none
Has there been a solution to nbsp; issues? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I still see issues with   issues when copy and pasting from Word into a web page.  This was an issue with Dreamweaver (not with FrontPage) and seems to have carried over to Expression Web's version of Dreamweaver.

    The old trick used to be paste into Notepad and then copy and paste from there.  But not so, EW seems to want to insert &nbsp's no matter what I do.

    Even did a "find and replace" and while it got rid of the nbsp's it also got rid of the legit spaces.

    Example:

    Original Text: "On April 29th, millions of people around the world..."

    Becomes:
    On April 29th, millions of people around the world

    If find and replace the   it becomes:

    OnApril29th,millionsofpeoplearoundtheworld

    How stupid is that?

    So I see from years ago people posting complaints about the excessive   and the response is?

    Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:09 AM

Answers

  • Thomas,

    I differ from most here in some ways. I like EW but have long advocated that it should be more user friendly. Some say EW is positioned to compete with Dreamweaver. I want it to not only compete but to exceed DW, in particular I want it to be easy to use and intuitive. While I may want to compare EW to Frontpage I realize the time has long passed that MS cares to support that market segment and that such comparisons are rendered moot. Yet I foresee a time when it will once again be in the marketing interests of a MS or competitor to make a tool as easy as FP was to use but as present web oriented as EW is. I think the market wants such a tool. It may be a very long wait however.

    Having now had the chance to evaluate many of the tools from the low end up to EW and Dreamweaver I am of the opinion that you are best served sticking to EW or DW for the simple reason that sooner or later you will have to achieve that skill level. It is a new web out there and after struggling through the learning experience needed to master it I think you will find it as exciting as I do.

    All that said I really do have a lot of empathy for your situation but empathy will not help you. There is a big gulf between the casual user and the professional but many an amature are making great sites with EW right now. No one trying to learn EW or any other tool should be considered "stupid" and you are best advised to ignor such "stupid" comments you may see as arrogance seldom equals wisdom. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Parable:

    State legislators fron Wisconsin and Indiana hide there to avoid doing their jobs. The state department of tourism spots the potential and advertises across the nation for state legislators everywhere who may be looking for a place to hide to come to the land of Lincoln. Soon Illinois is flooded with them. Soon the state may become known as the land of loosers and many Illinois natives just wish they would leave. 

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:01 AM
  • Your problem may be related to your page not having a valid DOCTYPE.

    Add a valid DOCTYPE and see what happens. EW may be putting the   in there in an attempt to get a page that doesn't conform to modern standards to render properly in modern browsers. 

    I've never had that   problem either, but I never work in sites without a valid DOCTYPE. When browsers encounter such a page, they switch to quirks mode and they have to make a lot of assumptions because they are flying blind due to the lack of DOCTYPE.

     


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then warns the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?

    Friday, March 4, 2011 5:56 PM
  • Hey Thomas...

    I am going to jump in here because I was a big supporter of FP and I completely understand your feeling.  However..  The argument you are making is like saying the a horse was much simpler then a car and all you needed was hay to make it go.  While true, it sort of misses the big picture.   CSS is the standart on the web.  You might be able to get away with FP for a few more years, but, in the end, front page is not going to be an optionl.   I assume you know that FP needs FP extentions on your hosting service to work.   Most hosting companies are not adding phasing out FP plans, so in a few years you are going to have a real problem finding a comany to host you. 

    Rightly or Wrongly, CSS is the future (currently) we can all talk about pros and cons, but it is not going to change much. 

    Have you tried Coffe Cup software.  They make a simple html editor that might better suit your needs.   It seems that EW is over kill for you.

     

    Peter

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:51 AM
  • EW4, in my experience, destroys pages with shared borders.  In the compiled page, it replaces
    <!--msnavigation--><table width="... with
    <msnavigation width="...  and then repeatedly adds copies of the borders "adjusted" in the same way. At least it stops at a handful of copies...

    This has been bugged on Connect, but I can no longer find the bug. If any editor recognises Shared Borders, it should either do absolutely nothing (like Notepad, treat the borders as "ordinary" HTML), or work correctly (as per FrontPage)

    I place all pages with shared borders in a subweb where EW4 cannot get to them, and use EW3 for editing.

    Where you use shared borders, consider a DWT instead. Or as Kathy suggests for your case, a CMS.


    Ron Symonds
    Microsoft MVP (Expression Web)

    www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 7:25 AM
  • With many FP sites and hundreds of pages using shared borders we ran up against this a few years ago when switching over to EW2. For us the solution was to use FP (yes FP2003) to make DWT's that replicated the look and feel of the shared border content. Doing that and using some design time includes which gave us DWT's that could be customized for given sections of sites (something you could not do with shared borders) we solved that problem and improved those sites at the same time.

    It seems that those DWT's we made in FP2003 still play nice with EW4 so this may be one way to go. In our case page by page we turned off shared borders as we applied the DWT so there was no noticable downtime for any given page and I doubt anybody noticed as they looked so close anyway. Going forward any new pages are produced with DWT's be it the ones made with FP or EW- there seems to be little functional difference.

    If you still have FP03 available you might find it easier to go this route and while your at it with FP you may also fix other FPSE issues if they exist. Get rid of Nav Bars and replace them with navigation in the DWT. Get rid of FP based search and replace it with some other non FPSE search tool. Same for forms or anything else. In other words use FP to clean up as much as you can and then go forward with EW. I do not know if there are any issues in this approach- we did not encounter any as of yet- perhaps someone else can chime in.

    I see a number of old sites continue to leave cleaned up FP produced pages without doctypes so that they force those pages to render in quirks mode. In our case some of the sites have hundreds of pages made with multiple editors some fully compliant and CSS layout and some old tables layout but the look and feel is so close I doubt many visitors notice and up till now it seems most all browsers render close enough in quirks so this may be a way to buy time with the old pages while you fix or maybe better yet remake them.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 9:37 AM
  • Thomas,

    May I suggest that you look at http://contentseed.com for a very lightweight CMS that will let your clients edit in the browser more or less like they are using Word. That way they never have to load anything and you can have version control. They also can only edit the areas of the page that are set to be edited. While I think the small price charged for Content Seed is worth it because you can use it on as many client sites as you want and it has wonderful support (only one other company I  know of has support as good) there is an open source option called Cushy CMS.

    Shared borders were depreciated in FrontPage 2003 when DWTs were introduced as a less restrictive way of having content shared throughout the site. DWTs along with Design Time Includes (basically the same as FP includes) are far more flexible than shared borders.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:45 PM
  • Thomas,

    I wouldn't recommend Joomla for the type of sites that you have been doing, at least as I understand them to be mom & pop, small business/non-profit sites. Joomla has a huge learning curve to use it effectively and unless you are going to use those features there will be a lot neglected aspects of the site.

    Something simpler like those mentioned or possibly WordPress blog which has some good CMS features IF they would actually use them are better choices.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:28 PM
  • Thomas,

    I will certainly agree that EW is a lot harder to handle then FP.  But, again, I think you are not looking at the bigger picture of where the internet is currently.  FP came out in the day of "personal pages" and simple ecommerce.  Those days are gone.  People now have a facebook page, and to sell on the internet requires a robust, secure, PCI complient page.   Microsoft had a decision to make.  Should they try and create a product that included all the FP stuff, or should they just reboot and create a product for a professional market; they chose the later.   I actually think they made the right choice.   The whole concept of FP is flawed in that it requires the server to have the FP extensions--these always have had problems.   Also, it is important to realize that browsers needed to move forward in a standardized way.  I can remember making the same page for IE and Netscape, because they each rendered the page so different.  With agreed upon standards you can at least plan for the future with a little more confidance.  

    FP really had only a small window of product time; basically 6 years on the market.  The last version was 2003.  It is 2011, that was 8 years ago!

    I completely understand your frustration--I also started and created my work flow based on how FP works.   But, again, I think you need to step back and decide what you want your role to be in today's internet.  If you want to continue to create webpages, then you are going use a stronger tool like EW or Dreamweaver.  But I would also say that there are really a lot more choces.   Many hosting companies will now build a simple website for next to nothing.   What cost thousands of dollars in 2001 now can be had for $19.95 a month.  Why not just pay someone else...?

    FP was much easier to use... I miss it also... And EW is buggy and requires a much greater time commitment.   But it also delivers much cleaner pages and things like dwts are a much better way to keep a website updated.  

    One thing that I know for certain, the web is moving very fast...  Personally, I would rather spend my time getting ahead of the curve than worrying about FP...  :)

     

    Peter

     

     

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:20 PM
  • Did you try ContentSeed? Did you try the demo on the site?
    It's now sold through MediaCarbon, and there is no download until after you pay. I don't know what you think is broken.

    CSS is NOT EW's way of "interpreting FrontPage's codes." CSS, along with HTML, is the very basis of the entire Web and it was thus even in the days of FP. CSS is nearly 20 years old in concept, and Internet Explorer has supported it since IE3 was released in 1996. Netscape had support in ver 4. This isn't new. Stop blaming the tool! Learn the technology.


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:40 PM
  • Cheryl,

    Yes I agree to use EW going forward after using FP for the cleanup and turning off borders. We use EW for anything new .

    Thomas,

    If you use DWT's you can have editable regions for your people to use and the DWT non-editable regions that only you can change. At least that way you can have the navigation and any other content you choose to be safe outside their grasp.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Parable:

    State legislators fron Wisconsin and Indiana hide there to avoid doing their jobs. The state department of tourism spots the potential and advertises across the nation for state legislators everywhere who may be looking for a place to hide to come to the land of Lincoln. Soon Illinois is flooded with them. Soon the state may become known as the land of loosers and many Illinois natives just wish they would leave. 

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:39 AM
  • "I'm really trying to like this EW3 and EW4, but just can't get over the morbid black/grey colour it has."

    You don't like "Expression Goth"?  ...You're not alone.  And you don't have to keep it:  switch to your Windows colors.  (Tools -> Application Options, General Tab)

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:51 AM
  • "IRK!  Just did it and EW4 turned a puke grey with a pastel blue here and there now.  That isn't my Windows colours!"

    EW uses my Windows colors.  Of course, you can't assume which colors map to what areas, in EW's mind.  [You could select different Windows color schemes and see what effect it has on EW.]

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:20 PM
  • Surprizing no one suggested SPD7 it to me on here.

    Not so surprising when you consider that this is an Expression Web forum, not an SPD forum, and that many of us, myself among them, have never even seen SPD, and don't use it, and would therefore have no reason whatsoever to recommend it on an EW forum, or even think of it as an alternative.

    Stop blaming the tool?  Well if the tool isn't friendly for non-tech users, then how does one learn the technology?

    The tool's job is not to teach you the technologies you need to know to use it. Purchasing AutoCAD does not magically turn you into an architect or a mechanical engineer. Buying Photoshop does not transform you into a professional photo retoucher commanding thousands of dollars per contract. Buying Quark or InDesign does not imbue you with the skills necessary to produce a slick, professional publication using them. Unlike FP, EW is also a professional-level development tool, and like these other professional tools, expects you to bring to the table knowledge of the principles and technologies needed to use it effectively.

    DWT's to me are sounding more like Dreamweaver's Library files, or dwt's.  AS in Dreamweaver Templates.

    Umm, no. It sounds as if there's some confusion there, as well. DWTs in EW correspond to DWTs in Dreamweaver, although they are only one-way compatible (DW understands EW's syntax; EW does not understand DW's). However, DW's libraries do not correspond to DWTs of either application, but to EW's design-time includes.

    It really does sound as if you might be better served using something like SPD, which is closer to what you are familiar with, and supports many of the ease-of-use features that you require.

    EW is designed for and targeted at professional developers, and is intended to be a direct competitor for Dreamweaver, at which it succeeds admirably. Although there are many features, in fact the entire focus of the application, designed to make it easier and more productive for developers to implement professional, standards-compliant, and accessible Web sites, it is not designed as a teaching tool.

    Like the other tools mentioned above, if you want to use it effectively, you must either know, or be willing to learn, the underlying technologies with which it is designed to work. If you, and your content editors, are not willing to invest the sweat equity in learning those technologies, then perhaps you should really consider another tool which places fewer expectations upon its users.

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 5:38 PM
  • CNTL+A not working anymore except in Code view, or Click, Shift/Click , or Expression 1 as you call it, could work with Share Borders, who decided not to have this option with v3 or v4?

    You would think the opposite, seeing SPD7 was built to work with SharePoint - maybe my error in thinking EW was built for the common Joe who wants to upgrade from FP or Dreamweaver.

    SharePoint Designer is the successor to FrontPage. FrontPage was aimed at the "information worker" who added content and worked in a controlled environment with a known client (aka web browser). That is why any interactivity relied on the FPSE.

    A lot of folks tried to use FP to create professional quality sites with varying degrees of success. I could create just a standards based website with FrontPage as I can with Dreamweaver or Expression Web but I had to work harder to do so because I had to fight against the tool. Which typically meant I'd use something like TopStyle to do all my CSS because the tools in FrontPage were and remain really bad at doing so. They are sort of a glorified version of Word Styles which is a print tool.

    When Microsoft realized that they had to do something with FrontPage (they got tired of being the butt of the industry with a reputation that could not be salvaged even though FrontPage by 2003 was a decent enough web editor) they took a good hard look at it. As a result they realized that FrontPage was trying to be all things to everyone who could possibly want to create a website. As such it satisfied only a small percentage of those who used it. So it was split into SharePoint Designer for those who wanted all the bots and the new features in SharePoint (replacement for FPSE & SharePoint Workspaces that were in FrontPage 2002) AND into new professional level tool - Expression Web.

    In the intial releases to help folks MIGRATE from FrontPage they kept in limited support for some of the FrontPage bots. Over time that limited support has been phased out especially when the underlying core of Expression Web was moved to a new codebase to make it more integrated with the other programs in the Expression Studio.

    Expression Web is not an "upgrade" from Dreamweaver but a competitive product that has features not available in Dreamweaver like ASP.NET 2.0+ support while Dreamweaver has focused its feature set on a different server technology. Ironically, Dreamweaver still has better support for Classic ASP than Expression Web.  These different feature sets are why I and many others here who are professional have both applications.

    Your comparision is not between one engine and another but between stick shift where you have to learn how to use the clutch, when to shift gears, the sound of the engine at varying RPMs, when to go for performance/torque and when to go for fuel efficiency, that fine tuning that really makes for an interesting drive on mountain roads versus automatic transmissions where all you do is use the gas & break pedal.

    Professional applications that require you to learn underlying technologies to use effectively just like a stick shift car. (Probablly doesn't surprise you that in most cases I prefer to drive a stick.)

    WYSIWYG are like an automatic transmission, you use the brake far more often than the transmission. If that is what you want then buy an editor created for that market and quit whining to folks who would find that about as much fun as you would playing 18 holes of golf with nothing but a 5 iron.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:40 AM
  • CNTL+A not working anymore except in Code view, or Click, Shift/Click turns into a big plus sign rather than highlight the paragraph.  Or why the format paintbrush is missing/hiding - are these an improvement or CSS compliance? 

    Or why copy and paste ended up with dozens of nbsp; - happens to more people from what I see in Google.  BTW Dreamweaver will do that once in awhile, and the trick was to copy/paste the text into notepad and then from there copy/paste into Dreamweaver.  Can't even do that in EW, it keeps inserting the nbsp; code.

    Select All (CNTL+A) works fine for me in Design View. Click anywhere in the page, hit the key combo, and everything is selected. What's the problem? Do you get something different?

    As mentioned in your other thread, the Click, Shift/Click issue only happens inside a table cell, not in regular editing. And, it was suggested there that you convert the table to text, which negates the problem and allows you to select whatever you want. Another option, if you actually have paragraphs (not line breaks) inside the table cells, is to try triple-clicking on the paragraph you want. It will select the entire paragraph, but not the entire cell, unless the paragraph is only a single, short sentence; in that case EW still seems to get confused. But, in that case it would be simple to drag to select the sentence. And, just out of curiosity, if there is that much stuff in a single table cell, why are you using a table at all?

    As for nbsps, did you look at Ian's Add-In? Or try the other solutions offered? I've never personally seen this issue, so I have no idea what's happening. However, did you try adding a valid doctype, as suggested, and did it make any difference? Just wondering...

    Jim

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:11 AM
  • Let's not forget, SharePoint Designer's focus is on corporate intranets. MS doesn't market it for general website creation; it's far too limited for that. It also has to deal only with a closed corporate system; so, like FrontPage, it can continue to use proprietary solutions because the corporation controls the browser selection, platforms, and functionality. They are in a position to say "Our SharePoint system does not support XYZ and LMN browsers or resolutions below 1024 x 768px." And employees must comply. You can't do that in the real world.

    That line of products started about 10+ years ago with SharePoint Portal Server, upon which companies could build an intranet for sharing documents across dispersed locations, collaboration, etc. They could also build SharePoint apps for internal use.

    So, while it is possible to use SPD2007 for building a website, it is not without its drawbacks and limitations, and it has a lot of features that will be useless without the Office SharePoint Server. It's got its place, but it isn't a professional design tool.

    You don't buy a Porsche if you need to haul lumber around.

    And my point about "stupid" clients was, as Cheryl suggests, aimed at people who give up without ever trying or who expect a professional-level program to to do everything for them with no effort.


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:59 AM

All replies

  • One way I got around this 'feature' is to directly paste into the code section and then come back and doctor the fonts and such up.

    Yes yes, CSS the <P> command, but not when recoding an older site.

    Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:20 AM
  • Never had any problems with &nbsp; being put in for single spaces in Expression Web. When I bring in content from Word I use the little clipboard icon that shows up at the bottom right corner of the pasted text and select "paste text only" then in the resulting dialog box "normal paragraphs without line breaks".

    If you do a find and replace make sure you put a space in the "replace" dialog box or you will get what you are reporting. Use the spacebar to put the space in.

    Oh, and Expression Web is not any "version" of Dreamweaver which is a Macromedia product acquired by Adobe several years ago.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:43 AM
  • Hi,

    I am really beginning to like a program called word cleaner:

    http://www.convertwordtohtml.com/

    It has a bunch of templates.   I have been REMOVING word formatting and then converting to HTML which actually KEEPS the formatting but in HTML.   It has a code view once to convert so you can look at the html code of the converted doc and cut out what you want.

    Peter

    Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:12 AM
  • If you have xWeb V4, my free WordPaste Add-In makes a pretty good job of pasting from Word, keeping the html formatting. The new version has some improvements in pasting tables and SmartQuotes.

    It won't handle images or do batch conversion but otherwise, on some quick tests I've done, it performs as well as WordCleaner noted above.

    There could be things it doesn't paste correctly and if so I welcome feedback.

    http://gallery.expression.microsoft.com/WordPaste

     

     


    Ian Haynes

    EW V4 Add-Ins
    EW resources, hints and tips
    Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:27 AM
  • One way I got around this 'feature' is to directly paste into the code section and then come back and doctor the fonts and such up.

    Yes yes, CSS the <P> command, but not when recoding an older site.

    ???

    Why on earth not? Recoding an older site is the perfect opportunity to introduce modern, standards-compliant development methods. If you've got an older site that uses FP's typical bloated, deprecated inline HTML properties, that's the best time to replace them with compliant CSS that can be easily reused for all other such similar elements. And since the junk is inline, it should locally override any new CSS applied to other similar elements, so you can apply CSS piecemeal, as you update different parts of the site. I don't see a better opportunity presenting itself, short of a complete rewrite of the entire site.

    BTW, EW is not "Expression Web's version of Dreamweaver." I've used DW since version MX, now on CS4, and EW since version 2, now on EW4, and the code bases are not even remotely similar, and while the capabilities share certain similarities in that the function of both is to develop Web pages, there are almost as many major differences as major similarities outside of that functional likeness.

    I participate in the largest non-manufacturer-supported group for Dreamweaver, with ~5000 members, and here for EW, and I can tell you that both have their warts and their shiny spots, which is why many of us here use both. The consensus, however, from my own experience and from what I read here, is that many of us are finding ourselves more and more working in EW rather than DW, becauae on the whole it is a better, easier to use, more productive web development tool.

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:58 AM
  • Thanks Cheryl, but just because you don't have any problems with the nbsp; bug doesn't mean it doesn't exist, correct?

    I did the replace, I even did the copy from notepad and still have the issue.  Everything is updated.  Running Windows 7 Pro 4GB ram and EW3.

    I stand corrected on EW being Dreamweaver.  I just see a lot of similarities and ironically DW has issues with nbsp;.  I know DW got bought out, but for some reason I heard some of the DW designers were scooped by MS.

    That or MS is doing the Novell thing.

    Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:55 AM
  • You are correct about it being a perfect opportunity, but who pays for it?
    Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:56 AM
  • I don't have the problem in Dreamweaver either and I've never seen it reported on that Dreamweaver list Scott has mentioned. You'd think one of the over 5,700 members would have complained if it was an issue.

    In Expression Web the only reproducable case of &nbsp; being added is with asp.net third party ascx controls. So it seems you have a pretty unique issue that hasn't been posted here or over on the Dreamweaver groups to the knowledge of any of the regular contributors.

    Sure the issue could exist on your computer but it doesn't appear to exist on many, if any other.

    Yes, there are some former Adobe/Macromedia people working for Microsoft just as there are former Microsoft/Apple people working for Adobe (and the same could be said about Google and probably every other major employer in the software industry.) However, I expect Adobe would gladly sue Microsoft if they were stealing bits of Adobe/Macromedia code.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:44 AM
  • You are correct about it being a perfect opportunity, but who pays for it?


    Odder and odder...

    You were the one who first said that you were re-coding the site:

    "... but not when recoding an older site."

    That's why I suggested what I did. If you're re-coding the bloody thing anyway , now is the ideal time at which to begin converting from FP's dog's breakfast code to modern markup. So, I suppose the answer to the above question is, "Whoever was paying for the re-coding to begin with."

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:31 AM
  • Yes exactly who pays.  I do.  I'm doing it for non-profits.  I want a program that is easy and fast to work with.

     

    Expression web and Dreamweaver are not fast programs.  Just do a Find and Replace.  Takes at least 3-5 minutes to do so.   In FP it was instantaneous.

     

    Yes it could be my machine, but here's the catcher, it worked well before.

    Friday, March 4, 2011 4:17 PM
  • EW is heavily dependent on WPF which makes use of your GPU. This is why updating graphics drivers frequently resolves performance issues. Since it appears few others have the issue yon are complaining about I doubt fixing it would be high on the priority list at either MS or Adobe.

    If FP does what you want continue to use it. It don't have the css tools I require so I will not. Back on the day I used TopStyle with both FrontPage & Dreamweaver for that reason.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Friday, March 4, 2011 5:41 PM
  • Your problem may be related to your page not having a valid DOCTYPE.

    Add a valid DOCTYPE and see what happens. EW may be putting the &nbsp; in there in an attempt to get a page that doesn't conform to modern standards to render properly in modern browsers. 

    I've never had that &nbsp; problem either, but I never work in sites without a valid DOCTYPE. When browsers encounter such a page, they switch to quirks mode and they have to make a lot of assumptions because they are flying blind due to the lack of DOCTYPE.

     


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then warns the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?

    Friday, March 4, 2011 5:56 PM
  • Thanks Bill, will check into it.

     

    Here's an example of one non-profit page that needed update.  Remember these users don't know about publishing, upload or download (which is which per se) and so on.  These folks are in the 50's.  Tried teaching but just too much.  So FrontPage fit the bill.

    I set up a page they come in after and edit it, and just hit the floppy icon to save.  Been going great for 10 years now with it.  Even when switching from FP 2000 to 2003 wasn't an issue.

    Normally the user would go to a page on their website they want updated, choose File/'Edit with FrontPage' in Internet Explorer, Front Page opens, then they just paste their non-formatted text to the page and click save.  Poof done.  Simple, everyone was happy.

    Then I'd come by later on and back it (download their changes) to my machine.

    Switched to Expression Web and it literally destroyed the site and page.

    Seems EW4 can't handle a Shared Border command.  Could this be because of no DOCTYPE being declared?

    http://www.abundantlifecrusades.com/sermons/wilt_thou2.htm

    I've since come back and 'cleaned' up the coding and saved it without the 2.  Well was trying to do that, but just waiting for the site to list (that is on my computer) takes 3 minutes.  Literally, I've timed it.  Just to list the files.

    Going to edit in notepad and upload via coffeecup.  This is nuts.  Just upgraded from 3 to 4 professional.

    To add insult to injury, I opened it in Dreamweaver 8 with no problem.

     

     

     

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:38 AM
  • Hey Thomas...

    I am going to jump in here because I was a big supporter of FP and I completely understand your feeling.  However..  The argument you are making is like saying the a horse was much simpler then a car and all you needed was hay to make it go.  While true, it sort of misses the big picture.   CSS is the standart on the web.  You might be able to get away with FP for a few more years, but, in the end, front page is not going to be an optionl.   I assume you know that FP needs FP extentions on your hosting service to work.   Most hosting companies are not adding phasing out FP plans, so in a few years you are going to have a real problem finding a comany to host you. 

    Rightly or Wrongly, CSS is the future (currently) we can all talk about pros and cons, but it is not going to change much. 

    Have you tried Coffe Cup software.  They make a simple html editor that might better suit your needs.   It seems that EW is over kill for you.

     

    Peter

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:51 AM
  • "Switched to Expression Web and it literally destroyed the site and page.

    Seems EW4 can't handle a Shared Border command.  "

    EW doesn't support FrontPage shared borders.   In earlier versions of EW, it wouldn't break them, but you couldn't make any changes to them through the design interface (you'd have to know how they were coded and do it by hand).  I have no idea if that holds when you are editing live, which is not something I ever do.  For that matter, I don't know if the later versions of EW will break shared borders - I wouldn't have any site to test that on.

    In EW, you'd use a DWT (possibly with includes for sub sections), not shared boarders, to maintain common content.

    You're basically trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, which is certainly going to cause frustrations.  There's been a lot written about converting sites from FrontPage to EW, including how to replace shared borders and other FPSE/FP dependent content.

    Frankly, aside from the FP vs EW question, it sounds like you really need a CMS, since you have non-web-savvy editors making updates to live sites.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:01 AM
  • I've never had that &nbsp; problem either, but I never work in sites without a valid DOCTYPE. When browsers encounter such a page, they switch to quirks mode and they have to make a lot of assumptions because they are flying blind due to the lack of DOCTYPE.

    Funny this should come up just as I'm working on "Inserting Special Characters". My book shows a table with columns for Symbol, Entity Name and Entity Number, appropriately filled in. Just beneath it is:

    "Note: The nonbreaking space entity &nbsp; is very popular for creating spaces, and in fact many WYSIWYG Web site creation programs like Microsoft FrontPage and Dreamweaver insert them for you when you press the spacebar. Don't use nonbreaking spaces instead of good layout techniques, though. For example, if something needs to be indented a certain amount, use the correct HTML tags and styles for indenting it, don't just "space over" with a half-dozen &nbsp; codes."

    I may be way, way off base with this, but thought it interesting, since I have watched the thread and wondered what the hey those things were anyway. :) So, the note may not be a solution, but it sure did tell me what those thingies are.


    Nancy Ward
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:23 AM
  • EW4, in my experience, destroys pages with shared borders.  In the compiled page, it replaces
    <!--msnavigation--><table width="... with
    <msnavigation width="...  and then repeatedly adds copies of the borders "adjusted" in the same way. At least it stops at a handful of copies...

    This has been bugged on Connect, but I can no longer find the bug. If any editor recognises Shared Borders, it should either do absolutely nothing (like Notepad, treat the borders as "ordinary" HTML), or work correctly (as per FrontPage)

    I place all pages with shared borders in a subweb where EW4 cannot get to them, and use EW3 for editing.

    Where you use shared borders, consider a DWT instead. Or as Kathy suggests for your case, a CMS.


    Ron Symonds
    Microsoft MVP (Expression Web)

    www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 7:25 AM
  • With many FP sites and hundreds of pages using shared borders we ran up against this a few years ago when switching over to EW2. For us the solution was to use FP (yes FP2003) to make DWT's that replicated the look and feel of the shared border content. Doing that and using some design time includes which gave us DWT's that could be customized for given sections of sites (something you could not do with shared borders) we solved that problem and improved those sites at the same time.

    It seems that those DWT's we made in FP2003 still play nice with EW4 so this may be one way to go. In our case page by page we turned off shared borders as we applied the DWT so there was no noticable downtime for any given page and I doubt anybody noticed as they looked so close anyway. Going forward any new pages are produced with DWT's be it the ones made with FP or EW- there seems to be little functional difference.

    If you still have FP03 available you might find it easier to go this route and while your at it with FP you may also fix other FPSE issues if they exist. Get rid of Nav Bars and replace them with navigation in the DWT. Get rid of FP based search and replace it with some other non FPSE search tool. Same for forms or anything else. In other words use FP to clean up as much as you can and then go forward with EW. I do not know if there are any issues in this approach- we did not encounter any as of yet- perhaps someone else can chime in.

    I see a number of old sites continue to leave cleaned up FP produced pages without doctypes so that they force those pages to render in quirks mode. In our case some of the sites have hundreds of pages made with multiple editors some fully compliant and CSS layout and some old tables layout but the look and feel is so close I doubt many visitors notice and up till now it seems most all browsers render close enough in quirks so this may be a way to buy time with the old pages while you fix or maybe better yet remake them.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 9:37 AM
  • Thomas,

    May I suggest that you look at http://contentseed.com for a very lightweight CMS that will let your clients edit in the browser more or less like they are using Word. That way they never have to load anything and you can have version control. They also can only edit the areas of the page that are set to be edited. While I think the small price charged for Content Seed is worth it because you can use it on as many client sites as you want and it has wonderful support (only one other company I  know of has support as good) there is an open source option called Cushy CMS.

    Shared borders were depreciated in FrontPage 2003 when DWTs were introduced as a less restrictive way of having content shared throughout the site. DWTs along with Design Time Includes (basically the same as FP includes) are far more flexible than shared borders.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:45 PM
  • Thanks Peter.

    Agreed, CSS is the future, but this wasn't an issue a few years ago when CSS came out.  I think it is Expression Web's way of interpreting FrontPage codes.

    Like I said, I can edit in Dreamweaver 8 with no problem and just FTP in.

    What I'm wanting is something simple for the people I suppose to just go in, do an update and save.  I tried Contribute before as well, and was ok as long as they didn't need to update outside the fixed areas. So didn't work totally.

    Even in editing the page locally, EW looks fine when I clean up the extra code in code and then pop back into Design mode and save. The page looks like the original one, and I thought, right on, just a thing to work around.

    But I didn't even upload it, just opened it again locally and all the extra lines are back, so the program isn't honest even to begin with.  Meaning why show things are fine, even when saving.  Memory cache handling error?

     

     

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:03 PM
  • Thanks Kathy.

    I imagine that is so.  Means I have to overhaul all the sites created with Shared Borders.

    One thing I noticed is EW4 adds this into the head section for some reason:

     

    <msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><msnavigation valign="top"><msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" width="100%"><msnavigation valign="top"><msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><msnavigation border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" width="100%">

     

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:05 PM
  • Bob,

    You could do the same thing in EW by using includes & DWTs that you did in FP 2003 but you really do need some version of FP to remove the shared borders since EW doesn't really handle them at all well.

    Your method is probably the easiest one to use in migrating (and is more or less the same I use when I get a client who has an existing site they want me to migrate but I use EW for the DWT & CSS instead of FP.)


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:08 PM
  • Thanks Cheryl


    Will check into that as well as coffecup as Peter suggested.

    Someone else suggest Joomla as well. I know that uses CSS, but then again, that's the way to go.

    I'm really trying to like this EW3 and EW4, but just can't get over the morbid black/grey colour it has.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:12 PM
  • Thanks Ron, will check into it.
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:21 PM
  • Thomas,

    I wouldn't recommend Joomla for the type of sites that you have been doing, at least as I understand them to be mom & pop, small business/non-profit sites. Joomla has a huge learning curve to use it effectively and unless you are going to use those features there will be a lot neglected aspects of the site.

    Something simpler like those mentioned or possibly WordPress blog which has some good CMS features IF they would actually use them are better choices.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:28 PM
  • HI Peter


    Just an added thought.  I don't have shared borders turned on most sites I oversee and turn them off a few pages, but they are probably turned on at the server.

    The issue isn't so much with Shared Borders, but just one of the crappy excuses for this EW program.  Simple things people used to do, like highlight with CNTL+A, or Click+Shift/Click. 

    I'm finding a heck of few more items that used to be 'simple' to do, now became more complex or dropped.  Like line wrap has to be turned on to view code, or the paintbrush feature is hidden.  Questions like these are what I'm getting from my folk and I'm banging around EW trying to find things that used to be simple.

    Maybe EW is overkill like you said, and I would agree with that with the older or non-teckky folk I support who update their sites, so why not keep a simple version for us peons?

    -----

    Yes cars are more complex and do more than a horse, but apples and oranges, we aren't comparing modes, but methods.

    A proper comparison would be when I pull on a horse bridle left, it should go left.  When I turn the steering wheel left, it should turn left, correct?  Same principle.

    In this case, EW just sits there like stund bunny.  ;-)

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:30 PM
  • Wrote to contenseed.  They got a bad link to download.  More than just the double // in the url link.
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:32 PM
  • Thomas,

    I will certainly agree that EW is a lot harder to handle then FP.  But, again, I think you are not looking at the bigger picture of where the internet is currently.  FP came out in the day of "personal pages" and simple ecommerce.  Those days are gone.  People now have a facebook page, and to sell on the internet requires a robust, secure, PCI complient page.   Microsoft had a decision to make.  Should they try and create a product that included all the FP stuff, or should they just reboot and create a product for a professional market; they chose the later.   I actually think they made the right choice.   The whole concept of FP is flawed in that it requires the server to have the FP extensions--these always have had problems.   Also, it is important to realize that browsers needed to move forward in a standardized way.  I can remember making the same page for IE and Netscape, because they each rendered the page so different.  With agreed upon standards you can at least plan for the future with a little more confidance.  

    FP really had only a small window of product time; basically 6 years on the market.  The last version was 2003.  It is 2011, that was 8 years ago!

    I completely understand your frustration--I also started and created my work flow based on how FP works.   But, again, I think you need to step back and decide what you want your role to be in today's internet.  If you want to continue to create webpages, then you are going use a stronger tool like EW or Dreamweaver.  But I would also say that there are really a lot more choces.   Many hosting companies will now build a simple website for next to nothing.   What cost thousands of dollars in 2001 now can be had for $19.95 a month.  Why not just pay someone else...?

    FP was much easier to use... I miss it also... And EW is buggy and requires a much greater time commitment.   But it also delivers much cleaner pages and things like dwts are a much better way to keep a website updated.  

    One thing that I know for certain, the web is moving very fast...  Personally, I would rather spend my time getting ahead of the curve than worrying about FP...  :)

     

    Peter

     

     

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:20 PM
  • Did you try ContentSeed? Did you try the demo on the site?
    It's now sold through MediaCarbon, and there is no download until after you pay. I don't know what you think is broken.

    CSS is NOT EW's way of "interpreting FrontPage's codes." CSS, along with HTML, is the very basis of the entire Web and it was thus even in the days of FP. CSS is nearly 20 years old in concept, and Internet Explorer has supported it since IE3 was released in 1996. Netscape had support in ver 4. This isn't new. Stop blaming the tool! Learn the technology.


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:40 PM
  • Cheryl,

    Yes I agree to use EW going forward after using FP for the cleanup and turning off borders. We use EW for anything new .

    Thomas,

    If you use DWT's you can have editable regions for your people to use and the DWT non-editable regions that only you can change. At least that way you can have the navigation and any other content you choose to be safe outside their grasp.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Parable:

    State legislators fron Wisconsin and Indiana hide there to avoid doing their jobs. The state department of tourism spots the potential and advertises across the nation for state legislators everywhere who may be looking for a place to hide to come to the land of Lincoln. Soon Illinois is flooded with them. Soon the state may become known as the land of loosers and many Illinois natives just wish they would leave. 

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:39 AM
  • "I'm really trying to like this EW3 and EW4, but just can't get over the morbid black/grey colour it has."

    You don't like "Expression Goth"?  ...You're not alone.  And you don't have to keep it:  switch to your Windows colors.  (Tools -> Application Options, General Tab)

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:51 AM
  • Thanks Peter for your valued input.


    True, the simple 'good old days' are gone, and true, what used to cost thousands costs peanuts today.

    I just got a dozen non-profits I look after and really am not looking forward to this ;-) as it is all gratis.  Seems the kids these days don't want to do gratis either.  One place I taught at, the kids were expecting $60,000 a year when they graduate designing websites.  Pie in the sky 90's thinking unfortunately.  I try to bring them down to earth, but seems some types, like artists think because some hunk of junk of a statue down at city hall went for $300,000, they can do the same.

    So to wrap this discussion up, I dusted off my old SharePoint Designer 2007 cd I forgot I bought a few years ago and re-installed it.  Works with FP extensions and handles well in ascetics.

    Granted it has the same annoying 'features' like a dud CNTL+A or Click+Shift/Click not working, but at least it is blue coloured and not morbid grey. ;-)

    Plus I understand it is free now.  I purchased mine. 

    So SPD7 seems like a good compromise, handles a bit like FP and has the CSS qualities.  Plus can handle FP Shared Borders.  Expression Web can't.

    Surprizing no one suggested SPD7 it to me on here.

    Also purchased content seed that was suggested, will try that on the secretaries machines.

    Can't remember who asked to show what sites I do, but they are listed here:

    http://tomax7.com/portfolio.html Most of them are FP and a few are Dreamweaver.  I don't proport to be an artist or graphic designer, hence why most are probably non-profits ;-). 

    Just fast and simple loading pages that rank decent in Google.

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:06 PM
  • Bill, I just purchased ContentSeed and was talking with Chris from MediaCarbon. The link on his site was broken and he has since fixed it, along with the price (149 not 100)...maybe re-read my post where I say the link being broken, not the product.

    Stop blaming the tool?  Well if the tool isn't friendly for non-tech users, then how does one learn the technology? 

    That seems a bit over the top chest pounding to me and doesn't help the situation.

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:12 PM
  • Thanks surferbob.

    DWT's to me are sounding more like Dreamweaver's Library files, or dwt's.  AS in Dreamweaver Templates.  Will see how to adapt the sites to Expression web.

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:13 PM
  • Thanks KathyW2

    IRK!  Just did it and EW4 turned a puke grey with a pastel blue here and there now.  That isn't my Windows colours!


    Just loaded SharePoint Designer 2007 and it picks up the proper blue, so can't be my monitor.

    Another 'feature' of EW I'm not impressed with.

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:17 PM
  • "Well if the tool isn't friendly for non-tech users, then how does one learn the technology?"

    Did that question really need to be asked?

    Right at the top of this forum is a big button labeled Learn.

    In the BEFORE POSTING thread at the top of this forum is a long list of resources to learn about EW, HTML, CSS, ASP.NET, and much more, each with a short description. It's labelled Learning Resources and Reference Sites.

    And, of course, there's Google, Borders, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., etc., etc.


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:38 PM
  • Thomas,

    It really sounds like you would be happier with another program. By all means stick to SharePoint Designer 2007 which is Expression Web 1 with support for all the FrontPage bots (that's the primary difference between the two.)

    We really get that you don't like Expression Web but there is absolutely nothing we can do about that. Nobody in this thread or any other except where a moderator has moved one from the wrong forum over works for Microsoft.

    The majority of folks here actually like Expression Web (even if there are some things we don't like) and prefer it to FrontPage or other editors. You don't, so why not move on to something that you do like.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 3:17 PM
  • "Stop blaming the tool?  Well if the tool isn't friendly for non-tech users, then how does one learn the technology? "

    If you didn't know how to drive, would you buy a car and expect the car to teach you? You could muddle through getting it to go and stop, but the potential for crashes and injury would be pretty high, and you still woudn't have learned traffic rules.

    You don't learn a technology by buying a tool that assumes you know it, and a professional web design tool does assume you know the technology.  You buy the tool to help you apply the technology you have already learned or that you plan to take the effort to learn using resources available outside the tool.

    For EW, one would (or your editors would, if they were going to use EW) read the first sticky in this forum (requirements for using EW),  read the learning resources in the Before Posting sticky; click the Learn tab at the top of the page; use Google; and take classes if the rest isn't sufficient.

    If the editors have no desire to do that (not surprising if they don't), EW is not the right tool - which is why I suggested that you need a CMS instead.

    ContentSeed puts up a Word-like HTML editor in the web browser for editors to change the permitted content area.  That's a learning curve that a non-web-tech person can easily climb.  (My mother, not web-tech-savvy, changes parts of her site using it.)

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:16 PM
  • "IRK!  Just did it and EW4 turned a puke grey with a pastel blue here and there now.  That isn't my Windows colours!"

    EW uses my Windows colors.  Of course, you can't assume which colors map to what areas, in EW's mind.  [You could select different Windows color schemes and see what effect it has on EW.]

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:20 PM
  • Surprizing no one suggested SPD7 it to me on here.

    Not so surprising when you consider that this is an Expression Web forum, not an SPD forum, and that many of us, myself among them, have never even seen SPD, and don't use it, and would therefore have no reason whatsoever to recommend it on an EW forum, or even think of it as an alternative.

    Stop blaming the tool?  Well if the tool isn't friendly for non-tech users, then how does one learn the technology?

    The tool's job is not to teach you the technologies you need to know to use it. Purchasing AutoCAD does not magically turn you into an architect or a mechanical engineer. Buying Photoshop does not transform you into a professional photo retoucher commanding thousands of dollars per contract. Buying Quark or InDesign does not imbue you with the skills necessary to produce a slick, professional publication using them. Unlike FP, EW is also a professional-level development tool, and like these other professional tools, expects you to bring to the table knowledge of the principles and technologies needed to use it effectively.

    DWT's to me are sounding more like Dreamweaver's Library files, or dwt's.  AS in Dreamweaver Templates.

    Umm, no. It sounds as if there's some confusion there, as well. DWTs in EW correspond to DWTs in Dreamweaver, although they are only one-way compatible (DW understands EW's syntax; EW does not understand DW's). However, DW's libraries do not correspond to DWTs of either application, but to EW's design-time includes.

    It really does sound as if you might be better served using something like SPD, which is closer to what you are familiar with, and supports many of the ease-of-use features that you require.

    EW is designed for and targeted at professional developers, and is intended to be a direct competitor for Dreamweaver, at which it succeeds admirably. Although there are many features, in fact the entire focus of the application, designed to make it easier and more productive for developers to implement professional, standards-compliant, and accessible Web sites, it is not designed as a teaching tool.

    Like the other tools mentioned above, if you want to use it effectively, you must either know, or be willing to learn, the underlying technologies with which it is designed to work. If you, and your content editors, are not willing to invest the sweat equity in learning those technologies, then perhaps you should really consider another tool which places fewer expectations upon its users.

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 5:38 PM
  • Learning to drive and driving different types of cars are two different things. 

    Again apples and oranges.   The discussion isn't learning to drive EW, it is why is it so difficult for some to grasp the interface changes were not beneficial to users?

    Most don't care about CSS or compliance - they want simplicity in doing things and the program should be smart enough to do the compliance in the background without causing major changes to how someone inputs the content/text.

    Using the car analogy, most don't care what kind of piston displacement it has.  Or how the muffler adheres to EPP standards.  Or it can rev to 8000 RPM.  They just want something to put the key in, and drive to the store with.

    It seems (and my fault as well) we have digressed from the topic here about why some things were happening like nbsp; or some common interface items are not working any more. 

    Removing interactions that has been a standard for 15 years such as Click, Shift/Click to highlight text, or a removing the simple CNTL+A is progress? 

    Or hiding the format paintbrush is progress? Sure it is there, but who was the brain fart to  thinks it isn't a common tool?

    Or the task of making 4 more clicks to import a file from the local drive to what used to be a simple click and drag is progress?

    But I'm digressing. 

    I'll learn to use it, as well as the other program suggested here so I apologize to all for venting.  Just not everything that glitters is gold.

    cheers

    ;-)

     

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 10:59 PM
  • Yeah, it's always easy to say it should be simple to do this or that if you don't understand how complex the stuff is.

    If people want simplicity they can buy Coffee Cup or some other similar product or use the site builder that most hosting services offer. But that won't allow any of the customization that a professional product offers.

    EW is a professional tool designed to build standards-compliant websites of any complexity. If you can't deal with that, buy something else. Just don't expect MS (or Adobe) to dumb-down the software just because your clients are to stupid to learn it. The world does not need yet another Coffee Cup website builder; it does, however, need programs that professionals can use (since there are at latest count only two design programs of this caliber).


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 11:31 PM
  • Cheryl the issue isn't what I like or don't like, but why things were or were not happening and was hoping to find an answer here. 

    CNTL+A not working anymore except in Code view, or Click, Shift/Click turns into a big plus sign rather than highlight the paragraph.  Or why the format paintbrush is missing/hiding - are these an improvement or CSS compliance? 

    Or why copy and paste ended up with dozens of nbsp; - happens to more people from what I see in Google.  BTW Dreamweaver will do that once in awhile, and the trick was to copy/paste the text into notepad and then from there copy/paste into Dreamweaver.  Can't even do that in EW, it keeps inserting the nbsp; code.

    Agreed, FrontPage bots not the best, but if a site uses Shared Borders, why does EW destroy the page, rather than (read Dreamweaver), ignore or treat it like text when editing?  Heck SPD7 doesn't have a hissy fit with Shared Borders.

    Speaking of SPD7, or Expression 1 as you call it, could work with Share Borders, who decided not to have this option with v3 or v4?

    You would think the opposite, seeing SPD7 was built to work with SharePoint - maybe my error in thinking EW was built for the common Joe who wants to upgrade from FP or Dreamweaver.

    So yes sorry for venting, but I rather be out golfing than fighting with a program that for all purposes used to be simple.

    Cars may have gotten more complex under the hood, but the basics of driving still are the same.

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 11:39 PM
  • "Just don't expect MS (or Adobe) to dumb-down the software just because your clients are to stupid to learn it."

    Bill.  I have to admit, you sure do know how to be diplomatic with your clients.

    ;-)

     

     

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 11:50 PM
  • Thomas,

    I differ from most here in some ways. I like EW but have long advocated that it should be more user friendly. Some say EW is positioned to compete with Dreamweaver. I want it to not only compete but to exceed DW, in particular I want it to be easy to use and intuitive. While I may want to compare EW to Frontpage I realize the time has long passed that MS cares to support that market segment and that such comparisons are rendered moot. Yet I foresee a time when it will once again be in the marketing interests of a MS or competitor to make a tool as easy as FP was to use but as present web oriented as EW is. I think the market wants such a tool. It may be a very long wait however.

    Having now had the chance to evaluate many of the tools from the low end up to EW and Dreamweaver I am of the opinion that you are best served sticking to EW or DW for the simple reason that sooner or later you will have to achieve that skill level. It is a new web out there and after struggling through the learning experience needed to master it I think you will find it as exciting as I do.

    All that said I really do have a lot of empathy for your situation but empathy will not help you. There is a big gulf between the casual user and the professional but many an amature are making great sites with EW right now. No one trying to learn EW or any other tool should be considered "stupid" and you are best advised to ignor such "stupid" comments you may see as arrogance seldom equals wisdom. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Parable:

    State legislators fron Wisconsin and Indiana hide there to avoid doing their jobs. The state department of tourism spots the potential and advertises across the nation for state legislators everywhere who may be looking for a place to hide to come to the land of Lincoln. Soon Illinois is flooded with them. Soon the state may become known as the land of loosers and many Illinois natives just wish they would leave. 

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:01 AM
  • CNTL+A not working anymore except in Code view, or Click, Shift/Click , or Expression 1 as you call it, could work with Share Borders, who decided not to have this option with v3 or v4?

    You would think the opposite, seeing SPD7 was built to work with SharePoint - maybe my error in thinking EW was built for the common Joe who wants to upgrade from FP or Dreamweaver.

    SharePoint Designer is the successor to FrontPage. FrontPage was aimed at the "information worker" who added content and worked in a controlled environment with a known client (aka web browser). That is why any interactivity relied on the FPSE.

    A lot of folks tried to use FP to create professional quality sites with varying degrees of success. I could create just a standards based website with FrontPage as I can with Dreamweaver or Expression Web but I had to work harder to do so because I had to fight against the tool. Which typically meant I'd use something like TopStyle to do all my CSS because the tools in FrontPage were and remain really bad at doing so. They are sort of a glorified version of Word Styles which is a print tool.

    When Microsoft realized that they had to do something with FrontPage (they got tired of being the butt of the industry with a reputation that could not be salvaged even though FrontPage by 2003 was a decent enough web editor) they took a good hard look at it. As a result they realized that FrontPage was trying to be all things to everyone who could possibly want to create a website. As such it satisfied only a small percentage of those who used it. So it was split into SharePoint Designer for those who wanted all the bots and the new features in SharePoint (replacement for FPSE & SharePoint Workspaces that were in FrontPage 2002) AND into new professional level tool - Expression Web.

    In the intial releases to help folks MIGRATE from FrontPage they kept in limited support for some of the FrontPage bots. Over time that limited support has been phased out especially when the underlying core of Expression Web was moved to a new codebase to make it more integrated with the other programs in the Expression Studio.

    Expression Web is not an "upgrade" from Dreamweaver but a competitive product that has features not available in Dreamweaver like ASP.NET 2.0+ support while Dreamweaver has focused its feature set on a different server technology. Ironically, Dreamweaver still has better support for Classic ASP than Expression Web.  These different feature sets are why I and many others here who are professional have both applications.

    Your comparision is not between one engine and another but between stick shift where you have to learn how to use the clutch, when to shift gears, the sound of the engine at varying RPMs, when to go for performance/torque and when to go for fuel efficiency, that fine tuning that really makes for an interesting drive on mountain roads versus automatic transmissions where all you do is use the gas & break pedal.

    Professional applications that require you to learn underlying technologies to use effectively just like a stick shift car. (Probablly doesn't surprise you that in most cases I prefer to drive a stick.)

    WYSIWYG are like an automatic transmission, you use the brake far more often than the transmission. If that is what you want then buy an editor created for that market and quit whining to folks who would find that about as much fun as you would playing 18 holes of golf with nothing but a 5 iron.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:40 AM
  • Bob,

    I agree with much of your post though I don't think Bill was calling anyone who is willing to put the time in to learn "stupid", rather that anyone who didn't want to put the time in was "stupid" to think they could use EW effectively w/o doing so.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:42 AM
  • CNTL+A not working anymore except in Code view, or Click, Shift/Click turns into a big plus sign rather than highlight the paragraph.  Or why the format paintbrush is missing/hiding - are these an improvement or CSS compliance? 

    Or why copy and paste ended up with dozens of nbsp; - happens to more people from what I see in Google.  BTW Dreamweaver will do that once in awhile, and the trick was to copy/paste the text into notepad and then from there copy/paste into Dreamweaver.  Can't even do that in EW, it keeps inserting the nbsp; code.

    Select All (CNTL+A) works fine for me in Design View. Click anywhere in the page, hit the key combo, and everything is selected. What's the problem? Do you get something different?

    As mentioned in your other thread, the Click, Shift/Click issue only happens inside a table cell, not in regular editing. And, it was suggested there that you convert the table to text, which negates the problem and allows you to select whatever you want. Another option, if you actually have paragraphs (not line breaks) inside the table cells, is to try triple-clicking on the paragraph you want. It will select the entire paragraph, but not the entire cell, unless the paragraph is only a single, short sentence; in that case EW still seems to get confused. But, in that case it would be simple to drag to select the sentence. And, just out of curiosity, if there is that much stuff in a single table cell, why are you using a table at all?

    As for nbsps, did you look at Ian's Add-In? Or try the other solutions offered? I've never personally seen this issue, so I have no idea what's happening. However, did you try adding a valid doctype, as suggested, and did it make any difference? Just wondering...

    Jim

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:11 AM
  • Let's not forget, SharePoint Designer's focus is on corporate intranets. MS doesn't market it for general website creation; it's far too limited for that. It also has to deal only with a closed corporate system; so, like FrontPage, it can continue to use proprietary solutions because the corporation controls the browser selection, platforms, and functionality. They are in a position to say "Our SharePoint system does not support XYZ and LMN browsers or resolutions below 1024 x 768px." And employees must comply. You can't do that in the real world.

    That line of products started about 10+ years ago with SharePoint Portal Server, upon which companies could build an intranet for sharing documents across dispersed locations, collaboration, etc. They could also build SharePoint apps for internal use.

    So, while it is possible to use SPD2007 for building a website, it is not without its drawbacks and limitations, and it has a lot of features that will be useless without the Office SharePoint Server. It's got its place, but it isn't a professional design tool.

    You don't buy a Porsche if you need to haul lumber around.

    And my point about "stupid" clients was, as Cheryl suggests, aimed at people who give up without ever trying or who expect a professional-level program to to do everything for them with no effort.


    A Wisconsin parable:
    A Billionair­e CEO, a tea partier and a union worker are sitting around a table with a dozen cookies on a plate. The CEO grabs 11 cookies for himself and then tells the tea partier that the union member is after some of "his" cookie.
    Would you like some Koch with that cookie?
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:59 AM
  • "Most don't care about CSS or compliance - they want simplicity in doing things and the program should be smart enough to do the compliance in the background without causing major changes to how someone inputs the content/text."

    Nonsense.  A professional web designer DOES care about both, and EW is a professional level tool (as is Dreamweaver - FrontPage was not).  You are using the wrong tool if you don't care about the nuts and bolts of web design.

    Now, not every user of EW has to be a professional web designer. Probably more are not than are. But to use it, they do need to be interested in leaning the fundamentals, and to not assume it's a FrontPage clone.

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:04 AM
  • Thanks surferbob, I do appreciate your honesty.  You are totally correct it is a new web out there and that I will have to conform.  ;-)

    Google 'please laugh' as I think we could use a good laugh at my expense.

    Cheers everyone

    Tom.

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:11 AM
  • KathyW2, it is not nonsense.  I think you missed the point.  Not talking about 'professional web designers' at all but Mom&Pop shops who couldn't give a rip about CSS or compliance, just the ability to upload or update their site with minimal effort, or the word I'm looking for - ease.

    SO back to the original point, what replaces FP in ease and simplicity to do updates without overhauling the site?  The MediaCarbon seed tool looks great, and have purchased it and will install it on the secretaries/managers computers.  CoffeeCup is another idea given.

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:17 AM
  • Thomas,

    I find that Adobe Contribute is a great package for office personnel updating the website. It acts like a web browser, but with controls for editing and adding a new page. Combined with a premade DW template, new pages will have whatever the defined look for the website is.

    Over the years, probably a half a dozen of my clients have used this package, and most love it. There are limitations, but for everyday updates it can't be beat in simplicity and ease of use by non-web designers.

    It can be used to edit html websites created in Expression Web, too.. but I don't think the template for  creating new pages would work from EW. But for page edits, it would work nicely.

     

    Rick


    Rick Dieffenbach
    www.ProfessionalWebsiteReview.com
    Tutorials for Reviewing Your Website
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:34 AM
  • FWIW I too have used Contribute for a number of customers over the years. For one however we recently changed over to ContentSeed and the customer finds it easier to use and to get the formatting he needs. We've also found occasional problems with Contribute where pages would get stuck in draft mode etc.
    Ian Haynes

    EW V4 Add-Ins
    EW resources, hints and tips
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:02 PM
  • Like Ian I prefer Content Seed for a variety of reasons not the least of which is cost. Contribute requires each user to have a license while Content Seed is a per developer license so you can use it with as many clients and sites as you want for less than the cost of two Contribute licenses (one for you and one for a single client is the minimum you need to use Contribute.)

    Besides, it is easier to configure and use.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:22 PM
  • Another vote for ContentSeed here. It couldn't be much easier to deploy and configure, is an inexpensive one-time license offering multiple unlimited deployments, and has excellent support from a developer who cares about his customers' experience with the product. Oh, yeah, and it offers a pleasant, recognizable interface to the users, with word-processor-style icons and menus.

    As far as this is concerned...

    SO back to the original point, what replaces FP in ease and simplicity to do updates without overhauling the site?

    the answer is "nothing." FP is dead and gone. Been gone these eight years and four EW versions now. To my knowledge there is no product similar to FP on the market now. I know of no analog to the Server Extensions, which are steadily but surely being dropped by hosting providers. and which were required for much of the advanced, and particularly the dynamic and data-oriented, features offered in FP.

    Those features were and are proprietary, and are getting decidedly long in the tooth at this point, looking much like what they are, decade-old tech that should be replaced with modern, compliant, non-proprietary, and cross-browser compatible equivalents. You don't need a FrontPage to do that; you need an Expression Web.

    You can argue all day long about what Microsoft should have done. You can complain until your face gets red and the veins on your forehead pop out that FP users shouldn't have been left in the lurch. But, please, don't do it here. Believe me, there are very few Microsoft listeners here, just a few moderators, and Jim, who's been the only MS presence actually posting recently.

    The rest of us, the small core of regular contributors who provide most of the answers and the larger group of transient visitors who come to get their questions answered and then go away until they have another one, and of course, the lurkers who simply read and learn, all of us are innocent of any responsibility for, or influence over, corporate decisions taken by Microsoft.

    Microsoft took the decision years ago to develop a credible, capable, professional-level Web development tool, sundered from the FrontPage codebase and "information-worker orientation" entirely. With each version it has become more capable and feature-rich, more of a truly productive tool for professional developers, and serious amateurs, to use in creating and maintaining Web sites. That many of us here have been lured away from Dreamweaver, and find ourselves using EW more and more by comparison to how often we now use DW, bears testimony to the fact that MS is getting it right, and can lay claim to having created a truly credible professional Web development application.

    FP is gone, forever, and complaining about it is bootless in its futility. We cannot do anything about it , and Microsoft does not intend to. There are many, many products aimed at the amateur who does not wish to engage in learning the technologies of the Web, including Microsoft's own SharePoint Designer. If EW is too difficult to use, because it does expect a fundamental understanding of HTML and CSS to use effectively, use another product.

    But, please, leave off complaining about it here. Over the last three years we have heard it all, hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. It has, as you might imagine, grown very tiresome, and while no one can force anyone to change their opinions about what has been done, or what they think should have been done, it would be very much appreciated by those who have been here for the long haul if we didn't have to hear about it again, and again, and again...

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:12 PM
  • "KathyW2, it is not nonsense.  I think you missed the point.  Not talking about 'professional web designers' at all but Mom&Pop shops who couldn't give a rip about CSS or compliance, "

    Read the rest of the post.  If they don't care, they are using the wrong tool.  As I said, EW is, like DW, a professional level tool, whether the user is technically a professional or not.

    Mom and Pop who want a site without learning web technology should use a "sitebuilder" tool.  Google and pick one.  Limited, but it may be all they need.  If not, they need to pay someone who knows what they are doing to put up a site (perhaps with a CMS so Mom and Pop can make updates themselves without knowing the underpinnings).

    Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:03 PM
  • Amen Kathy, there are hundreds of "site builders" out there including Office Live, Yahoo Stores, even iWeb (which sucks really badly but its Apple so it must be good, right?) some like CoffeeCup are decent, others like Publisher (which is where MS has been sending the folks who don't want to learn) make horribly bloated sites.

    There are WordPress blogs that can be used for all sorts of purposes with the extensions available along with lots and lots of templates available either free or low cost. It and many other options like it can be installed using "one click" methods from hosting control panels at hosts like GoDaddy which mass market to those folks. GoDaddy and most other low cost hosting companies actually have site builders available for folks who use their services.

    The options for those who "do not care" about what's under the hood are legion. Expression Web is not intended for that market. Neither is Dreamweaver. If that is what you want find a tool that is and suits your needs but this complaining that Expression Web isn't FrontPage has just gotten too old. Microsoft announced FrontPage was discontinued in 2005. That was six years ago, time to get over it.

    This thread has gotten too long. If you have specific questions, ask them and you'll get help but complains will get you little more than alienating those who are most capable of helping with problems.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:13 PM