locked
WYSIWYG page rendering RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Well, it's been a while since I checked in on the progress of EW4. How’s that customizable toolbar coming along, development guys? How about the slow text rendering while typing? I’ve gone to all DIV based page formatting like the gurus said would fix everything and guess what, it didn’t fix everything.

     

    You know what I got with DIVs everywhere? I have screens where placing images throughout cause any semblance of WYSIWYG rendering purely random. The images end up getting plastered all over the text and even over other images in the Design mode. Everything looks fine when viewed in a browser, so it’s the EW4 rendering engine that’s hosed. Of course I can go to the code window and do an HTML refresh and that fixes it… until the next time I do anything on the page.

     

    I have run these pages through the HTML code verification website checkers and everything passes.

     

    I also get frequent crashes when doing a Find/Replace operation in the code window. It’s great.

     

    Here is a suggestion: Since the MS developers rarely seem to experience the problems that we users report, why don't they simply tell us the make and model of the computers and monitors they use, and we can all buy them? It would be much easier than trying to make EW4 work on other platforms, which seems impossible for those of us that select off-brand computers and operating systems like 2010 vintage HP Pavilion notebook computers running Windows 7 64-bit.

     

    Does that sound sarcastic? Well, it is. I have suffered endlessly with the horrendously buggy and feature-deficient EW4.

     

    Arrrrgh!

    Monday, September 6, 2010 4:20 PM

All replies

  • This is a peer-to-peer forum.  You're wasting your breath.
    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:01 PM
  • As Chris says, we have zero stake in Microsoft and couldn't care less about your opinion of it. And no one here told you that using divs for layout (presumably instead of tables, though that isn't mentioned) would "fix everything." I know of no one here who would fit your categorization of "gurus" who relies upon EW's, or DW's or anyone else's, WYSIWYG design view. Previewing regularly in the three major engines, Trident, Gecko, and WebKit (IE, FF, and Safari/Chrome) is the only way to know what your page is actually going to look like in the real world.

    There is no such thing as WYSIWYG, simply because no design view can possibly render with one rendering engine all of the possible rendering engines to be encountered, plus provide the borders, visual aids, ASP.NET flyout menus, etc. Get over it, or adopt another tool. We. Don't. Care.

     


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:14 PM
  • paladyn, you are wrong. I have received responses from Paul Bartholomew, MSFT Moderator, and others on this forum, so check your facts before writing. There are other examples. Try using the search function before making an assertion like that.

    http://social.expression.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/web/thread/7577b6c8-4cfe-4025-9060-329df244516c

    Regarding no such thing as WYSIWYG, you're wrong there as well. The Dreamweaver interface never exhibits the rendering problems that EW4 has - on the exact same files.

    ...and declaring that nobody else cares? Uh, this forum is full of people who care about these issues.

    I'd take away at least one of your five medals just for providing useless and incorrect information.

    Please don't respond to my posts anymore - they're utterly useless and unreliable.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:25 PM
  • Like it or not no WYSIWYG exists that can create cross-browser compliant websites (beyond the extremely basic and useless)...

    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:27 PM
  • Greetings Veign:

    The WYSIWYG issue applies not in the browsers, but in the Design window. It is not a cross-browser problem. Everything looks fine in all the major browsers, but on a page with multiple images using the Float tag, they will often end up displaying on top of the text and shifted toward the top of the page until an HTML refresh is done in the code. My pages typically have a lot of content, but not sophisticated embedded non-HTML code. Again, Dreamweaver properly renders everything in design view with never an image shift or overlay.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:33 PM
  • paladyn, you are wrong. I have received responses from Paul Bartholomew, MSFT Moderator, and others on this forum, so check your facts before writing. There are other examples. Try using the search function before making an assertion like that.

    http://social.expression.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/web/thread/7577b6c8-4cfe-4025-9060-329df244516c

    Regarding no such thing as WYSIWYG, you're wrong there as well. The Dreamweaver interface never exhibits the rendering problems that EW4 has - on the exact same files.


    Dreamweaver is not a WYSIWYG editor either. It may render differently but that's because it uses the Webkit html browser as its live view rendering englne. Something that I wouldn't rely on unless you are planning on only folks using Safari (or possibly Chrome) visiting your site.

    You are pointing to your own previous thread so I don't see what it is you expect to gain from asking again for something that has already been responded to, particular in the cotext of addig some major update you think is needed tagged onto a toolbar customizaton add-in that many of us are eagerly awaiting. One that has nothing whatsoever to do with your slow typing issue or how the page renders in design view.  

    Paul occaionally visits here on a volunteer basis since it isn't part of his job duties. His visits are not anything to count on since it isn't part of his job responsibilities and his work doesn't always allow him time to appear. There are occasions where there are week maybe even months between his visits.. This isn't the place to reliably get bugs or feature requests to the dev team since there is absolutely no guarantee that Pual will ever see it or that he will continue to work on Expression Web in the future. IF you want MS to hear you then you must file your bug or wish over on http://connect.microsoft.com under the Expression Studio feedback group. Ever notice the url of this group? It is "social.expression.microsoft.com" which should be pretty clear that it is not a support forum in the sense that you seem to think but rather a user to user forum.

    FWIW, if  you hung out on Adobe groups you'd find that many people complain about how bad Dreamweaver is as a WYsiWYG web editor too. While its design/live view is different that that of Expression Web it doesn't render cross browser either. Instead it uses WebKit as its base so unless you are prepared to create sites only for those who use Safari or possibly Chrome and write off Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera and any other non-webkit  users you can't rely on it either.


    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:42 PM
  • You're missing the point.  Design surface is what is WYSIWYG since thats the designer.  Browsers aren't/can't be classified as WYSIWYG because they only render therefore you *always* are getting what you are seeing.

    I suspect you are doing or misinterpreting things.  Based on your comment about a Float Tag (which does not exists as there is no float tag in HTML) you may want to head over w3schools and read up on CSS and HTML.  Also, make sure you're not using layers as a layout method.


    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:44 PM
  • Greetings Veign:

    Thanks for your input, but I don't understand the comment about there not being a Float tag in HTML.

    http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_class_float.asp

    When I type in EW4 <span style=  the little window that opens next to the cursor has "float" in the list. Upon choosing it and adding the colon, it then offers a list of options.

    Take care.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:53 PM
  • That is a CSS Property *not* a tag.  Big difference.  This is why I think you might be misinterpreting something.

    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 5:58 PM
  • Greetings Veign:

    OK, you're right, a property, not a tag. I admit to using the wrong nomenclature. The style="float:right" property is always used legitimately inside my tags (<img>, <div>, etc.). So, the problem is not caused by improper coding.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:10 PM
  • Just because you use the proper code doesn't me the code is used properly.  This is a misconception by people new to web design.  HTML and CSS specification has room for interpretation, which browser of course interpreted and implemented differently.  You have to know, not only the best practices methods to laying out a page, but the potential pitfalls from the different browsers.  This is the whole reason no WYSIWYG designer is in existence (not in EW, not in DW, not in any other application).

    To summarize.  It could be improper code, it could be the interpretation by the rendering surface (EW, DW, IE, Safari, Firefox).  Don't rule anything out as it will just lead to frustration because you think it should be this when in fact its something else.


    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:17 PM
  • Since we have no idea what your page markup and CSS are, how on earth are we supposed to respond to "The images end up getting plastered all over the text and even over other images in the Design mode"?

    Doesn't happen to me, but I have no idea what you are doing differently.

    Publish a page that has that problem, and post a link here.  Then we can see if we see what you do, and if so, quite possibly, why.

    I will ditto those who have explained that Design View is not WYSIWYG (can't be - can't simultaneously be multiple browsers, and needs to allow for the various visual aids), but it's not usually far off unless you are doing something that can't be displayed in a static view - an example would be CSS effects that interact to show/hide parts of the page on hover, while Design View has all possiblities showing.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:19 PM
  • Well, Chris is right. There is no float in HTML. That's CSS. It's a distinction that may not address the point of your post, but it is a distinction.

    I'm wondering why you have so incredibly many DIVs on your page. I count 41 on the home page (well, I let Find count 41). If you are presenting tabular data (and you are) use a table; that's what they are for. It would make your life simpler. Just don't use them for page layout.

    For what it's worth, I don't see the display problems that you see when I open the page in EW. The right column of ads drops below the others, but everything else looks fine, even the teeny little DIVs at the top. It's all perfectly readable on my computer. I only looked at the Home page and a crossword in EW, but they look fine. I am looking at the rendered page, which may be different than you see because of the iframes. I also see a mix of % and px for sizing things. I'd stick with px, especially on a layout at intricate as yours. Percents can get squirrely due to rounding.

    Also--other users may have a problem with parts of your site. In some places you only specify a single font, not a font family. Anyone visiting without that font installed will see something completely different; their browser may substitute its default font (which could be Times or Georgia or anything else). And the fonts are sized in points, which is for print use. Ems or px is for browsers.

    I also see a mix of % and px for sizing things. I'd stick with px, especially on a layout at intricate as yours. Percents can get squirrely due to rounding. Browsers have to work in full pixels.


    Silence is Golden. Duct tape is Silver.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:25 PM
  • Greetings KathyW2:

    The homepage only exhibits minor image shifting - maybe because the images are small. Here is a page that shifts a lot, but you have to have itloaded in the EW4 Design window to see it. Everything looks fine in browsers.

    http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/cool-pics/clever-compay-logos.htm 

    If you open it in EW4 (which I dn'tknow whether you can do that and still retain the CSS file formatting), everyting is properly aligned at first. But, if you put the cursor anywhere in the text, say, here at eh beginning, "A while back I posted information about the big money..." and enter a character as when editing, all the images shift up toward the top of the page.

    Thanks for your help.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:43 PM
  • Greetings Bill:

    It's rather ironic that you suggest using tables, because that is exactly what I was doing prior to switching over to <div>s... at the recommendation of at least one person who has responded negatively to me today. When everything was in tables, I never had an alignment issue.

    In fact, I posted in previous threads that <div> structures caused rendering problems in the Design view, and that was why I was sticking with tables. I was instructed by the aformentioned contributor and even MS's Mr. Somasegar and Mr. Guttman that abandoning tables for <div>s would cure the slow text rendering problem, so I did.

    I'm not blaming them for the advice, but am a bit surprised to be getting chastized now for not using tables.

    I thought all usage of % for size and position had been eliminated a long time ago. When I do a View Source on my homepage, the only % I find is not part of a size or position, but part of a URL. I'll look again, though.

    Thanks for your help.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 6:56 PM
  • OK, you're right, a property, not a tag. I admit to using the wrong nomenclature. The style="float:right" property is always used legitimately inside my tags.

    The style is an attribute. The float:right is a property. Attributes have an equal sign after them and properties have a colon after them.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 7:23 PM
  • paladyn, you are wrong. I have received responses from Paul Bartholomew, MSFT Moderator, and others on this forum, so check your facts before writing. There are other examples. Try using the search function before making an assertion like that.

    http://social.expression.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/web/thread/7577b6c8-4cfe-4025-9060-329df244516c

    No, I am not wrong, nor was Chris when he stated that this is a peer-to-peer forum. That was what I was referring to when using the "we" pronoun, the thousands of us who are not Microsoft employees and who make up the body of this forum.

    Paul, Lori, Anna, Jim, and a handful of other Microsoft employees do participate occasionally. Some few are moderators, others like Paul and Jim work in various other roles for Microsoft, and their participation here is wholly voluntary and on their own hook.

    We, and here I refer to the body of hundreds or thousands of forum participants who do not fall into that small handful of employees, do indeed have no financial or other interest in Microsoft, nor do we have any control over their marketing or development direction. This is a social forum, where those who comprise what might be described as the regular contributors come voluntarily, on our own time, to try to help others. We truly have no stake in Microsoft, and we really do not care what your opinion of the company might be.

    Regarding no such thing as WYSIWYG, you're wrong there as well. The Dreamweaver interface never exhibits the rendering problems that EW4 has - on the exact same files.

    Horsepucky. I have used Dreamweaver since MX, and now use CS5. I am also a member of arguably the largest DW mailing list around not hosted by Adobe (around 5000 or so members, IIRC). I know from my own experience, and from the volume of complaints and whining in the group, that DW's WYSIWYG is no more perfect than EW's.

    Their LiveView, which does provide a pretty accurate rendering, depends upon a single rendering engine, that of WebKit, and even with WebKit there are variations between Safari and Chrome. EW's SuperPreview at least permits the selection between a few engines, with more on the horizon. And in the end, the point will still remain that you will never get as accurate a preview on any design surface as you will by previewing in the actual target browser.

    ...and declaring that nobody else cares? Uh, this forum is full of people who care about these issues.

    Either your comprehension of the English language is sadly deficient, or you deliberately ignored what that "We. Don't. Care." was referring to. As a reminder, here it is again, including the precursor sentence, "Get over it, or adopt another tool. We. Don't. Care." I assure you, the forum is not full of people who care which of those alternatives you choose. 

    I'd take away at least one of your five medals just for providing useless and incorrect information.

    Good thing for me that you don't control the forum then, isn't it? From reading that statement, it would seem that your sense of irony is at least slightly atrophied, because the algorithm that determines the distribution of medals awards them for providing useful and correct information.

    Please don't respond to my posts anymore - they're utterly useless and unreliable.

    Sorry old sod, not your choice to make. This is a public, social forum, and we are free to respond to any post to which we choose to reply. You don't have the option to post and then dictate who may or may not respond. You do, of course, have the option not to read those responses, if you wish to exercise it.

    BTW, are you cognizant of the phrase "pronoun antecedent?" If so, re-read your last sentence above, with particular attention to what is the antecedent of "they."

    Irony abounds...

     


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 7:29 PM
  • Large tables, especially those with detailed per-cell styling rather than general CSS styling, definitely slow down EW, and tables for general page layout is not recommended.

    That said, if your page has, in fact, tabular data, a table is entirely appropriate, and a lot of your content definitely qualifies: you have tables of logos, for example.  You'd want to style them generally using CSS, though.

    The page you referenced shifts images for me, too, if I type in new text as you describe, but clears up if I reload the page.  There is too much styling on that page for me to test changes.  The use of several iframes on the page, and the mixing of sizing, might be confusing things, but that's just a guess.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 7:44 PM
  • Greetings paladyn:

    Please don't respond to my posts anymore - they're utterly useless and unreliable.

    Sorry old sod, not your choice to make. This is a public, social forum, and we are free to respond to any post to which we choose to reply. You don't have the option to post and then dictate who may or may not respond. You do, of course, have the option not to read those responses, if you wish to exercise it.

    BTW, are you cognizant of the phrase "pronoun antecedent?" If so, re-read your last sentence above, with particular attention to what is the antecedent of "they."

    +++++++++++

    Wow, your credentials are impressive. I would think you might be a bit more congenial when responding, especially when the initial post did not refer to or implicate you in any way. You drew first blood. I'm happy to provide you the opportunity to express your feelings of superiority, though.

    "they're" is the contraction of "they are" which refers to any and all posts. I believe the grammar is correct.

    I knew that I couldn't (another contraction) insist on your not responding; that is why I said, "Please don't respond to my posts anymore..." It was a request.

    I am still laughing at your self-indulging rant, especially all the effort in making the distincion about not being a MS employee, which I never even implied that you were. ...but hey, thanks for making it clear.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 7:57 PM
  • Sorry old sod, not your choice to make.

    Did you call him a sorry old sod or did you just forget to use a comma (or didn't know you had to)? http://thewritingresource.net/2010/02/11/punctuation-points-the-direct-address-comma/

    Monday, September 6, 2010 8:37 PM
  • It's not ironic that I mentioned tables. I don't know the history of the pervious discussion, but tables are deprecated for layout. There is nothing wrong with using tables, per se. If you have stuff that is, by its nature tabular, by all means, use a table.

    I'd be surprised if anyone said that tables of any kind were forbidden or deprecated. On the other hand, compared to other sites, yours is on the busy end of the clean/busy scale, so there may have been reasons that they thought an excessive use of tables was causing a problem--maybe multiple nestings of tables, odd patterns of merged cells, etc.

    I haven't looked closely at the code (I've looked at it, but not deeply), but I think you could cut back to 6-10 DIVs for layout and possibly not even need tables to hold lots of that stuff; it will fall naturally into place. Might need a few tables, but everything doesn't have to be in its own little container (DIV or cell); they can nestle next to one another in a larger container.


    Silence is Golden. Duct tape is Silver.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 8:52 PM
  • RFCafe.com,

    I agree with you that EW design view sucks big time and that Dreamweaver's is better even if flawed too.

    I recommend that you not worry too much about whether you use tables or other things to lay your page elements. Do what's easier for you (to develop and maintain your sites). While I use CSS to position most of stuff in sites I develop because it's often easier to maintain, I resort to tables in certain situation when using CSS is too difficult (for me) to achieve a desired effect. Many of purported benefits of using CSS to position HTML elements, compared to using tables, are myths, in my opinion. This was discussed about 3 or 4 months ago, and Time Bandit demonstrated the fallacy of at least one of the "benefits".

    I believe that the design view can be improved greatly. If the dev had wasted their time on fluff (such as switching the platform to make the black skin), they might have improved what's really important. While the design view can't be made cross-browser, it would be hugely better than it's now if it were based on any of modern rendering engines, and, at least, Gecko allows fancy features needed in a WYSIWYG view.

    I'd like to ask that, in addition to speaking out on this forum, you provide your problematic code, along with screen shots to MS via http://connect.microsoft.com .
    Monday, September 6, 2010 8:55 PM
  • Greetings KathyW2:

    Thank-you very much for going to the trouble of reviewing the page, and thanks for verifying that the issue can be replicated on your computer.

    Both you and poster Bill Pearson have recommended a mix of tables and DIVs in page layout for content inside the overall framework (the DWT stuff), which is probably the best compromise based on my pages. Honestly, I'm glad to have someone make such a recommendation after the grief I have experienced when going the all-DIV-all-the-time route.

    After receiving advice on these forums months earlier by knowledgeable and well-meaning contributors (I refer to them as gurus) indicating that tables were considered a sign of amateur coding, I made the decision to abandon tables as completely as possible. Maybe I will go back to some tables for guaranteed structure when it seems most appropriate.

    BTW, one of the gurus went so far as to claim to never using tables under any circumstances, even with large tables. That gave me the confidence and impetus to proceed in that direction.

    Take care.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 9:08 PM
  • Greetings Bill:

    Thank-you very much for going to the trouble of reviewing the page, and thanks for verifying that the issue can be replicated on your computer.

    Both you and poster KathyW2 have recommended a mix of tables and DIVs in page layout for content inside the overall framework (the DWT stuff), which is probably the best compromise based on my pages. Honestly, I'm glad to have someone make such a recommendation after the grief I have experienced when going the all-DIV-all-the-time route.

    After receiving advice on these forums months earlier by knowledgeable and well-meaning contributors (I refer to them as gurus) indicating that tables were considered a sign of amateur coding, I made the decision to abandon tables as completely as possible. Maybe I will go back to some tables for guaranteed structure when it seems most appropriate.

    BTW, one of the gurus went so far as to claim to never using tables under any circumstances, even with large tables. That gave me the confidence and impetus to proceed in that direction.

    Take care.

    Monday, September 6, 2010 9:09 PM
  • I would like to see which 'guru' said never to use tables under any circumstance because I highly doubt any would have.  Tables have, and will always, have a place in web design.  You should show tabular data using a table as its semantically correct.


    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP
    On Facebook | On Twitter | Resource Center | Veign's Blog | Web Development Help

    Get a Complete Website Analysis by Veign
    Monday, September 6, 2010 9:39 PM
  • RFCafe, I hope you have a sense of humor, because regarding your sentence:

    "Please don't respond to my posts anymore - they're utterly useless and unreliable."

    I've got to go with Paladyn on this one.  It parses as: "...my posts are utterly useless and unreliable".   The "they" has nothing to refer to but your posts in that sentence, as much as your mind may have been thinking of the replies.

    Grammar police, signing out. ;)

    Monday, September 6, 2010 9:45 PM
  • I would like to see which 'guru' said never to use tables under any circumstance because I highly doubt any would have.  Tables have, and will always, have a place in web design.  You should show tabular data without using a table as its semantically correct.


    --
    Chris Hanscom - Microsoft MVP

    Me too since tables have a semantic meaning which no other HTML element can replace.

    Try out the new expressionwebforum.com


    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    • Edited by Cheryl D Wise Monday, September 6, 2010 11:23 PM fixed typo
    Monday, September 6, 2010 9:52 PM
  • Well, I read through the thread you linked to, and the only person who said not to use tables ("I know the solution: stop using tables and use css for the style of your page.") was no guru, posted only once, has only a handful of posts in the history of the forum, and the basic single medal icon.

    In fairness, he said not to use it "...for the style of your page.", which is less than clear. I would construe that as ...don't use it for page layout (as Kathy and I and everyone else would say), but the "...stop using tables..." sure carries a lot more more punch than his later prepositional phrase. That may have been confusing.

    Nobody who is an MVP or MS staffer or highly ranked participant would say that tables are verboten.

    If there's another thread in which you were told that, I didn't see it. But it sure doesn't sound right.


    Silence is Golden. Duct tape is Silver.
    Monday, September 6, 2010 10:15 PM
  • Sorry old sod, not your choice to make.

    Did you call him a sorry old sod or did you just forget to use a comma (or didn't know you had to)? http://thewritingresource.net/2010/02/11/punctuation-points-the-direct-address-comma/

    Oops, absolutely right. I did neglect the comma there. That's an unusual case, as anyone who has read my posts can attest. I always proofread, and seldom make a punctuation error of that kind, but I clearly did that time. Ya got me. ;-)

    cheers,
    scott


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 3:11 AM
  • It parses as: "...my posts are utterly useless and unreliable".
    Parses is inappropriate here for more than one reason one of which is that parsing means breaking down input into its constituents. "Can be interpreted" is a better choice.
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 3:50 PM
  • It parses as: "...my posts are utterly useless and unreliable".
    Parses is inappropriate here for more than one reason one of which is that parsing means breaking down input into its constituents. "Can be interpreted" is a better choice.

    But using "Parses" is cool because it is using a term of the technical art and applying it to a new context. Like saying someone has gone "open-loop". This is what nerds do during techno-speak.  
    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 7:25 PM
  • I have to agree with the Op regarding rendering in the design view Ew as compared to DW. From my experience Dreamweaver is superior. I have only had DW for a few months but I am well aquainted with EW 2, 3, and now 4 rendering compared to CS5 and those problems were among some of the reasons my employer decided to consider Dreamweaver.

    At the same time I think EW is progressing rapidly and I like many things about it. I can see why a lot of folks use both. At this time DW may be superior simply because it is more mature. 

    WYSIWYG may be a dead concept at this time for EW but I think thats a shame and serious mistake on the part of MS.

    Regarding this forum and who has control I would have to say no one has control other than MS. Sure some of the regulars sometimes form consensus but that is simply a group dynamic seem on most forums. I think sometimes that dynamic might like to squelch dissent or contrarian views but it does not seem too effective. So what a few people have opinions on something- let them make thier point and consider it and if you dont agree then argue against it.

    I like to hear all perspectives and think that when some are crowded out that it just reduces the value of the forum.

    Tuesday, September 7, 2010 10:15 PM
  • WYSIWYG is a dead concept for Dreamweaver as well. Sorry but while it may render some things, in fact many things better in Live view than Expression Web it still isn't something you can rely on. If you spend a lot of time in the Dreamweaver groups you will find just as many complaints as you find here re design view and the application not being a true WYSIWYG editor.


    MS MVP Expression Tutorials & Help http://by-expression.com
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 2:30 AM
  • Most the time it's just so much easier to type out your HTML in code view rather than being in design view pulling menus down and mousing all over the place, clicking and pulling. All that design view mousing around hurts my arthritic wrist.

    One EW design view edit trick I rather like is selecting a column in a table and applying a style to all cells in the column at once. Can't do that in code view - can you?

    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 3:26 AM
  • Its just my opinion that Dreamweaver is much better in this regard from my own user experience. It seems more stable and has not given me eratic and sometimes bizzare unexplainable (at least to me) displays like EW has. I have no doubt that others have different experiences with both of them and I suppose some of these things are installation specific in many cases. I also note that EW seems to have poor design view performance over several versions on more than one machine so I wonder if its just bugs or I am unlucky with multiple setups?

    That the Dreamweaver forums have users issues about WYSIWYG while interesting really gives me no comfort any more than knowing my V-8 engine may still get me where I am going even if it runs poorly on less than all cylinders and I would not expect the dealer to say let it go because other people report they have engines that run poorly. Design view issues with EW have irritated me from way back and its just a product quality or performance expectation for me that in my opinion needs improvement and I just hope that anything that DW may or may not do is somehow an excuse for EW. It was a whole range of bugs and problems with EW that pushed me into looking at DW in the first place and thats an annoyance too.

    These display issues are not show stoppers and can be worked around by previewing with browsers and as I get forced to anticipate these problems I do so more frequently but it still is extra steps and from time to time disconcerting.

    Regardless of any comparisons of EW or DW it remains my opinion that a tool in this class should have WYSIWYG or nearly so because that is a quality desired by users including myself, and that if its going to be touted by the manufacturer (and it is-is it not? ) then it ought to work.

     

    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 6:44 AM
  • One EW design view edit trick I rather like is selecting a column in a table and applying a style to all cells in the column at once. Can't do that in code view - can you?

    That's good to know. I mostly use templates for dynamic generation of page and, therefore, don't need this feature often, but sometimes (when stoop enough :) ), I wish I had a way to apply a style to all cells in a column at once.

    "If you spend a lot of time in the Dreamweaver groups you will find just as many complaints..."

    I don't find their complaints relevant. My experience is more valuable to me, and I find the design view of DW significantly better than that of EW.

    "But using "Parses" is cool because it is using a term of the technical art and applying it to a new context."

    It may sound cool... to people who don't know the word's true meaning... (as asking somebody if he's cognizant of something may), but I am afraid of appearance of another Ebonics. I oppose screwing with words so that they don't mean much anymore. For example, when my black client/partner tells me that he is going to bring somebody down, I don't always know if he means destroying somebody or his business or bringing somebody to our city for a business event. Neither do I always know if to be down means to be depressed, have one's server or connection to the net down, or agree with a proposal.

    Standard English is rich enough, in my opinion. Messing with it hinders  communication.

    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 7:02 AM
  • "It may sound cool... to people who don't know the word's true meaning... (as asking somebody if he's cognizant of something may)..."

    Since, AFAIK, I am the only one to have used "cognizant" in this thread, I presume that little dig was aimed at that instance of the word's usage, and that it was meant to imply that it was incorrect. If so, then you are incorrect. As an adjective, the principle meaning is as follows:

    1. having cognizance; aware (usually fol. by of ): He was cognizant of the difficulty.

    That is exactly the form and sense it which it was used earlier, in "cognizant of the phrase," and there is nothing erroneous about the usage or mistaken about the meaning of the word.

    "... but I am afraid of appearance of another Ebonics."

    Oh, bat guano! Ebonics was an attempt to have a particular form of dialect, largely based upon one distinct subculture's street vernacular, adopted as an official language for use in primarily educational environments. It has nothing to do with the occasional misuse of words due to lack of understanding of their correct meaning or usage, even if that were the case in the current instance, which I am not prepared to stipulate.

    I would argue that not only was the use of "cognizant" correct in its only other occurrence in this thread, but that Kathy's use of "parse" was appropriate in the statement she made. Again, the principle meaning of the verb follows:

    1. to analyze (a sentence) in terms of grammatical constituents, identifying the parts of speech, syntactic relations, etc.

    Or, if you prefer,

    1.  to assign constituent structure to (a sentence or the words in a sentence)

    She did exactly what those definitions state; she parsed the sentence to determine the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in the contraction, and concluded that the OP had actually, although no doubt unintentionally, stated that his own posts were "utterly useless and unreliable."

    "Standard English is rich enough, in my opinion. Messing with it hinders  communication."

    Horsepucky. English is so rich precisely because of the accretion of the new coinages, the new uses for old words, and the borrowed words that have, over the centuries, made it arguably the most expressive language in the world. "Messing with it" is exactly what we English users do, every day.

    I may not always be comfortable with some of the particular instances (e.g. the back formation "incent" from incentive), but it is a simple fact that every year the major dictionary houses, notably Mirriam-Webster and Oxford, publish a list of the new words or usages that have come into the mainstream enough to be officially included in the dictionary.

    The field of computers alone, hardware and software alike, as well as processes, has added scores of words to the language that did not exist or did not have the current meaning as recently as the 1970s. The language is constantly in flux, with new words or new uses for old words being adopted, and archaic words or usages falling from favor and common usage.

    That is the nature of the language, and thank the gods we don't have the equivalent of Richelieu's French Academy to monitor and protect the language from the intrusion of foreign words and other such detritus that might spoil its "purity." 

    To paraphrase an author I read some time ago, whose name unfortunately escapes my memory at the moment, "English doesn't borrow words from other languages. It follows them down a dark alley, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

    The richness of our language is a consequence of, and not despite, it's malleability and flexibility, and our willingness to embrace new usages. As long as the usages are structured and punctuated grammatically, I see no problem with their adoption into the language. "Messing with it" not only doesn't hinder communication, it fosters it.


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 1:29 PM
  • Hitting the coffee a little heavy today Scott?
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 5:26 PM
  • Nah, just didn't care for the implication of error where none existed.

    Besides, there's no such thing as hitting the coffee too heavy. I start 10 minutes after I rise with a twelve-ounce thermal mug, and pour my last mug usually around 4:30 or 5:00. Coffee is the elixir of life, don'tcha know... ;-)

    cheers,
    scott


    C'mon, folks. This isn't rocket science, nor neurosurgery. It's "Expression" (singular) "Web" (singular), in that order, followed by a version numeral if you wish to be specific. It is often abbreviated "EW." It is not "Web Expression," "Expressions Web," "Web Expressions," or plain "Expression" or "Expressions." Not using the correct name indicates either ignorance or laziness. Most folks would rather avoid the appearance of either.
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 5:49 PM
  • Scott, forgive me for agitating you unintentionally. Your use of the word was, of course, correct. My original sentence was this: "It may sound cool (as asking somebody if he's cognizant of something may)..." , and then I edited it to add the part that got you off. So, go with the flow of the former and take it easy!

    "The richness of our language is a consequence of, and not despite, it's malleability and flexibility, and our willingness to embrace new usages. As long as the usages are structured and punctuated grammatically, I see no problem with their adoption into the language. "Messing with it" not only doesn't hinder communication, it fosters it."

    Sure, some changes are good. For example, bringing the word circuit from the science about electricity to the area about neurons was a good thing. However, I was talking about changing a meaning of a word in a gross way because somebody simply didn't know the original meaning. E.g., the same partner of mine wanted our company to gain notoriety , thinking it was a good thing.

    The same is with the word parse . By the way, you misunderstand "the principle meaning" of the word. Both of the items you pasted in your post mean something other than what you think they mean. We would be in agreement about this had you studied Computer Science. I mean serious Computer Science, which is much beyond banging images and text together on web pages. To parse is a technical term with a specific meaning. Changing it into something VERY different is a bad thing because it lowers effectiveness of communication. You would probably object being fed the sh_it. However, in some modern blacks' vocabulary, "the sh_it" means the best, and they are proud of extending English this way.
    Wednesday, September 8, 2010 6:34 PM
  • There is no such thing as WYSIWYG, simply because no design view can possibly render with one rendering engine all of the possible rendering engines to be encountered, plus provide the borders, visual aids, ASP.NET flyout menus, etc.

    I have read this entire thread and found it very interesting.  I wonder if using the current version of say the IE browser rendering engine would help?  Is there a resource where the EW team specific talks about rendering and the design view?  Anyway, I grew up on FrontPage so all this code (except for tables) was mostly shielded from me.  So I am slowly (way to slowly) learning what I have to know to use EWv4 effectively.

    Tom Miller


    Be well, do good work, keep in touch (c) The Writers Almanac

    Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:39 PM
  • Aaaarrrgh! You've resurrected a thread that's been dead for a year and a half. If you had read the Forum FAQ, you'd see why that is discouraged (in this and every forum on the web).

    And your question is answered in the very comment you quoted. No. Using the current IE browser rendering engine would NOT help.

    Read the post that you quoted--"...no design view can possibly render with one rendering engine all of the possible rendering engines to be encountered..."

    There it is. Your question answered before it was asked. Even the current IE engine (Which one is that, anyway? Do you realize how many engines IE has used in the past few years? Do you realize that IE9 is not the predominant browser either worldwide or in North America or Europe? What would be the point of standardizing on IE9 given its small market share? And what happens when IE10 comes out and the sites render differently?). If you read the thread you'd understand the problem Dreamweaver has by basing their view on the Webkit engine (Safari browser). It doesn't do any better at producing cross-browser results than EW. I have used Dreamweaver for many years (yet hardly at all any more), and you have to preview in a wide range of browsers just as you do in EW.

    As has been pointed out, the Design Pane is a sketch pad, which has to display all sorts of Visual Aids stuff (that you can turn on and off at will) and it has to talk to the Code Pane, none of which is part of a browser's rendering duties.

    Give it a rest. Let this thread die--again.


    Comic Sans walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Get out! We don't serve your type."

    Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:58 PM
  • There is no such thing as WYSIWYG, simply because no design view can possibly render with one rendering engine all of the possible rendering engines to be encountered, plus provide the borders, visual aids, ASP.NET flyout menus, etc.

    I have read this entire thread and found it very interesting.  I wonder if using the current version of say the IE browser rendering engine would help?  Is there a resource where the EW team specific talks about rendering and the design view?  Anyway, I grew up on FrontPage so all this code (except for tables) was mostly shielded from me.  So I am slowly (way to slowly) learning what I have to know to use EWv4 effectively.

    The last thing I want is for Microsoft to use any IE engine in design view. First, browsers and Expression Web are not released on the same schedule nor is the display view able to be updated as frequently as IE. Second, it would encourage those who don't know better to view only in design view and not test cross browser. This can lead to many display issues in different versions of IE as well as display differences between the current version of IE and other browsers.

    BTW, reopening an almost 2 year old thread is discouraged. Better to start a new one than to resurect an old one for a variety of reasons not the least is that this forum interface has trouble with long thread. Plus many things change in that time period.

    Frankly, if you want to do anything other than very simple websites you have to learn and understand at least basic html & css.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com

    Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:42 PM
  • Tom,

    Please feel free to start a new thread if you want to follow up. I'm locking this one.


    Jim Cheshire -- Microsoft

    Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:46 PM
    Moderator