Why is web design so damned complicated?

[Cheryl D Wise]

No, reality is programs designed for print create crappy web pages with few
if any options to change the mark-up generated.it doesn't matter if they au
Microsoft programs, Adobe programs (In Design) or open source programs (Open
Office). Bottom line if you want a website that works across platforms and
browsers and/or use a tool that is designed for that purpose.

 

[Don Schmidt]

What ever did we do to you?! Why are you saying our web pages are "crappy"?
Our Publisher 2000 website may be the Fiat in your world of Lamborghini
sites but we in the Order Sons of Italy in America, Vancouver USA Lodge 2690
offer our website to folks interested in Italian culture, history and
friendship. We welcome nice people we want to call famglia. Our site is
our calling card to interested people and a vehicle to our members via a
password protected link providing proprietary documents and informational
news.

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

I wasn't referring to your site in particular, please don't take it so. It
is easy on the eyes but very inefficient. I am talking about the code
created by programs designed for print work. However, the code of your site
is the sort I am referring to with :
<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=9 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=8 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=8 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=8 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=13 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=36 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=7 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=15 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=4 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=2 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=3 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=7 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=3 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=48 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=6 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=9 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=3 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=6 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=17 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=26 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=82 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=20 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=36 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=27 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=37 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=9 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=4 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=3 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=9 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=25 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=34 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=42 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=8 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=22 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=7 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=1 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=8 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=16 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=10 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=16 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=34 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=10 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=1 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=11 height=1></td>
<td><img src="_blnk.gif" width=1 height=1></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=9 height=9></td>
<td width=8></td>
<td width=8></td>
<td width=8></td>
<td width=13></td>
<td width=36></td>
<td width=7></td>
<td width=15></td>
<td width=4></td>
<td width=2></td>
<td width=3></td>
<td width=7></td>
<td width=3></td>
<td width=48></td>
<td width=6></td>
<td width=9></td>
<td width=3></td>
<td width=6></td>
<td width=17></td>
<td width=26></td>
<td width=82></td>
<td width=20></td>
<td width=36></td>
<td width=27></td>
<td width=37></td>
<td width=9></td>
<td width=4></td>
<td width=3></td>
<td width=9></td>
<td width=25></td>
<td width=34></td>
<td width=42></td>
<td width=8></td>
<td width=22></td>
<td width=7></td>
<td width=1></td>
<td width=8></td>
<td width=16></td>
<td width=10></td>
<td width=16></td>
<td width=34></td>
<td width=10></td>
<td width=1></td>
<td width=11></td>
<td width=1></td>
</tr>

This code is completely unnecessary and is typical of what programs designed
to create print documents put into web pages in an attempt to replicate on
the web what is on the printed page. An image map is used instead of
standard hyperlinks:

<map name="map594">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,226,168,276" href="page4.html">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,150,168,201" href="page3.html">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,75,168,125" href="page2.html">
<area shape="rect" coords="0,0,168,50" href="index.html">
</map>

You have images where text would be better like Lodge Members Corner and
sometimes the image format is not the best choice like the Leonard Simeone
picture.

You home page is 145k. A cleaned up version is at
http://wizerways.net/vanusa/index.html and 86k. It could have been cleaned
up further but this was quick and "dirty" clean-up. It still uses marquee
and a little bit of tables but there is little change in display. The style
could be moved to an external stylesheet which would make other pages load
faster. The differences in code is what I am referring to as crappy.

 

[Don Schmidt]

So my way takes code. Code is cheap.

Seems every uninstall program leaves code; there's where improvement is
needed.

BTW, your sample of my site left out at least two links. I would guess this
would make for a smaller site package.

don

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

Links don't take hardly any code it is all the empty table cells, nested
tables, image maps when plain links are more accessible and lower bandwidth
that add to the size. If you think code is cheap, guess you don't have
people still on dial-up visiting your site. Personally I would do a whole
lob of this different if it were my site but it isn't so if you are happy
will it continue what you are doing. <shrug />

 

[Windsun]

Code is cheap, bandwidth is not, especially if you are on dialup.

Justifying really awful code because it is not a commercial site is a
cop-out.

...................................................................................................

 

[DavidF]

Certainly Publisher in an effort to convert print documents to html,
produces bloated, inefficient, slower loading code and no serious web
designer would think of using a DTP to produce websites, or be able to
stomach such inefficient code out of principle. However, it doesn't
necessarily follow that no one should ever use Publisher to produce a
website.

Should the hobbyist that just wants to build a simple website go out and buy
web expression and invest the time to learn it? The small business person
who already owns and has used Publisher to develop their print documents for
their business that wants an easy way to get a basic web presence with the
same design and branding elements as their print documents, but doesn't have
the resources to hire someone to develop a website or the time or desire to
buy and learn FrontPage or Web Expression, could also find Publisher to be
an acceptable tool to use. I think the key is what are the expectations and
goals of the user. If all the user wants is a simple, small static website
and doesn't want to invest the time and money in better software, then I
think Publisher can be a useful tool. If they want more than that, then we
in the Publisher web group do encourage them to move to more appropriate
software.

My point is just because Publisher does not produce good efficient code (and
some have argued that FP didn't either) this doesn't mean no one should ever
use it to produce a website.

DavidF

 

[Don Schmidt]

Our site loads in one second on DSL, from my experience far better than most
commercial sites, even the Microsoft sites. The prime purpose of the site
is to make available to the members some 200+/- files of information all
except one are pdf files to be considerate of those with dial tone access.
When I had dial tone service, as a backup the site loading time wasn't
objectionable. The pdf files are created with the most efficient pdf
creating program available in an effort to make the downloading experience
as efficient as possible.

You are welcome to return visits and if you are in the neighborhood
(Washington & Oregon) and are interested in Bocce, Italian Picnics, Dances,
Festas etc. visit our Grand Lodge site, Events page.
http://www.osiaglnw.org/events.cfm (a ColdFusion site)

ciao,

Don

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

No the hobbyist who doesn't want to learn anything should use one of the
many online site builders or sign up for a hosted blog. So we will have to
agree to disagree on the subject.

 

[Don Schmidt]

I just noticed why we may be a bit apart on this topic.

Seems the topic got started by the messages being posted in two news groups,
microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign and
microsoft.public.expression.webdesigner resulting in each faction supporting
their preference. The solution is simple; divide and separate the postings
and each carry on in their own spheres.

Arrivederci.

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

Ah, so someone cross posted. That makes somewhat more sense of this thread.
ciao

 

[Mike Koewler]

Now why would one want to use an on-line site builder (the ones I have
seen or pretty lame) or sign up for a blog when they have a program on
their computer that will do a decent job or even a great job (if the
designer understands how to use the program) of creating a site? You
seem to want to suggest it is impossible to create a decent site using
Pub which is on par with a Flat Earth policy.

Yep, we will have to agree to disagree because you are just plain wrong.

Mike

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

David,

My first website was created with Publisher 2.0 or something like that on
Windows for Workgroups 3.11. It was a better tool for websites than the
current version of Publisher in many ways. Just what I saw when I went to do
minor clean-up of the site earlier in this thread convinced me that it is
not a good tool. Some of the reasons are inappropriate image formats chosen
in addition to the bloated tables based code.

There are many free tools that create decent code without huge learning
curves and those would be better than sitebuilders or blogs. FWIW, there are
blog hosting sites that use WordPress which is infinitely customizable and
plenty of themes available as well. I'm not talking blogsport or free
hosting when I mentioned that option. As for me I don't see that there is
much to choose from in the bloated code from the better site builders and
that of Publisher.

To create a decent looking website in Publisher also has a learning curve.
Which is why it is my opinion that someone who is going to invest time in
creating a web page should use an appropriate tool but as I said to someone
else in this thread, to each their own.

 

[DavidF]

I would say that I am surprised at your answer, but then all but one of the
Publisher MVPs would probably agree with you, as they do not support the use
of Publisher to build websites either. They are hung up on the code bloat
too, and feel everyone should spend the time and money for the "right tool"
for the job, regardless of whether the job requires it. However, I am
surprised that you would suggest that they should use an online builder or a
blog. Most of the online builders I have come across do have a learning
curve, albeit smaller than learning FP or Expression Web, they have almost
no ability to customize them, many require host advertising and many are
framed. Why is this superior to producing a simple site with Publisher? And
a blog...how is that a substitute?

I have lurked around the FP newsgroups and now the Expression group, and
have always admired your expertise and patience. You have forgotten more
about web building than I will ever know. However, and I mean no offense,
condemning Publisher for all web building simply because of bloated,
inefficient code for all users, in all cases, seems illogical and irrational
to me. Oh well, I will still respect you in the morning ;-)

DavidF