By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,190 Members | 765 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,190 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

WYSIWYG HTML Editors

P: n/a
Howdy,

I've started back afte a very long time of working with web pages for
an organization that I am affiliated with (personally not
professionally). Seeing that technology has advanced a lot since the
last time I authored web pages (using vi), I am looking for a good,
"free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.

Now, before ya go and hit the reply key, I've already tinkered with
"amaya" which was pretty cool and then I moved to "Nvu", which I like
but I wish would handle frames. For some reason it has trouble with
them.

Having said that, the only other thing would be that I would like it to
run on my MacBook.

Thanks in advance,

Pete

Feb 14 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
27 Replies


P: n/a
prt7u wrote:
but I wish would handle frames. For some reason it has trouble with
them.
Maybe that is a Good Thing™. <g>

You've probably seen this page before...
<http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?FramesAreEvil>

Sorry, can't help you with a WYSIWYDG. I use a text editor.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Feb 14 '07 #2

P: n/a
In our last episode, <eq**********@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, the lovely and
talented prt7u broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Howdy,
I've started back afte a very long time of working with web pages for
an organization that I am affiliated with (personally not
professionally). Seeing that technology has advanced a lot since the
last time I authored web pages (using vi), I am looking for a good,
"free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.
This used to be a frequently asked question. The answer is that there
cannot be any such thing. If you scan the subject headers in this group you
will see many of the sort "Looks good in Firefox, but wrong in IE." What
your documents in a browser depends upon the rendering engine of the
browser, which is why a WYSIWYG editor is impossible: it cannot know what
brower(s) will be used to view the document (and that does not even take
into account things like color which depend not only on the browser, but
also upon the hardware and hardware adjusments. Moreover, the "what you
see" should be adjusted in CSS, not HTML --- and no, there isn't a WYSISWYG
CSS editor either.
Now, before ya go and hit the reply key, I've already tinkered with
"amaya" which was pretty cool and then I moved to "Nvu", which I like
but I wish would handle frames. For some reason it has trouble with
them.
The numerous reasons that frames are a bad idea are also frequent answers to
questions.
Having said that, the only other thing would be that I would like it to
run on my MacBook.
Thanks in advance,
Pete
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/ <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 705 days to go.
Feb 14 '07 #3

P: n/a
In article <eq**********@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
prt7u <pr***@Virginia.EDUwrote:
Howdy,

I've started back afte a very long time of working with web pages for
an organization that I am affiliated with (personally not
professionally). Seeing that technology has advanced a lot since the
last time I authored web pages (using vi), I am looking for a good,
"free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.

Now, before ya go and hit the reply key, I've already tinkered with
"amaya" which was pretty cool and then I moved to "Nvu", which I like
but I wish would handle frames. For some reason it has trouble with
them.
It's not alone; I have trouble with frames too!

Having said that, the only other thing would be that I would like it to
run on my MacBook.
Not to be a smart-ass, but I think you're more likely to find the Tooth
Fairy than a WYSIWYG HTML editors. WYSIWYG works for print layout but
it's a false promise for HTML.

Good, free non-WYSIWYG editors for the Mac that I've tried:
TextWrangler, jEdit (a little clunkier, but cross platform, make sure
you get the XML plugin to get nice HTML features) and Komodo Edit.

--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
Feb 14 '07 #4

P: n/a
Lars Eighner schrieb:
>I am looking for a good,
"free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.

This used to be a frequently asked question. The answer is that there
cannot be any such thing.
That's true.
We better talk about the only reasonable type of html-editor for human
authors:
WYSIWY*M*

Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?
Or are you as fast in editing data tables in a texteditor as in a
WYSIWYM editor?
Or do you never edit data tables by hand?

But a data table is only the most obvious markup, for which a
texteditor is a poor tool.
A texteditor annoys an author with letting him view unneccessary
things - in standard situations (=standard markup).
In non-standard situations, of course, a texteditor is a must.

But well. That topic isn't one, which is traditionally discussed
unprejudiced. ;)

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 15 '07 #5

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?
Of course not. I edit them in my script. Usually a few lines of code
(PHP in my case) to display an entire data table.
Or are you as fast in editing data tables in a texteditor as in a
WYSIWYM editor?
Can't really answer that one, as I don't use a WYSIWYTYW.
Or do you never edit data tables by hand?
No. The data comes from the database. Why edit it by hand? Write one
recursive loop in a script, and output all the HTML from there.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Feb 15 '07 #6

P: n/a
In our last episode, <1d***************@borumat.de>, the lovely and talented
Andreas Borutta broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Lars Eighner schrieb:
>>I am looking for a good,
"free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.

This used to be a frequently asked question. The answer is that there
cannot be any such thing.
That's true.
We better talk about the only reasonable type of html-editor for human
authors:
WYSIWY*M*
Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?
For the most part, I edit data in a database and php (re)creates the tables
faster than I could in any kind of editor.
Or are you as fast in editing data tables in a texteditor as in a
WYSIWYM editor?
I'm sure I am. Why in the world would one editor be any faster than the
other.
Or do you never edit data tables by hand?
Seldom. But if the html were ever too messy to read, I;d get my editor to
pipe it through tidy.
But a data table is only the most obvious markup, for which a
texteditor is a poor tool.
A texteditor annoys an author with letting him view unneccessary
things - in standard situations (=standard markup).
On the contrary, it makes it clear to the author what, exactly, he is
writing. How do you enter a copyright symbol in a so-called WYSIWYG
editor? Well, you go up to the menu, pull down something, hunt through
a table of characters, etc. In my text editor, it's Meta-aOc. An
eacute? Meta-ae'. It's Meta-a + how you would compose the character
with a typewriter: cent sign Meta-ac/. What could be easier?
In non-standard situations, of course, a texteditor is a must.
But well. That topic isn't one, which is traditionally discussed
unprejudiced. ;)
Andreas
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/ <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 705 days to go.
Feb 15 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:14:54 -0500, Nikita the Spider
<Ni*************@gmail.comwrote:
>Not to be a smart-ass, but I think you're more likely to find the Tooth
Fairy than a WYSIWYG HTML editors. WYSIWYG works for print layout but
it's a false promise for HTML.
True, simply because there is no single "WYG" on the web. "What you
get" is not one thing but may appear in many different ways which the
web page has no control over. "WYG" is particular to the computer,
monitor, and browser which uses the page, not to mention the viewport
size of the browser being used. So the search for a "wysiwyg" web
editor is a futility. The Web is *not* paper.

Feb 15 '07 #8

P: n/a
In article
<Ni***********************************@news-server.nc.rr.com>,
Nikita the Spider <Ni*************@gmail.comwrote:
In article <eq**********@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
prt7u <pr***@Virginia.EDUwrote:
I am looking for a good, "free" WYSIWYG HTML Editor.

Now, before ya go and hit the reply key, I've already tinkered with
"amaya" which was pretty cool and then I moved to "Nvu", which I like
but I wish would handle frames. For some reason it has trouble with
them.

It's not alone; I have trouble with frames too!
I thought everyone had trouble with frames?
Having said that, the only other thing would be that I would like it to
run on my MacBook.

Not to be a smart-ass, but I think you're more likely to find the Tooth
Fairy than a WYSIWYG HTML editors. WYSIWYG works for print layout but
it's a false promise for HTML.

Good, free non-WYSIWYG editors for the Mac that I've tried:
TextWrangler, jEdit (a little clunkier, but cross platform, make sure
you get the XML plugin to get nice HTML features) and Komodo Edit.
I like Peter Borg's free and open source Smultron for the Mac.
http://smultron.sourceforge.net/ It has similar features to the
excellent Text Wrangler, but feels much more like a new Mac application.
Projects and a decent multifile search and replace in it help you with
HTML sites with many common sections between pages (instead of using
frames perhaps).

For the CSS, I like StyleMaster http://westciv.com/style_master/ as it
gives you a reasonable idea of what the web page will look like after
styling. It also flags some problems with different browsers, to make
cross browser styling easier.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Feb 15 '07 #9

P: n/a
Lars Eighner schrieb:
>Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?

For the most part, I edit data in a database and php (re)creates the tables
faster than I could in any kind of editor.
Of course that is the appropriate way for huge data tables, which
takes all or some of its contents of a database, which is may be
connected with other databases etc.

But for a quick and non-complex data table inside a usual document
wich consists of a mixture of text, pictures and - here and there - a
data table, IMHO using a database is "to break a butterfly on a
wheel".
And more precisely:
It takes the time of the author. He needs more time as if he does not
have to change his editor.
>Or are you as fast in editing data tables in a texteditor as in a
WYSIWYM editor?

I'm sure I am. Why in the world would one editor be any faster than the
other.
I asked "are you as...".
I meant the "team" of a user and his tool, of course.
Not the tool alone.
>Or do you never edit data tables by hand?

Seldom.
I heard that often from people who thinks WYSIWYM is useless.

And it makes sense from that point of view. But to talk about the
whole one has to look deeper into the needs of other usergroups and
other usecases.
But if the html were ever too messy to read, I;d get my editor to
pipe it through tidy.
That does not solve it.
A linearised view of a table in HTML sourcecode could never be as
readable as a graphic view of the same table.
For a human editor.
>But a data table is only the most obvious markup, for which a
texteditor is a poor tool.
A texteditor annoys an author with letting him view unneccessary
things - in standard situations (=standard markup).

On the contrary, it makes it clear to the author what, exactly, he is
writing. How do you enter a copyright symbol in a so-called WYSIWYG
editor? Well, you go up to the menu, pull down something, hunt through
a table of characters, etc. In my text editor, it's Meta-aOc. An
eacute? Meta-ae'.
Of course I use the keyboard to enter Characters.
For all frequently used characters I define a little hotstring, which
is BTW a lot easier to type.
Example "---" which gets replaced on the fly by a dash.

I know that many users of WYSIWYM editors are clicking around in
boring menus instead of using efficient keyboard functions.
But that the fault of them and not of the type of the editor.

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 15 '07 #10

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
>Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?

Of course not. I edit them in my script.
Not every webauthor is a programmer.
Usually a few lines of code
(PHP in my case) to display an entire data table.
And to enter the data you change to another editor, right?

And to markup parts of the table with THEAD, TBODY, TFOOT you change
the editor?

And to put some class attributes to some data cells you change your
editor?

In a WYSIWYM that is not neccessary.
The author just stays in a perfect readable view for two dimensional
contents.
He just types some hotkeys. No more.
Than the data table is ready. And he continues to enter text and mark
it up as headers and paragraphs.

That's smart in my view. And it's fast.

For complex and dynamic datatables please see my other followup to
Lars.
>Or are you as fast in editing data tables in a texteditor as in a
WYSIWYM editor?

Can't really answer that one, as I don't use a WYSIWYTYW.
Some day there will may be a contest on a public podium, with
different kind of tasks for webauthors of comparable experience.
Than the time will be measured in which the contestants could solve
the tasks.

I'm sure there will be several disciplines in which the authors who
are using a good(tm) WYSIWYM editor will win.

Please don't missunderstand me:
I do not mean that a WYSIWYM view is the best tool for every task for
webauthors. Surely it is not.
A WYSIWYM without a sourceview is completly useless.

I want to advocate for "the fastes method for specific tasks for
webauthor with their specific knowlegde".

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 15 '07 #11

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Andreas Borutta <bo*****@gmx.de>
writing in news:1u***************@borumat.de:
I want to advocate for "the fastes method for specific tasks for
webauthor with their specific knowlegde".

The editor I use (HTML-Kit) has type ahead, so it is very fast. I also
reuse a lot of code. For example, this little bit here takes a few
seconds to put together, and all I have to do is change a few values,
and the form creates itself. If I wanted, I could run it locally, copy
source and put it up. This is not something I would want to use
anything but a text editor.

<%
fields = "requestedby, ministry, payto, amount, address, city, state,
zip, attention, phone, purpose, date required"
fieldsarr = split(fields,", ")

labels = "Requested By, Ministry, Pay To, Amount, Address, City, State,
Zip, Attention, Phone, Purpose, Date Required"
labelsarr = split(labels,", ")

fillinfirst = "Your Name, Your Ministry, Payable To, $, Your Address,
Your City, Your State, Your Zip, Whose Attention, 555-555-1212, Purpose
of Check, MM/DD/YYYY"
fillinarr = split(fillinfirst,", ")
%>

<form method="post" action="<%=Request.ServerVariables
("SCRIPT_NAME")%>">
<fieldset><legend>Check Request</legend>
<% for f = 0 to ubound(fieldsarr) %>
<label for="<%=fieldsarr(f)%>" id="<%=fieldsarr(f)%>1"><%=labelsarr
(f)%>: </label<input type="text" name="<%=fieldsarr(f)%>" id="<%
=fieldsarr(f)%>" value="<%=fillinarr(f)%>" onfocus="if(this.value == '<%
=fillinarr(f)%>') this.value = '';" /><br />
<% next %>
<p><input type="submit" value="Submit" /></p>
</fieldset>
</form>

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Feb 15 '07 #12

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
>[ Andreas Borutta wrote: ] (please don't snip attributes)
>>Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?

Of course not. I edit them in my script.

Not every webauthor is a programmer.
You asked me if I like to edit data tables in my texteditor. I said "Of
course not." Other web authors may do it differently.
>Usually a few lines of code (PHP in my case) to display an entire
data table.

And to enter the data you change to another editor, right?
No, normally I allow the client to enter the data in the CMS I wrote for
him.
And to markup parts of the table with THEAD, TBODY, TFOOT you change
the editor?
No. That is all done within the few lines of PHP coding.
And to put some class attributes to some data cells you change your
editor?
No. That is all done within the few lines of PHP coding.
In a WYSIWYM that is not neccessary. The author just stays in a
perfect readable view for two dimensional contents. He just types
some hotkeys. No more. Than the data table is ready. And he continues
to enter text and mark it up as headers and paragraphs.
Even if this data really does contain "headers" and "paragraphs", I'll
still do the markup from my PHP script. It is quite simple.

You have multiple rows in the table in your database? You use a
do...while loop and write code just once. No matter how many rows are in
the table.
That's smart in my view. And it's fast.
Not as fast as .. well, I guess I'm not going to convince you of this,
as you are probably one of those web authors who isn't a programmer.
For complex and dynamic datatables please see my other followup to
Lars.
I did. I'm not convinced.
Some day there will may be a contest on a public podium, ...
Probably already has been ... who knows?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Feb 15 '07 #13

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
Andreas Borutta wrote:
>Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
>>[ Andreas Borutta wrote: ] (please don't snip attributes)
Or do you like to edit data tables in your texteditor?

Of course not. I edit them in my script.

Not every webauthor is a programmer.

You asked me if I like to edit data tables in my texteditor. I said "Of
course not." Other web authors may do it differently.
ACK. I just want to my finger on a general assessment of WYSIWYM
editors as useless tools.

I believe that programmers come up with some lines of script code just
like that to produce a data table or a form.
And of course that is extremly fast.

If that method is really appropriate for a non-complex data table, is
a philosophical question, which also touches esthical categories of
styles of working.

For me ist seems to be "oversized" to create a non-complex single tiny
little data table, may be a 5x10, with a script instead of just edit
it in a WYSIWYM editor.
>>Usually a few lines of code (PHP in my case) to display an entire
data table.

And to enter the data you change to another editor, right?

No, normally I allow the client to enter the data in the CMS I wrote for
him.
I understand.
My focus was on the author-administrator (singer-songwriter :)

For some websites the author and the website administrator is the same
person.

And I agree fully with you, that a CMS is an excellent method, when
clients should enter data into a page.
>And to markup parts of the table with THEAD, TBODY, TFOOT you change
the editor?

No. That is all done within the few lines of PHP coding.
[...]

OK, I learn that as new for me.
Thanks for explaining your method.
>That's smart in my view. And it's fast.

Not as fast as .. well, I guess I'm not going to convince you of this,
as you are probably one of those web authors who isn't a programmer.
Second is true, first not.
You convinced me.

Andreas
Feb 15 '07 #14

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
>
It takes the time of the author. He needs more time as if he does not
have to change his editor.
Why do you need multiple editors in the first place? One good plain text
editor is enough. It needn't specifically be a web authoring tool.
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
A linearised view of a table in HTML sourcecode could never be as
readable as a graphic view of the same table.
Perhaps, but if it's a small table, as you've been arguing for, then it
shouldn't really matter that much. A row would be coded for readability
to begin with, then it may just be a matter of copy and paste. If you
code by hand, you become accustomed to it.
I know that many users of WYSIWYM editors are clicking around in
boring menus instead of using efficient keyboard functions.
Macros can save anyone a little time. A good text editor will let you
define just about anything you want.

--
Berg
Feb 15 '07 #15

P: n/a
Bergamot schrieb:
Andreas Borutta wrote:
>>
It takes the time of the author. He needs more time as if he does not
have to change his editor.

Why do you need multiple editors in the first place? One good plain text
editor is enough.
You need an UI to enter data into tables.
Or do you prefer to do that in a texteditor.

And, to come to other usecases than editing tables, I think humans
could edit complex textes better if no syntax of a markup language
disturbs the eye.
May be that could be measured in usability studies.

Please remember: I talk about a webauthor who writes textes himself
and who is not only someone who copies textes from his clients.
That's my understanding of "authoring".
It needn't specifically be a web authoring tool.
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
Such a non specialized tool has to compete with other more specialized
ones.
Some users like the concept "many tasks in one job -many tools".

Others prefer it, when their tool offers all important features e.g.
for a sitemanagement, for a quality management (validation etc.).
They don't like to search for a "hundred" of tiny scripts or plugins.
>A linearised view of a table in HTML sourcecode could never be as
readable as a graphic view of the same table.

Perhaps, but if it's a small table, as you've been arguing for, then it
shouldn't really matter that much.
Let's just say: there is one solution, and another, which is better.
A row would be coded for readability
to begin with, then it may just be a matter of copy and paste. If you
code by hand, you become accustomed to it.
I code a lot by hand. But I definitely prefer the assistance of my
editor in the handling of tables.

Out of curiosity: how do you select a (part of a) row of table in a
text-editor?
>I know that many users of WYSIWYM editors are clicking around in
boring menus instead of using efficient keyboard functions.

Macros can save anyone a little time. A good text editor will let you
define just about anything you want.
Sure. I do not they anything against the high efficiency of goog
texteditors.
I even see the education aspect for the working style.
Graphical editors seduce their users. Many of them never get in touch
with efficient methods.

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 15 '07 #16

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
Bergamot schrieb:
>Why do you need multiple editors in the first place? One good plain text
editor is enough.

You need an UI to enter data into tables.
Maybe you do.
Or do you prefer to do that in a texteditor.
I hand code everything. I write macros and scripts to do a lot of work
for me, though. All highly customized for what I need, when I need it.
And, to come to other usecases than editing tables, I think humans
could edit complex textes better if no syntax of a markup language
disturbs the eye.
May be that could be measured in usability studies.
Usability has little to do with it unless you're talking about an
editing tool for users to update their own web page text. A developer
needs usable authoring tools, but that in no way means so-called WYSIWYG.

Besides, a web developer who can't code isn't much of a web developer. ;)
>It needn't specifically be a web authoring tool.
http://www.crimsoneditor.com/

Such a non specialized tool has to compete with other more specialized
ones.
So? It's a great little all-purpose editor, and it's free. I couldn't
live without it.
Others prefer it, when their tool offers all important features e.g.
for a sitemanagement, for a quality management (validation etc.).
They don't like to search for a "hundred" of tiny scripts or plugins.
Hmmm... a hundred? I have maybe 5 or 6 tools that I use regularly, not
counting graphics tools. Searching for a hundred tiny scripts or plugins
sounds like a big waste of time to me. How can you keep track of that
much junk, anyway?
Out of curiosity: how do you select a (part of a) row of table in a
text-editor?
?
Same way you'd do it in any other app. You could highlight the text with
a mouse, but I find it faster by keyboard.

--
Berg
Feb 16 '07 #17

P: n/a
In article <rp***************@borumat.de>, Andreas Borutta writes:
>Bergamot schrieb:
>Andreas Borutta wrote:
>>It takes the time of the author. He needs more time as if he does not
have to change his editor.

Why do you need multiple editors in the first place? One good plain text
editor is enough.

You need an UI to enter data into tables.
The xterm in which I'm running vi counts as a UI.
>Or do you prefer to do that in a texteditor.
Why not? Beats switching tools.
>And, to come to other usecases than editing tables, I think humans
could edit complex textes better if no syntax of a markup language
disturbs the eye.
If I have a long paragraph, I put the opening and closing tags on their
own lines. Also, I avoid having lines within my HTML file being longer
than about 70-72 characters.
>Out of curiosity: how do you select a (part of a) row of table in a
text-editor?
I'm not sure what you mean by "select". If I want to copy n lines, I
type "nYY". For instance, in the following table (copied right out of
one of my pages), I'd copy any given cell in the table by typing "YY".
If I wanted to copy an entire row, I'd type "5YY". Pretty simple.

<table border=on>
<tr>
<th>Title</th>
<th>Magazine</th>
<th>Issue</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster'</td>
<td><cite>Comet Stories</cite></td>
<td>July, 1941</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'Storm Cloud on Deka'</td>
<td><cite>Astonishing Stories</cite></td>
<td>June, 1942</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster Makes War'</td>
<td><cite>Astonishing Stories</cite></td>
<td>October, 1942</td>
</tr>
</table>

Of course, I deliberately wrote this HTML with each cell on its own line
to make maintenance trivial. But, I'm lazy.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.

Feb 16 '07 #18

P: n/a
Bergamot schrieb:
Andreas Borutta wrote:
>Bergamot schrieb:
>>Why do you need multiple editors in the first place? One good plain text
editor is enough.

You need an UI to enter data into tables.

Maybe you do.
I refer to Lars statement "For the most part, I edit data in a
database ..."
>Or do you prefer to do that in a texteditor.

I hand code everything.
May be you never have to type content (data) into lots of rows and
columns.
May be all your data is created by algorithmns and not by human
authors.
Than you have of course no need of a two dimenisional UI to enter that
data.
Your texteditor will fit.
>And, to come to other usecases than editing tables, I think humans
could edit complex textes better if no syntax of a markup language
disturbs the eye.
May be that could be measured in usability studies.

Usability has little to do with it unless you're talking about an
editing tool for users to update their own web page text. A developer
needs usable authoring tools, but that in no way means so-called WYSIWYG.
We will not come to an end in this thread.
I suppose we do not have a clear definition about which kinds of tasks
we really talk about. May be we not even have the same same view to
what a "developer" and an "author" is.

For sure to produce a good websites many qualities are needed.

I suggest an EOT.
>Others prefer it, when their tool offers all important features e.g.
for a sitemanagement, for a quality management (validation etc.).
They don't like to search for a "hundred" of tiny scripts or plugins.

Hmmm... a hundred?
You talked about "highly customized".
I thought you customize your texteditor with tiny skripts.
>Out of curiosity: how do you select a (part of a) row of table in a
text-editor?

?
Same way you'd do it in any other app.
I see.
That's all I want to say. Fo some tasks a webauthor profits of a
graphical UI.
Some just change inside their Editor to another view, the WYSIWYM
view, other prefer to change the app.
You could highlight the text with
a mouse, but I find it faster by keyboard.
Me too.
May be many hardcore texteditor user think, that a WYSIWYM does not
allow the usage of keyboard shortcuts.

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 16 '07 #19

P: n/a
Michael Stemper schrieb:
>>And, to come to other usecases than editing tables, I think humans
could edit complex textes better if no syntax of a markup language
disturbs the eye.

If I have a long paragraph, I put the opening and closing tags on their
own lines.
That is the most simple markup one could use.

Of course for a document which consists only of long paragrahps indeed
a WYSIWYM will not have any advantage against a texteditor.
Also, I avoid having lines within my HTML file being longer
than about 70-72 characters.
Sure.
I never argued against a texteditor, to make that clear again.
A texteditor is part of a good WYSIWYM editor. Both are always
visibel.
http://borumat.de/bilder/dreamweaver...wym-editor.png

That's all I talk about.

May be you prefer to type and read (during the typing, may be for a
correction) in the upper view, I prefer the one below.
For standard tasks like shown.
For special tasks I just switch to the text editor, the upper view.
>>Out of curiosity: how do you select a (part of a) row of table in a
text-editor?

I'm not sure what you mean by "select".
A row consists of a number of TD/TH.
They are in different lines.

In your example it could be the first row:
<th>Title</th>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster'</td>
<td>'Storm Cloud on Deka'</td>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster Makes War'</td>
If I want to copy n lines, I
type "nYY". For instance, in the following table (copied right out of
one of my pages), I'd copy any given cell in the table by typing "YY".
If I wanted to copy an entire row, I'd type "5YY". Pretty simple.
You could select the 4 cells with "5YY"?

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 16 '07 #20

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
May be you never have to type content (data) into lots of rows and
columns.
I do that frequently.
May be all your data is created by algorithmns and not by human
authors.
Or a third choice. A database and a form.
Than you have of course no need of a two dimenisional UI to enter that
data.
Is this illustration below two-dimensional? You started your thread by
saying "simple data tables." This example is rather simple.

First image is of the public page displaying the data:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/table.jpg
Second image is my form for gathering data, accessible only to me. Shown
is an edit; same form is used for an add of a new record.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/table-edit.jpg

Once I click that button, it is then instantly visible on the public
page.
Your texteditor will fit.
...to write the rather simple scripts, one that gathers and stores the
data in the MySQL table, and the other, even simpler script to display
it.

Here's the script that displays the table, for all events in the DB back
to and including 15 days ago. Hopefully, this doesn't wrap badly here.

$offset = 15;
$startat = date ("Y-m-d", mktime (0,0,0,date("m"),
date("d")-$offset, date("Y")));

gopenconnection();
$query = "SELECT * FROM tblevent
WHERE ( ddate '$startat' )
ORDER BY ddate";
$result = mysql_query($query, $db);

echo "<table>\n<thead>\n<tr><th>When:</th><th>What:</th><th>Where:</th>
<th>Why:</th></tr>\n</thead>\n<tbody>\n";

do {
printf("<tr>\ntd>%s</td>\n<td>%s</td>\n<td>%s</td>\n
<td>%s</td>\n</tr>\n",
$myrow["cdate"], $myrow["cevent"], $myrow["ccity"],
$myrow["ccode"] );

} while ($myrow = mysql_fetch_array($result));

echo "</tbody>\n</table>";
mysql_close($db);

And that's it. Doesn't matter how many rows are in the table; it will
display all of them, with one query and one loop through the result.

If you have different data on different pages, make a new table, and
copy/paste/edit the above script with different field names. "Reusable"
code. Or if you have *lots* of them, write a common procedure and feed
it a few parameters.

Granted, if you are not familiar with databases, this may seem out of
the question. However, some time spent learning DB and scripting can
make life much easier. WYSIWYDG be damned, I say! :-)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Feb 16 '07 #21

P: n/a
In article <1m****************@borumat.de>,
Andreas Borutta <bo*****@gmx.dewrote:
Michael Stemper schrieb:
[snip]
>
A row consists of a number of TD/TH.
They are in different lines.

In your example it could be the first row:
<th>Title</th>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster'</td>
<td>'Storm Cloud on Deka'</td>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster Makes War'</td>
No, you have miscontructed the table. The first "row" is the
the headings: Title, Magazine, Issue After this come three
rows of data, each row refering to a different story. Go back
and look at the complete table that you snipped out of your
reply, and you'll see what I mean.

Or are you trying to say that a table _could_ have the "headings"
in the first column, and each subsequent column would be the
data for a particular entry in the table? (Works presentationally
for a dataset that has only a limited number of cases, but lots of
parameters for each case; unforunately, the way table parts are
defined in html 4 is not really compatible with such beasts.)
If I want to copy n lines, I
type "nYY". For instance, in the following table (copied right out of
one of my pages), I'd copy any given cell in the table by typing "YY".
If I wanted to copy an entire row, I'd type "5YY". Pretty simple.

You could select the 4 cells with "5YY"?
Yank 5 complete lines, starting with the current line.
Which copies e.g.

<tr>
<td>'The Vortex Blaster'</td>
<td><cite>Comet Stories</cite></td>
<td>July, 1941</td>
</tr>

- one complete "record" from the table.
Feb 16 '07 #22

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
>May be you never have to type content (data) into lots of rows and
columns.

I do that frequently.
But not in your texteditor, as you first ...
>May be all your data is created by algorithmns and not by human
authors.

Or a third choice. A database and a form.
.... said. You use a form.

A form as UI is fine and ... comparable to the mode of entering data
in a WYSIWYM.
So we have a consense:

A human author needs an appropriate UI to enter/edit data into/in
tables.
>Than you have of course no need of a two dimenisional UI to enter that
data.

Is this illustration below two-dimensional?
Yes.
You started your thread by
saying "simple data tables." This example is rather simple.

First image is of the public page displaying the data:
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/table.jpg
Second image is my form for gathering data, accessible only to me. Shown
is an edit; same form is used for an add of a new record.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/table-edit.jpg
Acceptable UI.
But it's usability is not as high as a fully editable table in
WYSIWYM.
That's my point.

A human author profits of context.
Your form does not offer the context directly: Only indirectly.
Once I click that button, it is then instantly visible on the public
page.
>Your texteditor will fit.

..to write the rather simple scripts, one that gathers and stores the
data in the MySQL table, and the other, even simpler script to display
it.
I really don't want to argue against principally against the
usefulness of scripts and databases.
Sure they are powerfull and usefull.
In a certain context.

Simple tasks (e.g. simple tables or tables which contain very
different amounts of content in their data cells, where may be some
data cell contents needs additional markup ...) are IMHO easier to
handle and perform with a WYSIWYM.
[...] WYSIWYDG be damned, I say! :-)
:)

It seems that we differ in:
I'm convinced that /your/ prefered way is a good way in many cases.
You are convince that one of my ways is /never/ appropriate for no
type of webauthor/ task.

Andreas
--
http://borumat.de/firefox-browser-tipps
http://borumat.de/thunderbird-email-tipps
http://borumat.de/openoffice-writer-tipps
http://borumat.de/40tude-dialog-newsreader-tipps
Feb 16 '07 #23

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
But not in your texteditor, as you first ...
...said I used to write the script.

Ok, 'nuf about all this. <g>

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Feb 17 '07 #24

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>, the lovely and
talented David Stone broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Or are you trying to say that a table _could_ have the "headings"
in the first column,
A table can have stubs, in TH.
and each subsequent column would be the
data for a particular entry in the table? (Works presentationally
for a dataset that has only a limited number of cases, but lots of
parameters for each case; unforunately, the way table parts are
defined in html 4 is not really compatible with such beasts.)
COLGROUP isn't in html4? Do tell.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/ <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 703 days to go.
Feb 17 '07 #25

P: n/a
Andreas Borutta wrote:
You are convince that one of my ways is /never/ appropriate for no
type of webauthor/ task.
I've had only one benefit from WYSIWYG but not as an author, only as an
user: it's easier to delete presentational etc. table rows and/or
columns using FrontPage or such before printing real content :)

--
Osmo

Feb 18 '07 #26

P: n/a
In article <sl********************@goodwill.larseighner.com >, Lars
Eighner <us****@larseighner.comwrote:
In our last episode,
<no****************************@news1.chem.utoront o.ca>, the lovely and
talented David Stone broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Or are you trying to say that a table _could_ have the "headings"
in the first column,

A table can have stubs, in TH.
and each subsequent column would be the
data for a particular entry in the table? (Works presentationally
for a dataset that has only a limited number of cases, but lots of
parameters for each case; unforunately, the way table parts are
defined in html 4 is not really compatible with such beasts.)

COLGROUP isn't in html4? Do tell.
Well of course it is, but it wasn't being used in the example that
was being discussed originally - and which has now been completely
removed from all quotations above.

And we won't even mention trying to get CSS to work with COLGROUP!

Enough, this is getting silly...
Feb 18 '07 #27

P: n/a
On Feb 19, 5:49 am, Osmo Saarikumpu <o...@weppipakki.comwrote:
Andreas Borutta wrote:
You are convince that one of my ways is /never/ appropriate for no
type of webauthor/ task.

I've had only one benefit from WYSIWYG but not as an author, only as an
user: it's easier to delete presentational etc. table rows and/or
columns using FrontPage or such before printing real content :)
Yeah, it's good for working with CSS as well, you can get an idea of
how an applied style will look before previewing it in a web browser.
I personally use a bit of both, but for PHP and other such things a
text editor is a great tool.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Feb 19 '07 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.