SR-HTML32

A small utility that makes it possible to find and replace a string of characters. There is nothing more to say, really. There are several options but the best feature is the ability to run a batch job, so everything is updated automatically.

SR-HTML32 (who came up with the title?) is painfully slow, it took me 10 minutes to update 320kb of HTML files. It also does not work with files over 250kb. But nevertheless, it does its job and it did not crash, so I guess there are some points to be awarded for this. And it also Windows95 compatible (read: it can understand long names).

Obviously, this was an in-house development and a programmer just decided to share it with us, so it's ok for as long as there are no other alternatives.

Verdict: If you can't find any alternatives, get it.

MAPTHIS

Well, this program is cool. Apart from several bugs that just show that the program is not a commercial release (yeah, it is free!) this program works just fine. There is no fascination in creation of image maps, it is a boring and laborious process, but MAPTHIS makes the process simply. You will be able to create your first (and your next) image map in seconds - you load an image, you draw shapes anywhere you want, you click right mouse button on your shape, you write the name (or/and location) of an HTML file you want to be loaded when you click inside the shape and you save the map file.

You can actually test your image map inside the program, but it is a bit bugged, so I'd recommend using a browser for final checks. The program does not provide you with a complete ready-to-go HTML code, you will have to add HTML tags to display an image yourself, but that's not very difficult, is it? Oh, and it deals with both client-side and server-side maps.

Verdict: Simply does it's job. What else do you want? Oh, and it's free!

HTML Reference Library

I was using HTMLib (by Stephen Le Hunte) since v2.0 and I still like it! It's a very detailed and very clear indexed description of HTML tags. Just enter a tag name and you will be presented with a description of the tag and all possible attributes.

The newest version (v4.0 is to be released soon) now has several sections: HTML Tags Index, Browser Comparison Table, Colour Wizard, Netscape Colours and Tips Library. HTML Tags Index is the most valuable and is the main reason to get HTMLib. Browser Comparison Table is very useful, because it shows you side-by-side comparison of Netscape Navigator, MS Internet Explorer and NCSA Mosaic browser-supported tags. Colour Wizard is an external program that lets you choose a colour and generate an HTML-compatible code for your chosen colour. There are several ways you can choose your colours, but the interface is a bit buggy and I did not like using it.

Netscape Colours, on the other hand is a complete list of all Netscape colour names (and there are MANY). Names can be used in COLOR attribute (e.g. COLOR=gray), you can try COLOR=lavenderblush to see it for yourself. It is not a good idea to use named colours, because no other browser recognises them, but you can use the table to get an inspiration (really, that's what I did!). Finally, there is a Tips Library that I found completely useless. There were no tricks and there was only one tip that I found interesting. This HLP file is thrown in for extra value and was probably intended to raise interest in public to supply tips and tricks.

Finally, before you use HTMLib, you should note that while it is surprisingly correct, there are some omissions. They are very rare (I only found one that gave me a particularly long headache), but still, do not treat this index as a sort of HTML bible. Still, I strongly recommend you to download HTMLib (if you can view Windows HLP files, you even can use it on Mac, so it says).

Verdict: Very useful. Very free. If you need a good HTML reference, look no further. Download it while it's still not shareware or something.

Agile HTML Editor

If you've been reading any of articles, you might have noticed that I personally do not like using HTML editors or WEB Editors, or whatever they are called.

So... did I change my mind? Well, no. This editor gives you very few features, so I'm better off with my complememtary copy of Microsoft Notepad. Seriously, this editor is not a lot more than a menu-based TAG entering system (imagine chances of marketing software with a name like this!). You choose a menu option, say "Formatting->Typographic->Bold", and Agile promptly inserts the <B>..</B> tags (or wraps a selection in these tags). Tables, Objects, Applets Tags and (!) <MARQUEE> tags are all put in "Advanced" menu option, so it shows you the level of experience expected from users.

But is it that useless? Are there any useful features? Well, I don't know. There seems to be a very useful help system, which can give a help for any tag if you press F5 key. But I was not able to see it, because it is not in Windows HLP format, but rather uses MS Internet Explorer 3 special help format, so if you have a Netscape Navigator, you're stuck without it. Hmm... What else? It's actually not that bad. It displays different tags in different colours (customizable), it also has some rudimentary debug features (file names are checked for correctness and tag brackets are matched) and finally, you can choose an HTML level you want to use in your documents (HTML2, HTML3.2, HTML4, Explorer 3.0, Navigator 2.0, etc.), so that when you enter a command that is not supported by the chosen level, the line is displayed in red.

There are also multiple levels of undo/redo, which i find particularly useful, couple of added features and finally a very useful feature of being able to add WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes to any image. The process is not automated, so you have to click on each <IMG> tag to add these attributes.

So Agile has some nice features that would make your job easier. Not too many, but still a better alternative to NotePad. So why am I still stuck with the NotePad, as the utimate editor? Well, the answer is in it's price. It's 75$ for registration and I guess it's asking a bit too much for quite a simple product. If money is not an issue in your case, then you are better off with more powerful editors, and if it is, well... you're better off with the way thing are at the moment.

Verdict: Not that many features for the price and too "light" for advanced users.

QPage

A good program throughout. Good and simple screen layout lets you choose all the preferences, you can add an HTML footnote to the end of any page you create. All the < and > are appropriately translated into < and &rt;. Even http//: is recognised in text and the address is converted into a clickable link (HREF). Something like www.hydro.com is, however, not recognised and there is not enough information provided in the documentation to tell you anything more.

Another feature, that I personally did not find particularly useful, is an ability to divide a text file automatically into several HTML files. It works like this: if you have sections in your text file, and if you write each section like "[2]. Introduction to semi-conductors", then QPAGE would automatically cut the section and write it into a file 2.htm and then will create an index page that will link to all the sections. Now, you might think that this is quite a good idea, and I guess it is great in its simplicity. If this program would be released 5 years ago, it would become an ultimate converter. However, nowadays you have to provide something more than just basics to raise user's interest.

Having said that, I understand that the program is a shareware and so cannot compete in its number of functions with MS Word97. However, the registration price is 15$ which makes the program a bit over-priced. Yes, 15$ is not that much, but you can make a simple macro in your word processor that would take care of all the converting for you. And for unregistered users there is a limitation that prevents you from converting a file larger than 15k and also places an obligatory copyright footnote at the end of your converted files.

Verdict: Now, if QPAGE was a freeware, I would not hesitate to recommend it. But registration just isn't worth 15$, sorry.

SiteSpeed

Bad, bad, bad. It's Software Agreement was filled with tough looking statements and so I presumed that this was some pretty serious software too. It is called SiteSpeed and is "marketed" as a software that helps you make your web pages load faster. Well, heck of a claim! I was more than disappointed to see that SiteSpeed is nothing more than a JPG compressor with built-in FTP client, which you don't want anyway. Oh, and there are also "Favourite tips to make your page load faster" which are not available in shareware version.

JPG compressor looks ok, you can choose to compress on a scale from 0 to 100 and there is also a built-in converter, so you can load TIFF or GIF files, convert to JPG, compress and save.

But it doesn't matter, because Shareware version doesn't allow you to save the result (so what's the point of this shareware?). It's a stupid marketing that makes SiteSpeed worse than it is. Don't try to make it look like FrontPage98 (even Microsoft's software agreement is more comprehendable and friendlier), then I'll change my mind.

GIF MovieGear

Very nice interface, help/tutorial in HTML format and easy to get into. This is a simple utility to create animated GIF from exisitng non-animated GIFs (frames). But apart from standard "load-the-gifs-and-get-the-result" the MovieGear has several features that can be useful even to a designer who hates animated GIFs (I do).

The best thing about MovieGear is that it is quite aware of the "size" problem. It tries to make the resulting file as small as possible, and there are several ways in which it does that. There is "Optimize Animation" option that cuts your frames to the smallest size possible and this results in no(!) change to the quality of your animation. The idea behind that is that once you've displayed the first frame of animation, the consecutive frames usually do not change the whole area of the first frame, so you can save only the part that actually changes. My animated GIF became 50% lighter after that.

There is also a tool that lets you reduce palette. And it works good with non-animated GIFs too. I used it to compress some buttons on and I liked the way it shows you original and compressed images at the same time, so you can see the difference straight away. Because GIFs can have only up to 8bit of colour resolution, you have a choice of palette contraction. The MovieGear is aware of "Web Cube" or safe-colours that is a standard browser palette and you have several dithering choices.

Finally, the shareware version lasts for 30 days and it includes "shareware" comments in animated GIFs it creates.