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!

[Twey]

Beginner using word to create web pages

Stop. Now.
I am not joking. Never, ever, ever use a word-processor to create a website. You could try Nvu, or, even better, you could go and read a decent HTML tutorial 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.