Editor— Yeah, I know I used the non-word “ain’t” in the title, but if I had used “isn’t” in its place then it would still read WYSIWYG and this is different. Different, indeed.

Way back in the days before the Web Standards were a hit, a great deal of so-called “professional” Web designers utilized tools called “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG) editors. These tools allowed the designer to create Web page layouts by simply dragging, dropping, and editing items on the page à la Microsoft Word® or another word processor.

This was a great idea for helping project managers see the “big picture,” but did little to help the designer hone their skills. A typical scenario might have been:

Manager: “Looks great, Bob. Can you just drag that little widget over a few spaces so it lines up with our logo?”
Designer: “Sure!” (designer drags the widget over to another table cell, directly under the company masthead.)
Manager: “Hmmm, looks kind of odd there. Maybe try it to the right of the logo and flush with the top.”
Designer: “OK!” (designer drags the widget to an adjacent table cell on the right-hand side of the masthead.)
Manager: “Hmmm…”

And this would go on and on for sometimes weeks at a time (or more if you were really unlucky.) All the while, the markup used to create this layout was bloated and quirky. The designer was numb and dumb to the code behind the curtain. So long as it looked good in the editor it was okay with them. The managers were happy, the designer was happy, everyone was happy, right?

Actually not everyone was happy. The Web page was not too happy. Weighing in at about 60 KB or larger in size, the page was a fat, sloppy mess of goop. Poorly written JavaScript here, improperly nested tags there, and a table big enough to seat an army at, the Web page was slow and clunky. Plus, users visiting the site with assistive technologies, such as screen readers or even text-only browsers, were not happy. But deadlines were met and the executives were happy because their “Web Team” just banged-out a 50 page site in less than six weeks.

That was then and this is now

Most of us who are professional Web designers and developers today realize that the markup used to achieve these table-based layouts of old was a crock. This was due primarily to the habit of the WYSIWYG editor to rewrite portions of the code that it determined to need rewriting. Microsoft FrontPage® was notorious for this habit, as was Adobe GoLive® and Macromedia Dreamweaver®. No one wants to spend hours perfecting some code only to have the editor “revise” portions of the document for the designer.

This led to a movement among some designers to simply use a text editor to write their code. And hence the seeds for the modern standards movement were planted. But there were some, most notably the Project Manager/Web Designer types, that refused to give in to the trend. “It takes too long to write HTML, so I will just use my trusty WYSIWYG editor,” some were heard to say. Most were afraid of what they saw when they switched to “code view” in the editor. I had the privilege of working with one of the aforementioned manager/designer types and heard that person call the code view “garbage mode,” because it all “looks like garbage to me.” In the infamous words of a comedian named Carlos Mencia; “DEE DEE DEE!” :roll:

Most folks doing Web design today hand-write their code, maybe even using an editor like Dreamweaver switched to code view which can help the designer manage a project more easily. As I have stated, most folks write their own code, but not all of them.

That’s just the way we do things

I was recently employed at a Web design shop that still used the WYSIWYG editor for most of their projects. That’s right, even in the 21st century there are so-called professionals who could not code their way out of a wet definition list if it saved their lives. Even a quick perusal of the portfolios for most of the local Web shops here on the Outer Banks will turn up an unending array of WYSIWYG’ed, tabled-based layouts. These are not old, 1990’s examples, mind you, but a batch of fresh off the desktop Web sites that utilize what I have affectionately termed “bloatware.”

Why do these places still allow software to write their code? Because it is really fast to prototype a Web site in a WYSIWYG editor. It is also due to the fact that they have never taken the time to update their skills. They cannot write HTML/XHTML or CSS and don’t really care to. That is the clincher; they don’t care. This really equates to the Web design shop not caring for the client. It is up to the client to care.

Why should I care about this?

Good question to ask. Most of the folks that want a Web site know very little about the technical aspects of the design. They are quite happy with the fact that their website was completed in less than a week. Wow…I would be impressed as well if I did not know about the truth behind the smoke and mirrors. To me this is no different than expecting to get a custom-built new car only to learn upon closer inspection that it is, in fact, a rebuilt used car with a new paint job.

This may seem like nit-picking to some. To those who take pride in the Web designs that they create, this is for real. Those of us who do things “by the book” frown upon those who will sell you a nice, shiny turd just to make a quick buck. If you think that this is a joke simply ask your present Web design company how easy it would be to make your website accessible to handheld devices, such as PDA’s and cell phones, or to create a print-only version of your site. Chances are that you will get charged as much as if you were creating a brand-new website. And if they don’t charge you too much, you will most certainly see a delay in getting it live and online as they rush around trying this out and scripting that. If things were done properly in the first place your Web designer would simply need to create a new style sheet, targeted for print or handheld, and spend a few days working out a few inevitable quirks. Since the mobile computing realm is still new territory, this is to be expected.

The main reason that you should care about this is that you may be excluding some potential users and/or customers from your current website. Search engines, especially Google and Yahoo!, like clean and by-the-book websites with structured contents. This is a no-brainer; WYSIWYG is bad, real Web design is good. We like good. How about you?

Update 2006-11-18: In an effort to find more resources on this subject (or other disgruntled designers such as myself ;-) ) I came across a couple recent articles from respected folks in the field. Some of their statements mirror my sentiments on this dilemma of the “hobbyist/hack” getting the work while the rest of us sit by and hang our collective heads in shame. Please feel free to peruse at leisure:

• Digital Web Magazine: Shirley Kaiser Interview
• Jeff Croft: What does it mean to be a “professional” web designer?