locked
Tables In Design View RRS feed

  • Question

  • In FP I could set up a table in design view and it would display exactly the way I wanted. For example, I might have this --

    Article Name          Author

    Each of the above is two cells. It would look that way in design view, and and it would look like that when I opened it in my browser. Now in EW, even if I have the Article Name and Author name as close together as just shown in Design view, yet when I open in my browser it might look like this --

    Article Name                                                              Author

    I know many settings with tables have been deprecated, but I don't care about that at the moment. All I want to do is be able to set up my table so that it appears on the browser the way it appears in Design view in EW, just like FP does.

    How can I do that?


    Lamblion

    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:46 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:44 AM

Answers

  • Stop using % for sizing! That makes no sense, and it's not a design flaw in EW. Don't blame the equipment; you're doing it wrong.

    There was a time, back in the old days of FrontPage, when there were 2 monitor sizes--15" and 17" and 2 resolutions--800x600 and 1024x768. That's it; about a 20% difference in horizontal resolution. And at that time you could--sort of--use % to size things. Those days have been over for a very long time.

    Now the common sizes are all over the place and many people view their monitors in portrait mode. Just exactly how do you think you can predict what anything will look like with common widths varying from 800 px to 1920 px--a 240% difference?

    Set a fixed width for everything; fluid sizing is long, long dead.

    Microsoft doesn't want to "attract FP users" with EW. EW is marketed--by Microsoft--as a professional-level website design program--period. It is neither an upgrade of nor a replacement for FrontPage. FP users who don't want to learn how to do it right can choose from any number of half-baked drag-and-drop website builders on the market. Wanna use EW? Great. Learn the basics. Give it a rest about FP. Nobody cares about FP. Capisce?

    You're in the big leagues now; the only alternative is Dreamweaver, and as a long-time Dreamweaver user, I can guarantee you that EW is easier to use than DW. Suck it up and stop blaming the software.

    But, of course, since you refuse to post anything except useless screen shots, it's impossible for people to really help you. That's why the Forum FAQ says to post a link to the page. You're having problems with the code; screen shots don't show the code. It's like showing your mechanic a picture of your car and asking him to tell you why the engine is making funny noises. And, no, do not post the code. People need to see the page in action.


    Ugh!--The Holidays are here: the deadlines, the shopping, the traffic, the crowds... It's a jingle out there!


    • Edited by Bill Pearson Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:32 AM
    • Marked as answer by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:49 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:21 AM
  • Lambion,

    Rather obviously: make the table a FIXED width, px not a %, .  When you said "that didn't work either", you didn't even say what didn't work.  I told you the table was centered: it was.   (Temporarily put a colored border around it and the cells, and you will see that it was.)

    % widths EXPAND and CONTRACT as the browser window does.  You have no control over how wide the visitors browser window is, so you will never know what the page will look like for a particular visitor if you use % width for your table.

    Center the text in the cells.  And I don't mean by doing it cell by cell - you've got so many auto styles repeated in the cells that it's a bit silly.

    Want all text inside table cells to be centered?  Simple:  in your CSS add:

    td { text-align:center; }

    Want all text inside one table of id "#mytable" to be centered, but not others?  In your CSS put instead:

    table#mytable td { text-align:center;)

    See how simple it is to style all the cells?

    And if you use EW as it's supposed to be used, with knowledge of CSS, that's a whole lot better than you get with the FP-habit of using the table tool for every little style on a cell by cell basis.

    As for things like: "And when I resize the cells, or type in the cells, they auto-change size on me while auto-shrinking the other other cells in the same row. "  Well, of course they will.  If you have a fixed width to the table, but haven't explicitly set a fixed width for the table cells, they will expand to fit the content in the cell, and shrink the next one to stay inside the total width.  That's not EW, that's the nature of HTML tables.  And if you specify a cell width, but put text in that is too long to fit and can't wrap, ditto: it will expand to fit.  Again, not an EW fault, but the nature of HTML tables.  That's how they behave.

    • Marked as answer by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:26 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:01 AM

All replies

  • Can you not drag the cell border(s) to adjust the width to what you want? 

    Otherwise, use the GUI table/cell options, and define the widths there.  The dialogues for the cell/table properties are similar to those in FP.

    Thirdly, you may manipulate the width values in the code view (or design/code split view) and alter them  to exactly what  you need.

    Then, preview the page in a browser.   Design view will never give you a 100% accurate view of what the page will look like when in a browser.

    An understanding of HTML and CSS will also be an advantage.  Read up on some of the tutorials listed in the Before Posting/Forum Guidelines/Resources sticky post on the first past of questions on this forum.

    Andrew M


    http://www.murraywebs.com

    "Nothing spoils numbers faster than arithmetic!"
    -- Peppermint Patty (Peanuts, Charles M. Schulz)
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:02 AM
  • The main problem I'm having is centering the table. Although I've specified "center" for the table alignment, and though it appears centered in Design view with my headings and menus above it all properly centered (they are not part of the table, but above the table), when I open it in my browser the table contents are off to the left. Not absolute left, but way left nevertheless, even though my headings and menu items above all work, the tabke simply will not display in the center.

    How do I get the table to display in the absolute center like I want it to. In FP it was simple, i.e., center-align it and viola! EW is NOT a viable cross-over from FP by any means. They should make these things intuitive, but the more I use EW, the less intuitive it feels.

    Say what you will about FP, but at least it was intuitive.


    Lamblion


    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:12 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:10 AM
  • Here are two screen shots.

    1) How it looks in EW --

    http://www.lamblion.net/image_dump/ew_table_shot_1.jpg

     

    2) How it looks in the browser --

    http://www.lamblion.net/image_dump/ew_table_shot_2.jpg


    Lamblion
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:24 AM
  • Screen shots don't help.  They don't tell us anything about your CSS and code.  Publish the page, give us a link.
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:29 AM
  • Try this link, but remember the first sceen shot above is how it appears in Design view, and how it SHOULD appear in the browser. Here's the link --

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/_theological_main.html

    The table in question is the last one in the code.


    Lamblion
    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:38 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:37 AM
  • The table IS centered.  The text inside the cells is not, so the text is all over to the left of each cell.  But then, the cell text hasn't been styled to be centered.  The difference in the two views is simply that you have set the table width to 80%, and the browser is wider than your EW design view, so the table is spread out more.  Shrink your browser window width, and voila, you'll get it to match EW's Design View.
    • Edited by KathyW2 Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:09 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:05 AM
  • Nope, that won't work either, because then I get this --

    1) Design view --

    Article Title     Author

    2) Browser view --

    Article Title                                 Author

    I can give another html to display this if necessary, but I don't think it should be.

    And when I resize the cells, or type in the cells, they auto-change size on me while auto-shrinking the other other cells in the same row. That is, unless I set them to a specific width, but even then they must sometimes be modified, and it is almost impossible to get a uniform setting.

    Again, in FP this wasn't a problem. IF MS wants to attract FP users and keep them, they're going to have make EW intuitive like FP was. EW is not even close.

    You all took issue with me a few weeks ago when I said, paraphrasing Jim Cheshire from his book, that Design view made coding except for advanced stuff obsolete.

    You all were rigth, Cheshire is wrong. Dead wrong with regard to EW. The fact is, EW is not even REMOTELY intuitive as FP, and you CANNOT get along in Design view even in the BASICS of developing a proper page. You must enter code if you're going to do a proper web page in EW. Period, end of story.

    And the design view in EW compared to the design view in FP is as alien as tribbles and not even close to being as intuitive as FP.

    I think most professional web developers will stay with the DW as the gold standard unless MS makes EW a lot more intuitive, as FP was. That is, if MS wants to capture and keep the FP market and attract new users.

    An FP user who could set a table up in design (normal) view in FP and have it appear that way in the browser expects the same behavior in EW. He is going to be RADICALLY disappointed until MS fixes it.


    Lamblion


    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:26 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:23 AM
  • Here is a panorama screen shot. The table in this case was set to 60% width...

    http://www.lamblion.net/image_dump/ew_pan.jpg

    Notice in the Design view in EW that the first article, "Blood Of Jesus Christ" is DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the "i" in the "Textual CrIticism" menu item above.

    Now notice in the browser that the very same article is FAR TO THE LEFT of the entire menu item, "Textual Criticism"

    Notice also HOW FAR APART my signature, "Scott Jones" is from the title, "Blood Of Jesus Christ" in the browser view, whereas in the design view it is right next to it, where I want it.

    This is absurd.

    This is a horrendous design flaw in EW, especially for those of us coming from FP. In FP this worked exactly like it was supposed to. EW makes it almost impossible to structure a table so that not only the table stays aligned where it shows in design view, but making the cells stay aligned is equally absurdly UNintuitive.


    Lamblion
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:47 AM
  • Stop using % for sizing! That makes no sense, and it's not a design flaw in EW. Don't blame the equipment; you're doing it wrong.

    There was a time, back in the old days of FrontPage, when there were 2 monitor sizes--15" and 17" and 2 resolutions--800x600 and 1024x768. That's it; about a 20% difference in horizontal resolution. And at that time you could--sort of--use % to size things. Those days have been over for a very long time.

    Now the common sizes are all over the place and many people view their monitors in portrait mode. Just exactly how do you think you can predict what anything will look like with common widths varying from 800 px to 1920 px--a 240% difference?

    Set a fixed width for everything; fluid sizing is long, long dead.

    Microsoft doesn't want to "attract FP users" with EW. EW is marketed--by Microsoft--as a professional-level website design program--period. It is neither an upgrade of nor a replacement for FrontPage. FP users who don't want to learn how to do it right can choose from any number of half-baked drag-and-drop website builders on the market. Wanna use EW? Great. Learn the basics. Give it a rest about FP. Nobody cares about FP. Capisce?

    You're in the big leagues now; the only alternative is Dreamweaver, and as a long-time Dreamweaver user, I can guarantee you that EW is easier to use than DW. Suck it up and stop blaming the software.

    But, of course, since you refuse to post anything except useless screen shots, it's impossible for people to really help you. That's why the Forum FAQ says to post a link to the page. You're having problems with the code; screen shots don't show the code. It's like showing your mechanic a picture of your car and asking him to tell you why the engine is making funny noises. And, no, do not post the code. People need to see the page in action.


    Ugh!--The Holidays are here: the deadlines, the shopping, the traffic, the crowds... It's a jingle out there!


    • Edited by Bill Pearson Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:32 AM
    • Marked as answer by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:49 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:21 AM
  • I did post a html. So then, instead of telling about what used to be with FP, how about telling me how to make my article title and signature in my table appear underneath the menu item as I showed above?

    For example, in the screen shot above, I want the cell items to appear in the same relative postion to the menu item above it. Do you know how to do that?

    And by the way. I sitll have FP and am still using it until I get everything worked out and transferred over to EW. My monitor is 1600x900 resolution in landscape, FAR, FAR, FAR different than when FP came out.

    But guess what? FP STILL works when I put up a table in it just the way it used to, and just as intuitively. EW in this regard is still junk intuitively compared to FP. Period.

    If you can show me, however, how to do what I want easily with EW, I'll be happy to repent. I still think EW is an exceptional program, but there is a HUGE intuitive gap, and what's worse, MS has done nothing whatsoever in the way of a real professional attempt at a tutorial to help FP users transition.


    Lamblion

     


    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:43 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:36 AM
  • Bill,

    Whether you meant to or not, you solved my problem. By telling me to quit using % I specified a length of 750 px for my table. This solved virtually every problelm I was having.

    Now then, that prompts another question...

    Does specifying a fixed width like that, say like 750, pose any problems for other computers? That is, is 750 likely to fit any system so that I needn't worry about it?

    Thanks for the statement about the %. That made the whole formatting issue go away.


    Lamblion
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:52 AM
  • Lambion,

    Rather obviously: make the table a FIXED width, px not a %, .  When you said "that didn't work either", you didn't even say what didn't work.  I told you the table was centered: it was.   (Temporarily put a colored border around it and the cells, and you will see that it was.)

    % widths EXPAND and CONTRACT as the browser window does.  You have no control over how wide the visitors browser window is, so you will never know what the page will look like for a particular visitor if you use % width for your table.

    Center the text in the cells.  And I don't mean by doing it cell by cell - you've got so many auto styles repeated in the cells that it's a bit silly.

    Want all text inside table cells to be centered?  Simple:  in your CSS add:

    td { text-align:center; }

    Want all text inside one table of id "#mytable" to be centered, but not others?  In your CSS put instead:

    table#mytable td { text-align:center;)

    See how simple it is to style all the cells?

    And if you use EW as it's supposed to be used, with knowledge of CSS, that's a whole lot better than you get with the FP-habit of using the table tool for every little style on a cell by cell basis.

    As for things like: "And when I resize the cells, or type in the cells, they auto-change size on me while auto-shrinking the other other cells in the same row. "  Well, of course they will.  If you have a fixed width to the table, but haven't explicitly set a fixed width for the table cells, they will expand to fit the content in the cell, and shrink the next one to stay inside the total width.  That's not EW, that's the nature of HTML tables.  And if you specify a cell width, but put text in that is too long to fit and can't wrap, ditto: it will expand to fit.  Again, not an EW fault, but the nature of HTML tables.  That's how they behave.

    • Marked as answer by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:26 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:01 AM
  • Kathy, I know what you're saying, but right now I'm just trying to throw up a simple site. I'll work on the tweaking once I get it up, but I've gone a TON of stuff to transfer over, and I have no intention of transferring all the FP junk code with it, so I'm doing it manually, article by article, page by page, etc.

    As for the table, right now I'm just multiple-selecting cells and performing the formatting globally with one stroke. But no, you're wrong about centering. I do not want the text in the cells themselves centered. I want them left aligned. However, there may also be junk code in that page as I have practiced with it a lot. I may just recreate another and cut and paste the relevant portions. I'll come back later when my site is up and running and start turning everything over to CSS and whatnot. But for now, I'm just trying to transfer.

    The % revelation made all the difference in the world with the table postioning.

    But my remarks about FP and the transition are still valid.

    However, if I implied that EW is not a great deal better than FP, then I didn't mean to imply that. EW is far and away a better program. I like EW far and away better than FP. But it's a fact -- at least for me -- that EW is not nearly as intuitive as FP.

    And as I said, you people were right -- I believe paladyn was the first to mention it, but you and the others jumped on the bandwagon as well, i.e., that you really need to know more than just design view to even do a proper web page in EW. And that's fine, but it's good to know that up front, which EW advertising gave the impression that wasn't true. You guys knew the score on that one for sure.

    I don't have time right now to delve into the learning curve properly. I haven't touched EW for over a week until the last couple of days, so people like me who don't have time to really learn it thoroughly right now just want it to work.

    You have all been a great help to me in that regard.

    In any case, I've got my tables working exactly the way I want them now.

    I'm sure I'll be back soon with my next EW adventure to get help with now that I'm pushing ahead with trying to get my site completely transferred from FP to EW.


    Lamblion





    • Edited by Lamblion Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:36 AM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:26 AM
  • Lamblion,

    You mentioned that you still have FP and used it and got the result expected- as opposed to EW.

    Bear in mind that FP does not insert a doctype. In the absense of a doctype browsers display pages in quirks mode. Quirks mode is roughly like IE5 or 6 from what I can see of most browsers I have tried. The result of this is that FP created pages (without doctypes) look like they probably were intended for the most part. In fact- a great many sites use that as a strategy and do not add doctypes to old FP pages for that reason- until they fix or remake them.

    The moral of the story is that your FP pages will render in quirks and probably look pretty good and close to what you intended. Sometimes its best to leave it that way until you can upgrade them fully. It can be hard to fix up old pages and get all the junk out and get them validated.

    Sorry you touched on the sore FP nerve here with some, but I can understand your aggravation and agree with some of your opinions. Early on with versions 1 and 2 (but not now) , I saw plenty of comparisons to FP  and claims about EW being WYSIWG and urging former FPers to upgrade. Since then however there has been a definate shift away from the early position. Regardless of this some still feel the need to tar and feather anyone even bringing up FP.

    I have to disagree with your assertion that EW can not work without a lot of manual coding. You can get by with very minimal coding and get fairly good results. From what I can see as opposed to DW, EW is better for beginners. You really do not have to be much of a codehead unless you want to be. 


    • Edited by surferbob Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:58 PM
    Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:57 PM
  • I am actually compiling an informal list of FP intuitive, non-EW intuitive items. Since I am transferring, as time allows, everything from FP to EW and doing it manually page by page, I should have a pretty decent list when I'm done. If I ever get it done, I'll make the announcement here and then let whoever wants it to post it on their sites, or whatever.

    Don't get me wrong, I like EW a gazillion times better than FP, but if you remember, when FP first came out it even came with a printed manual and a printed tutorial. I used the % nomenclature for tables from the beginning with FP (and still do if I use FP), and it ALWAYS displayed exactly as I structured it in design (normal) view in FP.

    The way it works in EW is a drastic change compared to the way it worked in FP. Of course, the way it works in EW is accurate and more programmatically logical, but an FP user converting to EW expects a table to work pretty much the way it worked in FP, and if it doesn't, which it doesn't, then there ought to be BOLD announcements by MS to that effect, which is to say, the list I'm compiling should already have been produced by MS and put on their help menu, along with a step-by-step tutorial for a number of tasks.

    Naturally, printed manuals are out of the question, and I wouldn't want one, but they ought to make all of this available on their help menu in EW, especially for former FP users.

    The help files for most software -- not just EW -- needs a lot of work. For example, we don't need extensive instructions on how to open a file or access the QT editor, ad nauseam.

    Rather, we need to know how to make things WORK. The help files in general don't address this. Instead, they spend myriads of words and space on utterly insignificant things like how to open files, access this feature or that feature, insert a hyperlink, and so on, which an orangutan can learn to do just by trying. They should quit wasting space and time on the insignificant stuff like this and show users instead how to make things WORK.

    I think most people who actually use the help files know exactly what I'm talking about.

    The next time someone decides to write a book or put together a tutorial on EW they should talk to those of us who are just now switching from FP to EW. We actually know what the real users need, i.e., users who have not, nor plan to, invest the time it takes to be a top-notch web designer, but rather, who just wants to put up acceptable, nice-looking sites without having to read through a ton of instructions on how to open a file before he even gets to something that may help, only to find that where he wants to begin, the help file stops at that point, even though it did spend a great deal of time on how to open a file, access the QT editor, etc.


    Lamblion


    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 12:54 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 12:50 AM
  • "....i.e., users who have not, nor plan to, invest the time it takes to be a top-notch web designer..."

    You're still ignoring the fact that EW is not a replacement for FP. It's designed--and marketed--as a professional website design tool. There is no connection between the target markets or EW and FP. EW's market is Dreamweaver users, not FP users.

    The market for FP users who want to build sites without reading through a ton of instructions on anything (and you know, you can skip the stuff you don't need--nobody's forcing you to read every word) is filled by Xara, Muse, Intuit Sites, etc.

    FP died 8 years ago, in another epoch (in web time).


    Ugh!--The Holidays are here: the deadlines, the shopping, the traffic, the crowds... It's a jingle out there!
    Monday, December 19, 2011 1:07 AM
  • Don't post such a list here unless you have first become familar with CSS and HTML, as is listed in the prerequisites for EW.  (See the link in the FAQ .. Start Here post.)   Otherwise you'll be posting things that could be far from true for the intended audience of EW.  Styling table cells, for example: it's much easier and cleaner in EW, using CSS, but a FP user unfamiliar with CSS won't know that.

    The target audience for EW is not "WYSIWYG Intuitive" that was FP's audience (something possible in the days when early versions of IE ruled the internet and the tool could assume one browser target).  A comparison becomes mostly moot when you bear that in mind.


    • Edited by KathyW2 Monday, December 19, 2011 1:22 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 1:13 AM
  • Go back and reread what I actually said. I never said I was going to post the list here.

    And, Bill, I seriously doubt MS thinks it's going to convert DW users and isn't the least bit interested in FP users. The fact is, MS IS trying to bring in FP users and the advertising which led me to buy EW was clear on that.


    Lamblion
    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 2:10 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 2:08 AM
  • Here's just one link of many re EW and FP... I could produce many more...

    http://expression.microsoft.com/en-us/dd326841

    The point being that MS is most certainly seeking to inherit the FP market.


    Lamblion
    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 2:42 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 2:37 AM
  • "I seriously doubt MS thinks it's going to convert DW users "

    To the contrary.  In fact, there are users on this forum who used both, starting with DW, who now mostly use EW.  Again, read that link in the FAQ.  EW is not intended to be FP.  FP users who upgrade need to be willing to learn.  Again, read http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-US;2511858

    And even re-read the link you posted.  The point is made there, too: EW is not FP.  You need to know more.


    In short, EW is MS's offering for former FP users, but no, it's not "inheriting the FP market".  It will get some of the FP market: those willing to learn.  But part of the FP market will go to "site builders", if they are willing to accept their limitations.
    • Edited by KathyW2 Monday, December 19, 2011 3:29 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 2:58 AM
  • I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually say. I never said that EW is intended to be FP. Never even hinted at it.

    And to assert that MS doesn't want the FP market is, well, naive at best. I'd like to have all the money that's been spent on the advertising hinting that EW is the continuing tradtion that began with FP. If MS doesn't want the FP market, I'll be happy to relieve them of the revenue in advertising they've spent in addressing that very issue.

    And of course I'm willing to learn, otherwise I wouldn't be here asking questions. The fact that numerous other FP users have had the same frustrations as me is proof of the problem. MS simply hasn't effectively done a good job in that arena.

    MS has made tremendous improvements as their software in general, including EW, but their help and transitioning efforts have not been anywhere near as effective, and as long as that FACT keeps being denied and defended, it will be like the old days when MS refused to admit that their code had bugs, even though everybody on the planet knew it did.

    Oh, and go ahead and prove me wrong if you can, but once again, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that EW has overtaken DW as the premier professional web developing tool. I suspect it's still not even close.


    Lamblion
    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 3:57 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 3:51 AM
  • The problem is not that those people are former FP users, but that they didn't learn anything about web standards while they were FP users. It was easy to be sloppy in the days of FP because there were only 2 browsers to contend with--IE5 and IE6 (Opera and Netscape notwithstanding) and one OS--Windows (Apple notwithstanding).

    If FP were alive today, people would still have to learn all this stuff that they have to learn with EW. It's not the fault of EW; the web has changed greatly in the past decade. One can't slide by producing sites full of absolutely positioned divs and expect the myriad browsers displaying on myriad devices (and 6 OSes) with to accommodate them.

    The thing is, you can drag and drop to your heart's content in EW and end up with a site whose code is not much worse than FP's. But...a.) It won't display properly across different browsers, and b.) Participants in this forum (who care about doing things properly) won't say that i's okay to do it any old way you want. The point of a forum like this is to encourage best practices, not to pat everybody on the head and give them an E for Effort. That's what Ask.com is for.

    And I have to agreed with Kathy--the list you create will be of little use. And I feel certain that much of what is in that list would be there simply because you haven't figured out how to do it, not because it isn't there (such as your assertion that your table display problem, above, was a "horrendous design flaw in EW", which it clearly was not).


    Ugh!--The Holidays are here: the deadlines, the shopping, the traffic, the crowds... It's a jingle out there!
    Monday, December 19, 2011 4:26 AM
  • I did not put words in your mouth, but you put words in mine.  I did not say you said EW was intended to be FP.  Nor did  I say "MS doesn't want the FP market."  I said EW is not same market as FP - which means EW is not intended to be FP, as is clearly stated in the link I posted from MS.  I'm sure MS would be delighted if all the FP users decide to upgrade their skills and learn EW, and it has published links that describes the differences and encourages the same.  They would then be part of a different market than FP users were.  MS makes it very clear that is the case, again, in the link I gave, and yours.
    Monday, December 19, 2011 4:40 AM
  • I will agree that my statement "horrendous design flaw" was a bit overblown, but the real point I'm making is not that EW should mimick FP, or that it should be similar. All your statements about the evolution of web design are certainly valid and EW would be remiss if it didn't take that into account. But the Help and Transition problem is what is the real problem.

    I have never stated or implied that EW is wrong and FP is right. My contention is that FP users are going to EXPECT the same behavior when they switch over unless there is a clear set of statements somewhere in a cohesive format that they can go to for reference. The current help file is currently useles in that respect.

    And you don't know if my list will be useful or not. It may not be useful to you because you already know these differences, but someone like myself who is just switching over won't know them and will certainly find them helpful. A saddle may not be a big deal to someone who is an expert on horses, but put someone on a horse who's never ridden one and a saddle is virtually imperative. Same with a list enumerating the differences between FP and EW who is just now switching to EW from FP and is clueless about the differences.

    And the indication is that it is NOW that most FP users are switching over, so NOW is the time for MS to act.

    For those who don't know about the differences, such a list would dertainly be helpful. For you, it would be waste paper. So you shouldn't make those assumptions.

    For example, I have been useing % for tables in FP from day one and never had a problem. How would I possibly know that that was deprecated unless I investigated it by asking questions and visiting sites such as W3 Schools?

    I don't care what you say, MS IS desirous of capturing the FP market as their advertising clearly implies, and as such, they ought to do a better job of explaing the differences and the transition process, and not at various scattered places throughout the internet, but on the help menu of EW. That's the whole point of my and NUMEROUS other former FP users if reading their comments throughout the internet is any indication.

    Nobody is saying that EW is doing it wrong. What we're saying is that the changes aren't being properly addressed. Not everybody has time to sit in front of their computer for hours and investigate these things. A simple single location where these matters are addressed, such as in... well, let's see.... aha!... such as in a hlep file!... that would be quite refreshing, now wouldn't it? With a decent tutorial on the help menu as well, just like they did in FP.

    That wouldn't be all that hard to do if they would just take the time to do it.

    Oh, and in spite of the going back and forth, I appreciate everybody's help very much. I've learned a lot in the short time we've discussed this in the past two days.


    Lamblion


    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 4:56 AM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 4:48 AM
  • EW's help file is not for transitioning from FP.  It is for using EW.  (MS has published an entire section on transitioning from FP, as your own link shows.)  But the important thing is to have read the link I gave about MS's own statements of prerequisites for using EW.  With that knowledge under one's belt, using EW is not hard at all to understand.  As for ease of use: that's a reflection on the complexity of website design today vs in the days of FP, and users of both EW and Dreamweaver, its competition, usually give the nod to EW as the easier interface to learn and use.  That's really the relevant comparison, not FP.
    • Edited by KathyW2 Monday, December 19, 2011 4:27 PM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 3:48 PM
  • I would say that we've all made some valid points, and we've all seen the situation through slightly different glasses, and leave it there.

    What it boils down to for me personally is that I'm going to have to invest more time than I wanted to, but that's life. I would much rather have EW than FP, or even DW, from what I've seen of DW that friends have. Plus, I like MS a whole lot better than I like Adobe.

    As I said, I think MS has done an outstanding job on its software in the past few years, including EW.

    Maybe MS could consider putting a "You Know What I Mean" button on the toolbar. -:)

    Anyway, thanks for all yours and everyone else's help.


    Lamblion
    • Edited by Lamblion Monday, December 19, 2011 4:20 PM
    Monday, December 19, 2011 4:20 PM
  • "What it boils down to for me personally is that I'm going to have to invest more time than I wanted to, but that's life."

    I think that sums it up nicely.  :)

    Monday, December 19, 2011 4:28 PM