Bill Snedden

I have a very small site, but I originally built it with FrontPage Express and then FrontPage 2002-3. I usually do very little code editing, but have done some on almost every page.

My site is very simple, but I avoid the "template thing" for exactly the reason noted here: they tend to make the sites all look the same; too "vanilla" for my taste.

I use the editors primarily because my knowledge of HTML is rather limited. However, even if I knew more, I'd probably still use WYSIWYG editors merely because they allow one to see what one is doing while one does it. I remember quite well the days of word processing before the advent of WYSIWYG editors...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Xeluan

Ahhh, those halycon days of '97 where I stumbled into my first IT job as "webmaster" for an ISP due to a misreading of my resume and knowledge what the acronym html stood for.

It was all handcoding back then though I think java, flash and all the other whiz bang tools were starting to take off. I haven't touched html (other than for personal sites) commercially since 1998 where I got side-tracked into network admin (and been side-tracked a few times since).

ju'iblex

even so, that's automatic for me, the 2 seconds wasted really doesn't bother me.

actually, i disagree to an extent. sure you can have a hand coded "my cat" page, but i find that the easier "point and click" these CASE tools are, the more morons could be bothered mastering them, and thus, more moron pages. Front page is point and drag admittedly, but you get my drift.

pariah

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous poll. Or maybe its just that im an ultra-snobby UBERNERD. Probably the latter

Well nearly all professional websites are done in PHP for convienience of updates and user intergration and stuff, WYSIWYG editors used for tables and what not, and those pesky CSS stylings.

Hah! Hardcoding! Yeah I used to do that...back before I got an x86 machine! L-O-L-PARENTHESIS-COLON!

Maybe i have a future in being nick burns: ur companies computer guy!!! hmmm....

Defiant Heretic

I use hand-coding exclusively. It's the only way I can be sure that there's no browser specific code (If a site only works with one browser, it's written wrong), and it gives me more control. If the page is going to include a lot of similar code, I just write a short php script to generate it. (example)

Another problem with WYSIWYG editors is, as 'blex pointed out, that they let people who are mentally incapable of grasping simple concepts such as HTML publish on the web. And since they don't know how to edit the code by hand, it will invariable be browser specific. (read: wrong)

And "ur" is a Babylonian city, not a possessive pronoun.

chanoc

I love BBEidt, minimal, powerful, and free of the daunting GUI wizzy widgets. Macromedia Dreamweaver MX is my favorite WYSIWYG editor, yet the vast widgets is confusing. My employer uses BBEdit, and we edit .dat, .xml, .css, .html, and .xhtml with BBEdit. BTW, we use Macs.

ieyeasu

I learned to do websites by HTML, and I think that experience was very valuable. But for work, I use WSIWYG--Adobe GoLive! which is a wonderful product. However, HTML is still useful--as others said, WSIWYGs have formatting hiccups, and the only way to clean it up is to get your hands dirty.

Also helps get rid of "fat code".

Chicken Girl

I use MS frontpage, sometimes I go in and clean up the code - some of the stuff that gets in there drives me batty.

I'm not HTML-savvy enough to hand code my pages. There's no excuse for that, I know.

Autonemesis

vi

emotional

Hey, that's what I use too! More accurately its clone, vim, which in version 6.1 supports Unicode (absolutely essential to me).