But as for the previous postings about using notepad and such to write web sites all I can say is, that is like telling a person to walk everywhere instead of drive, wysiwyg makes things easier and faster over the very basic notepad in the same way driving makes travelling easier over the most basic transport of walking.
I'd go along with that if it were anything like the truth. WYSIWYG editors may lower the bar in terms of required knowledge (which, by the way, isn't much), but it's certainly no faster. And Notepad is hardly the only alternative to WYSIWYG; there are hundreds of editors out there that make editing HTML a snap (synyax highlighting, auto-balancing tags, providing boilerplate, snippets and macros, etc.). And most of the best ones are actually free.
There's a big difference between HTML that looks okay in your browser and HTML that actually means what you want it to mean. If you don't care about your users, or specifically mean to prevent people with disabilities from using your site, well, I suppose that's your business. But if it's your
actual business (or if you're hoping that it might become your actual business), then maybe paying attention to the details that a WYSIWYG editor simply can't handle might be an idea. Frontpage is for people who want to write websites about their cats. Dreamweaver is for designers who have the luxury of having coders to clean up the mess they make (I'd much rather a designer give me a PSD than the "site" they build in Dreamweaver -- it is far easier to create the correct HTML and CSS from scratch than it is to fix bad markup) or who know enough about HTML and CSS to go to the code view after they've done the WYSIWYG layout and make the appropriate changes.
Bottom line: relying on WYSIWYG is bad. Bad for you (it keeps you ignorant of what you're doing), bad for your users, and bad for business. If you're a visual thinker, then use it for basic layout, but never, ever depend on the output from the WYSIWYG editor.