Post Archive
› August 17, 2004
So many things wrong.
"Frontpage 2003" is still the current version in August of 2004? I guess that's the problem with using a date in your product name. Or maybe it's an indication of a larger updating problem.
Here's an article featured on the FrontPage homepage within the Office website: "Create a structured page layout by using layout tables and cells." Wow that's disturbing.
Now, I realize that a browser message came up on the page linked above because I'm using the Safari browser deep into Windows country, but I was quite amused to see that even the supported browsers aren't really supported. Check out this screenshot to see what I mean: Large screenshot GIF (196k). It sounds more like an apology than a browser notice.
By far the most disturbing thing I found here, a single short paragraph that actually caused me to wonder if a class action lawsuit could be inspired by such statements:
A good way to settle on a design layout is to find and copy another page design, one that meets your needs. There are many design ideas on the Internet.
I'm going to be sick.
Comments
1. August 17, 2004 02:57 PM
2. August 17, 2004 03:22 PM
3. August 17, 2004 11:01 PM
Kevin Posted…
Now, we'll see more frequent updates to pirated-sites.com, thanks to M$!
4. August 18, 2004 01:22 AM
Chris Fritz Posted…
Ew...
By default, FrontPage adds a spacer image when you set a column to autostretch. A spacer image is a transparent GIF image that you can use to control spacing in autostretch tables. A spacer image consists of a single-pixel transparent image, outstretched to represent a specified number of pixels in width.
I'd question how old this document is, but if it's for FrontPage 2003, it can't be that old... I'm definitely bookmarking this in my web dev folder as a "What not to do!" to show other young and upcoming standards-y hopeful web developers.
(My apologies if this posts twice -- I think I need Javascript enabled, but it wasn't enabled when I first tried.)
5. August 18, 2004 07:52 PM
Gleem Posted…
Oh!!! so that's how it's done. I'm so embarrassed; for years now I've been under the impression that I was suppose to create sites from my own concepts and creativity.
Hopefully the next FP update will include a tool that will let users simply enter a url of a website they want to copy, click a button, and instantly have a site.
6. August 20, 2004 02:04 AM
Jim Amos Posted…
Lol, brings back some really sad memories. I once paid quite a lot of money to learn how to 'build sites with Frontpage 2002'. It is the most shamefull thing I have ever done, and one day I fully expect to be confessing all in my memoirs.
7. August 20, 2004 03:51 AM
Martin Chapman Fromm Posted…
Concerning the 'copy a site' statement, this is deeply concerning. As designers/developers, we know (or should know) the implications of this. But a large number of FrontPage users are not 'qualified' professionals, who'll will take what MS say as given.
Anyone remember the Frontpage banner ad? It showed some code which apparently was so slick and improved in v2004... the only problem was, the markup was wrong in the code! :o) Ahhhh, Microsoft. If it wasn't so serious I'd laugh!
8. August 20, 2004 11:08 PM
Ian Eure Posted…
I just used their feedback mechanism to tell them that the information was outdated and needed to be updated.
Click that "No" button at the bottom and let them know what you think.
9. August 21, 2004 02:55 AM
DU Posted…
I went to that mentioned office.microsoft.com http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/preview.aspx?AssetID=HA010846721033&CTT=98 page and posted this as a comment/feedback that there info was wrong. Here's what i posted over there :
Why tables for layout is stupid:problems defined, solutions offered
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
Tableless layout HOWTO:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03/csslayout-howto
CSS Layout Techniques: Look Ma, No Tables.
http://glish.com/css/
Throwing Tables Out the Window:
http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/
62% file size reduction by removing table design in microsoft.com homepage!
" At 40 KB, the HTML for Microsoft’s home page is not exactly a bloated beast. But it is burdened with inaccessible, kludgy, table-based markup filled with proprietary attributes and some awkward JavaScript. (...)
Current Design Makeover
HTML file size 40 KB 15 KB
File size reduction - 3% 62%"
Clean tableless design saves more than 50% of file size
http://www.atipico.com.br/en/servicos.asp
10. August 22, 2004 09:20 AM
Kay Posted…
I hate it when the 'warning message' appears when browsing with Mozilla/Firefox and suggests I downgrade my browser to Netscape. Mozilla IS Netscape.
Also to quote from above 'Clean tableless design saves more than 50% of file size' - It seems to me that MS don't use tableless design because these 'standards' (css, xhtml etc.) are compatible with everyone else and that's no way to eliminate the competition!!
11. August 22, 2004 10:27 AM
Don Posted…
Well it is nice to see I am not the only one out of date. I still use Notetab lite to build my websites. Maybe Microsoft and myself should just retire. Frontpage may be okay for people who do not know HTML and simply have no talent for creation. I will admit, I did learn to code HTML by studying the source of many webpages in the last 8 years. Maybe this is how Microsoft learned to code as well. Oh wait...they did!
12. August 23, 2004 06:41 AM
13. August 24, 2004 07:59 PM
14. August 25, 2004 01:32 AM
Chris Lienert Posted…
I decided to post feedback too as reproduced below:
I'm stunned to think that an article detailing archaic methods like this exists. That it was recently published is incomprehensible. See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html for details particularly "Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content..."
Also, the unsupported web browser error is inaccurate as I'm running Mozilla/Firefox 0.9.3 i.e. a later gecko build than that used in Netscape 6.0. According to your "supported browsers" info, you're having trouble with the site anyway so it might be worth fixing that too - " We are aware that some users are experiencing problems with Microsoft Office Online even when using supported browsers."
Ian: that banner ad is real enough... I remember it when it was doing the rounds and I don't think anyone would even joke about FrontPage producing clean code - the very slight chance of unintentially fooling someone wouldn't be worth the risk :)
15. August 25, 2004 04:55 AM
Andy Jones Posted…
Hmm! Micro$oft want you to copy other peoples websites eh! Well, I think I will base my next website on theirs. Lets see them take me to court. They told me to do it so I did.
16. August 27, 2004 11:08 AM
Bill G. Posted…
What a joke. Microsoft simply meant copy the "look and feel", not copy code outright. Typical liberal spin and no doubt this site is full of liberals. I can smell you throught the Internet. This site is so envious of Microsoft's success in the marketplace it seethes with b.s. a great American company. Get a life webmonkeys! Bill17. August 27, 2004 11:49 AM
Bob Posted…
Bill G. is absolutely right. Get real, as if you've never duplicated a certain look/feel/feature from another website. Every designer/developer does this. If they say different they are lying.
18. August 27, 2004 12:34 PM
Nate Posted…
Bill and Bob, it is NOT OK (and in many cases not legal) to copy the "look and feel" of anyone's website - this is called pirating, and is a real problem. See Pirated sites for examples.
I think what you mean to say is that inspiration doesn't occur in a vacuum, and that good design is informed and inspired by other good design - this is both very true and very different from outright copying or duplicating.
19. August 27, 2004 12:50 PM
Brady Frey Posted…
let's make this clear to the business men that just posted. Now, I understand from your tone there your not experienced designers taking a stab outside your realm.
Bad Artists Copy, Good Artists steal -- the famous Picasso (mis)Quote taken out of context means you should rip what you want. But the experienced artist knows he was explaining what Nate posted in his last paragraph -- find inspiration, develop it into your own idea, in the end it may carry similar methods, but will look different. It's agreed that every designer does this, but every designer doesn't outright steal a design.
And if you have to do that Bob, maybe it's time you find a new career? I've been Creative Director for a few years and a designer for many more -- I've got tons of books I've bought on looks and used them for inspiration or molded it for other things... but never have I ripped a site like what they tell you to do. Maybe you just aren't good enough?
and lastly-- "A good way to settle on a design layout is to find and copy another page design, one that meets your needs. There are many design ideas on the Internet." How clearer do you have to get? You two guys have to translate for Microsoft? I think they have enough more experienced employees to know that if they really meant 'look and feel', their content writers would write it that way -- this isn't the constitution or the bible -- if the majority of readers in this site read it that way, I'm absolutely sure the majority of frontpage users across the world are reading it with that same intent in mind. Your nice way of interpreting it doesn't help the cause or the method. As a side note, "A Great American Company"? What a corporate whore - who paid you for that statement? Keep up the outsourcing Bill!
20. September 1, 2004 12:36 PM
Tim Tafflinger Posted…
There are thousands of web sites designed with tables that work just fine. Could they benefit from a good CSS redesign? Probably. But does the fact they use tables make them unacceptable? Heck no! Find a site using tables that doesn't work well because it's using tables, and you will probably find poor table design. Fixing it doesn't necessary mean switching from tables to CSS. I would like to learn CSS but I work 40 hours a week and then like to have time for family, friends, myself and sleep! Learning CSS isn't necessary for my job so it isn't a priority, so for now I will continue using tables for the little bit of front end design I do (I develop applications in ASP and Java and usually leave the front end design to others!).
As far as Front Page is concerned, I never use it. But Microsoft's target market isn't professional web designers, it's the person putting a site together for their church, or a personal site for themselves or a friend. For them it works well. I know some professionals who do use it, but they also have enough expertise to get around it's flaws.
And Microsoft's suggestion to copy another site? The key words for me are "design layout" which implies structure, not code or graphics or colors or other design elements which come from the heart and mind of the designer. The same people that will use the statement to justify stealing an entire design are the same ones that talked themselves into believing it's ok to download copyrighted music without paying for it. The ones that know music piracy is wrong are going to know that stealing a site design is wrong.
brady Posted…
I feel rather ill myself... after all this and the IE blog and my continuing gripes with Explorer, I think there's little doubt that MS has forgotten about it's web developers... if they ever recognized us.