[WEB4LIB] Re: Adobe GoLive, javascript and HTML bloat?

[Jorge Biquez]

Yes. David pointed another BIG Issue about GoLive and similars.

To do all the things you can do visually they are using CSS+Layers html
output that's only supported on versions 4.0 and superior of Explorer and
Netscape browsers. Be careful on that. Previous versions will see a VERY
LARGE colum with all the content there. Usually you can choose what kind of
HTML you want to produce but if you want to ve compatible with prior
versions you will loose some of the "great visually" feautures those
packages offer.

I suggest before publishing to see the results at least on Netscape 3.0 and
Explorer 3.0 (still people is using those versions) or include "a door"
script that according to the version of the browser points the user to a
compatible version of the page (of course you'll have to have "old
versions" and "new versions").

I hope this helps.

JB

At 09:42 AM 3/09/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>principle) and nothing about Adobe GoLive.  I'm wondering whether the
>>bloat is the inevitable consequence of the features they want
>>(mouseovers that trigger popup menus of sub-links) or could be avoided
>>by tighter javascript code and/or giving up GoLive.  Anybody have any
>>idea?
>
>I agree with Jorge that the coding can be done much more tightly.
>
>>By the way, if you want to see where the new design is headed, it's up
>>for public comment at the location:
>>
>>        http://www.rice.edu/newhome/
>
>Has the designers looked at that page with a 3.0 browser?  With Netscape
>3.04 the result was horrendous, a very large page that scrolled down and
>down and down: _all_ those popup menus of sub-links show up on the page as
>individual side menu bars, one under the other.  WebTV also can't handle it
>very well either.  The coding doesn't "degrade" very well for lower end
>browsers.  I know we shouldn't design for the minority browsers first, but
>they shouldn't be ignored either.  It can reflect poorly on y'all for one
>thing.  Some sites it can be forgiven: artistic sites, for instance, where
>coding for lynx means not seeing any of the visual art (an extreme example
>to illustrate a point <grin>).  At least y'all do have a text only version.
>
>I don't mind editors that help me code, but editors that do the coding for
>me... they tend to give bloated coding, coding that is more convoluted than
>need be, difficult to go in and correct or tweak if you wanted to do
>something original or creative that was outside the editor's templates or
>to make the page more cross-platform, or to switch to another editor in
>case the one you are using is no longer upgraded/supported for new
>development in HTML/JavaScript/etc, or in case you find another editor that
>is better (editors that help you code and don't do the coding for you are
>much more flexible to creativity, advances in HTML, etc).  The web is not
>desk-top publishing, I think too many people want Web development to be
>like using Word or Word Perfect to create desk-top documents.  The web is
>not a TV, a phone, a paper, a desk-top document... it's a brand new medium,
>and should be treated as such (IMHO).
>
>TTFN,
>David
>Systems Librarian, Louisiana Tech University 
>javascript list administrator <www.mountaindragon.com/javascript/>
>HTML Live Examples webmaster <www.mountaindragon.com/html/>
>Personal Page <www.mountaindragon.com/merchant/>
>
>