TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: FW: Front Page From:"Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:25:37 -0600
Seriously, the big thing that 90% of the hardcore web crowd have
against WYSIWYG web editors is that a) by definition of what the web
is, they can't work and b) they almost always produce crappy HTML,
both in the structural sense and usually in the internal organization
I'm not sure how applicable this is, any more. Particularly with the rise
of CyberStudio and DreamWeaver, WYSIWYG editors have taken great strides
forward in this area (try hitting macromedia or golive's websites for demo
versions to see what I mean). Heck, even Fusion and Frontier will pledge to
publish as written any hand-coded HTML you care to use.
I see it as quite similar to the progress made in other areas. Early
publishing systems were driven by directives. Not so long ago even, a good
programmer could create hand-tuned code which ran faster and cleaner than
compiler-created code. Today we have FrameMaker and XPress on the one hand,
and we have excellent optimizing compilers on the other.
No, HTML was not originally intended as a design language, just a quick-
and-dirty information exchange language. But that doesn't mean it will
always stay that way. We can argue the merits of it interminably (though I
suspect we're fairly close to agreement on most of it) but HTML is being
slowly transformed into a design medium.
HTML is growing up surrounded by a dynamic tension between designers and
audience, each struggling to control the web browsing experience. (Egad, I
sound like a marketing brochure! Quick, somebody shoot me!) I'm coming to
the conclusion that if either side wins we all lose.
I'm all in favor of writing to the standards (I'd chose HTML 3.2 rather
than 4.x right now, since no browser fully supports what is included in 4.x
as yet, AFAIK -- certainly neither Netscape nor MSIE, which will form the
vast majority of a site's visitors). And I'll use any tool that gets me
there, though obviously I'd prefer to travel in comfort.
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.