Reasons That Using Pure HTML Code Will Produce Better Results Than A WYSIWIG

WYSIWIGs (what you see is what you get) are software programs that allow one to create web pages without the use of independent coding. The user can drag and drop images and text directly onto the screen, and the program creates the code on his behalf. Knowing HTML code and using it in a text editor instead of making use of WYSIWIG software produces more stable, adaptive sites.

The debate around whether to use a WYSIWIG or HTML has been raging ever since this language was created. Oddly enough, many companies who sell WYSIWIGs use pure coding to create their own sites. This is a telling example of how much more powerful pure coding is.

When creating a web page, the designer always needs to take into account that viewers of their finished product will have different sized monitors, different browsers and platforms. This introduces a serious problem: how to make the site look identical on every visitor's computer. This is where pure coding excels.

When the coder is making use of complicated frames and style sheets, pure coding ensures that the page doesn't warp or change when viewed on different computers. The danger of a page changing is that perfectly lined up buttons may display illogically on the screen, making a site near impossible to use. Many other problems caused by rearranged graphics can occur.

When creating a site, one also wants to switch to other programming languages and applets to make the most of the internet's capacity. Inserting animations created in other programs, or applets in a programming language, is easily done when coding directly. When one has used a WYSIWIG to create most of the site, it's not possible to do this.

There are certain useful factors involved in using a WYSIWIG. It allows one to achieve results quickly and easily. When using direct coding, one can switch over to a WYSIWIG easily for temporary help. The opposite is not so easily done. The incredible capacity of Java script and other programming languages should not be done without if one wants to compete with the superb sites now available on the internet.

Creating a website can be a frustrating process when one has made a mistake. The error typically becomes buried in language and images and is difficult to find. However, when direct coding has been done, finding the mistake is relatively easy and correcting it is a cinch.

Another problem WYSIGWIGs introduce is that they add odd codes to one's page. Tags and attributes that are difficult to understand can cause browsers to stall. With direct coding, there is far less chance of an unusual browser creating problems.

Learning direct coding well allows one to use DHTML freely and with ease. Complicated tables and rows will be simple to use. Many direct coders switch to a WYSIWIG when coping with complex features like this. However, gaining the ability to code quickly and with ease will, in the end, save plenty of time spent on trying to locate errors. Using HTML code directly gives a designer more freedom than he could hope for, especially if he learns some supporting languages as well.


Why Learning Direct HTML Code Makes Web Design Far Easier And Superior

Software that does coding for website creation is called a WYSIWIG program. With these, one can make an entire web site without writing the coding oneself. They allow the designer to simply drag images onto the screen and type text inside it and translate them into the language automatically. However, using HTML code directly, rather than software, creates a far more adaptive, stable site.

The arguments about whether HTML is better than WYSIWIGS have been happening from the moment they both existed. The telling fact is that many software companies which sell WYSIWIGs don't use these programs to make their own websites. Their preference for direct coding is revealing.

When designing a site, one needs to always remember that the audience of that site will be using various different types of platforms, browsers and monitor sizes. This makes things challenging for designers. They need to ensure that their site looks the same for every viewer. Coding is the best way to do this.

When using complex style sheets and frames, direct coding makes sure that the page doesn't become warped on a different computer. When warping happens, buttons and images that are well aligned can scatter and destroy the look of the page. This removes a site's user-friendliness. Rearranged graphics can create a number of other problems too.

When building a site, a designer will often find it helpful to move onto alternative programming languages and applets to take advantage of all the internet has to offer. When coding directly, one can easily embed these alternative languages and animations within the language. On the other hand, if one is using a WYSIWIG, switching is difficult, if not impossible.

WYSIWIGS are not without benefit. They let the designer work easily and quickly. Direct coding allows one to move over to using a WYSIWIG to make the most of its benefits. It's not easy to do the opposite. It's thus best to do most coding oneself. Java and other languages can achieve amazing things, and web designers will enjoy their increased capacity. There are many superb sites on the web today, and designers need to compete with them.

It can be frustrating to create a web site when errors have been made. These mistakes often become hidden amongst reams of script and images, making them difficult to find. When one has coded directly, locating the error and rectifying it is done easily.

WYSIWIGS tend to create some strange coding. Attributes and tags they sometimes create can cause certain browsers to stall. Direct coding seldom causes this issue.

Becoming highly proficient at coding lets one make use of the benefits of DHTML. Complex rows and tables are simple to create this way. There are coders who prefer to use WYSIWIGS for these features. However, those who know code and can type it as easily as they type their own home language save immense amounts of time in the end. The use of HTML code lets a designer create freely, particularly when he has a few other languages to back it up.


Why WYSIWIGS Can't Compare With Direct HTML Code

The software that creates HTML code on one's behalf is commonly called a WYSIWIG. These allow designers to make sites through dragging and dropping, as they would in an image enhancing program. The WYSIWIG then creates the coding language automatically. This sounds wonderful at face value, but purists of direct coding create web sites that are much more adaptive and stable.

Debates have raged between purists and WYSIWIG fans for over a decade. The strange fact is that many WYSIWIG developers prefer their sites to be created with pure coding. This revealing fact makes it difficult for WYSIWIG fans to hold much ground in the debate.

When designing for the internet, one needs to keep in mind that one's audience will be viewing one's site through various browsers, platforms and monitor dimensions. This introduces the challenge of trying to make the site look the same on every computer and through every browser. Pure coding is more capable of achieving this.

When purists create sites using complex frames and style sheets, their sites are unlikely to warp when seen on different platforms and computers. When a page warps, aligned buttons and images could become rearranged, removing the site's usability. There are many other problems that occur when the visuals of a site are rearranged.

When designing for the web, it's helpful to change over to alternate languages and applets so that one takes optimum advantage of the web's capacity. The insertion of animations and applets that use other languages is done easily by a direct coder. Those using a WYSIWIG won't be able to do this quite as easily, if at all.

WYSIWIGS do present a number of advantages. They let one create pages faster and more easily. When coding directly, though, one is able to switch to using a WYSIWIG mid-page. This can't be done the other way around. The exciting capacities of Java and other languages shouldn't be ignored, because competition on the internet has become steep.

When one has made a coding error, it's easy to become frustrated. The mistake often gets buried in images and text and is often hard to locate and amend. When one has coded directly, these mistakes are much easier to find and rectifying them is done without reloading the page to the web. There are even programs, similar to spell check for English, that identify many HTML errors.

WYSIWIGS sometimes use irregular coding. Attributes and tags in particular can create problems for some browsers, making them stall. Coding directly is far less likely to present this kind of problem.

Taking the time it takes to learn direct coding properly lets one make use of DHTML easily for table and column creation. Many pure coders use WYSIWIGS for this purpose. However, those who take the trouble and time to really learn HTML code well save much time in the long run. Designers who code directly have valuable freedom when they work, particularly if they have knowledge of other languages and programs too. Designing for the web with the freedom of an artist using a pencil is enjoyable and inspiring.



