How efficient is FrontPagee CSS?

[Guest]

Someone who designs web sites told me that my web site -
www.hairloss-reversible.com - that I made using FrontPage 2003 has a lot of
fat in the source code. He said that if I made my site using Dreamweaver CSS
or just hand coding the CSS (too difficult for me), that the file size of my
site would be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He also said that this more
streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more efficient.

My two questions:

1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding" on
my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?

2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding ability
similar in quality to Dreamweaver?

I know the answer to this last question will be sheer speculation. I'd like
to hear what you say though. The progress from FP 2000 to FP 2003 was good.
Maybe the next step will be even better. The learning curve with Dreamweaver
is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.

 

[Murray]

has a lot of

fat in the source code.

He also said that this more
streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more
efficient.

Now I know you are talking to somebody's nephew instead of a professional.

1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding" on
my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?

There is a little "bad coding" on your site, e.g., <a
href="http://www.google.com/">
<img src="http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_25wht.gif"
border="0" alt="Google"></img></a>

(</img>? Where did that come from?)

or -

</center>

<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p align="center">&nbsp;</center></font></td>

Where did that </font> come from?

There are also a few instances of "not best practice", e.g., the page has no
doctype, but there is nothing fatal, and nothing different from what you
would see on hundreds (if not thousands) of other sites. If you want to
tackle these then go to http://www.w3.org and run the pages through the
validator there.

2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding
ability
similar in quality to Dreamweaver?

The "quality" is in the mind of the developer, not the tool used.

The learning curve with Dreamweaver
is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.

Here's the trick with either of these. The more you KNOW about HTML and
CSS, the easier they will become, the slimmer your code will become, the
better your pages will become, and the less important your tool will become.

 

[JoeM]

I find frontpage is very good. There are some things that could be tweaked
but other wise is good

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

You mean if I bought a really expensive hammer, it still wouldn't keep me
from smashing me thumb all the time?




|> has a lot of
| > fat in the source code.
|
| That individual should remove his head from <deleted> before making
| ridiculous comments like this.
|
| > He also said that this more
| > streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more
| > efficient.
|
| Now I know you are talking to somebody's nephew instead of a professional.
|
| > 1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding"
on
| > my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
| >
|
| There is a little "bad coding" on your site, e.g., <a
| href="http://www.google.com/">
| <img src="http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_25wht.gif"
| border="0" alt="Google"></img></a>
|
| (</img>? Where did that come from?)
|
| or -
|
| </center>
|
| <p>&nbsp;</p>
| <p align="center">&nbsp;</center></font></td>
|
| Where did that </font> come from?
|
| There are also a few instances of "not best practice", e.g., the page has
no
| doctype, but there is nothing fatal, and nothing different from what you
| would see on hundreds (if not thousands) of other sites. If you want to
| tackle these then go to http://www.w3.org and run the pages through the
| validator there.
|
| > 2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding
| > ability
| > similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
|
| The "quality" is in the mind of the developer, not the tool used.
|
| > The learning curve with Dreamweaver
| > is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.
|
| Here's the trick with either of these. The more you KNOW about HTML and
| CSS, the easier they will become, the slimmer your code will become, the
| better your pages will become, and the less important your tool will
become.
|
| --
| Murray
| ============
|
| message | > Someone who designs web sites told me that my web site -
| > www.hairloss-reversible.com - that I made using FrontPage 2003 has a lot
| > of
| > fat in the source code. He said that if I made my site using Dreamweaver
| > CSS
| > or just hand coding the CSS (too difficult for me), that the file size
of
| > my
| > site would be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He also said that this more
| > streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more
| > efficient.
| >
| > My two questions:
| >
| > 1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding"
on
| > my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
| >
| > 2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding
| > ability
| > similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
| >
| > I know the answer to this last question will be sheer speculation. I'd
| > like
| > to hear what you say though. The progress from FP 2000 to FP 2003 was
| > good.
| > Maybe the next step will be even better. The learning curve with
| > Dreamweaver
| > is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.
|
|

 

[Murray]

Like that, yeah! 8)

--
Murray
============

You mean if I bought a really expensive hammer, it still wouldn't keep me
from smashing me thumb all the time?




|> has a lot of
| > fat in the source code.
|
| That individual should remove his head from <deleted> before making
| ridiculous comments like this.
|
| > He also said that this more
| > streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more
| > efficient.
|
| Now I know you are talking to somebody's nephew instead of a
professional.
|
| > 1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad
coding"
on
| > my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
| >
|
| There is a little "bad coding" on your site, e.g., <a
| href="http://www.google.com/">
| <img src="http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_25wht.gif"
| border="0" alt="Google"></img></a>
|
| (</img>? Where did that come from?)
|
| or -
|
| </center>
|
| <p>&nbsp;</p>
| <p align="center">&nbsp;</center></font></td>
|
| Where did that </font> come from?
|
| There are also a few instances of "not best practice", e.g., the page
has
no
| doctype, but there is nothing fatal, and nothing different from what you
| would see on hundreds (if not thousands) of other sites. If you want to
| tackle these then go to http://www.w3.org and run the pages through the
| validator there.
|
| > 2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding
| > ability
| > similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
|
| The "quality" is in the mind of the developer, not the tool used.
|
| > The learning curve with Dreamweaver
| > is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.
|
| Here's the trick with either of these. The more you KNOW about HTML and
| CSS, the easier they will become, the slimmer your code will become, the
| better your pages will become, and the less important your tool will
become.
|
| --
| Murray
| ============
|
| message | > Someone who designs web sites told me that my web site -
| > www.hairloss-reversible.com - that I made using FrontPage 2003 has a
lot
| > of
| > fat in the source code. He said that if I made my site using
Dreamweaver
| > CSS
| > or just hand coding the CSS (too difficult for me), that the file size
of
| > my
| > site would be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He also said that this more
| > streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more
| > efficient.
| >
| > My two questions:
| >
| > 1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad
coding"
on
| > my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
| >
| > 2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding
| > ability
| > similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
| >
| > I know the answer to this last question will be sheer speculation. I'd
| > like
| > to hear what you say though. The progress from FP 2000 to FP 2003 was
| > good.
| > Maybe the next step will be even better. The learning curve with
| > Dreamweaver
| > is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.
|
|

 

[Bob Lehmann]

You have very little CSS in your page to begin with.

Just for fun, I removed all formatting tags - font, b, align, valign - and
their assigned attributes.

Before removing them, the byte count was about 14500. After removing them,
the byte count was about 12900. So there was a savings of about 11%.

By the time you added back in the inevitable class="whatever" to some of the
tags, the net saving would be about 8%. Not a big deal.

Murray's right, your friend is off base. However the use of CSS is a good
idea.

You might want to inform your friend that there is no such thing as
FrontPage or DreamWeaver CSS. Just as there is no NotePad, EditPlus or
UltraEdit CSS. It's just CSS.

Bob Lehmann

 

[p c]

See inline.
...PC

My two questions:

1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding" on
my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?

NO. But yes you should consider using CSS (external style sheets). You
separate style from content and makes it easy to update the look of the
web site. You just change the style sheet file and the changes are
reflected in all web pages that link to the styleheet.

2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding ability
similar in quality to Dreamweaver?

Who knows. You don't have to wait for that. It's easy to learn CSS and
HTML coding and you should can do coding wih FP now.

When you work with web pages, you can switch to the HTML view to make
changes to HTML code. If you are working with a .CSS file the file will
open in HTML/code view.

There are plenty of turorials on the web to get you started. You may
also want to get a cople of books on the subject for reference or to try
the samples.




...PC