Re: Web Authoring Tool

Subject: Re: Web Authoring Tool
From: "Moore, Tracey" <TMoore -at- PARKERVISION -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:20:02 -0500

You're going to get a lot of slams against FrontPage, but I like it.
IMHO, I don't think one web authoring tool is necessarily better than
the other. People complain about shotty HTML. Well, that's what you get
when you automate something--code gets messy. The only way to keep it
clean is to write it yourself. (Don't slam me, just my opinion!) :)

I wouldn't use RoboHTML to create HTML files. Its main purpose is for
creating HTMLHelp. FrontPage organizes your HTML docs much better. You
do have to watch out for the Javascripting in FrontPage. What I do is
just preview everything in a couple of different browsers before putting
it out on the web. If I see a problem, I check the HTML CODE, not the
wysiwyg. FrontPage has a tab to allow you to view and edit the HTML. I
make extensive use of it. This does require that you learn enough about
HTML and JavaScript to interpret the code. (If you haven't done this, I
suggest doing it straightaway. This will ease many frustrations.)

FrontPage tip: avoid all Webbots and STYLE tags (buttons in dialog boxes
that read "STYLE" insert STYLE tags) like the plague if your users
aren't using Internet Explorer.

If you want to start publishing your manuals as an online help file,
HTMLHelp would work (therefore using RoboHTML). Problem is, as has been
discussed on this list ad nauseum, HTMLHelp requires Internet Explorer
4.0 or higher. If your users are using Netscape or any other browser,
they won't be able to read the file.

So why is the process so painful? Is it really a problem with FrontPage,
or is it because conversion from FrameMaker to HTML isn't clean? (I
don't know--never done it. But conversion from Microsoft programs is
messy--there is ALWAYS lots of reformatting involved.) You may need to
get specific about why this is painful, because I don't imagine a
specific web authoring tool is going to make the process less painful.
It may require a change in the process itself.

Hope this helps.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daruwala Rohina-ind295
[mailto:Rohina_Daruwala-ind295 -at- EMAIL -dot- MOT -dot- COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 12:01 AM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: Web Authoring Tool


Hello All,

I need a little help on making a decision as to which Web Authoring Tool
is
the best to use/has good features. We are currently using FrameMaker 5.5
on
UNIX for our documentation. I save the files as HTML and put it on the
web
using FrontPage and a wee bit of Javascripting. (A very painful process
I
might add!!) Now I have been told that we may need to use a Web
Authoring
Tool itself to create our manuals for the web.

My questions are:
1. Since I am using Frame are there any Web Authoring Tools
specifically for that? (Web Works publisher??? Or something!??)
2. What are the best Web Authoring Tools available?
3. How good is RoboHTML??

Thanks in advance to all those to reply!!

Regards
Rohina

=======================================================================
===

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: FW: Word again
Next by Author: FW: Web Authoring Tool
Previous by Thread: Re: Web Authoring Tool
Next by Thread: Re: Web Authoring Tool


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads