January 31st, 2010 | 
Author: I’d like to know some of the benefits there are for using HTML instead of a WYSIWYG programme, thank you.
WYSIWYG is a philosophy that was very popular in word processing programs. What it really means is ‘what you see is what will be printed.’ In other words, you can predict exactly what the printed output of a word processing document is, because the word processor itself shows the output in the same format as the printer. This is possible because the printer is predictable, and can be tightly controlled.
WYSIWYG doesn’t really work for web documents, because the target environment isn’t a predictable printer, but the highly volatile Internet. You don’t know what browser is going to view a web site. You don’t know the screen size, resolution, which fonts are available, what colors are available, and how fast the connection is. A web site that looks great in your editor (or your browser) might look awful on a PDA, a gaming console, or a cell phone (all of which now regularly feature web browsers.) The truth in web development is WYSIWYHYG (What you see is what you hope you get)
The solution is to design your page in two stages. Begin by defining what your page means and how it is organized. Then at a separate level, give suggestions for the visual design. Make the visual design as flexible as possible so that any type of web browser has a good chance of displaying the page as you intended.
Visual editors don’t tend to be very good at this. Your best bet is to use XHTML (a modern variant of HTML with all the formatting tags removed) to determine the general structure of the page, and CSS (cascading style sheets) to describe the visual aspects.
It’s really best to use code. Most folks who use DreamWeaver (the most popular WYSIWYG tool) eventually switch to code view, because it affords better control. Better, begin with an editor that helps you learn the code well, and that lets you see how it looks at any time. I like Aptana, ( http://www.aptana.com ) because:
o It’s free
o It’s based on a well-known programmer’s editor (eclipse)
o Start typing a code and you get a drop-down of potential legal completions
o It lets you know right away if you’re making an error
o It works on any operating system
o It also supports advanced technologies you’ll need eventually.
Soon enough in your web travels, you’ll outgrow plain XHTML and CSS, and want to add real interactivity to your pages. Generally you’ll want to add client-side interactivity with JavaScript, and more complete interactivity (connecting to databases, sending emails, and so on) with a language like PHP.
All the web programming languages use XHTML or HTML as their input and output. If you’re going to write a program which creates HTML, you need to know how to build the HTML by hand.
Dreamweaver is complex enough that it often takes a couple of weeks or months to learn completely. Eventually, you’ll find that you need to understand XHTML and CSS by hand, which will cost you a couple more weeks. Why not start by learning it by hand, since you’ll have to anyway?
Also, if you let a program build your code for you and then you learn how to do it right, you’ll generally find that you have to go back and fix all your old code. If it doesn’t cost any more time, effort, or money, why not do it right the first time?
Posted in WYSIWYG
WYSIWYG’s typically produce malformed HTML which doesn’t meet W3C compliance.
Learning HTML is more rewarding and often times less expensive than using a WYSIWYG like Dreamweaver and Frontpage because you can just develop your websites in Notepad.
References :
You want wysiwig? Write the html and then view in browser, otherwise you could get an ugly surprise when you do view in browser. Wysiwyg is a lazy way of doing things and it usually shows.
References :
The problem with WYSIWYG is that you are not the only person that is going to view your document. You may have a color monitor, someone else might have black and white. You may have a wide screen, someone else may not. You may have great vision. Someone else may not and might need a larger font.
If you work in WYSIWYG mode and say "it looks great to me", it may look like complete crap to someone else. You wouldn’t know.
The problem is that what you don’t see is what someone else gets, and they won’t be happy.
References :
Any WYSIWYG program write messy code that shows a nice webpage on your machine… but totally wrong on any others.
They are programs designed to help NON-PROGRAMMERS to write websites. (In other words, allowing amateurs to look professionals).
Unfortunately for these amateurs, any site designed that way is instantaneously recognised by anyone as being… well… amateurish.
References :
Pro web2.0 application developer at http://www.web2coders.com
The true benefit of using HTML instead of relying on a WYSIWYG editor is that you’re gaining a skill instead of simply learning how to use another program. This results in the ability to use HTML correctly (standards compliant) as well as greater creative flexibility.
But, please allow me to add one more thing…
I can’t think of a reason to abandon all editors and stick to typing out your HTML into a plain text editor. However, I’m assuming you’re going to use the editor as a way to speed up the coding process, for error checking, and possibly as a means of organizing your files.
References :
Many years working in web development.
WYSIWYG is a philosophy that was very popular in word processing programs. What it really means is ‘what you see is what will be printed.’ In other words, you can predict exactly what the printed output of a word processing document is, because the word processor itself shows the output in the same format as the printer. This is possible because the printer is predictable, and can be tightly controlled.
WYSIWYG doesn’t really work for web documents, because the target environment isn’t a predictable printer, but the highly volatile Internet. You don’t know what browser is going to view a web site. You don’t know the screen size, resolution, which fonts are available, what colors are available, and how fast the connection is. A web site that looks great in your editor (or your browser) might look awful on a PDA, a gaming console, or a cell phone (all of which now regularly feature web browsers.) The truth in web development is WYSIWYHYG (What you see is what you hope you get)
The solution is to design your page in two stages. Begin by defining what your page means and how it is organized. Then at a separate level, give suggestions for the visual design. Make the visual design as flexible as possible so that any type of web browser has a good chance of displaying the page as you intended.
Visual editors don’t tend to be very good at this. Your best bet is to use XHTML (a modern variant of HTML with all the formatting tags removed) to determine the general structure of the page, and CSS (cascading style sheets) to describe the visual aspects.
It’s really best to use code. Most folks who use DreamWeaver (the most popular WYSIWYG tool) eventually switch to code view, because it affords better control. Better, begin with an editor that helps you learn the code well, and that lets you see how it looks at any time. I like Aptana, ( http://www.aptana.com ) because:
o It’s free
o It’s based on a well-known programmer’s editor (eclipse)
o Start typing a code and you get a drop-down of potential legal completions
o It lets you know right away if you’re making an error
o It works on any operating system
o It also supports advanced technologies you’ll need eventually.
Soon enough in your web travels, you’ll outgrow plain XHTML and CSS, and want to add real interactivity to your pages. Generally you’ll want to add client-side interactivity with JavaScript, and more complete interactivity (connecting to databases, sending emails, and so on) with a language like PHP.
All the web programming languages use XHTML or HTML as their input and output. If you’re going to write a program which creates HTML, you need to know how to build the HTML by hand.
Dreamweaver is complex enough that it often takes a couple of weeks or months to learn completely. Eventually, you’ll find that you need to understand XHTML and CSS by hand, which will cost you a couple more weeks. Why not start by learning it by hand, since you’ll have to anyway?
Also, if you let a program build your code for you and then you learn how to do it right, you’ll generally find that you have to go back and fix all your old code. If it doesn’t cost any more time, effort, or money, why not do it right the first time?
References :
HTML / XHTML / CSS All in One for Dummies (author)
http://aharrisbooks.net/xfd