Do I need something other than iWeb?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Well, a good old text editor is not a bad choice if you're not new to HTML. Other than that, RapidWeaver is pretty decent and Sandvox is not bad. You also have the option of runnign Dreamweaver if you have a PPC Mac (or don't mind the speed-hit you get with an Intel Mac).

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    dac0nvudac0nvu Posts: 175member
    I've created my first iWeb site. While it was pretty easy to figure it out, I quickly found I couldn't do lots of stuff. So I'm wondering if I need something else (better). I keep finding myself wanting to know where the source html files are kept so I can edit them myself. I've tried searching for them with no luck. Has anyone ever done this? Can you edit the source html files without breaking the pages in iWeb?



    Or should I just get something a bit more advanced? Any suggestions? I'm still very new to the Mac and Mac software so iWeb was the first place I went. But I'm not new HTML or web design.



    -DJ
  • Reply 2 of 17
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dac0nvu

    I've created my first iWeb site. While it was pretty easy to figure it out, I quickly found I couldn't do lots of stuff. So I'm wondering if I need something else (better). I keep finding myself wanting to know where the source html files are kept so I can edit them myself. I've tried searching for them with no luck. Has anyone ever done this? Can you edit the source html files without breaking the pages in iWeb?



    Or should I just get something a bit more advanced? Any suggestions? I'm still very new to the Mac and Mac software so iWeb was the first place I went. But I'm not new HTML or web design.



    -DJ




    Try Shuttertbug from http://xtralean.com/ my 85 year old dad (and long time Mac user) has set up beautiful web sites using this and it took him one day to learn how. I use GoLive making web sites for a living and have even used Shutterbug to make parts of a web site and integrated those parts into a larger web site. It is an amazing piece of software.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    iWeb is great for personal use, but it comes up lacking when something more professional. What would really be nice is if Apple would release a professional cousin to iWeb to compete with frontpage.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    iWeb is great for personal use, but it comes up lacking when something more professional. What would really be nice is if Apple would release a professional cousin to iWeb to compete with frontpage.



    I agree, and why not three Apple versions... (just to follow the video editing example)

    iWeb Free, WebExpress $99 and WebPro ...$499 ...
  • Reply 5 of 17
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by digitalclips

    I agree, and why not three Apple versions... (just to follow the video editing example)

    iWeb Free, WebExpress $99 and WebPro ...$499 ...




    I agree except for pricing on the professional dreamweaver competitor. You gotta undercut adobe and sell it for $299.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,505member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    I agree except for pricing on the professional dreamweaver competitor. You gotta undercut adobe and sell it for $299.



    Ok but Apple would drop from $499 to $299 after the initial uptake and issue $200 Apple Store cedits like I got from Aperture.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Why would Apple create software that already exists, and is the industry standard (Dreamweaver)? Moreover, you can bet the 1.0 release would suck pretty hard, as per Aperture.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Bring something new and innovative to the table. iWeb's interface is revolutionary, but it lacks features. Add frontpage quality features for $99 and dreamweaver type features for $299 to that interface and you have something special.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    drnatdrnat Posts: 142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    Bring something new and innovative to the table. iWeb's interface is revolutionary, but it lacks features. Add frontpage quality features for $99 and dreamweaver type features for $299 to that interface and you have something special.



    Completley agree - Dreamweaver power with an apple UI and ease of use would be great!!
  • Reply 10 of 17
    It's a shame not more people here are aware of Freeway. It's like InDesign/Photoshop in one application, totally WYSIWYG and it generates W3C compliant code. It's a really great product and the company offers amazing support!



    This is my site done entirely* with Freeway: macanoid.com.



    (* with entirely, I really mean entirely. All image editing/cropping/manipulation, all typography etc, all done within Freeway. Freeway generates html, pngs, jpgs, gifs etc on the fly, and it doesn't change the source material)
  • Reply 11 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macanoid?

    This is my site done entirely* with Freeway: macanoid.com.



    The code may validate, but it's still completely crappy. \
  • Reply 12 of 17
    Not any crappier than the code I see generated by Dreamweaver, GoLive or iWeb I can't disagree that hand coding is much cleaner, but the code Freeway generates makes that it's pages look good in most (if not all) browser on most platforms. That means a lot to me too.



    But he, if you prefer hand coding, that I suppose it's not for you.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Actually, Dreamweaver's output tends to be better.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    These applications make me pissed! You little people should have to pay to have us web geeks overcharge you for your site instead of you having creative choice for such a low price! Argh!
  • Reply 15 of 17
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    The code may validate, but it's still completely crappy. \



    If you're talking about the excessive <div> usage, welcome to the future.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    If you're talking about the excessive <div> usage, welcome to the future.



    Actually, I don't even know where to start criticizing. What's with all the z-index properties, for instance?
  • Reply 17 of 17
    Actually, Freeway allows you to set the output to either 'more readable' or 'more efficient'. In my case it was set to 'more readable', which result in some extra code. (code that still validates btw!)

    With todays internet speeds a few extra lines of code don't have any effect on the speed of page-rendering, but it does take care of preventing rendering problems across browsers/platforms. The latter is more important to me.



    Coming from a design-background, I think Freeway is pretty amazing. Nothing can convince me otherwise. For me it's web design the Mac way
Sign In or Register to comment.