Problems using different web design applications?

  bazza2 15:39 04 Jul 06
Locked

This may seem a silly question, so forgive me, If a site has been designed using DreamWeaver, is there any problem with making amendments to a page using NVU or FrontPage, and then re-publishing it?

Is it likely/possible that the page might lose some of it's formatting, or can you happily edit a page with any application, content in the knowledge that it will not affect it adversly?

  ade.h 16:13 04 Jul 06

It isn't a silly question at all. Actually, there can be some issues with formatting and asset management when editing a site or single page in another application. Of course, it depends on the original and current applications. Frontpage seems quite acceptable at this, for HTML pages. Any other code formats - XHTML, CSS, etc. - will depend on whether the editing application supports it.

  Forum Editor 19:29 04 Jul 06

to work on a DreamWeaver site, and vice-versa, although I wouldn't personally recommend it. It's probably best to stick to one application for a specific site.

Most people end up with a favourite program, and I have to say that mine is currently FrontPage 2003. It's very powerful, and kicks everything else into touch where data-driven sites are concerned.

  bazza2 12:57 05 Jul 06

However, the site in question was design by someone else, using DreamWeaver, which is an application that I don't have, hence the question.
I do have Nvu and an old copy of FP (2000).

  mco 16:49 05 Jul 06

you'd tell that to the ICT people at my school FE. They're all of the opinion that 'proper webdesign' - the 'industry standard' is DW - and have just got a licence for it and are about to ditch FP and teach DW to pupils, instead of FP, which they dismiss as 'for kiddies'

  Griffon 21:59 05 Jul 06

"They're all of the opinion that 'proper webdesign' - the 'industry standard' is DW - and have just got a licence for it and are about to ditch FP and teach DW to pupils, instead of FP, which they dismiss as 'for kiddies'"

Quite right too in my opinion. I use DW but occasionally grapple with FP which must be Microsoft's biggest pile of poo of an application. I'm not usually a Microsoft basher but they really should hang their heads in shame over FP. A problem with your school's policy though is that DW is too expensive for most home users. So unless the kids use DW when they start work they're probably learning something they'll never use again, which is a pity.

  ade.h 22:15 05 Jul 06

FP can't be too shabby if a professional web designer with about 15 years of experience uses it.

  Griffon 22:53 05 Jul 06

I suppose like any software if you use it all the time it becomes second nature. I've always found it straight forward to take a site made in FP and load it up into DW. But the other way round has usually given me problems. I suspect that what DW does automatically you have to ask FP to do and I just don't know how. Uploading a site with DW is a doddle too - either the whole site, particular pages or just synchronising revised pages. FP seems clunky in comparison. I suppose that's why DW is roughly 3 times the cost of FP. I just feel that for home users a web authoring package like FP ought to be more user friendly - it just doesn't need all the knobs and whistles that DW's got.

  ade.h 23:00 05 Jul 06

It's not really aimed at home users, though. Few web authoring apps are, with the exception of Serif Webplus.

  bazza2 23:01 23 Aug 06

closing

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

Where HTML5 is headed next

MacBook Pro v Surface Pro 5