[WEB4LIB] Re: Learning curve: HTML or WYSIWYG

[Michelle Rempel]

Raymond,

Great idea!  Don't exclude one or the other!  Are there any "free" WYSIWYGs 
that anyone could recommend?  Or any other HTML editors?  I know the one I 
prefer but if there are any that beginners would appreciate...

Michelle

At 09:56 AM 10/29/01, you wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 08:30:54AM -0800, Michelle Rempel remarked:
> > Morning!
> >
> > I'm likely going to be doing a day session with some of the librarians in
> > our region on basic web design and HTML.  I'm a purist and prefer to teach
> > HTML as I think that the difficulty level is less than trying to teach a
> > WYSIWYG.  Also, the librarians would be better equipped to sort out any
> > HTML problems later.  Finding a software product that they would all want
> > to purchase and possibly arranging licensing is a concern as well.
> >
> > I've explained my point to my boss, but a more technologically savvy
> > librarian is asking about WYSIWYGs.  What opinions do you have?  From a
> > learning and training standpoint, what have you found to be best?  Would a
> > WYSIWYG encourage librarians to create and update a website more than
> > HTML?  I should mention that I've done the HTML route before and found 
> that
> > most pick up on it quickly.
>
> >From a training/learning perspective, you are correct, without
>question (IMHO of course :)
>
>Set them up with Notepad and a web browser, and have them create
>a simple web page.  This will get the point across that HTML
>pages are nothing more than ASCII text with markup tags (and
>this is intentional).  At the end of the session, break out a
>sample WYSIWYG tool - by now they will have some idea of what
>such a tool actually does.  This can lead to productive
>questions/discussion about the relative merits of WYSIWYG vs.
>Code-based HTML Editors.  Mention HTML-Kit as a (free) example
>of the latter...  :)
>
>My $0.02,
>Raymond