What I'd like to see in Web Designer

[covoxer]

Despite what was said in an earlier post - certain tags like <H1> most certainly DO make a difference in Search engine optimization

No, it was not proven to be so.

just as the naming of graphics to something relative to the site also makes a difference in search engine placement!

It was officially stated that instead of using descriptive image file names one has to use alt property of images.

Just change these on your site and watch the placement change with it...

There is a number of much more important rating factors than html layout. Most important are references from other sites. When you modify your page in any way, it is revisited by SE and may have rating reset to the different level it was before editing. You have to wait for some time to see it stabilize.

It is going to be REAL pain to go back thru each page and RE-NAME the graphics in the folders and on the pages to match, if I want my page to move up in the ranks.

It would be a waste of time and effort. If you have correct alt set for all images, renaming files will not influence the rating of your site.

Why not give us the option of keeping the naming for each graphic as it is imported or placed on the webpages?

Because most graphics is supposed to be created within WD, so have no names, or taken from your camera and have a meaningless name. And the correct method of describing image content is not it's file name but specially created for this purpose alt property. Read W3C if you don't know it. Google doesn't read your image filename if it has alt property. Using alt tags is also necessary for accessibility reasons.

The numbering system just won't cut it for me.

Then don't use it.

...but the time it saves me in one area is being taken up doing other things to make up for what it won't do.

That's because you do things that you used to do with other programs, but you don't have to do it with WD. But you still do... If you want to use WD the way you use other authoring tools, then you are going a wrong way. If you want another Dreamweaver but with Xara name, there will be none. XWD provides absolutely different work flow, it's a different tool, you have to use it differently.

[nickydude]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/showpost...&postcount=224

[pauland]

Unfortunately I couldn't get the quotes nested, so:

About h1 being important for SEO..

No, it was not proven to be so.

When something is unproven, it doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't think either side of the H1 debate was proven (or could be), so we can appreciate that either view may be/is valid.

Rather than debate the point incessantly it might just be better to say that <h> tags are not supported and their relevance is debatable.

On the subject of XWD image numbering scheme being unsuitable:

Then don't use it.

I'm not sure if you mean XWD or the numbering scheme.

The criticism of image naming seems perfectly valid to me. I can understand why it would be problematic, since XWD doesn't just import images it modifies them, so the images used in a web page may not be the same as those imported.

A little patience and explanation goes a long way.

That's because you do things that you used to do with other programs, but you don't have to do it with WD. But you still do... If you want to use WD the way you use other authoring tools, then you are going a wrong way. If you want another Dreamweaver but with Xara name, there will be none. XWD provides absolutely different work flow, it's a different tool, you have to use it differently.

What you say is true, but it's pretty blunt. A little empathy and patience with the user who may not have the same technical background would not go amiss. XWD is a great tool, but it's not above improvement and the feedback here deserves a better reception than it sometimes gets.

I'm beginning to wonder if some people would be put off XWD, not because of the questions and criticisms of it, but because of the reception they sometimes get.

Paul

[pauland]

Just a little more on the image numbering mechanism - if anyone is relying on a particular numbering for images in a website, I suspect that just changing the XWD could cause all the images to be renumbered differently when the site is next generated - so don't depend on the numbering system!

As covoxer (john) says, this isn't an issue when using XWD as intended - complete website generation.

Paul

[covoxer]

When something is unproven, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yes, but we can't waste the developing resources to support something that is not proven to be true. It's priority falls far below ewerything else that is proven to be true.

I'm not sure if you mean XWD or the numbering scheme.

It's your choice. You may not use numbering sheme or, if you wish, WD altogether.

A little patience and explanation goes a long way.

Well, so do a little search on forum.

A little empathy and patience with the user who may not have the same technical background would not go amiss.

I have a lot of patience! Othervice I wouldn't comment all those posts at all.

XWD is a great tool, but it's not above improvement and the feedback here deserves a better reception than it sometimes gets.

You mean, it would be better if I ignored it? I had explained something that I think I had to explain.

I'm beginning to wonder if some people would be put off XWD, not because of the questions and criticisms of it, but because of the reception they sometimes get.

Someone, sometimes... Who knows... Way too many unknown to answer this question. Make a vote if you wish. But there was not a single post telling that someone drops XWD because of bad reception on this forum. While there are qute a few posts saying something quite different.

[pauland]

You definitely see the world as black and white without any grey, John!

[covoxer]

[I've decided to discontinue this debate. If you want to turn it personal, feel free to use PM]

[pauland]

I'm not your enemy John - just trying to say that things aren't always black and white and a softer tone is good. I appreciate the feedback on the forums, brusque though it often is.

Paul

[covoxer]

I'm not your enemy John

Paul, I know. But we are getting into OT debate here.

[remi]

John (covoxer), please remember that talkgraphics is a friendly forum. I'll second Paul, that your tone sounds rude from time to time. We don't need flaming discussions to become the focus at TG.

Regards,
Remi