I'm curious how Sparkle directly compares to online authoring tools and hosting services like Wix and Weebly? Both Wix and Weebly are free web based tools and have a free hosting tier inside their domain. The free layers have some storage and feature limitations but can be upgraded with more storage and features and also linked to a separately purchased domain name outside of their own domain.
Wix/Weebly free tiers subject you to their branding, or if you want to remove that you have the monthly fee. Sparkle is a one time purchase, and you use web hosting of your preference. Personal opinion: desktop Mac apps are way nicer to use than web apps.
Also not really in the same space as Sparkle? Hype is primarily an animation package like Flash was. Sparkle generates entire websites, with all the implications (optimizing code and images across the whole site, managing common elements and navigation, etc).
SpamSandwich said: If a person wants to avoid nearly all of the pitfalls of coming to web site design from a no-experience point of view, I'd recommend Blogger.com. Free and pretty easy to set up something very basic.
Blogger has canned templates and blogger branding. Kind of not the same thing as Sparkle, though free and basic it is.
WYSIWYG website builder apps have always been crap and probably always will be, especially now since modern websites commonly use things like include files, scripting environments such as PHP, Javascript frameworks, database connectivity, responsive design and remapped directories. Hell, most of those types of applications can't even build a custom form or validate it and also leave mailto: contact information in the clear for every screen scrapping scammer to add you to their spam list.
I'm really not sure how all those have any relevance to the design of a page?
Sparkle does obfuscate the mailto: in the javascript and suggest you use a contact form instead, and more in general is very privacy focused, it even includes the cookie banner.
I think dreamweaver and frontpage gave WYSIWYG website builders a bad rap, Sparkle sites generally get 100/100 on google page speed, Sparkle supports complex stuff such as CSS shapes for text wrapping around image transparency, it has pixel perfect web font layout, etc. Not your run of the mill WYSIWYG website builder.
At these prices, I'd expect the free version to at least work. You know, important stuff like links between pages. The free version allows you three pages on one site...and you can't link them together? FFS.
I'm not sure why links between pages wouldn't work, it's definitely something that is expected to work, in fact I just tested and it does. However this is not the proper place for support, but we bend over backwards to support Sparkle (appstore and macupdate reviews corroborate this), so if you get in touch we'll figure it out.
Building a website in iWeb, Sparkle, or even Dreamweaver is just setting up a future mess to be fixed. If you aren't a web designer, then just setup a SqureSpace account, or establish a blog on one of the many 'free' services.
Agree to disagree? Happy to discuss specifics.
fastasleep said: Ugh. The lack of a proper responsive grid would be an instant dealbreaker for me. I'm actually really surprised at the lack of that in a $90 app, in 2018.
No doubt... desktop and mobile version? Yikes.
Nah, Sparkle sites are responsive via media queries, single page for all layouts.
Great article. Please also do an article on Blocs, which from what I've seen is even easier to use than Sparkle for creating responsive websites.
For now, I'm still using SoftPress Freeway Pro 7. It's not easy to design responsive sites in Freeway, but the DTP design model is great for traditional sites. I've been eyeing Sparkle and Blocs for a couple years now and consider them better alternatives to Freeway than Rapid Weaver and the now defunct Adobe Muse.
I'd second the request for an article on Blocs. I hit a wall with Sparkle, after a few hours. Blocs has some glitches but offers much more, at a lower price, for a longer eval window.
Actually Blocs has a 7 day evaluation period, Sparkle has trial limitations (3 pages, single site) but no time limitation. Sparkle has a single site version that's cheaper than Blocs BTW, though you should be looking at value, not price (and if you end up valuing Blocs more, that's totally fair game).
Great article. Please also do an article on Blocs, which from what I've seen is even easier to use than Sparkle for creating responsive websites.
For now, I'm still using SoftPress Freeway Pro 7. It's not easy to design responsive sites in Freeway, but the DTP design model is great for traditional sites. I've been eyeing Sparkle and Blocs for a couple years now and consider them better alternatives to Freeway than Rapid Weaver and the now defunct Adobe Muse.
I'd second the request for an article on Blocs. I hit a wall with Sparkle, after a few hours. Blocs has some glitches but offers much more, at a lower price, for a longer eval window.
Actually Blocs has a 7 day evaluation period, Sparkle has trial limitations (3 pages, single site) but no time limitation. Sparkle has a single site version that's cheaper than Blocs BTW, though you should be looking at value, not price (and if you end up valuing Blocs more, that's totally fair game).
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Thanks for the responses. I misspoke on the eval period. I was thinking Sparkle had a time limit. I figured out my linking problem: I was trying to use ⌘N for a new page and it gives me a new site. That said, I am comfortable with the value of Blocs and have made a site of about 10 pages in a few days of eval time. Thanks.
One of the things that attracted me to it was I thought it would automagically reformat the site I created for computer screens to one optimized for tablets and phones. I don't know why I thought it would, but in case anyone else has the same impression, it doesn't. It DOES let you create separate versions for different devices, but you have to do all the formatting for each device type manually.
Ugh. The lack of a proper responsive grid would be an instant dealbreaker for me. I'm actually really surprised at the lack of that in a $90 app, in 2018.
By "responsive grid" you mean... something like bootstrap? Sparkle implements full responsive layouts using media queries, it uses fixed width layouts and switches between them. While this is slightly limiting and we are working towards a visual UI that solves it, it's not holding anyone back from building great sites.
I'd encourage you to check a few Sparkle sites to see where the responsive grid appears to be lacking:
Some website builders give you more canned components and it's faster to build a website, but you lose control and websites all look the same. But this is a case where cooking things a bit longer leads to better results.
One of the things that attracted me to it was I thought it would automagically reformat the site I created for computer screens to one optimized for tablets and phones. I don't know why I thought it would, but in case anyone else has the same impression, it doesn't. It DOES let you create separate versions for different devices, but you have to do all the formatting for each device type manually.
Ugh. The lack of a proper responsive grid would be an instant dealbreaker for me. I'm actually really surprised at the lack of that in a $90 app, in 2018.
By "responsive grid" you mean... something like bootstrap? Sparkle implements full responsive layouts using media queries, it uses fixed width layouts and switches between them. While this is slightly limiting and we are working towards a visual UI that solves it, it's not holding anyone back from building great sites.
I'd encourage you to check a few Sparkle sites to see where the responsive grid appears to be lacking:
Some website builders give you more canned components and it's faster to build a website, but you lose control and websites all look the same. But this is a case where cooking things a bit longer leads to better results.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Maybe a compromise between the two approaches would work; when selecting another device layout, maybe Sparkle could "ballpark" position and scale existing elements with an easy way for me to tweak them to my liking, rather than me having to essentially create a new layout almost from scratch.
A way to "unlink" elements between layouts would be welcome, too. For example, the desktop layout I created includes a huge banner across the top of the home page (see http://v5vaudio.com). It doesn't scale nicely to a phone layout, so while trying to create that format (I haven't uploaded that part yet) I just deleted the banner. Unfortunately that removed it from the desktop layout as well!
P.S. Thanks for joining the forum to discuss your product!
Maybe a compromise between the two approaches would work; when selecting another device layout, maybe Sparkle could "ballpark" position and scale existing elements with an easy way for me to tweak them to my liking, rather than me having to essentially create a new layout almost from scratch.
We are fully aware of the limitations of that approach and are working to make that particular workflow faster.
A way to "unlink" elements between layouts would be welcome, too. For example, the desktop layout I created includes a huge banner across the top of the home page (see http://v5vaudio.com). It doesn't scale nicely to a phone layout, so while trying to create that format (I haven't uploaded that part yet) I just deleted the banner. Unfortunately that removed it from the desktop layout as well!
P.S. Thanks for joining the forum to discuss your product!
That's done via the "Show on this device" checkbox in the arrange pane.
duncanwilcox said: Wix/Weebly free tiers subject you to their branding, or if you want to remove that you have the monthly fee. Sparkle is a one time purchase, and you use web hosting of your preference. Personal opinion: desktop Mac apps are way nicer to use than web apps.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Not that I'm a fan of Wix/Weebly, but aren't they CMS systems?
I think that distinction is important to keep in mind. While it is possible to create static web pages that outperform a CMS (and thus, maybe a good reason to do so for some applications), it's also a bit of an apple-oranges situation. A CMS gives the ability to dynamically change content or even structure on the fly (for example, no need for a desktop/mobile version).
Then there are things like e-commerce, e-learning, mail lists, forms, membership, and on and on... which pretty much require a dynamic environment to do properly.
I hate to sound so opposed... but also want people to realize that a websites aren't just websites (as in one common thing). It is really important to understand why you're creating a website and what it is intended to do, then pick the foundational technology and 'builder' environment. A tool like this sounds great for a hobbyist or for creating one-off pages or small sites with no intention of expansion. (That said, if this is desktop/mobile oriented, rather than properly responsive... I'm not sure I can even recommend it for that.)
Building a website in iWeb, Sparkle, or even Dreamweaver is just setting up a future mess to be fixed. If you aren't a web designer, then just setup a SqureSpace account, or establish a blog on one of the many 'free' services.
Agree to disagree? Happy to discuss specifics.
fastasleep said: Ugh. The lack of a proper responsive grid would be an instant dealbreaker for me. I'm actually really surprised at the lack of that in a $90 app, in 2018.
No doubt... desktop and mobile version? Yikes.
Nah, Sparkle sites are responsive via media queries, single page for all layouts.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
As above, I think different tools for different applications. No doubt, something like WordPress takes more technical knowledge and support to get the additional power. But, I think in general, yeah, we'd have to agree to disagree as the pool of situations I'd recommend such a tool would be pretty small/specific. (I've seen too many 'I just need a simple website.' situations turn into otherwise after not too long.)
re: responsive - That's good. The article talked about having a desktop and mobile version (which I'd strongly recommend against). If it is properly responsive, that's great to hear.
And, as also stated above, this isn't anything against your tool in particular. I'm sure it is great for what it is. I wouldn't recommend Dreamweaver or such either. IMO, it's just the wrong foundation for the majority of websites anymore. (BTW, I used to build websites with Claris Home Page back in the day... but CMS or full-custom developed is a much better fit for most sites these days.)
lorin schultz said: Maybe a compromise between the two approaches would work; when selecting another device layout, maybe Sparkle could "ballpark" position and scale existing elements with an easy way for me to tweak them to my liking, rather than me having to essentially create a new layout almost from scratch.
IMO, you want to be moving away from laying anything out for specific screen-sizes/devices.
Not that I'm a fan of Wix/Weebly, but aren't they CMS systems?
I think that distinction is important to keep in mind. While it is possible to create static web pages that outperform a CMS (and thus, maybe a good reason to do so for some applications), it's also a bit of an apple-oranges situation. A CMS gives the ability to dynamically change content or even structure on the fly (for example, no need for a desktop/mobile version).
Then there are things like e-commerce, e-learning, mail lists, forms, membership, and on and on... which pretty much require a dynamic environment to do properly.
I hate to sound so opposed... but also want people to realize that a websites aren't just websites (as in one common thing). It is really important to understand why you're creating a website and what it is intended to do, then pick the foundational technology and 'builder' environment. A tool like this sounds great for a hobbyist or for creating one-off pages or small sites with no intention of expansion. (That said, if this is desktop/mobile oriented, rather than properly responsive... I'm not sure I can even recommend it for that.)
I think we need to pull all those things apart a little. You seem to be conflating the ability to create ecommerce with the site being driven by a CMS, for example. Nothing is further from the truth, Sparkle's site itself is built with Sparkle and drives a healthy business, and we have customers doing the same for their own business.
Sparkle integrates with ecommerce platforms via code embedding, I did a live youtube about this:
Sparkle has forms built-in, and well you do mailing lists via mailchimp like everybody I guess.
I'm not discounting the need for custom developments for larger or more complex sites, but whether you think a CMS is needed or not really comes down to what experience you have building client sites I guess, we have thousands of customers building their own sites and sure we have feature requests for additional functionality, but by and large a static site builder is enough in many cases.
Saying that a CMS gives you the ability to change content and structure on the fly is really disingenuous, someone needs to have designed the template or components that you use to pour the content in, and those come with limitations or tradeoffs. Sparkle has different tradeoffs, which are more geared towards creating a custom layout with attention to detail in all layouts and precise control over how text will be laid out. What webapps like wix/weebly/squarespace have is all the bad things that come with webapps, such as occasionally losing your content or drag and drop becoming "sticky", terrible integration with desktop apps, etc. It's not all sunshine and rainbows.
One thing that CMSs seem to have in common is to have a really hard time at pushing optimization and page performance. They also dangle off of a database, so they often are slow, and worst case they're really really slow and insecure. That's a fact of life of a self-installed wordpress by the way, not FUD.
As above, I think different tools for different applications. No doubt, something like WordPress takes more technical knowledge and support to get the additional power. But, I think in general, yeah, we'd have to agree to disagree as the pool of situations I'd recommend such a tool would be pretty small/specific. (I've seen too many 'I just need a simple website.' situations turn into otherwise after not too long.)
re: responsive - That's good. The article talked about having a desktop and mobile version (which I'd strongly recommend against). If it is properly responsive, that's great to hear.
And, as also stated above, this isn't anything against your tool in particular. I'm sure it is great for what it is. I wouldn't recommend Dreamweaver or such either. IMO, it's just the wrong foundation for the majority of websites anymore. (BTW, I used to build websites with Claris Home Page back in the day... but CMS or full-custom developed is a much better fit for most sites these days.)
What you call additional power I call looking for trouble. I really wish a statistic was available but I'd be really surprised if more than a minor fraction of wordpress sites out there used any significant amount of the flexibility of the platform.
The web is swinging back towards static sites, performance and security are the main reason. I don't blame you for advocating for CMSs, it's kind of the modern day "can't be fired for buying Microsoft". And I'm also not saying Sparkle is for perfect for every site.
Just consider how much 1) advertising money is spent by squarespace/wix/weebly to convince you they're the best solution (so much so blogs and podcasts don't want our advertising money), 2) how much investment and interest there is in the wordpress ecosystem (because people buy themes, plugins, consulting).
I think we need to pull all those things apart a little. You seem to be conflating the ability to create ecommerce with the site being driven by a CMS, for example. Nothing is further from the truth, Sparkle's site itself is built with Sparkle and drives a healthy business, and we have customers doing the same for their own business.
Sparkle integrates with ecommerce platforms via code embedding, I did a live youtube about this:
Sparkle has forms built-in, and well you do mailing lists via mailchimp like everybody I guess.
I'm not discounting the need for custom developments for larger or more complex sites, but whether you think a CMS is needed or not really comes down to what experience you have building client sites I guess, we have thousands of customers building their own sites and sure we have feature requests for additional functionality, but by and large a static site builder is enough in many cases.
Saying that a CMS gives you the ability to change content and structure on the fly is really disingenuous, someone needs to have designed the template or components that you use to pour the content in, and those come with limitations or tradeoffs. Sparkle has different tradeoffs, which are more geared towards creating a custom layout with attention to detail in all layouts and precise control over how text will be laid out. What webapps like wix/weebly/squarespace have is all the bad things that come with webapps, such as occasionally losing your content or drag and drop becoming "sticky", terrible integration with desktop apps, etc. It's not all sunshine and rainbows.
One thing that CMSs seem to have in common is to have a really hard time at pushing optimization and page performance. They also dangle off of a database, so they often are slow, and worst case they're really really slow and insecure. That's a fact of life of a self-installed wordpress by the way, not FUD.
...
What you call additional power I call looking for trouble. I really wish a statistic was available but I'd be really surprised if more than a minor fraction of wordpress sites out there used any significant amount of the flexibility of the platform.
The web is swinging back towards static sites, performance and security are the main reason. I don't blame you for advocating for CMSs, it's kind of the modern day "can't be fired for buying Microsoft". And I'm also not saying Sparkle is for perfect for every site.
Just consider how much 1) advertising money is spent by squarespace/wix/weebly to convince you they're the best solution (so much so blogs and podcasts don't want our advertising money), 2) how much investment and interest there is in the wordpress ecosystem (because people buy themes, plugins, consulting).
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Hi Duncan,
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said. I also haven't dug into the code your tool generates, but I've yet to see such a tool create great code. iWeb was nasty awful, for example.
And, unless you write good, custom code, you don't necessarily get speed. Yes, a WordPress site takes far more server resources and tuning to get speed, but also comes with a lot more flexibility and power. But, take a look at my site or my client's sites, and you'll find they are pretty darn fast, especially considering what they do. But, yes, given the same server resources, a static site will be faster.
Sure, you can add things like e-commerce or e-learning by offloading them to 3rd party solutions that you 'embed'. Each business will have to decide if that's the best option, but several of my clients couldn't do what they are doing with such solutions.... and none of them are big companies/organizations by any stretch. As I said, in my experience, most even small companies quickly run into the "we'd like it to do X" problem.
Also, I'm not necessarily arguing for Wix or SquareSpace, but for a company with little to no budget, they should probably consider them as well as something like your solution. I've seen some pretty nice SquareSpace sites. The problem typical comes with a bit of growth and then hitting the limitations. But, I guess my reason for pointing people that way is that it's also a relatively low time/$ investment, too.
Another area is stuff like SEO, where a WordPress site and add a plugin like Yoast SEO and quickly have a great interface and SEO potential. Also, it isn't that you can't do forms or email lists, but expanding on them is difficult. For example, what if I wanted to create a form on one of your sites that included conditional field functionality? Or, deliver a product? Or, take a payment? Or, how long would it take you to integrate with Moneris so you can take Canadian Interac payments?
The devil is in the details on stuff like this. If it is just a 5 page business site where they need to fill out a contact form and maybe purchase a product or two via Shopify, then maybe a static site will suffice.
So, no, I don't think it is the modern day "can't get fired for buying Microsoft"... it's more an apples/oranges thing. Yes, SquareSpace, etc. spend tons of money on marketing, and I'd not recommend them for most people, either. It's just that most people don't have the graphics-design capabilities or the technical capabilities to take care of their own site and hosting, so they are better off at SquareSpace. But, if they have the time/money, then I think they are better off going the CMS route.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said. I also haven't dug into the code your tool generates, but I've yet to see such a tool create great code. iWeb was nasty awful, for example.
That thinking has killed multiple website builders. As a software developer myself, I know full well that any code built by someone else is going to be not acceptable in one way or another. That's unfortunately a no winner proposition, and yet many many people want to create a website that works and performs well, without having to learn the code or the jargon.
I can assure you that we are focused on code that performs well, and yet I'm sure many people will have qualms about some random detail about it. We need to let go of the notion that for a website to work well it has to be hand coded. Not using code means at some point you'll hit a wall and the site will need a developer, which means $$$, our job as Sparkle developers is to push that wall as far as possible. This is working for way more people that many would think.
And, unless you write good, custom code, you don't necessarily get speed. Yes, a WordPress site takes far more server resources and tuning to get speed, but also comes with a lot more flexibility and power. But, take a look at my site or my client's sites, and you'll find they are pretty darn fast, especially considering what they do. But, yes, given the same server resources, a static site will be faster.
We score 100/100 in pagespeed very often, or upper 90s if not. No hand coding.
Sure, you can add things like e-commerce or e-learning by offloading them to 3rd party solutions that you 'embed'. Each business will have to decide if that's the best option, but several of my clients couldn't do what they are doing with such solutions.... and none of them are big companies/organizations by any stretch. As I said, in my experience, most even small companies quickly run into the "we'd like it to do X" problem.
Your business depends on people wanting to do X, my business depends on people buying my software for $90 and realizing perhaps they don't really need X. So there's that.
Also, I'm not necessarily arguing for Wix or SquareSpace, but for a company with little to no budget, they should probably consider them as well as something like your solution. I've seen some pretty nice SquareSpace sites. The problem typical comes with a bit of growth and then hitting the limitations. But, I guess my reason for pointing people that way is that it's also a relatively low time/$ investment, too.
I'm really not sure what you're suggesting here. The hosted services such as wix or squarespace will be quick to set up but carry a lifetime subscription fee.
Another area is stuff like SEO, where a WordPress site and add a plugin like Yoast SEO and quickly have a great interface and SEO potential. Also, it isn't that you can't do forms or email lists, but expanding on them is difficult. For example, what if I wanted to create a form on one of your sites that included conditional field functionality? Or, deliver a product? Or, take a payment? Or, how long would it take you to integrate with Moneris so you can take Canadian Interac payments?
Sparkle implements most of what Yoast does, SEO is built right in. Sure you can find examples where custom coding is necessary, and people can evaluate that on their own. I have never heard of Moneris or Canadian Interac, frankly none of our thousands of customers have ever asked either.
The devil is in the details on stuff like this. If it is just a 5 page business site where they need to fill out a contact form and maybe purchase a product or two via Shopify, then maybe a static site will suffice.
We have customers with hundreds of pages and people running real businesses, on the other hand personal or portfolio sites are probably the sweet spot for Sparkle for now (in many ways like iWeb was).
So, no, I don't think it is the modern day "can't get fired for buying Microsoft"... it's more an apples/oranges thing. Yes, SquareSpace, etc. spend tons of money on marketing, and I'd not recommend them for most people, either. It's just that most people don't have the graphics-design capabilities or the technical capabilities to take care of their own site and hosting, so they are better off at SquareSpace. But, if they have the time/money, then I think they are better off going the CMS route.
duncanwilcox said: Your business depends on people wanting to do X, my business depends on people buying my software for $90 and realizing perhaps they don't really need X.
Based on what he's written here, I have a lot of respect for @cgWerks, and his point about client needs expanding beyond what they originally anticipate is a good one, but I also agree with you that there's a segment of the market that really doesn't need the sophistication of a hand-coded site. There are also hobbyists and enthusiasts who will want to use a tool like Sparkle because it allows them to get creative without the daunting learning curve associated with learning a coding language or three.
duncanwilcox said: [...] personal or portfolio sites are probably the sweet spot for Sparkle for now (in many ways like iWeb was).
In my particular case, if my only choice was to hire an expert to build my simple promo site I would have gone without because the value of the site wouldn't justify the cost. The low price of Sparkle Pro made it possible for me to leverage what would otherwise be downtime, essentially trading unbillable hours for a simple web site. A site built by an expert might be better, but it would also cost more and I don't need anything better.
Whether other, cheaper or even free options would have worked as well for such a simple project is another discussion. Personally I found Sparkle Pro to be the right balance between hassle and cost.
duncanwilcox said: ... many many people want to create a website that works and performs well, without having to learn the code or the jargon.
I can assure you that we are focused on code that performs well, and yet I'm sure many people will have qualms about some random detail about it. We need to let go of the notion that for a website to work well it has to be hand coded. Not using code means at some point you'll hit a wall and the site will need a developer, which means $$$, our job as Sparkle developers is to push that wall as far as possible. This is working for way more people that many would think.
Well, in terms of iWeb, it was a spaghetti web of files and code that was almost impossible to follow... hacks and tricks and such. It made a mess. Hopefully Sparkle doesn't do the same, so in those regards, it wasn't just a random detail of the code that concerns me. (Some builders used to use tables and 'invisible' images to hold layouts and spacing and such.)
But, you don't necessarily have to learn to code to use a CMS either, or need a developer. You might if you want to customize it beyond what off-the-shelf plugins/themes can do, but there is an awful lot of 'out of the box' power available. To add that kind of stuff to a Sparkle website (if I understand correctly), you'd have to just embed it, or you're into custom-coding territory.
I guess my point would be that if you think you might need something beyond a basic site, which approach to take should be carefully considered. I don't advocate 'hand coding' either outside of companies with big budgets who need (or anticipate) high scalability or flexibility. For example, it makes sense for Facebook to custom code their site.
duncanwilcox said: Your business depends on people wanting to do X, my business depends on people buying my software for $90 and realizing perhaps they don't really need X. So there's that.
Also, I'm not necessarily arguing for Wix or SquareSpace, but for a company with little to no budget, they should probably consider them as well as something like your solution. I've seen some pretty nice SquareSpace sites. The problem typical comes with a bit of growth and then hitting the limitations. But, I guess my reason for pointing people that way is that it's also a relatively low time/$ investment, too.
I'm really not sure what you're suggesting here. The hosted services such as wix or squarespace will be quick to set up but carry a lifetime subscription fee.
Where does one host a Sparkle website, though? Most websites cost money, it's more about time/$ invested in creating them. For example, WordPress is free, as are many of the plugins. So, it's not fair saying your builder tool is 1-time $90 vs a lifetime monthly fee... again, apples/oranges.
Part of the reason I'd recommend SquareSpace, is that pretty much ALL of the technical aspects, and a lot of the graphic-design aspects, are taken care of. People just pick a nice 'theme' and add content, and the rest is taken care of for that monthly fee. That's worth something, especially for a simple site. If you use some tool to build a site (or download free WordPress)... that's just the beginning. Then comes the graphic design and web-hosting technical know-how either way. That's what most people are paying for. (I'd likewise say that a majority of WordPress sites out there weren't built by developers with lots of custom coding, either.)
duncanwilcox said: Sparkle implements most of what Yoast does, SEO is built right in. Sure you can find examples where custom coding is necessary, and people can evaluate that on their own. I have never heard of Moneris or Canadian Interac, frankly none of our thousands of customers have ever asked either.
That's good to hear (re: SEO). A lot of builder tools just don't address that.
re: Moneris / Interac - that was just an example of the kind of thing businesses run into. A recent client needed to serve clients who often don't have credit-cards (Interac is a Canadian debit-transaction service that is extremely popular... like more popular than Visa/MC). You'd spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars adding that kind of functionality to a site directly. But, there is a WordPress, WooCommerce plugin that adds it.
There are a zillion other things like this I've run into on nearly every site I've built except a couple of the most simple ones. It's easy to add a PayPal button, but once you get beyond that, it's going to be really expensive or complex to add functionality without some kind of CMS/plugin architecture (and massive developer community resources of something like WordPress).
What if one of your customers wants to deliver 5 to 10 GB educational video files for purchase? With WordPress, you add WooCommerce and an Amazon S3 plugin, and you're good to go. Or, what if you want protected membership content, where a new member needs to be authorized by the organization staff before access is given? Add MemberPress and a plugin that puts the new user on 'hold' until authorized.
I'm not saying some people, businesses or organizations don't just need some pages of info and images, maybe a simple form. A lot of sites start out that way. But, whether you go SquareSpace or a builder like yours, that's about where it stops. People just need to take that into consideration.
The devil is in the details on stuff like this. If it is just a 5 page business site where they need to fill out a contact form and maybe purchase a product or two via Shopify, then maybe a static site will suffice.
We have customers with hundreds of pages and people running real businesses, on the other hand personal or portfolio sites are probably the sweet spot for Sparkle for now (in many ways like iWeb was).
I guess I didn't literally mean a 5-page business site, but not 6. 1000 page site isn't any more complex (aside from content organization) than a 5 page site. I'm talking about a different kind of scale/complexity.
The good thing about a static site, is that it does scale well... at least for what it does in terms of basic pages and functionality. It's a different kind of complexity I'm talking about.
That said, I'm not sure I can agree iWeb was idea for much of anything.... maybe web-days of old, but iWeb sites would be awful today. They were more in the mentality of the old web-studio where one designed a 'look' in Photoshop, and then tried to web-ize that. That isn't how a modern website is built.
And... I guess that's what caused my initial reaction, and what I've been trying to tease out here (aside from expandability or advanced capability debate)... whether Sparkle falls more in to the iWeb camp or modern web camp in terms of what it outputs.
So, no, I don't think it is the modern day "can't get fired for buying Microsoft"... it's more an apples/oranges thing. Yes, SquareSpace, etc. spend tons of money on marketing, and I'd not recommend them for most people, either. It's just that most people don't have the graphics-design capabilities or the technical capabilities to take care of their own site and hosting, so they are better off at SquareSpace. But, if they have the time/money, then I think they are better off going the CMS route.
Agree to disagree?
Duncan
Yeah, I think we'll have to on this. We're talking about two different approaches to websites with advantages/disadvantages... not some 'safe' thing to do just because.
lorin schultz said: Based on what he's written here, I have a lot of respect for @cgWerks, and his point about client needs expanding beyond what they originally anticipate is a good one, but I also agree with you that there's a segment of the market that really doesn't need the sophistication of a hand-coded site. There are also hobbyists and enthusiasts who will want to use a tool like Sparkle because it allows them to get creative without the daunting learning curve associated with learning a coding language or three.
Just to clarify... I haven't hand-coded a site since the 90s. The only reason (IMO) one should do that these days, is if they are a company like Facebook where they want complete control / optimization over their functionality and scalability. The debate is more between static vs dynamic, and each have +/-. And, then also, about a service (i.e.: SquareSpace) where everything is taken care of, vs roll your own. Again, +/- to each.
There would be a lower learning curve with Sparkle, but that is partly dependent on the hosting. The lowest learning curve would be a service where you just create an account and build. A CMS like WordPress has more of a learning curve.... unless you pick a good managed hosting service, in which case it's pretty push-button as well (though if you want a more advanced site, then there is again a learning curve).
A CMS will have more concern in terms of security, as you log into it, but both have concerns in terms of the hosting side of things... which is dependent on the hosting. You can get away with less expensive hosting with static sites than dynamic/CMS driven ones, as there isn't a database connection involved and the server doesn't have to dynamically 'build' the page.
lorin schultz said: In my particular case, if my only choice was to hire an expert to build my simple promo site I would have gone without because the value of the site wouldn't justify the cost. The low price of Sparkle Pro made it possible for me to leverage what would otherwise be downtime, essentially trading unbillable hours for a simple web site. A site built by an expert might be better, but it would also cost more and I don't need anything better.
Not necessarily, if it is doing what you need it to do. In that case, the professional aspect would likely fall more into the graphic design / marketing / SEO or areas like those. If you have expertise in these areas, then you'd do as good as others. That said, the problem I often see with websites (as a whole) is that hardly anyone has experience in hardware, networking, security, hosting/serving OSs and details, HTML, CSS, JavaScript/PHP, CMSs, or other aspects higher up the chain, including graphic design, marketing, etc.
So, to really do a website right, it takes a pretty expensive team, or outsourcing of certain aspects. The approach I took was to find the best hosting (which eliminated about 6 of those roles), then find an excellent theme (which eliminated a few), on top of a good CMS for power and flexibility. Then I know how to source software (from past experience), so I'm good at picking plugins that are well-built and have good support, etc. That allows me quite a bit of power before I even touch code (which I'm fairly a newbie at... though I've been tweaking dozens of languages for years).
Comments
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Sparkle does obfuscate the mailto: in the javascript and suggest you use a contact form instead, and more in general is very privacy focused, it even includes the cookie banner.
I think dreamweaver and frontpage gave WYSIWYG website builders a bad rap, Sparkle sites generally get 100/100 on google page speed, Sparkle supports complex stuff such as CSS shapes for text wrapping around image transparency, it has pixel perfect web font layout, etc. Not your run of the mill WYSIWYG website builder.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Agree to disagree? Happy to discuss specifics.
Nah, Sparkle sites are responsive via media queries, single page for all layouts.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
I'd encourage you to check a few Sparkle sites to see where the responsive grid appears to be lacking:
mixiteasy.be
purelynx.com
lioneldarian.com
rvarchitects.com
whatalaughphotobooth.com
dierenartsfrankslegers.be
Some website builders give you more canned components and it's faster to build a website, but you lose control and websites all look the same. But this is a case where cooking things a bit longer leads to better results.
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
A way to "unlink" elements between layouts would be welcome, too. For example, the desktop layout I created includes a huge banner across the top of the home page (see http://v5vaudio.com). It doesn't scale nicely to a phone layout, so while trying to create that format (I haven't uploaded that part yet) I just deleted the banner. Unfortunately that removed it from the desktop layout as well!
P.S. Thanks for joining the forum to discuss your product!
We are fully aware of the limitations of that approach and are working to make that particular workflow faster.
That's done via the "Show on this device" checkbox in the arrange pane.
Duncan
I think that distinction is important to keep in mind. While it is possible to create static web pages that outperform a CMS (and thus, maybe a good reason to do so for some applications), it's also a bit of an apple-oranges situation. A CMS gives the ability to dynamically change content or even structure on the fly (for example, no need for a desktop/mobile version).
Then there are things like e-commerce, e-learning, mail lists, forms, membership, and on and on... which pretty much require a dynamic environment to do properly.
I hate to sound so opposed... but also want people to realize that a websites aren't just websites (as in one common thing). It is really important to understand why you're creating a website and what it is intended to do, then pick the foundational technology and 'builder' environment. A tool like this sounds great for a hobbyist or for creating one-off pages or small sites with no intention of expansion. (That said, if this is desktop/mobile oriented, rather than properly responsive... I'm not sure I can even recommend it for that.)
As above, I think different tools for different applications. No doubt, something like WordPress takes more technical knowledge and support to get the additional power. But, I think in general, yeah, we'd have to agree to disagree as the pool of situations I'd recommend such a tool would be pretty small/specific. (I've seen too many 'I just need a simple website.' situations turn into otherwise after not too long.)
re: responsive - That's good. The article talked about having a desktop and mobile version (which I'd strongly recommend against). If it is properly responsive, that's great to hear.
And, as also stated above, this isn't anything against your tool in particular. I'm sure it is great for what it is. I wouldn't recommend Dreamweaver or such either. IMO, it's just the wrong foundation for the majority of websites anymore. (BTW, I used to build websites with Claris Home Page back in the day... but CMS or full-custom developed is a much better fit for most sites these days.)
IMO, you want to be moving away from laying anything out for specific screen-sizes/devices.
Sparkle integrates with ecommerce platforms via code embedding, I did a live youtube about this:
Sparkle has forms built-in, and well you do mailing lists via mailchimp like everybody I guess.
I'm not discounting the need for custom developments for larger or more complex sites, but whether you think a CMS is needed or not really comes down to what experience you have building client sites I guess, we have thousands of customers building their own sites and sure we have feature requests for additional functionality, but by and large a static site builder is enough in many cases.
Saying that a CMS gives you the ability to change content and structure on the fly is really disingenuous, someone needs to have designed the template or components that you use to pour the content in, and those come with limitations or tradeoffs. Sparkle has different tradeoffs, which are more geared towards creating a custom layout with attention to detail in all layouts and precise control over how text will be laid out. What webapps like wix/weebly/squarespace have is all the bad things that come with webapps, such as occasionally losing your content or drag and drop becoming "sticky", terrible integration with desktop apps, etc. It's not all sunshine and rainbows.
One thing that CMSs seem to have in common is to have a really hard time at pushing optimization and page performance. They also dangle off of a database, so they often are slow, and worst case they're really really slow and insecure. That's a fact of life of a self-installed wordpress by the way, not FUD.
What you call additional power I call looking for trouble. I really wish a statistic was available but I'd be really surprised if more than a minor fraction of wordpress sites out there used any significant amount of the flexibility of the platform.
The web is swinging back towards static sites, performance and security are the main reason. I don't blame you for advocating for CMSs, it's kind of the modern day "can't be fired for buying Microsoft". And I'm also not saying Sparkle is for perfect for every site.
Just consider how much 1) advertising money is spent by squarespace/wix/weebly to convince you they're the best solution (so much so blogs and podcasts don't want our advertising money), 2) how much investment and interest there is in the wordpress ecosystem (because people buy themes, plugins, consulting).
Duncan (Sparkle co-developer)
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said. I also haven't dug into the code your tool generates, but I've yet to see such a tool create great code. iWeb was nasty awful, for example.
And, unless you write good, custom code, you don't necessarily get speed. Yes, a WordPress site takes far more server resources and tuning to get speed, but also comes with a lot more flexibility and power. But, take a look at my site or my client's sites, and you'll find they are pretty darn fast, especially considering what they do. But, yes, given the same server resources, a static site will be faster.
Sure, you can add things like e-commerce or e-learning by offloading them to 3rd party solutions that you 'embed'. Each business will have to decide if that's the best option, but several of my clients couldn't do what they are doing with such solutions.... and none of them are big companies/organizations by any stretch. As I said, in my experience, most even small companies quickly run into the "we'd like it to do X" problem.
Also, I'm not necessarily arguing for Wix or SquareSpace, but for a company with little to no budget, they should probably consider them as well as something like your solution. I've seen some pretty nice SquareSpace sites. The problem typical comes with a bit of growth and then hitting the limitations. But, I guess my reason for pointing people that way is that it's also a relatively low time/$ investment, too.
Another area is stuff like SEO, where a WordPress site and add a plugin like Yoast SEO and quickly have a great interface and SEO potential. Also, it isn't that you can't do forms or email lists, but expanding on them is difficult. For example, what if I wanted to create a form on one of your sites that included conditional field functionality? Or, deliver a product? Or, take a payment? Or, how long would it take you to integrate with Moneris so you can take Canadian Interac payments?
The devil is in the details on stuff like this. If it is just a 5 page business site where they need to fill out a contact form and maybe purchase a product or two via Shopify, then maybe a static site will suffice.
So, no, I don't think it is the modern day "can't get fired for buying Microsoft"... it's more an apples/oranges thing. Yes, SquareSpace, etc. spend tons of money on marketing, and I'd not recommend them for most people, either. It's just that most people don't have the graphics-design capabilities or the technical capabilities to take care of their own site and hosting, so they are better off at SquareSpace. But, if they have the time/money, then I think they are better off going the CMS route.
That thinking has killed multiple website builders. As a software developer myself, I know full well that any code built by someone else is going to be not acceptable in one way or another. That's unfortunately a no winner proposition, and yet many many people want to create a website that works and performs well, without having to learn the code or the jargon.
I can assure you that we are focused on code that performs well, and yet I'm sure many people will have qualms about some random detail about it. We need to let go of the notion that for a website to work well it has to be hand coded. Not using code means at some point you'll hit a wall and the site will need a developer, which means $$$, our job as Sparkle developers is to push that wall as far as possible. This is working for way more people that many would think.
We score 100/100 in pagespeed very often, or upper 90s if not. No hand coding.
Your business depends on people wanting to do X, my business depends on people buying my software for $90 and realizing perhaps they don't really need X. So there's that.
I'm really not sure what you're suggesting here. The hosted services such as wix or squarespace will be quick to set up but carry a lifetime subscription fee.
Sparkle implements most of what Yoast does, SEO is built right in. Sure you can find examples where custom coding is necessary, and people can evaluate that on their own. I have never heard of Moneris or Canadian Interac, frankly none of our thousands of customers have ever asked either.
We have customers with hundreds of pages and people running real businesses, on the other hand personal or portfolio sites are probably the sweet spot for Sparkle for now (in many ways like iWeb was).
Agree to disagree?Duncan
In my particular case, if my only choice was to hire an expert to build my simple promo site I would have gone without because the value of the site wouldn't justify the cost. The low price of Sparkle Pro made it possible for me to leverage what would otherwise be downtime, essentially trading unbillable hours for a simple web site. A site built by an expert might be better, but it would also cost more and I don't need anything better.
Whether other, cheaper or even free options would have worked as well for such a simple project is another discussion. Personally I found Sparkle Pro to be the right balance between hassle and cost.
But, you don't necessarily have to learn to code to use a CMS either, or need a developer. You might if you want to customize it beyond what off-the-shelf plugins/themes can do, but there is an awful lot of 'out of the box' power available. To add that kind of stuff to a Sparkle website (if I understand correctly), you'd have to just embed it, or you're into custom-coding territory.
I guess my point would be that if you think you might need something beyond a basic site, which approach to take should be carefully considered. I don't advocate 'hand coding' either outside of companies with big budgets who need (or anticipate) high scalability or flexibility. For example, it makes sense for Facebook to custom code their site.
Fair enough.
Where does one host a Sparkle website, though? Most websites cost money, it's more about time/$ invested in creating them. For example, WordPress is free, as are many of the plugins. So, it's not fair saying your builder tool is 1-time $90 vs a lifetime monthly fee... again, apples/oranges.
Part of the reason I'd recommend SquareSpace, is that pretty much ALL of the technical aspects, and a lot of the graphic-design aspects, are taken care of. People just pick a nice 'theme' and add content, and the rest is taken care of for that monthly fee. That's worth something, especially for a simple site. If you use some tool to build a site (or download free WordPress)... that's just the beginning. Then comes the graphic design and web-hosting technical know-how either way. That's what most people are paying for. (I'd likewise say that a majority of WordPress sites out there weren't built by developers with lots of custom coding, either.)
That's good to hear (re: SEO). A lot of builder tools just don't address that.
re: Moneris / Interac - that was just an example of the kind of thing businesses run into. A recent client needed to serve clients who often don't have credit-cards (Interac is a Canadian debit-transaction service that is extremely popular... like more popular than Visa/MC). You'd spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars adding that kind of functionality to a site directly. But, there is a WordPress, WooCommerce plugin that adds it.
There are a zillion other things like this I've run into on nearly every site I've built except a couple of the most simple ones. It's easy to add a PayPal button, but once you get beyond that, it's going to be really expensive or complex to add functionality without some kind of CMS/plugin architecture (and massive developer community resources of something like WordPress).
What if one of your customers wants to deliver 5 to 10 GB educational video files for purchase? With WordPress, you add WooCommerce and an Amazon S3 plugin, and you're good to go. Or, what if you want protected membership content, where a new member needs to be authorized by the organization staff before access is given? Add MemberPress and a plugin that puts the new user on 'hold' until authorized.
I'm not saying some people, businesses or organizations don't just need some pages of info and images, maybe a simple form. A lot of sites start out that way. But, whether you go SquareSpace or a builder like yours, that's about where it stops. People just need to take that into consideration.
I guess I didn't literally mean a 5-page business site, but not 6.
The good thing about a static site, is that it does scale well... at least for what it does in terms of basic pages and functionality. It's a different kind of complexity I'm talking about.
That said, I'm not sure I can agree iWeb was idea for much of anything.... maybe web-days of old, but iWeb sites would be awful today. They were more in the mentality of the old web-studio where one designed a 'look' in Photoshop, and then tried to web-ize that. That isn't how a modern website is built.
And... I guess that's what caused my initial reaction, and what I've been trying to tease out here (aside from expandability or advanced capability debate)... whether Sparkle falls more in to the iWeb camp or modern web camp in terms of what it outputs.
Yeah, I think we'll have to on this. We're talking about two different approaches to websites with advantages/disadvantages... not some 'safe' thing to do just because.
Just to clarify... I haven't hand-coded a site since the 90s.
There would be a lower learning curve with Sparkle, but that is partly dependent on the hosting. The lowest learning curve would be a service where you just create an account and build. A CMS like WordPress has more of a learning curve.... unless you pick a good managed hosting service, in which case it's pretty push-button as well (though if you want a more advanced site, then there is again a learning curve).
A CMS will have more concern in terms of security, as you log into it, but both have concerns in terms of the hosting side of things... which is dependent on the hosting. You can get away with less expensive hosting with static sites than dynamic/CMS driven ones, as there isn't a database connection involved and the server doesn't have to dynamically 'build' the page.
Not necessarily, if it is doing what you need it to do. In that case, the professional aspect would likely fall more into the graphic design / marketing / SEO or areas like those. If you have expertise in these areas, then you'd do as good as others. That said, the problem I often see with websites (as a whole) is that hardly anyone has experience in hardware, networking, security, hosting/serving OSs and details, HTML, CSS, JavaScript/PHP, CMSs, or other aspects higher up the chain, including graphic design, marketing, etc.
So, to really do a website right, it takes a pretty expensive team, or outsourcing of certain aspects. The approach I took was to find the best hosting (which eliminated about 6 of those roles), then find an excellent theme (which eliminated a few), on top of a good CMS for power and flexibility. Then I know how to source software (from past experience), so I'm good at picking plugins that are well-built and have good support, etc. That allows me quite a bit of power before I even touch code (which I'm fairly a newbie at... though I've been tweaking dozens of languages for years).