exactly the point for the opposition, in my opinion.

The time you spent learning how to clean up after front page would have been more productivly spent learning how to hand code proper HTML in the first place. Ditto the time required to learn to use the tool correctly in the first place...why spend days and weeks learning the ideosyncracices of putting out decent code with FP/DW/Expression when you can learn the basics of xHTML in a similair amount of time?

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

orcmid — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:17:25 -0000

I have the CTP on my Tablet PC and it is wonderful how it integrates and synchronizes, even with my development IIS site and its FrontPage Extensions. It also does a great job of writing clean HTML. That's a relief, because the Visual Web Designer Express Edition is a giant step backwards that scared the heck out of me.

The only thing keeping me away from beta 1 is that it can't install on a machine with Office 2007 beta 2.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Robert Scoble — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:09:15 -0000

Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren't 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

Of course I knew how to do that cause I hand coded sites before FrontPage 1.1 (and a variety of other tools) came out.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Dan — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:13:27 -0000

"Bullshit. I built a whole Netmeeting site that got hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month in it and worked in every browser out there."

And it was 80% bigger than necessary due to FrontPage bloat, slowing the browser load time, taking up bandwidth unnecessary, and making the server draw more electricty than otherwise required.

I can't believe you called hand coding "incredibly stupid". Those artists who choose to paint using fine brushes rather than spray paint and rollers are just stupidly clinging to the past in your world, huh?

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

fweisser — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:03:47 -0000

Actually, Front Page made a pretty big splash when it first launched. I think the biggest problem with the product was that it tried to please two very different audiences - Web pros building large sites and end users putting up pictures of the kids.

I've always preferred HomeSite/CF Studio. While I can use Notepad with the best of them, I'm more productive with an IDE. I have tried using Dreamweaver but am just not a WYSIWYG person. It *is* a much better product now than it was even two years ago and I can see why people like it. Eric Meyer worked with Macromedia on the CSS support and it is impressive how they integrate that into the IDE.

I've also used Front Page when that was the tool my customers used to maintain their site. Once I get templates set up and do a quick training, they can maintain their stuff with a minimum of fuss. It really comes down to using the tools intelligently.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Tomi Itkonen — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:10:02 -0000

Checked the tutorials of Interactive Designer. Looks like a potential Flash killer and a couple of Adobe lawsuits. ;)

It would be interesting to see how quickly/if ever websites turn to using XAML instead of HTML...

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Dave — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:08:25 -0000

Simply open up a 'clean' HTML file ("page" for you less technical folks) in FrontPage and click on "Save As..." and compare the two. Robert, compliant or not, shitty or not - it DID totally mangle everything with it's bot crap in the comments. And yes, the stuff does have to download to every browser - thus, bloat.

The biggest sin of FrontPage was inadvertant - it made everyone believe they could design good looking web pages. (Emphasis: good.)

Leave content creation to the writers or bloggers. Leave design to the designers. And yes Robert, just about every good designer back then couldn't stand FrontPage.

Now, as for Expression...

"Install Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 (see below) before installing Expression Web."

:-O

Wow. Why does MS have to do things like this? Every other company in the world can make a professional web design package that, um, actually work standalone.

From a technical standpoint exactly WHY is .NET required? I know I know, those great widgets. But if I could actually write everything in Notepad - tedious, yes, but possible - than why is it that MS must REQUIRE something like this?

No thanks. I'll stick with my 6 year old Visual Interdev when forced to design things on a Windows box.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Robert Scoble — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:51:14 -0000

WTF? It wasn't "put down." It was redesigned and renamed. You have no clue about FrontPage. But, no use arguing with a jerk who doesn't even use his real name. Have a good one!

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

WTF? — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:44:58 -0000

"Just because you didn’t know how to use the tool doesn’t mean that it ALWAYS built pages like that."

Bwahahahahahaha. It's stunning that you continue with the corporate whoring even after you leave the company. FrontPage was a steaming pile of shit and it was put down for a reason.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Gerard McGarry — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:41:45 -0000

Robert, I completely hated FrontPage with a passion. It just seemed completely non-intuitive to me compared with Dreamweaver.

Having said that, I've been playing with the Visual Web Developer software recently, and if that's anything to go by Microsoft's finally got its act together on web development packages.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Charlene — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:15:29 -0000

Is Expression going to be like DreamWeaver in that it will finally use CSS AND keep it separate from the HTML?

Also, I don't need any of these multi-$100s programs to do my web design. I'm a purist, give me NotePad, Vi, Vim, Emacs, or whatever, and a Firefox/Flock/Mozilla Browser, and I will be content. These programs are nothing more than text editors with all the codes added anyways. If you got the skill and knowledge, you got power and can save a few extra $$, ^_^.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Michael Martine — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:17:19 -0000

FrontPage had something of a split personality: street-level consumers could use it html-free and get typically deplorable cookie-cutter results or... somebody who really knew the tool could use it to build high-end Microsoft-based stuff, like for intranets.

And, funny enough, FrontPage is becoming SharePoint Designer.

My tool of choice? Notepad++ :)

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Robert Scoble — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:58:13 -0000

WTF?: >>FrontPage produced slow, bloated pages that barely rendered in Internet Explorer and tripped over their dicks in any other browser.

Bullshit. I built a whole Netmeeting site that got hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month in it and worked in every browser out there.

Just because you didn't know how to use the tool doesn't mean that it ALWAYS built pages like that.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

WTF? — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:47:39 -0000

"Actually FrontPage did a pretty good job of supporting the Web standards of that time (remember, back then that was before CSS and XHTML and all that)."

Are you effin' high? FrontPage produced slow, bloated pages that barely rendered in Internet Explorer and tripped over their dicks in any other browser. WYSIWYG? Maybe if you had some kind of fast-acting degenerative eye disorder. FrontPage was the site editor equivalent of people sending their e-mails in Word documents.

Expression sounds decent enough, but it won't take serious dudes away from Dreamweaver or GoLive and hardcore dudes away from [insert text editor here]. The amateurs? Why bother to dick around in Expression when you can use any number of pre-fab, web-based site and blog builders? Personally, I'm fine with BBEdit.

Scoble, stick to what you know. It's clear as day that webdev ain't it.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Marcelo Calbucci — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:39:38 -0000

I invite you to try Sampa and see what you think. Isn't this the future of the Web?

www.sampa.com

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Robert Scoble — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:18:48 -0000

Warren: sorry, that's revisionist. That might have been why Zeldman and crew were fighting (actually they were more about the BROWSER part of it) but that wasn't why everyday Web coders hated these tools (at least in the beginning). Zeldman always was a hand-coder until recently so he didn't care about the tools (remember, I heard him speak plenty of times and hired him several times to speak at our conferences).

But, whatever, it doesn't matter now.

Actually FrontPage did a pretty good job of supporting the Web standards of that time (remember, back then that was before CSS and XHTML and all that).

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Warren Henning — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:14:14 -0000

Only morons use Notepad. Real men use Emacs or vim.

Dreamweaver and FrontPage were/are infamous because they produced shitty, non-standards compliant HTML - eventually DreamWeaver got much better at this and maybe FrontPage did too. Lack of standards compliance hurts web businesses, tool vendors, and users. Especially the disabled.

That's why web developers hated it, Robert. What a short memory you have. Do you not know how hard Zeldman had to fight to get Microsoft, Netscape and the rest of the web clowns of the time to care about standards?

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

RuiP — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:49:25 -0000

hummmm... download let test it.
open file... crash... something wrong.... reboot and try again.
new crash... humm direct open ms error.
15 minuts to open a single html file... let me see clock again. 15 minuts 4 errors, slow... for shure is a MS development.

Forget it ... i use html kit pro, i have no problems , no errors.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Rob La Gesse — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:36:16 -0000

Brent - you don't have to be mesmerised by this topic (and you don't need to 'dis it either). If it's not your cup of tea, then wait for the next post (or blog). No reason to add so little to a conversation...

Not a flame - just friendly advise.

Rob

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Brent — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:22:09 -0000

Boring...yawn.

Re: Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

Rob La Gesse — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:59:33 -0000

From the CTP dowload site: http://www.microsoft.com/do...

"Registration recommended for this download" - and this is the newer version.

Like I said, no registration required (and no, I do not work at MS, never have, and probably never will (but they could call me and chat about it!)) :)

Rob