HTML WYSIWYG Authoring Tools

In last few  years have seen an explosion in the web authoring tool market. WYSIWYG (what-you-see-is-what-you-get) HTML editors have graphical interfaces that make writing HTML more like using a word processing or page layout program. In the beginning, their goal was to spare authors from ever having to touch an HTML tag in the way that page layout programs protect designers from typing out PostScript. Today, their role has shifted towards making document production more efficient and automated while still providing access to the HTML
source.

Should You Use Them?


These days, nobody pretends that WYSIWYG authoring tools will excuse you from learning HTML completely, but they do provide a considerable head start for many menial tasks. Because these tools are notorious for adding extra code to HTML files, the question of whether or not to use them for web production has become
something of a holy war among web developers.


                  HTML purists insist that hand-writing HTML in a no-frills text editor is the only way to do it “right,” and that the HTML documents made by WYSIWYG tools are of unacceptable quality. On the other hand, many developers appreciate being spared the grunt-work of typing every HTML tag and find the WYSIWYG environment useful for viewing the page and making design decisions on the fly. Of course, there are many reasons both for and against using these tools. The controversy should lessen as the tools, which are currently in their infancy, work  out their kinks and start producing clean and robust code. If you do use a WYSIWYG tool, expect to do some manual fine-tuning to the resulting HTML code.


Pros

•  They are good for beginners. They can even be useful for teaching HTML because you can lay out the page the way you want, then view the resulting HTML.
•  They are good for quick prototyping. Design ideas can be tried out on the fly.
•  They provide a good head start for creating complex tables and other advanced functions such as JavaScript and DHTML functions.

Cons

• •They are infamous for not generating clean HTML documents. They add proprietary or redundant tags and often take circuitous routes to produce a desired effect. Some may even produce HTML that is incorrect.
•  Some editors automatically change an HTML document when you open it in the program. They add their own tags and may strip out any tags they do not recognize.
•  The built-in graphics-generating features do not offer much control over the quality or the file size of resulting graphics.
•  Software releases tend to lag behind the quickly changing HTML standards, so the HTML you create using the tool may not be completely up-to-date.
• They are expensive. The more powerful packages cost hundreds of dollars up front and additional costs to upgrade.