FW: Site management software?

[Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- pixelink -dot- com>]

Geoff Hart wrote:
 
> The main negative for FP used to be that it mangled the HTML code by
> rewriting it in a way that it thought was more appropriate, 
> which is just
> evil. My understanding is that this is no longer the case. 
> Another potential
> negative is that FP accomplishes some of its cooler magic 
> using Microsoft's
> "active server pages" (ASP) technology, which may not be 
> supported on your
> network; if you plan to use those features, make sure the 
> network admins
> will support you in this.
> 

Older versions of FrontPage will rewrite _ASP_ code to look like HTML, which
is beyond evil and well into asinine.


> If memory serves, FP also provides easy access to ActiveX 
> controls, which in
> my opinion (based on what I've read in a variety of forums) 
> are a security
> nightmare waiting to happen. If you can resist the urge to 
> use them, and
> stick with industry-standard HTML and other tools, FP could 
> well be a good
> choice.
> 

For starters, enabling usernames and passwords for pages ... oops, folders
... oops, "subwebs" (heaven forbid that Microsoft do anything sensibly) ...
obliterates conventional .htaccess files.  Makes it hard to do anything
fancy (read "practical") to exclude ! -at- $#$^%^ spambots from the site.

> Wouldn't it be nice if more Web designers embraced this 
> approach (function
> first, then esthetics and cool tricks to the extent that they don't
> interfere with function)?

Designers design for other designers.  Lose enough sales because your
customers lose patience with your bells'n'whistles, and the site design
*will* change, pronto.  It's not so far-fetched; look at how much product
support is Web-driven these days.

> 
> Follow the carpenter's (and surgeon's) adage: "Plan twice, 
> cut once". Before
> implementing anything, beat the new design to death with your 
> colleague
> until you _think_ it works, test a prototype with several 
> users, then revise
> it iteratively until everyone is happy. _Then_ go live.

If you can show me two managers that are both happy with the corporate site,
pinch me, I'm dreaming :>
 
> By the way, search engines are also _evil_ because many 
> designers try to use
> them to compensate for poor design. Don't force users to rely 
> on them for
> finding anything. Try to make the navigation so clear that 
> nobody ever needs
> to use the search key, consider building a traditional "back 
> of book" index
> for your site, and work with your audience to figure out how 
> they use the
> site. This is one of the few cases where you can easily work with your
> audience to produce something that meets their needs, and you 
> should embrace
> the opportunity.

Y'know, it never occurred to me implement a site search as anything other
than a necessary convenience for the users, especially folks like me that
doggedly resent spending time traversing ANY navigation scheme.  I
immediately look for the "search" button when I hit a corporate home page :)


I *am* a geek, aren't I?

:>

Cheers ... Kim 
If there is no conspiracy, then what is this "grand scheme of things"?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NEED TO PUBLISH YOUR FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE?
?Mustang? (code name) is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to Web, intranets, and online Help.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! See a live demo that
will take your breath away: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.