Recommended WYSIWYG HTML editor

[XEyedBear]

Apologies if this question is too simple and obvious.

I have been an infrequent & novice user of Dreamweaver over the years but deleted the application some time ago because my computer was becoming overloaded with apps. I have since been slowly replacing bloated apps with much simpler, quicker alternatives (e.g. Adobe Reader 8 with Foxit Reader).

Now I need a simple and resource-frugal HTML editor with some of the great ease-of-use features that I found in MX Studio. It's got to be quick; my computer is groaning again under the strain even after an upgrade to dual-core and a huge increase in memory. My coding needs are VERY modest. If I ever find I have a need for something more sophisticated than I could go back to MX Studio.

What's the recommendation?

[Redcore]

Notepad++ I guess. It's free, at least!

I'm a big fan of Dreamweaver. I don't think it's that resource intensive.

[zerofire]

@XEyedBear
If your computer is being overloaded with applications then uninstall the applications that you have not used in months or years. That way you would not need to remove Dreamweaver.

@Redcore
Notepad is not WYSIWYG. It is just a document program that does not use any proprietary formatting. That is the only reason that it can even be used to make web pages if you know how to code. If a person is too stupid to take a course on HTML or just read the stuff at the w3schools website then notepad is useless for coding.

[Redcore]

HEH, yeah, I totally wasn't thinking on that [lack of] contribution. I was trying to think of WYSIWYG editors that I actually really like...and I can't think of anything that is nearly as nice as Dreamweaver. Usually I just tell people to use Notepad++ since it has a lot of functionality as a document editor for various programming - so I suppose that's why I didn't stop to think about the crucial "WYSIWYG" part - which was the point of the thread! Sheesh! :P

[XEyedBear]

[quote=zerofire;2169334]@XEyedBear
If your computer is being overloaded with applications then uninstall the applications that you have not used in months or years. That way you would not need to remove Dreamweaver. QUOTE]

That's the reason I uninstalled Dreamweaver - so this recommnedation does kind of put me into a permanent long period loop in respect of Dreamweaver.

Currently there are no resource-intensive infrequently used applications on my system. This gives me roughly acceptable performance.

[jamiemac2005]

If you really wan't to save space, invest a week in learning to code reliably (rather than use WYSIWYG). Trust me the benefits are immense, true control of your sites+no junkcode (which DW does inject).

You want to save some more you switch to a linux distro and use Bluefish or similar (save you money too).

Then use NP++ or Arachnophilia.

If you want to go down that route then go here: http://www.w3schools.com

Performance wise the applications shouldn't make a noticeable difference when not in use anyway. So i see no problem with using them.

But again REALLY consider learning to write HTML, CSS &whatever else takes your fancy.

Cheers,
Jamey

[zerofire]

Dreamweaver does not make any junk code in the pages. You must be mistaking it for Frontpage.

[jamiemac2005]

Haha, junk whitespace, junk(empty) attributes, adding unecessary formatting in pages with a basic doctype, it does junkcode. Just because it's nowhere near as bad as frontpage (i admit that it doesn't look like it junkcodes) doesn't mean it doesn't junkcode. Every wysiwyg editor does... Even if on a tiny scale (like DW). And i also admit that DW is my preference if you have to use a wysiwyg editor.

[zerofire]

I can agree that at one point in the page Dreamweaver always leaves a line blank but that is a visual formatting tool. I personally manually remove it. Empty attributes are constantly not present even when there should be (alt= for img tags). If anything it is a little too neat in my opinion.

[XEyedBear]

Originally Posted by jamiemac2005

If you really wan't to save space, invest a week in learning to code reliably (rather than use WYSIWYG). Trust me the benefits are immense, true control of your sites+no junkcode (which DW does inject).

Without wishing to dismiss your suggestion, I really don't want to follow this approach. I give these 'reasons' in support:

• It has been my experience as a development manager (before becoming retarded/retired) that even with such a highly structured 'language' like HTML, it takes a lot more than a week to learn it reliably and then apply it as well as DW can.
• Actuallly, completely destroying the force of my previous statement, I probably know enough HTML (unreliably !), having been a whizz at GML 30 years ago.
• I don't want to spend time working at that low level anymore, because the advantages (small, quick, tight, elegant, clever-dickness) do not outweigh the disadvantages (low productivity, well-hidden errors, propensity to not include comments, can't see big picture)
• The argument about junk-code is not meaningful to me: it might have techncial merit but in practical terms it's an example of 'angels on the head of a pin' argument.
• The 'true control' claim and its implication for the use of DW are not proven, to my knowledge.

You want to save some more you switch to a linux distro and use Bluefish or similar (save you money too).

Then use NP++ or Arachnophilia.

If you want to go down that route then go here: http://www.w3schools.com

Thanks for this - I will look at it, but, dare I say, I have been dabbling with Linux, starting with Fedora 4 and jumping ship into SuSE 10, then 11 at Fedora 9. I just could not make progess with Fedora. Yes, I like much of what I see, but, oh! how it consumes my time, The whole LInux model simply doesn't work when it is applied to somebody like me: a user, not a maintainer or technical expert.

I'm getting off topic here, but let me give one example: I tried for almost a year to solve a problem is using my bog-standard Creative SB card in Audacity. I have tried over the past 6 years to successfully complete a compile from source code in the Linux world. In all that time I have found not one single source code package which has been correctly assembled. There is ALWAYS some unsatisfied dependency - or, worse, circular dependency. I ALWAYS end up having to get help through some technical support forum because I am forced into a place where I don't know the correct language, the secret rituals and handshakes of the Linux masons. And this is for somebody that could punch object code directly into a card in his youth!. This wastes my time as well as that of other people. It also make me look as dumb as I really am (if that is possible).

So, I'm not yet totally convinced of Linux, for me, personally. And I don't want to make a dual boot machine (been there, done that, got the scars to prove it) and still haven't worked out how to make SAMBA talk (reliably) to XP - or vice versa!

Performance wise the applications shouldn't make a noticeable difference when not in use anyway. So i see no problem with using them.

It's the size of the registry that concerns me. The bigger the registry, the less RAM/more paging I have when dealing with really resource hungry apps. like Photoshop CS4 and Nikon Capture NX. I just upgraded to 4 GB but Windows lets me see only about 3.2 GB of this, after my graphics card has stolen its share and the obviously well-thought addressing architecture of XP in its 32-bit format has thrown away the rest of my RAM.

So that's why I'm looking for a simple WYSIWSYG HTML editor: low resource cost, something that makes me productive. One day lost at my age is a much bigger proportion of my remaining time than at your age!

[jamiemac2005]

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

It has been my experience as a development manager (before becoming retarded/retired) that even with such a highly structured 'language' like HTML, it takes a lot more than a week to learn it reliably and then apply it as well as DW can.

Dreamweaver is the little kiddy writing the code. Not well, it does a better job than most, yes but in certain areas it bombs.

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

Actuallly, completely destroying the force of my previous statement, I probably know enough HTML (unreliably !), having been a whizz at GML 30 years ago.

Depending on the level of learner it would take between a night and a week to grasp enough HTML and get enough experience to visualise their sites. As long as you have the design concepts before hand (that's the usual mistake, to go and make flashy backgrounds that draw attention away from a page).

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

I don't want to spend time working at that low level anymore, because the advantages (small, quick, tight, elegant, clever-dickness) do not outweigh the disadvantages (low productivity, well-hidden errors, propensity to not include comments, can't see big picture)

The low level is the level of control, and simplicity. One line instead of three. LineBreaks rather than Paragraphs(where necessary of course, that's a pet peeve that comes with DW). So that's the big picture, also really knowing your code allows you to expand the site easily, and build in bespoke JS/CSS.

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

[*]The argument about junk-code is not meaningful to me: it might have techncial merit but in practical terms it's an example of 'angels on the head of a pin' argument.

again it's a clean thing, if someone spots DW doing your work for you on the web (usually obvious because of DW's JS) they will see you as an easier target. But it's fair enough if you don't worry about the layout of your site's code, it's not really a necessary thing.

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

The 'true control' claim and its implication for the use of DW are not proven, to my knowledge.

Actually, this comes out most in Cross Browser Compatibility. On a basic level because browsers interperate CSS in different ways, so sites based on static layouts (fixed not fluid), especially when over-using images can cause problems.

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

(been there, done that, got the scars to prove it)

Hah, okay, that's fair enough, i've been through the same hell =].

And as for the registry, i can understand that, i do not like windows' structure, does not make logical sence to me. Still, finding a reliable, low-resource WYSIWYG editor is effort =].

Haha, anyway, it's your descision to choose WYSIWYG and that's fair enough, for whatever reasons (i understand yours). So, back to the problem (not having one)... You could try the online editors available. They're not amazing though. My experience of WYSIWYG isn't that grand, mainly because i don't like them.

p.s. sorry for all the quotes, but if i'd just replied it would have gotten confuzzling.

[Redcore]

I don't know if arguing from a "purists" point of view is all that productive...especially with someone who very apparently doesn't want to do this stuff for a living. Heck, I do it for a living (for the most part) and I use DW every day. When you have to actually live off the money you make from web design, you learn to compromise pretty quick. DW does a pretty good job - so I find it's best to let it build and then go through and clean it up myself. I use a PHP templating system too - so I try to make things as efficient as possible for myself. If I'm getting paid for the project (not per hour) and it takes me an extra hour or two to do something that would take no time at all with DW...that's less money in my pocket because that's less time I have to spend on other projects. I should say though, DW has gotten progressively better with it's code generating with each release. DW CS4 does a LOT more CSS work, and does it quite well from what I've seen. I still use CS3 for work though, which is a pretty good program itself.

Originally Posted by XEyedBear

Thanks for this - I will look at it, but, dare I say, I have been dabbling with Linux, starting with Fedora 4 and jumping ship into SuSE 10, then 11 at Fedora 9. I just could not make progess with Fedora. Yes, I like much of what I see, but, oh! how it consumes my time, The whole LInux model simply doesn't work when it is applied to somebody like me: a user, not a maintainer or technical expert.

I'm getting off topic here, but let me give one example: I tried for almost a year to solve a problem is using my bog-standard Creative SB card in Audacity. I have tried over the past 6 years to successfully complete a compile from source code in the Linux world. In all that time I have found not one single source code package which has been correctly assembled. There is ALWAYS some unsatisfied dependency - or, worse, circular dependency. I ALWAYS end up having to get help through some technical support forum because I am forced into a place where I don't know the correct language, the secret rituals and handshakes of the Linux masons. And this is for somebody that could punch object code directly into a card in his youth!. This wastes my time as well as that of other people. It also make me look as dumb as I really am (if that is possible).

So, I'm not yet totally convinced of Linux, for me, personally. And I don't want to make a dual boot machine (been there, done that, got the scars to prove it) and still haven't worked out how to make SAMBA talk (reliably) to XP - or vice versa!

I think Fedora and SuSE are great looking flavors - but I've been thoroughly impressed with Ubuntu 9.04. I used Kubuntu 7 and I didn't like it at all - I felt the same way you do. Ubuntu 9 is just a breeze though. I switched from dual booting Windows/Linux to straight Linux, I'm so impressed with it. Windows really runs faster in VirtualBox anyways. :) The driver support is much better than Linux in the past.

It's something to play around with first, though...not just install with no reservations.

[jamiemac2005]

Originally Posted by Redcore

I've been thoroughly impressed with Ubuntu 9.04... The driver support is much better than Linux in the past.

I'll second both these statements, in 8.04 i had to spend days setting up my NIC's drivers. 9.04 Out of the box drivers =]. I do quite like ubuntu, thanks for mentionning VirtualBox it might allow me to completely migrate to ubuntu (few problems right now but i can see it happening). =] Starting to play around with Gentoo&Debian but i think it will take a while for me to work out what's best for me, Ubuntu seems more of a general OS, very feature rich, very platform compatible. Linux Mint(just a modded version of Ubuntu, lots more features) is probably more appealing to windows born&bred users. But both are brilliant, personally i think straight Ubuntu works brilliantly.

And i don't want anyone to think i don't like DW, or wysiwyg, they're a brilliant aid to productivity, personally i did a bit of tweaking to CS3 and was amazed at just how little junk you can get in there, and how much like my own code i can get it to produce. The easy add-in snippits features are brilliant at aiding productivity again. Though personally when i use DW i do tend to use the split view to keep an eye on stuff that's going on (mainly when re-positioning etc.)... I do rather the coded method but there's absolutely nothing wrong with wysiwyg, and the benefits are obvious. It's a personal choice. Simple as =].

Cheers,
Jamey