As for the software piece, it was you who wrote that software is stupid... I guess that infers that programmers are stupid. Or is that downright scandalous of me? I don't think Bill Gates is stupid.
Software is not capable of thinking, it simply blindly follows rules, hence it has an IQ of zero! Some AI (artificial intelligence) systems attempt to allow programs to learn and reason but I think so far the best we have managed is about the IQ of a worm! But since DreamWeaver is not and AI application it has zero inteligence. It just blindly follows simplistic rules and spits out a web page based on those rules. A human will spot inefficiencies and pointless repetitions and replace them with better code, DreamWeaver won't.
Anyhow, this a great debate. Keep it up lads. Dave, you ready for round seven. I'll just give you some vaseline there. Hang on in and watch out for the uppercut from Bart 'The Bruiser' Busschots...
Cheers
Dave 'The Worm' McDonald
:lol:
I think it's great to see a lively debate that doesn't include "those who shall not be named"!
Anyhow, I do have a feeling we are veerting off course some what, back to the real debate!
I have very little experience with simple "brochure" style web sites. They are simply not my thing. I do web applications and portal sites. To me the web page is just an interface to the real program which runs on the server and just about all the code that gets delivered to the browser has been assembled by that program. In these kinds of sites it is important to keep content separate and clearly defined so it can be deliverd in multiple ways depending on the needs of the different users. This site is not quite at that level yet but it will be. This site will develope more and more into a content delivery system and the web page it self will not be the only source route through which users will be seeing the content. When you are designing the skin for a site of target site you need to make some design decisions on the skin to simplify the real core of the site. In this case these are the design decisions I have made (and they have not been arrived at 'willy nilly')
1) There must be as complete a separation as possible of content and presentation
2) The web interface code must be as neat and simple as possible while still being sufficiently complex to allow layout and styling
3) The site must be easy to expand and modify
4) The skin (or styling) should be as efficient as possible to make this site work well for people on dialup
5) The web interface should be as accessible as possible for people with dissabilities.
6) Functionality is more important than window dressing, the site should look good but does not need excessive eye-candy.
7) The site must not be dependent on any platform dependent or non-free software. The site needs to be maintainable for free by myself and any other people who may end up involved in the site's development or who may replace me in the future. It is not acceptable to expect people to use a particular OS or to purchase a particular piece of software just to be able to help out here.
These decisions have then lead me to define some contraints on the new skin:
1) All content will be XHTML strickt (not style into clogging up content and XML compliant so it can be processed by other applications)
2) The web skin will be styled with CSS level2.1
3) The site will attempt to follew the Web Accessability guidelines laid out by the W3C's WAI (
www.w3.org/WAI/
)
4) All graphics ETC must be in a format that is readable and writable by crossplatform and free image editors and all files must be manually editable with the programer's text editor of choice.
If you see a glaring fault in my above logic please shout. The general question of quick and dirty V right (which is how I see the tables/dreamweaver etc V hand-coded XHTML/CSS debate) is one we should have over a pint some day!
Bart.
  