I built a site using webstudio 4.0, since I am a novice I figured this was an easy platform to get the job done. I recently had a more advanced programmer suggest that the code created in dream weaver would be far superior to that generated by web studio in regards to SEO. Is this true?
+2
A:
I've not encountered Web Studio 4.0 before, but if it's authors use it to write their own homepage, then it is dreadful and should be burned. (If they don't use it to write their own homepage, then it doesn't say much about their confidence in their product).
So yes, Dreamweaver is better — nowhere near as good as knowing what you are doing and doing things (at least the template work) by hand — but better.
David Dorward
2009-09-23 13:00:25
They did use Web Studio to create their home page:<META NAME="generator" CONTENT="Web Studio, Version 4.0 SP4 for Windows">
jrummell
2009-09-23 13:06:20
Their website looks like it's straight out of the 90s
hasen j
2009-09-23 13:07:58
+3
A:
Juding from what I've seen, the worst by far is Web Studio. Dreamweaver is better, but still not the best.
The best, cleanest code is going to be written by you...not generated. You can write in whatever tool you like, but take the time and learn the right way to do things and then write it yourself.
You'll be happier, the user will be happier (less browser issues), and anybody that has to maintain the pages after you will be MUCH happier.
Justin Niessner
2009-09-23 13:04:54
A:
SEO is a huge topic in itself. The SEO claims are probably the way they structure the layout or elements. But at the end of the it depends upon YOU (developer) how you get it done.
I always hand code and I have full control over the markup.
Wbdvlpr
2009-09-23 13:06:59
A:
I agree with the other answers. The best code will be hand written. I'm an every day user of Visual Studio for ASP.NET. Visual Studio produces decent html, but mine is typically better. If you want to learn HTML, a good place to start is w3schools.
jrummell
2009-09-23 13:08:48
10 years ago, W3Schools was the best place to start, however it is error prone and much better alternatives have arrived since.
David Dorward
2009-09-23 13:21:10
What is error prone about W3Schools? Its run by the organization that sets web standards. What would you consider a better alternative?
jrummell
2009-09-23 13:26:43
By the way, did you downvote all answers but your own? I see you vote down more often than up ...
jrummell
2009-09-23 13:29:27
What is error prone? Lots of things. I think that last time I checked, there was one paragraph on the page about the img element that had no errors in it. It is not run by the organisation that sets web standards. It gets a lot of mileage from having a name similar to the W3C but is in no way affiliated with that organisation. And no, I didn't downvote as you guess I do. –
David Dorward
2009-09-23 15:10:28
I didn't realize that W3C was not affiliated with W3Schools. Thanks for pointing that out. But still, it teaches HTML/XHTML/CSS according to W3C standards. So I'm not sure why you think it has errors. Can you give an example? Or provide a link to a better site?
jrummell
2009-09-23 15:33:04
A:
Judging by their website and their "featured" sites built with webstudio, I'd say it's a horrible tool.
Certainly Dream Weaver or Expression Web can produce decent code, but from my experience, there will always be problems, no matter what tool you use.
So your best bet is to learn html/css/javascript and do it by hand.
Though practically speaking, I've found code generated by Expression Web to be not too bad to maintain. Can't say much about Dream Weaver though.
hasen j
2009-09-23 13:15:58