Beginner using word to create web pages

[williams_nick]

Dear ALL,

I have created a basic website using word '03 with loads of information, links, pictures etc.

I've spent loads of time putting it all together and it's ok, it serves a purpose.

BUT - i can't get any scripts to work on any pages.

I am inserting the script (example, document effects / random dissolve) into the relevant place in the code, but when i go to upload it, it just wrecks the page throwing links, pictures out of line and backgrounds altererd.

I only know the most basic HTML as in where the body, head sections are and not how to write it.

Does anyone have any advice? Can't wait to get some things working!

:confused:

[Twey]

Beginner using word to create web pagesStop. Now.
I am not joking. Never, ever, ever use a word-processor to create a website. You could try Nvu (http://www.nvu.com/), or, even better, you could go and read a decent HTML tutorial (http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp) and create your pages yourself. HTML is not rocket science.
Either way, the code Word generated is probably so utterly inoperable that you'll have to rewrite most of what you've done.

[jscheuer1]

I have to agree. Of all the WYSIWYG editors that I have seen, Word has got to be close to the worst. I have been at this for at least 10 years and am only now beginning to get a journeyman's grasp of how to convert the bloated code that Word outputs to something usable with script and other inserted code, and to make it cross browser accessible.

If you must use WYSIWYG, even the dreaded (by anyone who codes for real) FrontPage is better than Word. At least its output code can be fairly easily whipped into shape and often is serviceable, as is. Dreamweaver, for all its failings, is roughly equivalent. This Nvu Twey mentions, I am unfamiliar with, but from a quick look at the link, looks very promising (on a par with the two others I mentioned, and from the looks of it, free).

Learning HTML is always best, even if you do use one of these WYSIWYG editors, so you can at least 'get under the hood' and fix things when need be.

[djr33]

It sounds like we're attacking you, but word is a really bad idea.
WYSIWYG editors in general are bad because they do weird things to the code you didn't expect. If you must use them, though, use one of the above suggestions, look into dreamweaver (costly), or perhaps another free solution-- netscape composer.
All have disadvantages, but will help you get started.

the problem with word and likely the scripts you're trying to use is that word uses word processing methods to create a page and it's almost always off.

Just like microsoft frontpage (their true web design application), it will create weird things that are generally internet explorer specific and have problems.
*Don't use frontpage either. See below:

They like controlling everything (microsoft), and make it hard to use anything else with their programs.

[mwinter]

Of all the WYSIWYG editors that I have seen, Word has got to be close to the worst.From what I've heard, the other Office products like Excel and Publisher are much worse. Hard to imagine...


WYSIWYG editors in general are bad because they do weird things to the code you didn't expect.WYSIWYG editors are bad because the acronym is a lie. They present the user with something that appears to be desktop publishing, but the Web is anything but that.

Certainly in some cases the output does look exactly the same, but it's rarely so across more than one browser (though they may be rendering a document in a similar fashion).

Mike

[djr33]

And they produce bugs in the code because you italisize then unitalisize etc for like 10 times while you finish your design and you've got like 10 unused <i>, </i> tags with no text in them. That's just a simple example, but there are many more.
Dreamweaver is really nice, I think, but I despise the way it handles tables. It automatically sets widths and heights for every cell, row, column and table as a whole, in pixels or percents... just kinda random. It's workable, but quite confusing at times.

The main thing with any WYSIWYG editor is to look at the code while it creates it. If it's easier to click a button that has a big B on it for bold text, then go right ahead, but keep an eye on the code to be sure that it's what you want. One thing word does not allow you to do is view the code as you create pages. this is an awful "feature", and, for it alone, you should never use word.
One thing I like about dreamweaver is the split preview and code views so you can edit either and see what the other is doing. Great for learning and great for saving time.


Plus, Mike,

Certainly in some cases the output does look exactly the same, but it's rarely so across more than one browser (though they may be rendering a document in a similar fashion).A bad web designer with notepad will create more errors in cross-browser compatibility than the average WYSIWYG editor.
It's a bad thing to claim just relates to WYSIWYG editors... every day we're all dealing with browser compatibility, and I don't think it's because we're using WYSIWYG editors ;)



That's not the fault of WYSIWYG editors. Their flaw is that they produce code to make it look like what you clicked, but just aren't smart enough to really take the code apart and make it work. They produce something that LOOKS like what you wanted, because that's all you see, but it may function totally differently.


And, apart from all this, Mike does have a valid point about any microsoft WYSIWYG editor because they are designed (probably intentionally) to only work with internet explorer, because microsoft is bad and wants to get rid of the other, better browsers. Say "monopoly".

[jscheuer1]

And, apart from all this, Mike does have a valid point about any microsoft WYSIWYG editor because they are designed (probably intentionally) to only work with internet explorer, because microsoft is bad and wants to get rid of the other, better browsers. Say "monopoly".

I wouldn't be so hard on MS, they are just doing what any company does, ensuring market share. They have made and appear to continue to be making strides in bringing many of their products up to standards shared by the rest of the industry.

[mwinter]

Certainly in some cases the output does look exactly the same, but it's rarely so across more than one browser (though they may be rendering a document in a similar fashion).A bad web designer with notepad will create more errors in cross-browser compatibility than the average WYSIWYG editor.
It's a bad thing to claim just relates to WYSIWYG editors...Where exactly do you think I made that claim?


That's not the fault of WYSIWYG editors.Of course it is. WYSIWYG software advertises itself around the idea of users 'drawing' a document, and the software producing markup that will realise that design. However, that objective is not realistic; it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Web.

Mike

[djr33]

Where exactly do you think I made that claim?

but it's rarely so across more than one browser
At least that's what I thought you meant....



However, that objective is not realistic; it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Web.
Exactly. But not in some obscure way of compatibility between browsers, but in odd code in the first place.
It's not like using word will always work in IE but never Firefox.
Generally, it's just weird code that has issues in both.



And, John, microsoft annoys me. Sorry. Heh. All WYSIWYG editors have problems, and I don't really know anything redeeming about MS in particular.


And... sorry, guys... I'm being argumenative... no harm intended. The question's been answered, so I'm done. :)

[Twey]

I wouldn't be so hard on MS, they are just doing what any company does, ensuring market share.I would. There are acceptable and unacceptable means of achieving that goal; Microsoft crossed the line a long time ago.
They have made and appear to continue to be making strides in bringing many of their products up to standards shared by the rest of the industry.Yes -- in totally different directions, so that they're not compatible with anything else.

[djr33]

Ha, Twey, :D

[Twey]

Microsoft would never get away with it if they were selling something solid. It's all about software. 90% of people really do not have a clue about what makes a good piece of software -- or even that another piece of software that does the same thing, only better, exists. The latter is mostly because Microsoft like it that way. It's a form of brainwashing, and it is not acceptable.

[jscheuer1]

Yes -- in totally different directions, so that they're not compatible with anything else.

I disagree, their more recent efforts appear to show a trend toward including the old proprietary methods that reflect that sentiment (for backward compatibility) as well as increasing accommodation of standards.

[Twey]

their more recent efforts appear to show a trend toward including the old proprietary methods that reflect that sentiment (for backward compatibility) as well as increasing accommodation of standards.Not at all. They've only just made their homepage valid. IE7 will not support XHTML. The DOM layout and implementation are, as far as I know, still vastly different from those of every other browser.

[mwinter]

[T]heir more recent efforts appear to show a trend toward including the old proprietary methods that reflect that sentiment (for backward compatibility) as well as increasing accommodation of standards.The problem, though, is that many proprietary features are in direct opposition to the standardised mechanisms that should replace them.

Microsoft are well-known for their reluctance to break compatibility. If circumstances were different, that attitude would be positive; admirable, even. But as they are, a clean break is what Microsoft should aim to do.

When Microsoft introduced DOCTYPE switching into IE, they probably should have made the break then: drop all of the chaff that developers shouldn't be using and implement things as specified. If legacy material couldn't be reworked, authors could still use Quirks mode.

Hopefully, when Microsoft get around to implementing XHTML properly, they'll do it then. They'd damn well better use a conforming XML processor. More catering to the ignorant is the last thing the Web needs. The realm of tag-soup can continue to deal with that.

Mike

[jscheuer1]

Seems to be just a matter of the pace of change then really. Like it or not, MS has successfully captured the lion's share of the market, the fact that they are changing at all is perhaps a sign of FF's surge or perhaps just good sense on MS's part. To abandon the proprietary features to quirks mode only would probably be a mistake though, as it would virtually close the door on developing coders that are coming from an IE only world from even experimenting with standards.

[djr33]

Monopoly. Bad one at that.

Not a good thing.

[darco9x2]

so, does nobody else use Notepad? or, is it just that notepad is harder with larger scale websites. ive never used anything other than dreamweaver which i dislike very much and notepad. ive also never created a professionaly website.

[djr33]

Sure... notepad is fine. I find it boring to look at for too long... but it's fine.

My preference is using dreamweaver's code view so it color codes the stuff as I type... makes it just a bit more visual (and interesting).

Notepad is fine, though.

however, I'd recommend using something (wordpad is like notepad, but a bit more advanced) that can use tabs, so you can organize your code.
html (etc) files support this, but, sadly, notepad doesn't, so it's a bit of a pain.

But some people love notepad...


In the end, you just have some code. Whatever works for you to make that code is fine. You can make large or small sites however... just the time and method will vary.

[jscheuer1]

so, does nobody else use Notepad? or, is it just that notepad is harder with larger scale websites. ive never used anything other than dreamweaver which i dislike very much and notepad. ive also never created a professionaly website.

I would recommend a text editor written specifically for or easily adapted to the code language(s) you wish to write in. Edit Pad Pro is good.

[Twey]

If you're using *n?x with KDE, I recommend Kate (http://kate.kde.org/). BlueFish (http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html) is said to be good too, but I've never used it extensively; it has far more features than I need.
Vim (http://www.vim.org/) is a plain text editor with syntax highlighting and several other nice features. It's available for *n?x and Windows, and while it may take some getting used to, is well worth it.

[Aragoth]

I've tried dreamweaver and it never appealed to me. I've tried several scripts by inserting them into the "code" section, and the majority wouldn't work (probably because I suck). I'm pure notepad myself. I took one look at Frontpage and said, "Screw this."

[Guillaumeb]

as for web editors, i have started with Frontpage years ago.
Right now I use NamoWeb Editor which is even easier than frontpage and as powerful as dreamweaver...definitly the best in my opinion

[tech_support]

Dear ALL,

I have created a basic website using word '03 with loads of information, links, pictures etc.

I've spent loads of time putting it all together and it's ok, it serves a purpose.

BUT - i can't get any scripts to work on any pages.

I am inserting the script (example, document effects / random dissolve) into the relevant place in the code, but when i go to upload it, it just wrecks the page throwing links, pictures out of line and backgrounds altererd.

I only know the most basic HTML as in where the body, head sections are and not how to write it.

Does anyone have any advice? Can't wait to get some things working!

:confused:

You can use MS-Word's in-built HTML editor (I think it's called Microsoft Script Editor and you can access it by pushing the keys on your keyboard: Alt+Shift+F11

Hopefully It'll work

____________

Peter

[djr33]

Ah, finally something useful as word... it can double as notepad, just in case.
Ha.

But... yeah, totally... a wysiwyg editor is totally worthless without a code view.