[WEB4LIB] Column on HTML Editors

[Andrew I. Mutch]

Karen,

FP2000 is the "standard" web editor here at the Library and Township for
the approximately 20 or so people who work on web pages. While previous
versions of FP were rightly criticized for mangling code and creating
bloated pages, I've found that FP2000 is much better behaved in this
regard. We are currently standardized on MS Office products so we would
have to see a significant leap in productivity potential before shifting
to a non-MS product.  I know there are many who would say we have made a
deal with the devil and I wouldn't necessarily disagree but as Dan Lester
has pointed out, these decisions don't always hinge on who has the best
mousetrap.

Many of the people who work on the web pages for the Township
departments do so infrequently and FP2000 allows them to create their
pages with a minimum of hassle.  We've assisted them along by creating
templates in FP so they don't have to worry about navigational elements. I
occasionally have to do "clean-up" work on these pages but we accept that
these pages won't be 100% perfect. I would wish that they would all
validate, etc. but the first priority is getting the pages out so that
they look "good" in the boss's browser.
:)

Many of the library staff are much more familiar and comfortable directly
working with the HTML code and FP2000 lets them do that as well. Library
staff are coming to appreciate some of the site management tools of FP,
like automatically updating links when page names change and information
on file sizes and download times. One area where FP has been less then
helpful is CSS.  Our redesigned library web site uses a global CSS file
that controls font properties, menu elements, etc.  FP doesn't provide an
easy way to access the CSS selectors and even when it does, I've found it
is inconsistent in how it makes them available and how it applies them.
This is one area where FP needs more work. Maybe the new version for
OfficeXP will address this issue.

I personally use FP2000 more and more frequently although I generally work
in the HTML view. It works fine for my purposes and since I'm generally
working from templates or previously created pages, I can keep the code
clean. In the past I used and still occasionally use Arachnophilia. The
only problem I have had with it is rare memory errors when I'm trying to
clean-up code or preview large pages.  When I don't have access to either,
I'll whip together pages in Notepad. It's always fun to bang out the
occasional page from scratch. Nothing impresses people more than watching
a web page full of color emerge from a jumble of code.
:)
I think I'm going to have to give DreamWeaver a spin after what I've heard
about it from others.

Andrew Mutch
Library Systems Technician
Waterford Township Public Library
Waterford, MI