Hi
WIA, Week 1
3.
CREATING PAGES WITH HTML OR NOT
Hi
WIA,
I wanted to comment on Elizabeth's
comments Word's "Save as Webpage" option. She wrote:
"As
other Webheads have reported, the "Save as Webpage" in MSWord is not
good and often takes more time to
clean up than it's worth--better to start with
your own html page from scratch."
I've
been using Word (2001) quite a lot lately for quickly producing web pages
for course syllabi and so on. I've used Word documents saved as
webpages as quick and dirty Powerpoint
presentations in class (just scroll down the page) and even to quickly put up a
teaching portfolio. The following two class web sites can serve as examples of
what I've been using Word to do.
http://idisk.mac.com/dcarroll2/Sites/2002/TESL2/home.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/dcarroll2/2002/JECA/home.htm
Being new to the list, I'd just like
to ask what specific problems you'all have
had with Word. Other that a few "slippery" graphics that wouldn't stay
where I put them, I haven't have any really problems. But then I haven't been
trying to do anything fancy either. Can someone recommend web creation software
that is as easy to use as Word? I've been playing around with GoLive and
Dreamweaver but both have a serious learning curve (as
opposed to Word). And frankly, I find
the idea of expecting teachers to learn how to code HTML by hand to be
ridiculous -- almost like the old WordStar days when we had to "tag"
text to use bold and italics. I would appreciate hearing your experiences with
web creation software.
--Don Carroll
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dear
Don,
Me again, this time regarding web page
creation. I agree with Elizabeth about using Word's feature "SAve as a Web
Page". Sometimes I have used it because I am in a hurry, and at the end I
have spent more time getting it show up how I want it to be than if I had started from scratch with any web page
editor. One of my most frequent problems has been that when I write a link, the
rest of the text keeps hyperlinked. The one you mention about the graphics is
another one. Good luck, Daf
When I started creating web pages,
inspired by the Webheads community (in January 2002), I used Page Builder from
Geocities. You do not need to know html and it is free (http://www.oocities.org
). I use Front Page too (this one comes with Office 2000)and you can create nice
pages both without knowing HTML or using HTML tags. My personal experience is that learning HTML is
not as difficult as it is thought, and nowadays, it its faster for me to create
my own web pages using HTML than using Page Builder or the non-html Front Page.
I feel I have more control over the results and it is easier for me to make corrections and additions. I
try to learn more tags as I create more pages.
Vance has a web page with "everything
you always wanted to know about web pages" (that's my title for that page)
which might be of help:
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens//htmledit.htm
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
About
Word, suppose you create mywebpage.htm and want to insert mypic.jpg. Word makes
a copy of mypic.jpg and calls it image1.jpg or something obscure to you and puts
it and other images in a mywebpage folder. You might then end up either
uploading both jpgs to your web host (taking up double space up there) or
neglecting to upload the folder created without your permission and perhaps
without your knowledge so although the page opens fine on your computer (because
mywebpage folder is there) it doesn't open on the Interet even though you think
it should because you've uploaded mypic.jpg, which YOU had linked to (but Word
had not).
Word 2000 creates bloated code.
There's lots of metastuff there. I've got good at knowing what to cut and delete
because if I open this code in my HTML editor Hot Metal, HM doesn't know what to
do with it. I have to manually go through and get rid of the junk.
Word 2000 html is not backwardly
compatible. If you open it in word 97 you will see the aforementioned bloated
code, not your web page.
Some of the meta junk lets Front Page
know that this is a word document so when you try to open it in Front Page it
launches Word and opens it there (so why didn't you open it in Word in the first
place? Obviously you had a reason for wanting to use FP, but noooooo ). To get
around this you have to go in manually and get rid of the meta junk so you can
use Front Page or the editor of your choice.
Speaking of Front Page, THAT"S a
decent HTML editor. If you have Office you might just have it as well as Word.
Try it, it works almost like Word but lets you toggle between WYSIWYG, HTML, and
tagged views and get some control over your code.
My 2 cents,
Vance
::::::::::::::::::::::::
I
agree with Don's statement that it is ridiculous to
expect
teachers to learn HTML code. However... (HEREIT COMES) some would (and have) say
it's ridiculous for teachers
to spend time learning ANY multimedia skills --
and many, many of our peers continue to
tough it out with textbooks alone.
I
can only tell you that, given the choice, I would
probably not have learned HTML on my
own. I can only thank (effusively) Dr. Marmo
Soemarmo (Ohio
University,
Linguistics) for forcing me to do so. It
really
didn't take very long and it has given me the
ability to be the
"master" of my own web pages, instead of
being a slave to what the WYSIWYG program was
willing to give me.
As Vance says, Word places an
incredible amount of
'garbage' (unnecessary meta language)
into a web
page's
html code during the conversion from document
to
web page, and the "clean up" process is truly
unpleasant.
Word is not alone in this; Dreamweaver,
Claris
Homepage, and Netscape Composer all add their
own
"signature" to a page (I'm not familiar with
Frontpage
yet, though I can easily recognize its
clear,
readable pages). Sometimes, I take the time to
clean
up my pages; mostly I just adjust what's
necessary to get the format I
seek. But I can do this because I can 'read' the HTML
code.
The greatest advantage to knowing HTML
is the world that opens up. An ex-boyfriend
taught me how to click
"view
source/page source" on absolutely any page on
the
internet and to "copy" a code for use in my own
pages;
Used this way, the internet is the largest
script database in the world.
So, to all the lurkers (did we choose
a kinder word for these people yet? How about
"NvMs"/non-vocal members?)
and newbies, don't be intimidated. There
are
some very good books on HTML code (which is
quickly
getting surpassed by 'php' as the code of
choice but, as we have already
mentioned here, 'php' is more complicated) -- get a
book with a good index and you'll be coding in no
time.
PLUS: you have WiA members here to
support you :), as they have supported me.
All the best,
Arlyn
Arlyn Freed
creator/webmaster, www.eslhome.com
::::::::::::::::::
Dear
Arlyn and All,
When
last February I decided to create my own web page, I started with Front
Page
and Page Builder, I soon realized that I did not like what I got, and
decided
to learn HTML on my own, with the help of Webheads. Now, I use Front
Page
but I write my own html tags, since FP editor also creates lots of
unnecesary
stuff, which is then time consuming to correct, especially with
table
creation. I did not buy any book to learn HTML, I checked some of the
pages
Vance suggested, and then I finally found a very good, complete and easy
to
follow guide: "A Beginner's Guide to HTML at this url
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/Internet/WWW/HTMLPrimerAll.html
which
has
a
printable version. I have it as a cheat-sheet, and whenever
I learn to do something
new, I add my notes on that guide. As you, and also following Vance's
advise,
I look at the source code of web pages when I find something fancy Iwould like
to try.
I
think that using HTML or a WYGIWYS editor depends on the person. Some people
prefer
to buy pre-cooked food, some others, like me, prefer to start from scratch
;-)
Hope
the guide is helpful to those that would like to give HTML a try.
Daf
::::::::::::::::::::
Arlyn
(and others),
I knew when I wrote this ("ridiculous
to expect teachers to learn HTML code") that I would be swimming upsteam on
a list dedicated to CALL/Internet enthusiasts. Nevertheless, while coding HTML
by hand may be a necessary evil at the moment to get pages to do what one wants
them to, I would expect this to soon be a thing of the past. In other words, I
would be astounded if, in 10 years (or even five) people were still coding by
hand. Sure there will still be code-warrior web-gurus, but I seriously doubt
that the "average joe and josie" will be using (or even be aware of)
HTML. I suggest that code will always be for the few not the many.
Also I think hand-coding probably
works well for the sort of text-heavy pages that dominate the web today, but I
also think that this will change. Perhaps as language teachers we don't see this
as a problem. But we are quickly approaching the point of "critical text
overload" and more graphically oriented web-pages will be needed to bring
order to the
chaos. For a look at the probable
future of the web check out the stunning flash presentations at the following
commercial site:
http://www.eye4u.com/home/
In particular, check out a few of the
demonstrations in the showroom section. Make sure to crank up those speakers!!!
This sort of stuff may also be
entirely beyond the average teacher today, but it may not be for long. Many
teachers now know how to use Powerpoint for multimedia classroom presentations
and even how to put these presentations up on the web. Creating their own Flash
presentations can't be far behind. Still, basically I agree with you: For the
moment code may be the easiest and best way to go for hyper-text dominated
webpages.
I also take your (and Vance's) point
about Word producing "bloated code." But I think this will just push
me to explore other WYSIWYG web creation software although these can also have
steep learning curves (and are not freely available). I don't know, maybe I'm
just a visually-oriented (not technically-challenged mind you!) sort of guy
after all, I did consider leaving teaching for a while to become a
photojournalist.
BTW, I'd really welcome any and all
suggestions for how to make my "Teaching Portfolio" site better (i.e.
more functional, more attractive, faster loading, etc.). It was put up in a bit
of a hurry, more as an experiment than anything else, and definitely needs a lot
of work (or
perhaps to be entirely re-implemented
in something other than Word):
http://homepage.mac.com/dcarroll2/2002/portfolio/home.htm
I'd also like to add here that I've
learned a tremendous amount in just the short time I've been a Webhead. Thanks
to everyone and look forward to learning much much more.
-Don
:::::::::::::::::
Don's
comments inspired me to write in support (no surprise to
old-timers,
I suspect).
This whole fuss (we must use PURE code,
not bloated front-ends) reminds me of my first forray into programming in BASIC
(remember that?) on an Amstrad 6128
(doubt most of you know of their early competitors to PCs).
REAL
programmers (apparently) wrote in machine code, which was literally
nothing
more than 0s and 1s which you stored directly in registers in
the
computer's memory. Anything less was kids' stuff. And I was a kid, I
was quite happy to plug along with my
syntax errors ...
Enough reminiscing. Three points:
firstly, that it is good to hear a critical
voice, even on a CALL list. One of my problems with the
journals
and discussions in this field is that they are entirely
conducted
by enthusiasts and there is often (not always on this list) a
lack
of critical evaluation.
Secondly, if you want to learn HTML,
that's great, but it's not necessary.
You'd be amazed what you can do with geocities. And I know we
all
officially don't like Word because of Bill Gates' megalomaniac
tendencies
(etc etc), but it's an option, and with simple pages
(especially text heavy ones), the Save
for Web option works very well. It's all a
question of where you think your time and energy is best
spent
-- for me, the answer is in the classrooom, developing materials,and working with
students f2f, but that's just my teaching situation.
No,
your web page won't be quite as fast, or look quite as good, but
does
it matter? And if you can avoid the handcrafted coding, why
reinvent
the wheel?
Last point: I was interested by Don's
comment that we're reaching "critical
text overload". I'm not sure I agree, but I think it's an
important
concept, and we need to bear in mind that learners need to develop
critical language awareness on the internet in order to
discriminate
between information and propaganda (I'm borrowing Jim
Cummins'
phrases -- see his article in the last TESOL Matters). Just
another
thought for further discussion.
My ha'p'orth,
Nigel
::::::::::::::::
Dear
all,
Thanks to all the gentle persuasion, I
just took my first baby-steps into HTML by following Vance's suggestion to
"copy and paste" some code from one site to another. I practiced this
by copying all the code from the demonstration page Vance set up for the
Groupboard, and (using FrontPage) parring away at the code until
only the groupboard itself was left (about 7-8 lines of code).
It think the idea of placing blocks of
code together (and then maybe tweaking the variables) does offer some hope for
code-a-phobic individuals like me. (The only programming I have ever done is
with the NQC (Not Quite C) software my kids use with their Lego robotics kit -
which I have to admit is kinda fun!) Coding in chunks does indeed seem like a
real possibility.
With this in mind, does anyone know of
any "code depositories" where I find conveniently isolated bits of
code to cut and paste? I'm thinking of things like the little bit of code that
tell whether "I'm online" or not, etc.
For tables, I think I'll just stay
with Word which seems to do a beautiful job including shading.
--Don
PS. As a "boundary member" I
really appreciated Nigel's sympathetic words (not that anyone else has been in
any way unkind).
::::::::::::::::
Hi
all,
It has been an ongoing discussion on
learning HTML coding. So i just wanted
to share my thought aloud.
>if
you want to learn HTML, that's great, but it's not> necessary.
I
would say it depends. I am still in favor of developing a sense of how
things work! If a teacher wants to
publish a decent web page, I can see that there are many web page development
tools they can choose from. The necessary part is intriguing here. A colleague
of mine once asked me to help him develop a web page. I showed him Microsoft
Publisher, which is nice since it also offers a lot of flexibility with
templates. He started with it. But as the day passes, he came to me with more
questions... How to add a date, a quiz etc. In order to go further, there is no
way to deal with them with templates. You Need to know a somewhat degree of
coding, if you really need to go with this. So, What I want to argue here is
that it is not the insights to discuss whether we need to teach or learn coding
or not. it is rather the needs of teachers (as in the case of designing
curricula and other materials) should be considered to answer whether we really
need to learn it or not.
arif
::::::::::::::::
HTML
coding and whether you need it or not follows the adage "when the student
is
ready, the teacher appears."
I agree with Rif <snippd below>.
If you work only with templates, you will
eventually
reach a point where you will become frustrated unless you know a
little
coding to get around the snags. This is not to suggest that you should
learn
coding first. It's up to you, but the thing to do is get started on it
and
then if you need to learn a bit of coding, just do a Google search and
you'll
find the answers you're looking for.
Here are a couple of starters:
- I was once challenged by a computer
newbie to write a clear set of instructions
on getting started building web pages. Since I couldn't assume
any
particular html editor I had to present the basics of coding in ten e-Z
steps.
Check out the result at
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens/papers/cyprus2001/workshop/very_basics/st\arthere.htm
- at the bottom of the above page you
can also find links to Webmonkey and ESL_Goodies,
two other good sites for coding HTML, as well as to the part of my
ESL_Home
site that discusses HTML creation
- Webheads in Action took up the topic
of HTML editing in Week 5 last year. You
can hit that at
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens/papers/evonline2002/week5.htm
Have fun,
Vance
::::::::::::::
Vance,
Thanks for these links! I've already
run through your ten e-Z steps tutorial and found it extremely enlightening. I
still don't relish the idea of actually typing in these tags myself (I'll let
some WYSIWYG program do this for me) but I will certainly help me untangle some
of the code I see in pages that interest me.
I also think that the JAVA script
libraries will eventually be very useful. BTW, thanks to Arif's assistance I've
now inserted the YM "I'm online" link into my syllabus sites. Thanks!
Does anyone happen to know of some
goods sites on good site design. After all, while content may be king, DESIGN is
what keeps customers coming. IMHO, most webpages today are aesthetically lacking
and many are organizationally weak. Ideally, I'd like to find something like
Vance's 10 e-Z steps to gerat web design. Here's a a couple of the things I'd
put on my list:
1. Design the welcome/portal/overview
so that the entire contents can be viewed on a "standard" size monitor
(your call as to whether 15'' or 17" is standard today). If this is not
possible, provide "jumps" to things lower down on the pages (as Teresa
does on her site).
2. Main navigation links should be
click-on buttons ("graphics" or sections thereof) rather than
hypertext. I've heard that professional web designers typically design the look
of their pages in Photoshop and then figure out how to implement that look in
the HTMLdocument.
BTW, the following site has some good
suggestions and tutorials on designing web pages and educational materials in
general.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/
--Don
:::::::::::::::
To
answer my own question about steps to good web designs, I've found this nice set
of guidelines hidden away in the attic of the WIA.
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Guidelines.html
Unfortunately, Charles' very sound
advice also suggests desgining for the lowest common technological denominator
which would appear to mean that we and our students will be wollowing in text-heavy
pages for some time to come.
I'd still be interested in suggestion
regarding the aesthetics of good design (i.e. issues of typography, layout,
color schemes, etc.)
-Don (again)
:::::::::::::::::
You
are probably thinking of JavaScript code that can be cut and pasted for
interesting
effects, and Java applets which can also be lifted onto your site
when
their authors grant permission.
This page might is 18 months out of
date but some of the script repositories might
still be productive
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens/javascript.htm
We addressed copying code and splicing
it into your web pages in WIA week 5
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens/papers/evonline2002/week5.htm
In these pages, Wimba is no longer
free, but you can look at this two sections to
get the principle:
More code you can add to your page:
GroupBoard.
Details
on adding the code for Wimba and Groupboard to your web page
Reviewing
some of these pages, I see we got more deeply into HTML in week 6
http://www.oocities.org/vance_stevens/papers/evonline2002/week6.htm
Developing your HTML skills
Vance
:::::::::::::::
Like
Arlyn, I like to use Dreamweaver. I do, however, do a lot of my
coding
by hand. What I ything else on this list, you take what
you
want and leave the rest behind (or for a later
date).
There is no "standard", this list is
self-access
at its best.
As for Flash, I know 14 year olds with
sites that would knock your socks off, but
I don't like the way Flash slows down (or freezes)
computers, and it is absolutely prohibitive for
viewers with older machines and browsers. But if you like
it, Dreamweaver can
create it for you, and you don't have
to know how it the code works.
regards,
Arlynlike about Dreamweaver is that I
can have both the WYSIWYG and the source code
pages open at the same time. That way Ican check either my coding with what it
looks like, or my WYSIWYG with how clean
the code is.
Oh, I also use CSS, so the code in my
pages is basically bare-bones. The downside of
this is that, if the visitor does not have a browser that
accepts
CSS, the page just looks like a plain, grey (or white) page with
black
text and no (or almost no) formatting.
By the way, this e-mail address will
soon be eliminated (They are changing
systems here). I don't know when it is being closed down, but
my
new address will be (and is) DrCat@u...
John (Dr. Cat) Steele
:::::::::::::::::
Dear
Don,
I absolutely NEVER code from scratch,
that's a waste of time and effort. These days
I use Dreamweaver to create a page and most of the
formating. I also use Word on occasion and Composer
if I'm on the flysomewhere and there isn't any software available.
The advantage I get from understanding
the basics of HTML is that I have options,
the option to 'read' and DELETE (rather than add)
anything that's interfering
with my format goal. Whether you use
Netscape
Composer,
Front Page or some other page creator, I say, "let the program do most of
the work", that's why they were
created.
I really want to be encouraging about
this and not give you the impression that we
(WiA) members are all techno-wizards (ah, I remember
a year ago when ....).
As with ever,
Arlyn
Vance's page is quite helpful (I use it with my
non-technologically-oriented colleagues and my students). As a
beginner's guide, it really can't be beat. I also use Webmonkey (which
he also recommends below). I'd like to add one more site you might want
to check out, though. Joe Burn's has a site for learning html, CSS,
_javascript and other such things. His explanations are generally clear
and include examples and code snippets. You can check him out at
http://www.htmlgoodies.com
:::::::::::::::::::
. I found it after buying his book by the same
title.
Dr. Cat