Anyone found a good web authoring or newsletter package for executive use?

"Jim Kelly" <kellwood@compuREMOVE_TO_EMAIL_MEserve.com> wrote:

>>>You've left out the most appropriate solution offered to you:
>templates.<<
>
>OK, I'll bite . . which products are augmented with a good set of
>templates . . ??

No "products" required. Templates also come as pre made designs to which
you simply add the content.

Do a Google for "website templates", thousands available.


Headless

Jim Kelly wrote:
> | But most importantly, good web design is much more related to clear
> | thinking, taste, and imagination, than it is to good programming
> | skills.
> | Nicolai Zwar
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments Nicolai . . much appreciated. I'm
> glad you made that comment because I think the people concerned are well
> equipped to tackle the task. The 'tool' to help with their learning
> (which they are eager to do if efficient and productive) needs to take
> care of the mechanics of formatting, etc.
> We need look no further than this page
> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
> to see that I can't read the body text on my 21" display (xp-pro/ie6sp1)
> because the frame at the right sits over the top of the text (ie the
> text scrolling is bad). Why is this so hard to get right??? even for
> this organisation???
> www.coffeecup.com HTML
> HTML-Kit http://www.chami.com/html-kit/
> AceHTML Pro http://www.visicommedia.com/acehtml/
> 1st Page 2000 v2 http://www.evrsoft.com/

Oh, but they DO get it right - it's your browser that gets it wrong
(what version are you using?). This nicely demonstrates the current CSS
debacle: It's a wonderful idea, but no browser on earth supports all of
it completely and correctly.

And that makes it extremely difficult for any tool to take care of the
mechanics of layout and formatting.

There are two solutions, I think. One is to hire a professional to
produce the templates (graphics, CSS, etc), and then let your friends
work within those templates. This is the system we use here at our
office - we make the templates, the users (secretarias, MDs,
technicians, etc) fill them with content. I don't know whether any of
the tools on the above list can work with templates.

The other solution: Make sure your friends only use 'simple' and
well-supported layouts, so they don't get frustrated with the awful
results they might see in some browsers.


Matthias

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:

> Oh, but they DO get it right - it's your browser that gets it wrong
> (what version are you using?). This nicely demonstrates the current CSS
> debacle: It's a wonderful idea, but no browser on earth supports all of
> it completely and correctly.

Exactly, and it's precisely this fact that makes a working knowledge of
(X)HTML and CSS and the way these are supported by the various browsers
indispensable if you want to do some serious web publishing. And since
the standards and browsers are still changing (and will continue to
change), this obstacle is not going away any time soon.
Keep in mind, Jim, that your clients may produce something that looks
and works great on their own system but may look measly and broken on
somebody elses screen.


--
Nicolai Zwar

"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZwar@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3EFC45D2.1060302@bigfoot.com...
| Keep in mind, Jim, that your clients may produce something that looks
| and works great on their own system but may look measly and broken on
| somebody elses screen.

I find this quite deflating. Sadly, I had assumed that the tools one
pays for would take away the need to do the endless testing that getting
this right requires. Seems that information publishing in this medium
has not matured to a point where taking reasonable care gets the job
done nicely. Fancy the site http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
getting it wrong on a stock standard Windows XP pc using Internet
Explorer!

Cheers,

Jim Kelly.

Jim Kelly wrote:
> "Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZwar@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3EFC45D2.1060302@bigfoot.com...
> | Keep in mind, Jim, that your clients may produce something that looks
> | and works great on their own system but may look measly and broken on
> | somebody elses screen.
>
> I find this quite deflating. Sadly, I had assumed that the tools one
> pays for would take away the need to do the endless testing that getting
> this right requires. Seems that information publishing in this medium
> has not matured to a point where taking reasonable care gets the job
> done nicely.


The problem is not that Internet information publishing has not matured
enough, rather the opposite is true: the medium is still evolving and
maturing, at an amazing rate at that, and as soon as one tool gets a
particular status quo down pat a newer version of that standard is
always just around the corner. Browsers, XTML specifications, CSS
specificatons, etc. are continually updated and revised. That is not a
bad thing, especially since in its latest incarnations the (X)HTML
specifications are very flexible and offer an enormous amount of
compatibility with possible future versions of specifications and
extensions. But it means that various browsers may interpret various
specifications differently (or not at all... it'll still be another
browser generation -- perhaps two, hopefully not? -- until all the CSS 2
specs will fully implemented in all browsers.).


> Fancy the site http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
> getting it wrong on a stock standard Windows XP pc using Internet
> Explorer!

Well, it is not really W3.org that got it wrong, but rather the IE 6.
The site uses some CSS specifications that the IE doesn't as of yet
interpret quite correctly; the site looks fine in Netscape 7/Mozilla and
Opera.

Please don't be disheartened, Jim. The PC you are using now is likely to
have much more power than the one you were using five years ago, and the
options for information publishing you have now are far more powerful
than the ones you had five years ago.
And designing a web page that presents its content in a logical, well
structured and pleasing format does _not_ require sizable portions of
programming skills, nor does it require extensive testing sessions.
Honestly not. Take my word for it. It's only for the "bells and whistle"
thing where you need to go the extra mile.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com
(we're late, we know, and we're still closed)

"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZwar@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3EFD6128.50901@bigfoot.com...
| And designing a web page that presents its content in a logical, well
| structured and pleasing format does _not_ require sizable portions of
| programming skills, nor does it require extensive testing sessions.

(these words sums up our needs really nicely Nicolai)


Ok, I'm listening again . . . for a minute I thought it was all getting
too hard and hazy! I guess that a good way to get started is by finding
some examples of sites that fit the bill by adopting this 'classic'
'keep it simple' approach . . . and see how they do it. Many sites that
I have browsed to seem to want to include all many of impressive stuff.
CSS seems important to know, but I'm confused as to which version of
HTML best fits our purpose?

Thanks again for your guidance,

Best wishes,

Jim.