On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Dan Romanchik wrote: > I applaud all of you macho (or macha, as the case may be) enough to produce > all your code by hand, and I don't recommend that designers simply use the > wysiwyg editors without an understand of HTML, but I think most people are > going to be more productive using something like Dreamwever. That depends. Up to a point, I will gladly compare my invoices to those of a Dreamweaver user. Dreamweaver is at its best when the deadline is an overarching object, and the person you're working for doesn't know how to keep changes under control. In the hands of someone who does design and production to a high standard, Dreamweaver's nearly useless beyond its site management features. By "high standard" I mean resource conservation: visually clean layouts that save the visitor time by making things easy to find, and save the visitor more time by downloading and rendering as quickly as it takes to frame the thought - even at 56K. The only times I've seen the latter pulled off by Dreamweaver, are when it's being used by someone who'd be no less effective using a non-WYSIWYG tool. Just because Dreamweaver design and manual maintenance cause an impedance mismatch of sorts, doesn't make either method poor (or good) on its strict merits... in other words, if you're going to build it with Dreamweaver, you DEFINITELY want to consider maintaining it with Dreamweaver. Even if that course of action results in a comparatively mediocre result. -- Ben Henick Web Author At-Large Managing Editor http://www.io.com/persist1/ http://www.digital-web.com/ persist1 at io.com bmh at digital-web.com -- "Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?" "I think so, Brain, but... (snort) no, no, it's too stupid." "We will disguise ourselves as a cow." "Oh!" (giggles) "That was it exactly!"