Leonis tires of my inquiries...sorry dude. Not trying to be a pest. I read something in the GoLive User Forums that suggested a lot of the "bloat" people talk about is compatibility code and other stuff that is invisible to the browser, but makes it easier for GoLive to edit. Also, there seems to be a consensus among some people that there are code "options" you can choose which will remove this compatibility code (making the pages cleaner, but (slower?) for GoLive to open, edit, etc.
Hell if I know. Just don't think I'm doubting what you say because it's you - just the opposite. I keep asking because it's you and I value your judgement on this stuff based on threads I've read from you in the past.
i've used golive since v2 and though it tends to be somewhat verbose in it's javascript implementation it does work very well if you know how to use it correctly. not to mention, in my experience, that same code tends to be less problematic than code generated in dreamweaver when dealing with cross platform/browser issues. i'm sure other coders will grimace when i say that the size of the code is rarely an issue for me anymore, download speeds being what they are now, i just want something that works. so anyone that says that golive is a junior league app is is either full of shite or uniformed. this is not to knock on dreamwever one bit since i use and will continue to use both apps because there are instances where one is better suited to a given project than the other. in other words, use what ever makes you happy and works best for you.
by the way, quark is easy to use but continues to be the biggest pain in my *** with the single exception of flash. i think flash has increased my probability of having a heartattck before i'm 40 ten fold.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
Need a favor: can one of you guys who uses GL 6 post a screenshot of the DTD / Code Checker dialog box, so that it shows what all web standards GL 6 supports?
My bad, it's called the Syntax Checker, not the Code Checker. In the top list box, you'll see the column "Comply with", then a whole bunch of standards listed like "XHTML 1.0 Strict."
You should be able to resize the dialog such that all of those standard types are visible. Then just make a screenshot of same and post the URL. Should you have the time to do this, thanks very much in advance - I appreciate it!
[quote]running with scrissors- 2 words- Live Motion. You will never think of Flash.app ever again <hr></blockquote>
flash and i have this love hate relationship. it can and will be a real bitch to work with at times, but i absolutely love what i can do with it. besides i never could get used to the way livemotion worked. i think flash must have screwed up my brain or something. i have the demo for LM 2 but i think i'll wait and see what flash MX has to offer once i get my copy. i'm sure i'll get curious about livemotion again if it starts to get some good press, but it will always lag behind flash a bit in what it can do because macromedia controls the development of the technology.
Standards Compliance ... anyone? I have no idea why Adobe doesn't specifically list all of the DTDs it can check against / code with. Seems this sort of basic information should be easy to find but it's certainly nowhere to be found on Adobe's site.
Maybe if someone could check their manual, that would be easier than making a screen shot of the expanded Syntax Checker dialog....
I should've had my copy by now but I don't for whatever reason. Bad week for Airborne I guess.
Flash is in a whole other league. Livemotion has a much more intuitive animation interface with the After effects style timeline, but it's actionscripting is very basic. If you're doing a simple animation yes livemotion is ok, anything else and Flash is the answer. Flash Mx has also just been released with a few time saving options. The flash player still sucks on a mac in comparision to the PC version.
Thanks YBot! That's exactly what I was looking for (but not what I expected to see). Seems GoLive still can't output clean, strict CSS 1 / 2. A little disappointing but oh well... the XHTML aspect is pretty cool. Should be fun to work between InDesign 2 and GoLive 6 - I'd love to do all my design work on the former and simply output to the latter for clean-up and uploading.
<strong>Thanks YBot! That's exactly what I was looking for (but not what I expected to see). Seems GoLive still can't output clean, strict CSS 1 / 2. A little disappointing but oh well... the XHTML aspect is pretty cool. Should be fun to work between InDesign 2 and GoLive 6 - I'd love to do all my design work on the former and simply output to the latter for clean-up and uploading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally forgot about InDesign 2's export-to-web feature! I'm going to try designing a site in it and exporting it to see if it truly is that easy.
While you're at it, can you check your GL 6 manual and see if the TOC lists any section / page that describes which web standards are fully supported? I keep on wondering how it is GL 6 wouldn't have full support (in terms of code output, syntax checking and the rest) for CSS 1 & 2 - they've been W3C specifications for a long time and are supported to one degree or another by several browsers.
And there is something on the web site about "Visually developing CSS pages" - so I don't get why the DTDs wouldn't be listed in the Syntax checker as well. See what you can find, if you're so inclined. This is really curious / odd....
we just got golive 6 int he studio a few days ago, along with livemotion 2. now, to set the record, we are 100% dreamweaver and fireworks around here, and have been quite happy like that...
but now our primary html design person is beginning to rethink the possibility of going illustrator/photoshop/golive/livemotion/webDAV (say that five times fast).
i haven't pestered him for details yet (we're far too busy to meet on this), but he is completely floored at the integration of all this technology.
Maybe in the past, but given how much better Mozilla's standards compliance is, how much faster a browser it is, and that it is going to be available on no less than 9 or 10 major platforms, I don't think IE will continue to dominate. Further, Microsoft has demonstrated once again that when it gets a strange-hold on a market, it stops innovating in that market. IE has been more or less stagnant on all platforms for about 18 months now - big surprise.
Possibly this has a lot to do with the trial and other legal proceedings, but I don't see Microsoft obsessing over the browser market in the future - if for no other reason than to keep the DOJ off their ass. Hence, IE is going to lose some big-time market share in the next 12-18 months.
[rant]Third, I think it's long overdue that web designers and developers put their foot down and give people a *reason* to upgrade their browser -- by providing visual content that can only be accessed by Mozilla or Gecko-based browsers. Maybe for the time being you have to continue browser-sniffing and directing the everyone else to a standard, table-based site...but the other site can be a world apart (and it should be IMO).
If the people responsible for making the content don't use their collective influence to improve the quality of the web (and by extension the browsers people use), we're still going to be designing for 2.0 - 4.0 browsers three years from now, and that's f*cking insane if you ask me. No other technology-based industry I can think of is forced to deal with crappy legacy wares to the extent the web designers do.[/rant]
I for one intend to give users a real incentive to NOT use lousy outdated browser technology. If I have to use JPEG screenshots or email or some other method to demonstrate how much better a mozilla site can be - and how much easier it is to update it and provide fresh content, I will. Screw IE - at least versions 4.x and below. 5.x is at least sorta close to Mozilla in terms of standards support....
I dunno. I just can't believe how much crap web designers put up with in this regard. I say do something about it -- you have as much power over the situation as anyone else (even though a picky client may have more power at times).
[quote]As far as Joe Average cares, Web-compliant means "Works in Internet Explorer" and that's that, whatever the W3C care to say<hr></blockquote>this just in kids:
AOL switching from IE to Gecko engine. Days of IE only websites are numbered. AOL > 30% of internet traffic.
Glad to hear you say that Leonis...I was a little concerned I might be using a substandard web design product. ; )
And the point made about AOL above is a HUGE win for Mozilla - I hadn't heard that. IE can get f*cked. Time to consider the option of one site, one set of documents.... yeahhhh.
i'm curious about where they're headed with their Quicktime support and LiveMotion integration.
i think it would be a really smart move for Adobe to put it's weight behind PHP with some real support for it's integration. embracing an open standard could have some really good mojo for them.
Macromedia has ColdFusion and it is formidable but it's proprietary and pricey.
Regarding Quark:
i've always hated Quark . it seems like they actually had to work at making it counter-intuitive.
InDesign (Adobe) shows promise and it will be the other DTP standard in 2 years.
i think that an all Adobe workflow may become more and more compelling as their newer apps mature and integrate with the likes of PhotoShop.
LiveMotion will probably begin sharing features of AfterEffects and that will be exciting.
Comments
Hell if I know. Just don't think I'm doubting what you say because it's you - just the opposite. I keep asking because it's you and I value your judgement on this stuff based on threads I've read from you in the past.
by the way, quark is easy to use but continues to be the biggest pain in my *** with the single exception of flash. i think flash has increased my probability of having a heartattck before i'm 40 ten fold.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
My bad, it's called the Syntax Checker, not the Code Checker. In the top list box, you'll see the column "Comply with", then a whole bunch of standards listed like "XHTML 1.0 Strict."
You should be able to resize the dialog such that all of those standard types are visible. Then just make a screenshot of same and post the URL. Should you have the time to do this, thanks very much in advance - I appreciate it!
flash and i have this love hate relationship. it can and will be a real bitch to work with at times, but i absolutely love what i can do with it. besides i never could get used to the way livemotion worked. i think flash must have screwed up my brain or something. i have the demo for LM 2 but i think i'll wait and see what flash MX has to offer once i get my copy. i'm sure i'll get curious about livemotion again if it starts to get some good press, but it will always lag behind flash a bit in what it can do because macromedia controls the development of the technology.
Maybe if someone could check their manual, that would be easier than making a screen shot of the expanded Syntax Checker dialog....
I should've had my copy by now but I don't for whatever reason. Bad week for Airborne I guess.
I hope that's what you're after.
-Y
<strong>Thanks YBot! That's exactly what I was looking for (but not what I expected to see). Seems GoLive still can't output clean, strict CSS 1 / 2. A little disappointing but oh well... the XHTML aspect is pretty cool. Should be fun to work between InDesign 2 and GoLive 6 - I'd love to do all my design work on the former and simply output to the latter for clean-up and uploading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally forgot about InDesign 2's export-to-web feature! I'm going to try designing a site in it and exporting it to see if it truly is that easy.
-Y
While you're at it, can you check your GL 6 manual and see if the TOC lists any section / page that describes which web standards are fully supported? I keep on wondering how it is GL 6 wouldn't have full support (in terms of code output, syntax checking and the rest) for CSS 1 & 2 - they've been W3C specifications for a long time and are supported to one degree or another by several browsers.
And there is something on the web site about "Visually developing CSS pages" - so I don't get why the DTDs wouldn't be listed in the Syntax checker as well. See what you can find, if you're so inclined. This is really curious / odd....
but now our primary html design person is beginning to rethink the possibility of going illustrator/photoshop/golive/livemotion/webDAV (say that five times fast).
i haven't pestered him for details yet (we're far too busy to meet on this), but he is completely floored at the integration of all this technology.
me, i haven't made a decision either way...yet.
Possibly this has a lot to do with the trial and other legal proceedings, but I don't see Microsoft obsessing over the browser market in the future - if for no other reason than to keep the DOJ off their ass. Hence, IE is going to lose some big-time market share in the next 12-18 months.
[rant]Third, I think it's long overdue that web designers and developers put their foot down and give people a *reason* to upgrade their browser -- by providing visual content that can only be accessed by Mozilla or Gecko-based browsers. Maybe for the time being you have to continue browser-sniffing and directing the everyone else to a standard, table-based site...but the other site can be a world apart (and it should be IMO).
If the people responsible for making the content don't use their collective influence to improve the quality of the web (and by extension the browsers people use), we're still going to be designing for 2.0 - 4.0 browsers three years from now, and that's f*cking insane if you ask me. No other technology-based industry I can think of is forced to deal with crappy legacy wares to the extent the web designers do.[/rant]
I for one intend to give users a real incentive to NOT use lousy outdated browser technology. If I have to use JPEG screenshots or email or some other method to demonstrate how much better a mozilla site can be - and how much easier it is to update it and provide fresh content, I will. Screw IE - at least versions 4.x and below. 5.x is at least sorta close to Mozilla in terms of standards support....
I dunno. I just can't believe how much crap web designers put up with in this regard. I say do something about it -- you have as much power over the situation as anyone else (even though a picky client may have more power at times).
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
AOL switching from IE to Gecko engine. Days of IE only websites are numbered. AOL > 30% of internet traffic.
Suprise. This is MUCH BETTER than what I experienced with the beta version.
And the point made about AOL above is a HUGE win for Mozilla - I hadn't heard that. IE can get f*cked. Time to consider the option of one site, one set of documents.... yeahhhh.
:cool:
i think it would be a really smart move for Adobe to put it's weight behind PHP with some real support for it's integration. embracing an open standard could have some really good mojo for them.
Macromedia has ColdFusion and it is formidable but it's proprietary and pricey.
Regarding Quark:
i've always hated Quark . it seems like they actually had to work at making it counter-intuitive.
InDesign (Adobe) shows promise and it will be the other DTP standard in 2 years.
i think that an all Adobe workflow may become more and more compelling as their newer apps mature and integrate with the likes of PhotoShop.
LiveMotion will probably begin sharing features of AfterEffects and that will be exciting.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: killboy ]</p>