Microsoft Frontpage 2003

[s2budd]

Frontpage

I use Frontage for my website.

I do understand HTLM but - well life is too short to code in HTML and you don't have to now.

If already setup to use Frontpage then I would continue to use it, otherwise I would use something else instead because Microsoft now has a replacement so Frontage is now the old version and anyway - it's a bit buggy and rubbish - but it does do the job.

Problems that I have in Frontage are:

It is not WYSIWYG - What you see is what you get - it is to a point but, well close but no cigar.
It upload is rubbish and fails very easily. Sometimes I just can't be bothered to try the Frontage uploader and just use CuteFTP instead.
Frontage creates too many proprietary files and directories which requires Frontpage extensions on the web server.
The interface is a bit clunky.

It does work though.

[lightng]

I have a friend who is not a techie who uses Coffeecup Html Editor. It includes WYSIWYG, FTP, templates and some graphics. For someone who doesnt want to get into it too deeply, his site doesnt look half bad.

[Fred Bloggs]

To elaborate on the above comments- It is almost 100% certain that the website created in FP2003 will be using FP extensions on the server. They are (IMO) very flaky indeed and unfortunately the FP site management tools rely on the extensions to work. The site management features IMO are probably the weakest part of FP2003. You are lumbered with FP really as no other package will really be compatible with all he cr*p that FP generates as part of the FP extensions. You'll' find the web site directories are crammed full of files that you have no idea why they're there but without them the website and FP will not work properly. I suspect that the previous admin chap has packed it in through sheer frustration. I seriously suggest you learn a good CMS package like Joomla or Mambo instead. Seriously, cut your losses before you die of frustration using FP2003.

[thelace]

Thanks guys;

From what you say, compared to other products out there Frontpage is cr*p. It will however do a job. Taking onboard that advice, I think I'll soldier on and do what tweaks I can in Frontpage to keep their site active, learn some of the FP and HTML basics whils doing so, then look at one of the better products out there to totally revamp the site into something which;

will do them proud

will increase my knowledge of website design

will be easier/better coded?

[lilelvis2000]

I use Frontpage because it came with my Office install. It is total rubbish. I got the site up and going quickly - which is all that I cared about at the time.

It works fine with IE but some things don't work with Firefox. I did not notice that a couple of my pages displayed as blank in Firefox until some kind person told me. No doubt caused due to proprietry CSS which only worked well on IE.

If the site is not using webbots...it probably is... you should be able to switch to something else fairly easily...otherwise you're stuck until you can get rid of the webbots.

[Fred Bloggs]

Any website built in FP2003 automatically makes use of the FP extensions unless when you first create the website in FP you specifically TURN OFF the extensions support first. Few users do this so they are then automatically trapped into using FP to maintain the website. Using anything else will break the website unless you are very careful or very lucky. I know of hosts who refuse to install FP extensions on their server because they're so unreliable. You really should migrate away from a FP website IMO. Learning a bit of PHP and using a decent PHP based CMS like Mambo, Joomla etc... really will pay you dividends. HTH.

[dinker]

What a coincidence, I`ve just been converting a FP site into standards-compliant HTML/CSS. The code produced by FP is a disgusting mess.