- From: Eileen Bonfiglio <PinesNet@putergirl.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:00:12 -0500
- To: "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
After reading this I just had to test Netscape Composer again, I had not in a long time and I have to admit failure with the ers:(( Corel Webmaster is still the only application that makes it through with minimal (less than 10 minutes per page) "by hand rework" on the first pass. -Eileen > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Bruce Bailey > Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 3:25 PM > To: WAI Interest Group > Subject: Using Netscape Composer to produce clean code > > > My usual strategy of steadfast procrastination in the face of > frustration has worked wonders for me once again! > > Really, despite the many suggestions from this group, I had given up on > this idea. In practice, my job duties changed for a while and I was not > able to do much html authoring at all, let alone teach anyone else! I > am optimistic that I'll be back to working our site at least half time > after the new year. In anticipation of this I revisited this idea. > > I am pleased to report that Netscape Composer 4.05/4.06 (and presumably > 4.5+ and latter too, I haven't tried) no longer has the unacceptable > behavior I reported here some six months ago. It is past time to give > credit where credit is due. The following has been true for some time > now, but I have not seen it clearly stated here for the record: > > Composer will produce html code that sails through both W3C and Bobby > validation. > > In May and June I sent a flurry of email to Netscape (and Microsoft > regarding FrontPage) and cross posted to several mainstream user group > lists. I was never given a hint that the two misbehaviors I noted > (missing DOCTYPE, after graphics) were legitimate complaints, let > alone were being corrected! It is only my huge ego that allows me to > believe that these concerns were addressed because of me. Thank you > very much. You are quite welcome. > > Composer still coverts <EM> and <STRONG> to the the _vastly inferior_ > <I> and <B>. Possibly more objectionably, it also coverts <CITE> (and > who knows what else) to <I> as well. Composer is still fond of > superfluous but not so much as to cause Bobby errors. Composer > favors <BR> over <P> when you are writing in the editor, but it no > longer automatically replaces all <P> with <BR> when you edit a > preexisting html source. > > Even though all of the above behavior is wrong headed, I can live with > these idiosyncrasies. This is because of the following advantages: > > 1) The software is very inexpensive. Free is hard to beat. > Better yet, > it's not Microsoft! > > 2) The html editor is very similar to the html browser. This makes it > user-friendly of course. I prefer that a novice composes html with > their browser rather than with the built-in html tools of their > preferred word processor. This avoids all sorts of potential problems > (e.g., the mechanics of conversion and posting, documents formatted as a > binary WordPerfect file when they LOOK like asci/html) and provides some > degree of separation in the user's mind between word processing and html > composition. > > 3) The actual mechanics of posting are very simple (click publish) and > can be hidden from the novice without the person being given passwords. > The template pages I will supply folks will include links to the W3C and > Bobby validators (pointing to their starter page). This facilitates > their checking of their page after they have posted it. > > There are potential pitfalls with my (planned) approach. > > 1) The person might not learn html. > > 2) Security is somewhat compromised since we are using an ISP that (of > course) provides only one password for our entire site. If someone can > post stuff regarding their program they can post stuff regarding the > entire agency. I am not worried about malicious behavior so much as I > am accidents. I will get around this problem by setting up directories > on our s ite. If someone edits and publishes a page from a different > department, they will end up with a (modified) copy in their directory > that will not have any links to it. > > This whole discussion is only relevant to organizations that have a > small number (but greater than one) of people producing modest amounts > of html. If anyone is in a similar situation (that is, having > non-technical people write and publish clean accessible html) I would > appreciate hearing from you! Do you think using Netscape Communicator > suite facilitates this? It will still be some time before anyone is > helping me with my html work. > > Thanks very much for your time on this. > > FYI, this thread died (on and off the list), so there was no new > information for me to share with the group until now. > > Bruce Bailey > > > > My many thanks to the several people who have responded privately to my > > initial post. I will endevor to ensure that the most salient points are > > posted here. > > > > The consensus so far: > > 1) FrontPage is quirky and you still have to know html to use it. > > 2) It doesn't take much work to correct Communicator pages. > > 3) Other packages MIGHT do the trick. > > > > I am still not satisfied. > > > > The beauty of Communicator is that, once it is set up, a neophyte can 1) > > select "edit", 2) make changes, 3) select "publish" AND THEY ARE DONE! > > The person doesn't have to know anything about ftp or html. (For that > > matter, they don't even need to know a password, but this only works > > with one account/directory.) When you add to this that the person is > > using software (the browser) that they are already comfortable with, we > > are talking about a NEAR ZERO learning curve. > > > > Even editing one line of code destroys the simplicity here. > > > > Does anyone know of a way to modify Communicator's behavior? Would the > > commercial versions address this need? > > > > How is it that no one at Netscape or Microsoft worries about producing > > html 4.0 compliant code? > > > > Thanks, > > Bruce Bailey > > > > > >> From: Bruce Bailey[SMTP:bbailey@clark.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 1:50 PM > >> To: 'Web Accessibility Initiative' > >> Subject: Using htlm editors to produce clean code? > >> > >> Has anybody had success using Microsoft FrontPage or Navigator Gold to > >> generate html code that parses through Bobby or the W3C > Validator without > >> errors? > >> > >> I am confortable with html and text editors, but I need to > find tools that > >> our secretaries can use without learning html. > >> > >> Front Page generates way too much extraneous code and actually makes it > >> difficult to put in good alt text. It's really overkill for what I am > >> looking for, since it is site-oriented instead of page oriented. I > >> envision giving responsibility for one-page-per-person for our site > >> (eventually -- smile). Communicator's editor is not too bad from this > >> point. You really can browse a site live, edit, publish -- all without > >> knowing many details. I hate that Communicator favors > appearance tags vice > >> logical ones (<B> and <I> instead of <STRONG> and <EM>), but > only fails me > >> on two points: > >> 1) It won't include the <!DOCTYPE... statement > >> 2) It puts nbsp; after graphics in table cells which > causes a Bobby error > >> since my tables now mix graphics and text. > >> > >> Does anyone know how to defeat either of the above two behaviors? > >> > >> Thanks very much for your time. > >> Bruce Bailey > >> www.dors.state.md.us >
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 02:01:32 UTC