- From: Andrew Jenery <ajenery@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:14:41 +0000
- To: w3c help <site-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <COL118-W367ABFFACCE1FC13C808F0A18B0@phx.gbl>
This is a repeat of a previous message, as I forgot to include a subject title. My appologies... ----- To W3C, Hi, I have a number of issues concerning current standards for web-page creation/implimentation, but do not know which W3C department to contact, so I have sent this email here... The main issues/problems that I experience; indeed have experienced for some time, are as follows: Creating so-called 'standards based/complient' web pages is (for me at least, although I am sure the following is true for many people) far from simple and strait forward. The whole process is still far too complex and convoluted, especially for those that were/are used to table-based web-page creation using WYSIWYG editors, i.e Dreamweaver. Now however, and for many years already, this is no longer enough. It is now almost a criminal offence not to use CSS, and here lies the problem. Many people do not have CSS knowledge; indeed they did not/ do not have even html/xhtml knowledge which is why WYSIWYG html editors were made very popular in the first place - indeed, this worked very well for many years. The process was simple and problem-free; you created x-number of web pages using an editor, you checked things like meta tags, added content, and then uploaded the pages to a host's server. Now however, it has to be CSS'd; but because many do not have this knowledge and at the same time cannot afford to hire professional programmers, etc, they are forced into the CMS route - Content Management Systems, such as Joomla!; Wordpress, etc. But these are not simple or straitforward either. The content management aspect of CMS's is very good and most welcome, but you are still required to have naked html and especially css knowledge (none of these CMS's have wysiwyg html/css editors), which puts the vast majority of 'web entrepreneurs' back to square one. Why therefore, is W3C so CSS-biased? Why does W3C insist on bullying people into not accepting or staying with table-based web-pages/ websites? This is not a benefit for many web developers, it is a hazard! To this, W3C may say 'what is the problem', considering that recent or updated versions of wysiwyg editors do support latest css requirements? This is true, however many of these updated versions are far from cheap; they are very expensive - many web developers are still relying on much older versions of these editors. For instance, I still use - and would like to continue using Dreamweaver 4.0 which was released circa 2001/2002 (I forget the exact year). My budget simply does not allow me to buy upgrades, and this I would state without any hesitating, is the case for many thousands of website developers/publishers. So, to sum-up what my concerns are; it is that there is far too much of this ramming css down people's throats, and wagging the finger (on forums, etc) at anyone who still dares to want to publish simple, table-based sites (that worked perfectly well for many years) on the www. Google, for instance, will not even list none-css sites! It is as though W3C and Google and certain other players are in-league on this issue... Regards, Andrew Jenery Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 03:57:27 UTC