Microsoft ships beta of latest Web site builder (Expression)

September 5, 2006 By

Do you remember Microsoft FrontPage? I do. I was a user of that back before Microsoft owned it (back when it was Vermeer FrontPage). No tool introduced in the 1990s brought about such contentious debates (most serious Web developers avoided it and held their noses with disdain, mostly cause it was famous for changing your HTML that you hand coded).

Me, I didn’t mind that it changed my HTML. I didn’t want to write HTML anyway. I thought the Web should work like Microsoft Word. Why the hell did we need to write all these little codes like <p> and <h3> and <i>?

That’s the way the Web was back in the good old days. You opened up your editor (NotePad) and typed in HTML by hand. Yes, today such a thing seems incredibly stupid (but you can still try it, in WordPress there’s a little button marked “HTML” — click it and then you too can experience what developing Web sites in 1994 was like).

Anyway, I tried all the Web editing tools and found FrontPage was the most interesting because it joined a decent editor with a server that could add cool things to your Web site and take them further than most of us could just by coding by hand.

Anyway, that all explains the past of Microsoft’s newest Web editor, Expression. Microsoft is running away from its FrontPage brand because it was so damaged by the impression that it wasn’t a “serious” Web development tool. I just saw over on Aaron Brethorst’s blog that beta 1 of that has shipped.

Expression, on the other hand, is definitely a serious tool, I got a demo of this before I left Microsoft and it’s quite impressive. One problem, though. I think that the way to publish to the Web is to use a blogging tool like WordPress or Moveable Type, or use a content management tool like Drupal. In such a world Expression doesn’t seem to fit in very well.

But maybe I’m wrong. What do you think? Are you even going to try it? Why or why not?

UPDATE: Aaron just wrote me and said that even with tools like WordPress and Drupal you still need an editor to design the templates and that Expression fits in well here. That’s an awesome point. I’m downloading now.

Filed Under: 1
← Older Comments
  • WTF?

    “Just because you didn’t know how to use the tool doesn’t mean that it ALWAYS built pages like that.”

    Bwahahahahahaha. It’s stunning that you continue with the corporate whoring even after you leave the company. FrontPage was a steaming pile of shit and it was put down for a reason.

  • WTF?

    “Just because you didn’t know how to use the tool doesn’t mean that it ALWAYS built pages like that.”

    Bwahahahahahaha. It’s stunning that you continue with the corporate whoring even after you leave the company. FrontPage was a steaming pile of shit and it was put down for a reason.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    WTF? It wasn’t “put down.” It was redesigned and renamed. You have no clue about FrontPage. But, no use arguing with a jerk who doesn’t even use his real name. Have a good one!

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    WTF? It wasn’t “put down.” It was redesigned and renamed. You have no clue about FrontPage. But, no use arguing with a jerk who doesn’t even use his real name. Have a good one!

  • Dave

    Simply open up a ‘clean’ HTML file (“page” for you less technical folks) in FrontPage and click on “Save As…” and compare the two. Robert, compliant or not, shitty or not – it DID totally mangle everything with it’s bot crap in the comments. And yes, the stuff does have to download to every browser – thus, bloat.

    The biggest sin of FrontPage was inadvertant – it made everyone believe they could design good looking web pages. (Emphasis: good.)

    Leave content creation to the writers or bloggers. Leave design to the designers. And yes Robert, just about every good designer back then couldn’t stand FrontPage.

    Now, as for Expression…

    “Install Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 (see below) before installing Expression Web.”

    :-O

    Wow. Why does MS have to do things like this? Every other company in the world can make a professional web design package that, um, actually work standalone.

    From a technical standpoint exactly WHY is .NET required? I know I know, those great widgets. But if I could actually write everything in Notepad – tedious, yes, but possible – than why is it that MS must REQUIRE something like this?

    No thanks. I’ll stick with my 6 year old Visual Interdev when forced to design things on a Windows box.

  • Dave

    Simply open up a ‘clean’ HTML file (“page” for you less technical folks) in FrontPage and click on “Save As…” and compare the two. Robert, compliant or not, shitty or not – it DID totally mangle everything with it’s bot crap in the comments. And yes, the stuff does have to download to every browser – thus, bloat.

    The biggest sin of FrontPage was inadvertant – it made everyone believe they could design good looking web pages. (Emphasis: good.)

    Leave content creation to the writers or bloggers. Leave design to the designers. And yes Robert, just about every good designer back then couldn’t stand FrontPage.

    Now, as for Expression…

    “Install Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 (see below) before installing Expression Web.”

    :-O

    Wow. Why does MS have to do things like this? Every other company in the world can make a professional web design package that, um, actually work standalone.

    From a technical standpoint exactly WHY is .NET required? I know I know, those great widgets. But if I could actually write everything in Notepad – tedious, yes, but possible – than why is it that MS must REQUIRE something like this?

    No thanks. I’ll stick with my 6 year old Visual Interdev when forced to design things on a Windows box.

  • http://www.raindropper.com/ Tomi Itkonen

    Checked the tutorials of Interactive Designer. Looks like a potential Flash killer and a couple of Adobe lawsuits. ;)

    It would be interesting to see how quickly/if ever websites turn to using XAML instead of HTML…

  • http://www.raindropper.com Tomi Itkonen

    Checked the tutorials of Interactive Designer. Looks like a potential Flash killer and a couple of Adobe lawsuits. ;)

    It would be interesting to see how quickly/if ever websites turn to using XAML instead of HTML…

  • fweisser

    Actually, Front Page made a pretty big splash when it first launched. I think the biggest problem with the product was that it tried to please two very different audiences – Web pros building large sites and end users putting up pictures of the kids.

    I’ve always preferred HomeSite/CF Studio. While I can use Notepad with the best of them, I’m more productive with an IDE. I have tried using Dreamweaver but am just not a WYSIWYG person. It *is* a much better product now than it was even two years ago and I can see why people like it. Eric Meyer worked with Macromedia on the CSS support and it is impressive how they integrate that into the IDE.

    I’ve also used Front Page when that was the tool my customers used to maintain their site. Once I get templates set up and do a quick training, they can maintain their stuff with a minimum of fuss. It really comes down to using the tools intelligently.

  • fweisser

    Actually, Front Page made a pretty big splash when it first launched. I think the biggest problem with the product was that it tried to please two very different audiences – Web pros building large sites and end users putting up pictures of the kids.

    I’ve always preferred HomeSite/CF Studio. While I can use Notepad with the best of them, I’m more productive with an IDE. I have tried using Dreamweaver but am just not a WYSIWYG person. It *is* a much better product now than it was even two years ago and I can see why people like it. Eric Meyer worked with Macromedia on the CSS support and it is impressive how they integrate that into the IDE.

    I’ve also used Front Page when that was the tool my customers used to maintain their site. Once I get templates set up and do a quick training, they can maintain their stuff with a minimum of fuss. It really comes down to using the tools intelligently.

  • http://www.p0mi.com/ Dan

    “Bullshit. I built a whole Netmeeting site that got hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month in it and worked in every browser out there.”

    And it was 80% bigger than necessary due to FrontPage bloat, slowing the browser load time, taking up bandwidth unnecessary, and making the server draw more electricty than otherwise required.

    I can’t believe you called hand coding “incredibly stupid”. Those artists who choose to paint using fine brushes rather than spray paint and rollers are just stupidly clinging to the past in your world, huh?

  • http://www.p0mi.com Dan

    “Bullshit. I built a whole Netmeeting site that got hundreds of thousands of unique visitors a month in it and worked in every browser out there.”

    And it was 80% bigger than necessary due to FrontPage bloat, slowing the browser load time, taking up bandwidth unnecessary, and making the server draw more electricty than otherwise required.

    I can’t believe you called hand coding “incredibly stupid”. Those artists who choose to paint using fine brushes rather than spray paint and rollers are just stupidly clinging to the past in your world, huh?

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren’t 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

    Of course I knew how to do that cause I hand coded sites before FrontPage 1.1 (and a variety of other tools) came out.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren’t 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

    Of course I knew how to do that cause I hand coded sites before FrontPage 1.1 (and a variety of other tools) came out.

  • http://orcmid.com/blog/ orcmid

    I have the CTP on my Tablet PC and it is wonderful how it integrates and synchronizes, even with my development IIS site and its FrontPage Extensions. It also does a great job of writing clean HTML. That’s a relief, because the Visual Web Designer Express Edition is a giant step backwards that scared the heck out of me.

    The only thing keeping me away from beta 1 is that it can’t install on a machine with Office 2007 beta 2.

  • http://orcmid.com/blog/ orcmid

    I have the CTP on my Tablet PC and it is wonderful how it integrates and synchronizes, even with my development IIS site and its FrontPage Extensions. It also does a great job of writing clean HTML. That’s a relief, because the Visual Web Designer Express Edition is a giant step backwards that scared the heck out of me.

    The only thing keeping me away from beta 1 is that it can’t install on a machine with Office 2007 beta 2.

  • http://www.mode5.net/ Daniel Mcskelly

    Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren’t 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

    That’s exactly the point for the opposition, in my opinion.

    The time you spent learning how to clean up after front page would have been more productivly spent learning how to hand code proper HTML in the first place. Ditto the time required to learn to use the tool correctly in the first place…why spend days and weeks learning the ideosyncracices of putting out decent code with FP/DW/Expression when you can learn the basics of xHTML in a similair amount of time?

  • http://www.mode5.net Daniel Mcskelly

    Dan, if you knew how to use the tool your pages weren’t 80% bigger than they needed to be. But I figured out ways to clean up my HTML coming out of the tool.

    That’s exactly the point for the opposition, in my opinion.

    The time you spent learning how to clean up after front page would have been more productivly spent learning how to hand code proper HTML in the first place. Ditto the time required to learn to use the tool correctly in the first place…why spend days and weeks learning the ideosyncracices of putting out decent code with FP/DW/Expression when you can learn the basics of xHTML in a similair amount of time?

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Daniel: XHTML wasn’t out when I was a FrontPage user. Keep in mind I haven’t used FrontPage since 1998.

  • http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/ Robert Scoble

    Daniel: XHTML wasn’t out when I was a FrontPage user. Keep in mind I haven’t used FrontPage since 1998.

  • http://www.mode5.net/ Daniel Mcskelly

    I’m glad to hear it :)

    My point, inexpertly (OK, drunkenly) expressed, was that WYSIWYG tools require the operator to learn how to work around the weaknesses of the tools and, in the case of mark up languages at least, you’re better of learning the language itself, no matter what flavour of *ML it may be.

    I tried out FP, DW, and a few other packages with smaller market share in my early webdev career, and it was apparent to me (and to almost every other professional web type person I know) that you’re better of learning the roots of the language rather than how a particular tool generates it.

    Once again I’m not saying there’s no place for these applications – I’ve tied my gran up in the basement for weeks but she still refuses to maintain her family photo album in anything other than dreamweaver – but to dismiss other means of generating HTML documents as idiotic is a pretty short sighted view point, in my opinion.

  • http://www.mode5.net Daniel Mcskelly

    I’m glad to hear it :)

    My point, inexpertly (OK, drunkenly) expressed, was that WYSIWYG tools require the operator to learn how to work around the weaknesses of the tools and, in the case of mark up languages at least, you’re better of learning the language itself, no matter what flavour of *ML it may be.

    I tried out FP, DW, and a few other packages with smaller market share in my early webdev career, and it was apparent to me (and to almost every other professional web type person I know) that you’re better of learning the roots of the language rather than how a particular tool generates it.

    Once again I’m not saying there’s no place for these applications – I’ve tied my gran up in the basement for weeks but she still refuses to maintain her family photo album in anything other than dreamweaver – but to dismiss other means of generating HTML documents as idiotic is a pretty short sighted view point, in my opinion.

  • Pingback: IT Blogwatch

  • http://www.mauriciogiraldo.com/ mga

    absolutely agree with daniel. dw user here. code view most of the time. i teach web design and pretty much start with notepad. imo, if you want to be a REAL web designer/developer you need to get (i guess “stupid” in scoble’s opinion) your hands on the *ML code. i have not downloaded expression * (can’t find any compelling reason to do so yet and certainly a “must install .net 2.0″ is a deterrant).

  • http://www.mauriciogiraldo.com mga

    absolutely agree with daniel. dw user here. code view most of the time. i teach web design and pretty much start with notepad. imo, if you want to be a REAL web designer/developer you need to get (i guess “stupid” in scoble’s opinion) your hands on the *ML code. i have not downloaded expression * (can’t find any compelling reason to do so yet and certainly a “must install .net 2.0″ is a deterrant).

  • Anonymous

    > Yes, today such a thing seems incredibly stupid (but you can still try it, in WordPress there’s a little button marked “HTML” — click it and then you too can experience what developing Web sites in 1994 was like).

    Call me stupid, but I still prefer hand-coding html where possible. It creates much cleaner html. Actually most of us use templates of some kind when developing web applications. Even creating a WordPress theme will require you to muck in good old html.

    As for WordPress blogging, my preference is to use the plain text view. However with the latest version of improved WYSIWYG editor, I may switch.

    On a different note I am not too fond of drupal myself as it tends to get rather complicated when you try to tweak it , extensively if I may add, to your needs. ModX fits my requirements much better. It is more powerful and yet simpler than Drupal. Have you tried it?

    In any content management system you still need to design the templates in HTML.

    So Expression still has a place for web developers, if not for content writers.

    Does Expression generate clean HTML?

  • http://blog.taragana.com Angsuman Chakraborty

    > Yes, today such a thing seems incredibly stupid (but you can still try it, in WordPress there’s a little button marked “HTML” — click it and then you too can experience what developing Web sites in 1994 was like).

    Call me stupid, but I still prefer hand-coding html where possible. It creates much cleaner html. Actually most of us use templates of some kind when developing web applications. Even creating a WordPress theme will require you to muck in good old html.

    As for WordPress blogging, my preference is to use the plain text view. However with the latest version of improved WYSIWYG editor, I may switch.

    On a different note I am not too fond of drupal myself as it tends to get rather complicated when you try to tweak it , extensively if I may add, to your needs. ModX fits my requirements much better. It is more powerful and yet simpler than Drupal. Have you tried it?

    In any content management system you still need to design the templates in HTML.

    So Expression still has a place for web developers, if not for content writers.

    Does Expression generate clean HTML?

← Older Comments