6 ms·

The only way in the real world to kill to PSDs is to have an easy-to-use WYSIWYG web design tool which would allow designers (and the non-technical) to eliminat

The only way in the real world to kill to PSDs is to have an easy-to-use WYSIWYG web design tool which would allow designers (and the non-technical) to eliminate HTML production pros. This has existed for desktop publishing since the 80s when programs like PageMaker eliminated the need for designers to work with phototypesetters who entered everything by hand. I suspect the reason that this hasn't happen is because HTML has always been an evolving standard. So while you can use your copy of Quark from ten years ago today, you wouldn't be advised to do that with a ten year old copy of Dreamweaver if you want to make an HTML5 site. Another reason Photoshop comps exist is because of clients who can't comprehend the abstract. As someone who does IA I can tell you that time I've had many clients (who are very intelligent) who just can't go from the abstraction of quickly done wireframes that show navigation to what the final site will be. So until you have clients like that (and maybe they're a generation away) you'll need Photoshop to what that final site will look like. And I say that knowing that Photoshop is really a hack given what the sites can do.

talmand 13y ago
We've had WYSIWYG web editors for years. It's just another tool for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to create something they don't understand how it works. This is fine for people who have a specific need but for others it is not a solution. Why couldn't you make an HTML5 site with a ten-year-old copy of Dreamweaver? Sure you won't get fancy stuff like code highlighting and suggestions but you could make a HTML5 site with notepad if one really wanted to. I agree about the clients angle. Clients want to see the images of what the end of the project will look like. Until that changes, mockups will always be with us.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  10 year old dreamweaver won't know about CSS3 or anything like that and will produce code with nested tables and whatnot that is optimized for IE6. Sure, you could just use it as a text editor but at that point there are better editors you could choose.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Well, I was referring to the text editor and not the WYSIWYG editor since that'll likely create bloated code no matter how recent the version. I didn't dispute that there are better choices, it's just that it could be done if one wanted to.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      I think the OP meant the Dreamweaver WYSIWYG as that would allow less technical designers to produce websites without knowledge of HTML/CSS.
      - talmand 13y ago
        And I don't believe I disputed that.
- scotty79 13y ago
  There wasn't even one decent WYSIWG html editor ever. Either they keep close to html which is horrible because html model is pure crap from design perspective. Those editors end up being text editors that type some texts for you when you click the button. The other kind of html editors are just fancy wizards that allow you to generate some limited outcomes that are easy on the eyes but they severly lack versatility.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I think I said all that in a much shorter amount of text.
joshmlewis 13y ago
Instead of designers being dependent on WYSIWYG, let them learn HTML/CSS. It's not hard, and is a valuable skill to have.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Raw HTML/CSS is god awful - especially HTML, which has to be about the most unfriendly possible syntax to type out on a keyboard. Currently I'm loving Jade/Stylus to implement a fairly static website design, and that's just building it with a simple script (with Live.JS to preview changes).
  - talmand 13y ago
    So your complaint about HTML is simply about typing it? You've piqued my curiosity, what's so horrible about the syntax in that you dislike typing it?
    - leephillips 13y ago
      This is about to turn into an argument about why designers need to learn vim.
      - talmand 13y ago
        That, hmmm, that actually sounds like fun.
    - woah 13y ago
      Closing tags are unnecessary and annoying. Also it is much more verbose than it needs to be. Hence jade, haml, etc
      - talmand 13y ago
        Then how do you inform the browser where a span ends when it is enclosed by text inside a div? A quick look at HAML and I fail to see how one is more or less verbose than the other. Of course, since I don't use it I suppose I'm not a valid source of comparison. But to risk negativity, this sounds a great deal like the no semi-colons in Javascript thing a while back.

talmand 13y ago

We've had WYSIWYG web editors for years. It's just another tool for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to create something they don't understand how it works. This is fine for people who have a specific need but for others it is not a solution. Why couldn't you make an HTML5 site with a ten-year-old copy of Dreamweaver? Sure you won't get fancy stuff like code highlighting and suggestions but you could make a HTML5 site with notepad if one really wanted to. I agree about the clients angle. Clients want to see the images of what the end of the project will look like. Until that changes, mockups will always be with us.

jiggy2011 13y ago
10 year old dreamweaver won't know about CSS3 or anything like that and will produce code with nested tables and whatnot that is optimized for IE6. Sure, you could just use it as a text editor but at that point there are better editors you could choose.
- talmand 13y ago
  Well, I was referring to the text editor and not the WYSIWYG editor since that'll likely create bloated code no matter how recent the version. I didn't dispute that there are better choices, it's just that it could be done if one wanted to.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    I think the OP meant the Dreamweaver WYSIWYG as that would allow less technical designers to produce websites without knowledge of HTML/CSS.
    - talmand 13y ago
      And I don't believe I disputed that.
scotty79 13y ago
There wasn't even one decent WYSIWG html editor ever. Either they keep close to html which is horrible because html model is pure crap from design perspective. Those editors end up being text editors that type some texts for you when you click the button. The other kind of html editors are just fancy wizards that allow you to generate some limited outcomes that are easy on the eyes but they severly lack versatility.
- talmand 13y ago
  I think I said all that in a much shorter amount of text.

joshmlewis 13y ago

Instead of designers being dependent on WYSIWYG, let them learn HTML/CSS. It's not hard, and is a valuable skill to have.

XorNot 13y ago
Raw HTML/CSS is god awful - especially HTML, which has to be about the most unfriendly possible syntax to type out on a keyboard. Currently I'm loving Jade/Stylus to implement a fairly static website design, and that's just building it with a simple script (with Live.JS to preview changes).
- talmand 13y ago
  So your complaint about HTML is simply about typing it? You've piqued my curiosity, what's so horrible about the syntax in that you dislike typing it?
  - leephillips 13y ago
    This is about to turn into an argument about why designers need to learn vim.
    - talmand 13y ago
      That, hmmm, that actually sounds like fun.
  - woah 13y ago
    Closing tags are unnecessary and annoying. Also it is much more verbose than it needs to be. Hence jade, haml, etc
    - talmand 13y ago
      Then how do you inform the browser where a span ends when it is enclosed by text inside a div? A quick look at HAML and I fail to see how one is more or less verbose than the other. Of course, since I don't use it I suppose I'm not a valid source of comparison. But to risk negativity, this sounds a great deal like the no semi-colons in Javascript thing a while back.