This is a short FAQ of questions, and topics often discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.web.authoring.faq
See <URL: http://www.usenet.org.uk/>, news:uk.answers,news:uk.net.news.announce, for UK News hierarchy information, including the official copy of our charter at <URL: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.net.web.authoring.html>. New users should read <URL: http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nnqlinks.html> and <URL: http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html > etc. to make best use of the newsgroup.
Text Editors - These are purely a matter of choice. The editor will have no consequence in the quality of work developed.
Pros: You keep close to the code, easy to integrate server or client side scripts. It's all your own work. Some would say in the long run these are as quick as anything.
Cons: You need to know good HTML. Arguably slower than other methods to churn out page after page.
Examples : Vi, Emacs (all platforms, free.) Notepad, Textpad, EditPad (Win32, free/shareware), PFE (Win, free)
Tag Editors - These are similar to the text editors, but also have knowledge of HTML, They differ from the visual editors in that you still edit the actual HTML rather than a visual representation.
Pros/Cons : as Text Editors.
Examples : Emacs (all, free), HotDog Professional 6 (Win32,100USD), bluefish, screem, webmaker (Linux, GPL), CoffeeCup (Win32/linux, shareware), Homesite 4.5 (Win32, 70GBP), Arachnophilia, 1st Page 2000 (Win32, free)
Visual Editors - These editors allow you to make a graphical representation of the page you want, take that desired end result and turn it into code. The quality of the code is highly dependant on the tool you choose. Results vary from arguably very good to definitely very bad. Many of them include very advanced site management tools to make developing an overall style easier.
Pros: No knowledge of HTML required, content can be edited by anyone, easy to develop consistent style/design, cheap to employ staff.
Cons: Variable results, often a need to "clean up" the code, without knowing HTML or the capabilities of browsers, difficult to create good compatible pages.
Examples : Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Pagemill, Netobjects Fusion. (Win32, expensive - prices anyone)
Photoshop : Professional graphics program, considered industry standard for graphics design, few web specific features. (Win 32/Mac, 500GBP ver 6 90GBP ver 5)
Paint Shop Pro : Powerful general-purpose image editor, very popular, includes tools for gif animation. (Win32, 90GBP)
The Gimp : The "standard" image editor for Linux users (Linux,Win32, free)
Xara X : Vector based image editor, with web features, (beta) (Win32, 175USD)
Fireworks : Vector based image editor from Macromedia, (Win32,199USD)
Corel Draw : Vector based Graphics suite, also includes PhotoPaint, an image editor. (Win32 450USD ver 9,Linux 199USD)
JPEG/Image Optimizer : Graphics size optimizer allowing variable compression rates across a JPEG. (Win32, 39USD (99USD pro))
TopStyle 2 : CSS editor. (Win32, 50USD)
HTML Validator : HTML Linter, syntax checker - misnamed as a validator, it does not do formal validation (Win32 129USD)
A Real Validator: HTML validator (is it?) (Win32, 25USD)
Xenu Link Sleuth : Dead link checker (Win32, free)
Linkbot : Advanced Dead link checker/site analyser (Win32, ??)
HTML - HTML was designed as a text mark-up language. Later extensions permit a degree of layout control, but later still these have been deprecated in favour of using CSS to control layout and appearance. For absolute appearance control, other techniques may be better, e.g. PDF.
Javascript - Javascript support cannot be relied on, many user agents (browsers) do not support javascript and some people disable it in their browser, therefore you should never rely on javascript to provide navigation or other essential effects, client side javascript though can be useful to enhance the experience of the user.
Java - Java support can also not be relied on, many people disable Java for security and speed reasons, the only real time it is worth using over javascript, is where 2-way communication with the server is needed, chat programs or similar, otherwise javascript can usually achieve the same with a larger number of people having it enabled and easier fallback in the case where it is disabled.
Flash - Flash is commonly used to provide a visual impact on a page, flash support can not be relied on either, and users on many platforms, or with many disabilities cannot use it at all, so it's not normally a good idea to put important information only in Flash, many people dislike strongly flash intros, so a choice, or a 'skip' intro should probably be used, especially on anything but a advertising site.
PDF - PDF is a document format from Adobe that provides the creator the ability to create documents that will look the same on multiple platforms, this would be useful if you wished to provide documents where the exact layout is important, perhaps contracts or forms, especially if they are to be printed out. However you do limit your potential audience so it really should be used only when the layout is essential
Server Side Generation - Generating pages or performing actions on the server is essential for a lot of websites, whether it's sending e-mail, processing an order, or controlling the nuclear power station, most actions require server side processing. Which languages/technologies you use is almost completely personal choice as it is transparent to the visitor, and the decision should be made by what's available and what you want to learn.
Cookies - Cookies are a data store on the client that websites can store small amounts of data, they are used to track users or information through sites, many people disable them or have user agents that don't implement them, so it is again not a good idea to rely on them. Cookies are also owned by the user, so they can modify the contents at will, so you should never rely on the information only containing what you might expect.
See <URL: www.uk-hosting.org.uk/faq.htm> and <URL: http://www.cooper.org.uk/corp-isp.txt>, for more answers to this question.
The first thing to decide when purchasing a website, is what you want it to achieve, without a clear idea of this, the amount you should spend, and who would be good suppliers are very difficult to answer. If you're looking to actually sell, or generate leads, then quantifying the return of the website shouldn't be as hard, as if it's more a product support, or general marketing tool. If you can't see any reason to have a website beyond a feeling you should have one, there's probably no point spending any money.
It's often a good idea, as with accountants, to choose a website provider that your business would provide a significant but not overwhelming % of their total business, this means that you are important to them, so you get their best. (rather than having your site worked on in their slack time, or by the trainee.)
Make sure that prospective companies have the technical ability to produce the kind of site you want, try and see sites of a similar kind that they've created - there's no point in going to a company specialising in on-line shops, when what you want is an online advert.
There are many small businesses who produce excellent websites, one thing to consider with these is that the expertise whilst often superior to that available in a larger firm is often tied up in one or two individuals, so you need to be very careful in your negotiations as to what would happen if these crucial staff (or the whole company.) disappeared, will the site be in a form that another company could pick up support on quickly.
As with any purchasing, a breakdown of how the quote was arrived at is helpful, 25-75 UKP an hour is a common hourly rate, but different sites, and technical requirements can change this significantly. Another important consideration is maintenance and ongoing development of the site, people are very unimpressed with out of date information on the web, so it's very important to sort out how the site will be maintained. This could be done by in house people or as part of a 'maintenance' contract, but whatever it is try to make sure it's simple, if it's too hard, or too complicated to organise then it'll just be seen as a chore for all concerned.
By Authoring Web sites :) Web Authoring, is a very young industry, and the majority of people currently working in the industry had no Web Authoring training, and I would say that whilst there is still a shortage of skilled people, just being able to demonstrate ability should get you a job with little trouble, formal qualifications aren't needed. University courses are now becoming common, although I've yet to seen any graduates, so can't gauge how useful the degree may be.
Web Authoring covers a wide range of disciplines, that require very different skills, artist, designer, programmer, and it's a good idea to focus on one area unless you really want to start your own company.
Accessibility is about making your site accessible to everyone, whatever their user agent (web browser), connection, or disability - HTML is a format that lends itself well to being represented in many ways, so browsers exist in many varieties, however you can create pages that some browsers have difficulty with, accessibility is about not doing this. For example don't put important text information only in an image, where a text browser, or speech browser can't access it.
Another accessibility issue is the international nature of the Internet, you do not know where your viewer may be, so it's a good idea not to use ambiguous date forms like 10-12-2000, is that the 10th of December, or 12th of October? Phone numbers without the international dialling code. Careful use of language is also a consideration, gas/petrol being an obvious thing that could confuse many American English users.
This is the first version of the uk.net.web.authoring.faq FAQ, it has been composed by the group, and is edited by Jim Ley (jim@jibbering.com) any comments/suggestions please post to the group, or via e-mail to the editor.
This FAQ is Copyright (c) 2000 by Jim Ley, and is distributed under the Open Content License version 1.0 as detailed at <URL: http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml >. This FAQ may be modified, copied, and redistributed according to the terms of the Open Content License.