REQ: a good WYSIWYG html editor

[REM]

I had a project to pick a wysiwyg html editor, check it out, and write up the
pros and cons about it in a html page created by the editor. Picking was not
difficult, I went straight to PL and selected Amaya. I downloaded v8.3 and
installed it.

This program (to me) was not in the least intuitive. The help files were
horrible, just a bunch of one liners that did not really address the question at
hand. It crashed 15 times in my short bout with it, including checking out he
help files and simply typing in a page title and saving it.

Maybe I got a buggy version. I see v8.5 and 8.6 are already out, so it is
possible I just got a release that should not have been released.

I don't really use wysiwyg editors, but the PL vote is on down the road and I
thought it might be a good idea to have other suggestions to try out before the
vote starts.

 

[Ceg]

Try Pablo van der Meer's website. His programs pretty much kick ass for
being small, easy to work with, and dependable. Don't forget to email him a
thanks.

As a side note, maybe you can teach a few people here how to write an
unbiased review noting both pros AND cons. It seems what most people here
think is a review is a cheap copy/paste of a spam ad from the program's
website.

 

[Garrett]

I had a project to pick a wysiwyg html editor, check it out, and
write up the pros and cons about it in a html page created by the
editor. Picking was not difficult, I went straight to PL and selected
Amaya. I downloaded v8.3 and installed it.

Personally, I was never excited about Amya at all. It's at best, a
meek program and not for the average joe.

Recently, I was checking out HTML editors of any kind and came across
this one for Wysiwyg:

"Nvu"
http://www.nvu.com/
"Finally! A complete Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users as
well as Microsoft Windows users to rival programs like FrontPage and
Dreamweaver.

Nvu (pronounced N-view, for a "new view") makes managing a web site a
snap. Now anyone can create web pages and manage a website with no
technical expertise or knowledge of HTML."


I haven't had much time personally to play with it, but did open a few
of my existing pages and it rendered them just fine.

As far as I can tell though, this is the composer from the Mozilla
sources, but ripped out of the mozilla suite. I had run into another
project similar to this one and tested a version of this other one, but
it was definitely not ready for prime time. But Nvu seems to be ready
for anyone to use. Loaded quick enough for me on a 750 Mhz box.

Another one that seems to be pretty good, but requires MSIE on the
system is "Selida":

http://selida.camelon.nl/
"Selida features a very effective WYSIWYG editor, Code Completion and a
complete HTML 4 reference. Selida was engineered to be complete and
capable - all with the decidedly best price on the planet - 00.00 !
That's correct. Free. Selida does differ from many 'free' HTML Editors
in that it is truly full featured and easy to understand, while
remaining powerful enough for the advanced user. Selida users range
from the beginner to the professional."

I have used this one and it was good enough for average needs. No
crashes and loads quick enough.

Best regards,
-Garrett

 

[Guest]

Having exhaustively researched this issue, here are my observations.

Many WYSIWYG editors don't edit HTML directly. They are more like drawing
programs with their own proprietary formats. When you are ready, you
"export" the page the HTML. Web Dwarf and DHE Editor are examples of this.
They export EVERYTHING as a graphic, even text. They use CSS positioning
techniques to maintain the layout of your page.

Advantages:
1. Dead easy to work with them. About as simple as a desktop publishing
program.

2. You can achieve interesting layout effects such as layers, transparency,
etc that just aren't possible with HTML.

Disadvantages:
1. You can't edit the exported page afterwards although you could get around
this by re-editting the original page and then re-exporting.

2. Text doesn't wrap to the viewer's browser window, since it isn't really
text at all but a graphic. This also means that a viewer can't copy the text
from your page which can be a plus or a minus.

3. Not all browsers correctly render the graphics. Some will simply render
it as a vertical line of graphics one after another, rather than in layers.
And if the viewer is using any resolution other than the one you used to
compose it, they'll see it as either jammed to one side of their screen at
higher rez or will have to horizontally scroll to see it all at lower rez.

A workaround might be to produce multiple versions of your site for
different rez's then direct your visitors appropriately.

4. It REALLY bloats your code with all sorts of coding that describes the
exact location and size of all the elements on the page. And the coding can
get so complicated that you can't find your way through it afterwards, if
you want to tweak it with a text editor.

Some do allow you to "insert" HTML into the page, but you don't see the
effect until the page is exported. In effect, the HTML isn't WYSIWYG.

Programs such as the freeware WYSIWYG Web Builder by Pable van der Meer
(spelling?) and commercial programs like CorelDraw take a different
approach. You layout your page, then export to HTML. Rather than rendering
everything as a graphic though, it uses tables to set up the layout and all
the elements are placed in cells to maintain their relative locations.

Advantages:
1. Very easy to work with.

2. You can "tweak" the exported page via a text editor after the fact.

Disadvantages:
1. Can't re-edit the page directly as again they use a proprietary format
until you are ready to export.

2. Sometimes the end result isn't exactly what you set up, but most often is
very close.

3. These can't use CSS since there is no concept of text "styles" with these
programs. Each block of text is treated as a separate entity.


Finally there are programs like the old Frontpage Express and NVu that
directly produce the HTML as you lay out your page. You can usually switch
between text and WYSIWYG mode as you edit.

Advantages:
1. Very easy to work with with respect to formatting text.

2. You can "tweak" the exported page via a text editor after the fact.

Disadvantages:
1. Page layout can be more consuming that the previous editors, particularly
if you are laying up tables.

2. FPE doesn't recognize or use CSS so formatting your page can be a pain.
NVu is still under development and has some quirks.

3. Sometimes the code they write isn't the cleanest. That can be recified
later by running any one of a number of clean up proggies.

4. Sometimes the end result isn't what you set up.

5. These two particular programs are "dumb" in that if you switch to text
mode, they aren't smart enough to drop your cursor at the same point where
you were in WYSIWYG mode. Your cursor is place at the top of the file so
it's a PITA to switch between the two mode.

I've tried them all literally. I favour NVu but use FPE (gasp!) for simple
stuff. There are times when I even prefer a text editor.

Amaya was a HORRIBLE editor and I'm mystified why this thing was ever made
Pricelessware. There were some others such as Selida, Sublime, etc
recommended by others on this ng, but I found my system crashing with them.

Finally, another factor to consider is whether you intend to incorporate
elements such as DHTML (Java, Flash, etc) into your site. I didn't evaluate
any of them from that perspective. Generally though I would think the "pure"
editors versus the "export" editors would be better since you can more
precisely insert your code.
HTH

 

[JoeA]

I still like this older program, even though it is no longer being
developed. HTML Coder Pro is still available from the author Lorant
Szasz-Toth here.

http://www.phpide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=482&sid=9d973a2b876656d7db9e8d884a66f739#482

Not much documentation, but as you type code in the top frame you can
see the page developing in the bottom frame. Newest version is 828KB
the one I've got is 842. Not sure what the difference is.
Picture available here.

 

[Ceg]

It looks like the EasyHTML program from TonyArts.

 

[El Gee]

Having exhaustively researched this issue, here are my observations.

Many WYSIWYG editors don't edit HTML directly. They are more like
drawing programs with their own proprietary formats. When you are
ready, you "export" the page the HTML. Web Dwarf and DHE Editor are
examples of this. They export EVERYTHING as a graphic, even text. They
use CSS positioning techniques to maintain the layout of your page.

Advantages:
1. Dead easy to work with them. About as simple as a desktop
publishing program.

2. You can achieve interesting layout effects such as layers,
transparency, etc that just aren't possible with HTML.

Disadvantages:
1. You can't edit the exported page afterwards although you could get
around this by re-editting the original page and then re-exporting.

2. Text doesn't wrap to the viewer's browser window, since it isn't
really text at all but a graphic. This also means that a viewer can't
copy the text from your page which can be a plus or a minus.

3. Not all browsers correctly render the graphics. Some will simply
render it as a vertical line of graphics one after another, rather
than in layers. And if the viewer is using any resolution other than
the one you used to compose it, they'll see it as either jammed to one
side of their screen at higher rez or will have to horizontally scroll
to see it all at lower rez.

A workaround might be to produce multiple versions of your site for
different rez's then direct your visitors appropriately.

4. It REALLY bloats your code with all sorts of coding that describes
the exact location and size of all the elements on the page. And the
coding can get so complicated that you can't find your way through it
afterwards, if you want to tweak it with a text editor.

Some do allow you to "insert" HTML into the page, but you don't see
the effect until the page is exported. In effect, the HTML isn't
WYSIWYG.

Programs such as the freeware WYSIWYG Web Builder by Pable van der
Meer (spelling?) and commercial programs like CorelDraw take a
different approach. You layout your page, then export to HTML. Rather
than rendering everything as a graphic though, it uses tables to set
up the layout and all the elements are placed in cells to maintain
their relative locations.

Advantages:
1. Very easy to work with.

2. You can "tweak" the exported page via a text editor after the fact.

Disadvantages:
1. Can't re-edit the page directly as again they use a proprietary
format until you are ready to export.

2. Sometimes the end result isn't exactly what you set up, but most
often is very close.

3. These can't use CSS since there is no concept of text "styles" with
these programs. Each block of text is treated as a separate entity.


Finally there are programs like the old Frontpage Express and NVu that
directly produce the HTML as you lay out your page. You can usually
switch between text and WYSIWYG mode as you edit.

Advantages:
1. Very easy to work with with respect to formatting text.

2. You can "tweak" the exported page via a text editor after the fact.

Disadvantages:
1. Page layout can be more consuming that the previous editors,
particularly if you are laying up tables.

2. FPE doesn't recognize or use CSS so formatting your page can be a
pain. NVu is still under development and has some quirks.

3. Sometimes the code they write isn't the cleanest. That can be
recified later by running any one of a number of clean up proggies.

4. Sometimes the end result isn't what you set up.

5. These two particular programs are "dumb" in that if you switch to
text mode, they aren't smart enough to drop your cursor at the same
point where you were in WYSIWYG mode. Your cursor is place at the top
of the file so it's a PITA to switch between the two mode.

I've tried them all literally. I favour NVu but use FPE (gasp!) for
simple stuff. There are times when I even prefer a text editor.

Amaya was a HORRIBLE editor and I'm mystified why this thing was ever
made Pricelessware. There were some others such as Selida, Sublime,
etc recommended by others on this ng, but I found my system crashing
with them.

Finally, another factor to consider is whether you intend to
incorporate elements such as DHTML (Java, Flash, etc) into your site.
I didn't evaluate any of them from that perspective. Generally though
I would think the "pure" editors versus the "export" editors would be
better since you can more precisely insert your code.
HTH

Wow...my thought exactly, even about Amaya. You put it into words better
than I would have as well.

Good reviews!

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee

Did you hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He would stay up late every night and wonder if there was a dog.


Remove yourhat to reply ... but it may take a while.
Best to go to www.mistergeek.com and reply from there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Anthony Giorgianni]

"Blink" is nice http://www.wojanware.com/


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

 

[REM]

"Ceg" <[email protected]> wrote:

Try Pablo van der Meer's website. His programs pretty much kick ass for
being small, easy to work with, and dependable. Don't forget to email him a
thanks.

As a side note, maybe you can teach a few people here how to write an
unbiased review noting both pros AND cons. It seems what most people here
think is a review is a cheap copy/paste of a spam ad from the program's
website.

<<M>> did a pro/con post I couldn't possibly top!

Very nice M!

 

[REM]

Personally, I was never excited about Amya at all. It's at best, a
meek program and not for the average joe.

I was preparing to check out the newer releases to make sure I didn't just get a
dud version, but it seems Amaya is getting low scores from all who have
responded. I'll wait until I get a high speed connect and put a new version on
my jump drive... just out of curousity to see if it still crashes like v8.3
does. There might be even newer versions by the time I get it. There were two
new releases in less than a week of my getting v8.3.

Recently, I was checking out HTML editors of any kind and came across
this one for Wysiwyg:

"Nvu"
http://www.nvu.com/
"Finally! A complete Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users as
well as Microsoft Windows users to rival programs like FrontPage and
Dreamweaver.

Nvu (pronounced N-view, for a "new view") makes managing a web site a
snap. Now anyone can create web pages and manage a website with no
technical expertise or knowledge of HTML."

I haven't had much time personally to play with it, but did open a few
of my existing pages and it rendered them just fine.

As far as I can tell though, this is the composer from the Mozilla
sources, but ripped out of the mozilla suite. I had run into another
project similar to this one and tested a version of this other one, but
it was definitely not ready for prime time. But Nvu seems to be ready
for anyone to use. Loaded quick enough for me on a 750 Mhz box.

I've never heard of this one. I'll give it a shot tonight. This sounds
promising!

Another one that seems to be pretty good, but requires MSIE on the
system is "Selida":

http://selida.camelon.nl/
"Selida features a very effective WYSIWYG editor, Code Completion and a
complete HTML 4 reference. Selida was engineered to be complete and
capable - all with the decidedly best price on the planet - 00.00 !
That's correct. Free. Selida does differ from many 'free' HTML Editors
in that it is truly full featured and easy to understand, while
remaining powerful enough for the advanced user. Selida users range
from the beginner to the professional."

I have used this one and it was good enough for average needs. No
crashes and loads quick enough.

Selinda, of course. I knew that one but did not recall it. I have not exorcised
IE, so I can try this one out also.

The rest of the class did commercial wysiwyg editors costing as much as $400.
Surely there is a freeware editor that will trump these... free of charge.

 

[MLC]

sabato 24/lug/2004 _El Gee_ in

Wow...my thought exactly, even about Amaya. You put it into words better
than I would have as well.

Good reviews!

Yep.
Next time, though, cut and quote a bit better, please!
TIA

 

[REM]

"<<M>>" <[email protected]> wrote:

<clipped a very excellent post>

That was a really great post, but it's been quoted already.

Having exhaustively researched this issue, here are my observations.
I've tried them all literally. I favour NVu but use FPE (gasp!) for simple
stuff. There are times when I even prefer a text editor.

In case you have not already tried PSPad for editing by hand, I recommend this
highly for editing html. The syntax highlighting for html is the best I've seen
and there is syntax highlighting for a bunch of other languages also.

http://www.pspad.com/en/index.html


"syntax highlighting auto set by file type"

"text difference with color-coded differences highlighted "

"integrated TiDy library for formatting and checking HTML code, conversion to
CSS, XML, XHTML"

 

[El Gee]

Next time, though, cut and quote a bit better, please!
TIA

Ah, those who are without sins may cast the first stones...
We all make mistakes...
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee

Did you hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He would stay up late every night and wonder if there was a dog.


Remove yourhat to reply ... but it may take a while.
Best to go to www.mistergeek.com and reply from there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[mike ring]

http://www.pspad.com/en/index.html


"syntax highlighting auto set by file type"

"text difference with color-coded differences highlighted "

"integrated TiDy library for formatting and checking HTML code,
conversion to CSS, XML, XHTML"

PSPad is a cracking prog, but a bit of a monster.

Html Tidy is a lovely facility, but I would love something that does not
carry all the programmer stuff - don't use it, don't understand it, I'm far
too thick.

But as an html editor it rocks, wish it were slimmer

mike

 

[Mr Humblebum]

Just knocked this up - http://www.rag-doll.co.uk with Cool Page Webmaster.
At $79 plus £100 p.a. for a secure cart system from http://www.123connect.co.uk
I don't know of a cheaper route into e-commerce.

 

[Gabriele Neukam]

NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.17.65.158

The Cyberabuse.org Whois says:

[ Informations about 81.17.65.158 ]

IP range : 81.17.64.0 - 81.17.65.255
Infos : ISP cunstomers dial-in pool and two routers
Country : Great Britain (GB)
Abuse E-mail : (e-mail address removed)
Source : RIPE

Just knocked this up - http://www.rag-doll.co.uk with Cool Page Webmaster.
At $79 plus £100 p.a. for a secure cart system from http://www.123connect.co.uk
I don't know of a cheaper route into e-commerce.

There are limited editions of Webshops every now and then on German PC
magazine cover CDs. So bugger off. We are talking about zero-of-any-
currency-ware here, not your crap.


Gabriele Neukam

(e-mail address removed)