A case for WYSIWYG Web Editors
Michael Miller,
62miller@cua.edu
The Catholic University of America
Designing web pages SOLELY in html is something that only a fanatic would attempt to suggest should be done via the text-based environment of the code. This same argument was made when the mainframe crowd protested against the use of wysiwyg word processors, primarily because all their hard work spent learning how to use emacs/vi/ed (insert your favorite lame-ass, text-only vax/unix editing tool) tag elements of pages for fonts, paragraphs, etc, was for naught. How smart could they really be now if anyone with a WYSIWYG document editor could create rich-looking documents, complete with margins, pagination, fonts, etc? Previously it was a difficult, arduous process to create complex, attractive documents. Applications such as Word and WordPerfect made it possible for anyone to create these documents without even the benefit of the knowledge required to login using a simple UNIX prompt. Suddenly, the people who were the technical experts became anachronistic dinosaurs. Practically overnight.
The *goal* of the html is to produce a web page, not demonstrate an ability to manipulate html. If this is your goal, then stop reading here because you are a the type of lunatic that is probably sitting in a dark room drinking YooHoo 12 hours a day writing actual code. Since this is decidedly NOT the goal, why not allow people to produce web pages in as close an environment as possible to what the pages will actually look like (Shneiderman's direct manipulation)? This opens up web page creation to artistically inclined, without depending upon the support or assistance of the text editor digirati. Of course, this is part of the problem: Now that anyone can create a web page, the fanatics can't feel so self-righteous about having learned html. This is what they are railing against - the loss of their status. The same crowd, or their technical offspring, could effectively kludge together a web page. But with real artists entering the mix, not only are their skills not required, or respected, but UNTRAINED HEATHENS are actually creating entire web sites that approach an art form! A new generation of dinosaurs was born.
Having said that, I think that the primary complaint (it is certainly mine, as well) is that virtually all wysiwyg editors will actually alter the html that you have written to make it conform to some predetermined representation when switching between wysiwyg and html modes. This is a real problem for the obvious reason and should be addressed apart from the underlying philosophical issue.
A case against WYSIWYG editors
Pawan Vora, pvora@uswest.com
U S WEST
Of course, it seems that using a WYSIWYG editor is smarter than learning HTML to design Web pages. What you may not know is that you may be compromising the user experience at your Web site! But, hey, who cares about those stupid users anyway!!! Not only that, you may be making your life difficult by using WYSIWYG editors. You don't believe me, do you?
Do you connect to the Web using a modem? Or, do you design Web pages for people who may be accessing your Web site using a modem? Then you should know that Web pages created by WYSIWYG editors are usually larger! Why? To make sure that the pages appear on the browser exactly as you designed, WYSIWYG editors often resort to creative HTML coding (e.g., single-pixel GIF trick). And most editors produce so much redundant and unnecessary HTML code that sometimes the pages are larger by a factor of 2. To compound the problems, many (not all!) WYSIWYG editors make poor choices in the graphic file formats, making everything GIF even when JPEG is a more suitable format, worsening the download problems (see the section on graphic file formats in this newsletter). Don't believe me? You will, when you consider the following from NetObjects 3.0 advertisement:
"for text-based page, or when leanness of code is a top priority, use the new text-editing capabilities..."If you work on developing, designing, maintaining, a Web site all by yourself or a group that agrees on everything (including the WYSIWYG editor of choice), I'd say go ahead and use a WYSIWYG editor (you know that's a lie, I'd never say that :-) ). If not, then be careful. All WYSIWYG editors are "quirky" in some sense. They interpret pages differently and alter your HTML code. Try going back from a text-based editor to a WYSIWYG editor or vice versa and you'll experience a real nightmare. Now, if you are working in a team with different people using different editors because of several reasons (different platforms, for example), and you may not be a team for very long. You will find out that most of your time will be spent taking care of the altered HTML.
You may say that your wysiwyg editor allows you to create dynamic effects (animations, automatic script generation, etc.) without any assistance. But, did you know that more often than not, your pages will not work with all the browsers and all platforms. Even if you are creating simple tables and frame-based sites, it may not work correctly on all platforms. And God forbid if you are designing an e-commerce site!
If you think WYSIWYG editors are so good, tell me why is it that practically every WYSIWYG editor now allows editing of the HTML code. And why is it that Macromedia Dreamweaver boasts its "Roundtrip HTML" feature that doesn't change the hand-written HTML code! Isn't it like saying that Windows has a good interface, because you can always go to the DOS command line and do things quickly. Now, that's an argument!!!
Don't take my word for it, here's what people had to say in a survey I did to learn how Web pages were designed:
"Most 'wysiwyg' editors insert too much extraneous code for my taste."(see Vora, P. R (1998). Designing for the Web. A Survey. interactions, vol. 3, 13-30 for more details)"Most tools don't support all of the current HTML tags & keywords - most have property boxes or dialogs, but you have to use the HTML view to edit the code directly to get anything non-trivial done."
"I don't use it [FrontPage] anymore, because it is too inflexible/automatic for my needs; e.g. it puts in tags that I don't want, or takes out ones I need, requiring lots of post-editing."
"The WYSIWYG HTML editors that I have used are useless, and don't do all the things that HTML can do."
"As a designer, I have little interest or talent in writing code, so I depend on a good WYSIWYG editor like NetObjects or FrontPage to help with that aspect. Unfortunately, to date there has been no editor that is as clean, efficient, or as versatile, as hand-coded html."
"Pagemill is great for quick pages.... but it writes sloppy code and unless you use SimpleText or BBEdit are you able to really program or clean code up."
Now, let's talk about bad habits inculcated by these WYSIWYG editors. In my experience, people using WYSIWYG editors have a tendency to create sites with more text colors, graphics, animations, and multimedia elements -- not very different than the time when popularity of desktop publishing tools lead to ransom-note look on the newsletters and brochures. Of course, it's not fair to blame the tool for poor taste of the designers, but I believe that the tutorials, sample sites, templates, and wizards included in these tools encourage (or, at least, do not discourage) such behavior.
Finally, all WYSIWYG editors are inherently inextensible. They are actually WYSIWYG... meaning what you see is what you get... no more! Think of upgrade costs here! And, have you heard of the development in Internet time? New technology is just around the corner. Without knowing HTML, you can't just start experimenting with newer tags and technology. For example, you can't do Cascading Style Sheets, XML, JavaScript (ECMAscript), etc., if they are not supported by your tool. No, you wait for your wysiwyg editor to come with new features (and new bugs!). I am not suggesting that you should and need to use all the "newer" technologies at your Web site. Just that having a knowledge of it in advance will help you make use technology more judiciously.
We have 2 choices: learn HTML or learn the tool to create the Web pages. (And with updates to HTML standards, you learn new HTML tags or upgrade your WYSIWYG editor.) I encourage you to choose the former! Of course, some people may choose to learn the tool, but since when the ability to use tools have made someone a skilled artisan! Let me tell you a secret! HTML is a not a programming language; it's just a simple markup language. So, don't be afraid. And yes, it's easy for me to say because I have been doing this since 1994. But, I can guarantee that learning HTML will probably take you as much time, if not less, than learning some of the WYSIWYG editors today (and, of course, it's quirks). I urge you to learn HTML and don't let a WYSIWYG tool constrain your creativity.
Go ahead and call me a fanatic, but offering a better user experience is what I care for. I want to make sure that my pages download faster, show up reasonably well on all the platforms, and are elegantly (and simply!) designed.. even if it means learning HTML!
Tell us what you think
To what extent can today's WYSIWYG tools support the design of an optimally usable, enjoyable, and downloadable Web site? To what extent are those who prefer raw HTML coding classifiable as nerdy mouseless wonders who are wasting their valuable time typing or pasting tags?
Whatever opinion you have on this debate,
or anything else in this debut issue of Internetworking, share it with
us! Submit opinion pieces, anything from a few sentences up to 750
words, to Tony Masalonis at either of the following addresses:
masalonis@cua.edu or
anthony.j.masalonis@bellatlantic.com
© Internet Technical Group
Last update: June 1, 1998
URL: http://www.sandia.gov/itg/newsletter/opinions.html
hosted by Sandia National Labs
Disclaimer: Neither Sandia Corporation, the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Sandia Corporation, the United States Government, or any agency thereof. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Sandia Corporation, the United States Government or any agency thereof.