Well, it's a matter of principle. Sure, there are snazzy WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) HTML editors out there, and they add a lot of nice features if you want a fancy site in a hurry. But I learned HTML the hard way: I read other people's code with the ever-handy "View Source" command (right-click in Netscape to get it). I picked through it and experimented to learn which codes did what and how. It was with great pride that I published my first web page -- because it was hand- coded, not slapped together in some GeoCities or Tripod insta-HTML'er. I learned JavaScript mouseovers that way, too. And I wouldn't trade it for the world. You see, it's a matter of knowledge, comprehension, and control. Microsoft Publisher, for example, will generate a nice page for you pretty quickly, but you'll have a hell of a time editing it, because it turns the entire page into one gigantic image. I know, because my company re-designed a site that was originally done in Publisher. And other editors will give you nice pages, but they throw in all kinds of extra code, making it nigh-on impossible to decipher when you want to edit it. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying all WYSIWYGs do this, but the majority of them do. There are good careware, or otherwise free/cheap HTML editors, such as NoteTab and Arachnophilia out there that have "shortcut" HTML tag generators for those who don't like writing out the tags. I use Arachnophilia myself, and it's helpful, fairly intuitive, and simple to use. So, my point? I like to be in control of what I'm designing. I like to understand the in's and out's of what I can and can't do with HTML, to know what will look good for what browsers and why. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to change my design to accomodate people who are surfing with 2.x browsersaur at 640x480, but at least I am aware of what my site will look like for them. Which leads to another issue: browser wars. I prefer Netscape hands-down over Internet Explorer, in all versions. I keep a copy of IE 4.0 on my computer simply to check my site design in because things look so different between the two platforms. And they shouldn't. HTML is a standard language. One would think that there would be a standard of interpretation for it. There is, but neither Netscape or IE conforms to the standard. I prefer Netscape, even with it's oddities, because it is a better browser. IE allows sloppy coding that in all actuality shouldn't work. But in IE it does. It also renders tables strangely, particularly if people haven't taken the time to include size and ALT tags on their images. (It doesn't take that much extra time to code, folks, and it will make your pages load faster and cleaner.) As an aside, there is another option: Opera, which many consider to be the best all around browser. And finally, IE is Microsoft, which I detest. Yes, I use it, but that doesn't mean I like it. Microsoft products are buggy as all get out. See the following examples of MS bugs from Wired Magazine: all from a four day span -- Aug. 26 - 30th.
Worried yet? You should be. These security flaws would not have been issues in the first place IF Microsoft was the quality product it claims to be. Don't bother flaming me if you are staunch MS supporter. I don't care and won't respond. But people have the right to know what they are dealing with -- knowledge -- and the right to understand what it means to them -- comprehension -- and the right to do something about it when they are educated -- control. Don't just be passive surfers, accepting all the wonders of the web. Be informed, stay in control of your computer (as much as such is possible for non-programmers). And, that said, I am now logging off to turn my computer into a dual-boot Linux/Win95 machine. More on Linux and it's principles next time.
Back to the Canyon
Background and button set © 1999 LeafWind Web Design, created exclusively for The Lifestream. Not to be used without permission. |
|
