Good but relatively inexpen$ive Web Design App?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Can anyone experienced in non-professional web editing/creation software recommend a good but relatively inexpensive application compatible on a PPC-G4? Someone has mentioned Freeway Express which is <$100 as I understand it. Anything roughly equivalent to the old and solid Claris Homepage? What are the options, capabilities and pricing? My need is simple: to create and keep updated a simple family history website with a few embedded links to other sites, perhaps some image files but no animation or sound files.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    jabohnjabohn Posts: 539member
    Have you looked at RapidWeaver?



    www.realmacsoftware.com



    There's also the free Nvu.



    www.nvu.com
  • Reply 2 of 22
    Of the two, RapidWeaver appears to be the most interesting and is also affordable. Have you used either of these? Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into them.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jabohn


    Have you looked at RapidWeaver?



    www.realmacsoftware.com



    There's also the free Nvu.



    www.nvu.com



  • Reply 3 of 22
    jabohnjabohn Posts: 539member
    I use RapidWeaver all the time. You can also try it before you buy it.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    TextWrangler. (Free)
  • Reply 5 of 22
    Textedit (free)
  • Reply 6 of 22
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    SInce GoLive is being dumped from CS, I'm also looking for a new Web Design App.



    I'm no coder, so I'm looking for WYSIWYG.



    Anyone have any insight on the pros and cons of RapidWeaver vs. Freeway vs. IWeb vs. Sandvox?



    I really don't want to try them all.
  • Reply 7 of 22
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Just replace it with what (for good reasons) Adobe/Macromedia are dropping GoLive for: Dreamweaver.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    The difference between upgrading to the Standard and Premium versions of CS2 is US$249.



    RapidWeaver is only $40., and DreamWeaver is likely overkill for me anyway.



    I think I'll come out ahead sticking with a lower end web design app.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    After starting with Rapidweaver a year or so ago, I'm now using iWeb. The wysiwyg is really great compared to rapidweaver, but iWeb falls significantly short compared to rapidweaver in site management issues. Unless you use .mac, you have to "publish to a folder" your whole site and then upload that folder with a separate ftp app. You can't even just edit and upload the individual pages that you change.



    I liked the editing and templates of iWeb much better than rapidweaver, and I'm hoping that the next release of iWeb significantly improves those site management and uploading issues. In the meantime, that part of it annoys the hell out of me and I often wish that I just stuck with rapidweaver.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Freeway Express found at www.softpress.com



    Dave
  • Reply 11 of 22
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    Any particular reason you like Freeway, Dave?



    Just looked at the site, and it's more than twice the price of Rapidweaver.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    which is these would be good for someone like me to start on? i have no idea where to start nor do i know the language and

    i need to make a webpage for work no matter how simple it may look.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    The difference is in approach.



    There are basically 2 ways of approaching a web design program. Template and WYSIWYG, with the upper end WYSIWYG programs transitioning to some form of hand coding. Plus of course there are text editors for hand coding.



    iWeb and Sandvox take the simple template approach, Rapidweaver and Goldfish take a more complex approach but still template based. They're fast and easy to set up. You can if desired tweak them enough so it's not instantly noticeable as a template from the program. Mainly however you just enter your content and go.



    iWeb (included with iLife '06) looks nice but the code (though it does validate) sucks. The pages are large and therefore take a while to load. The URL's are ugly and long. Uploading to other than .mac is a bit of a hassle. It's good for basic pages.



    Sandvox is the upscale version (Standard 49 USD and Pro 79 USD), of iWeb more or less. Essentially it fixes iWeb's flaws though it does do a few other things nicely.



    Rapidweaver (39.95 USD) is a little different. It's a little more complicated but the basics are easy enough to learn. Plus Rapidweaver has been around for a while so it has more polish and a decent plug-in architecture and themes are around for a couple bucks.



    Goldfish (34.95 USD) is a cross between basic templates (avoids iWeb's large files sizes) and a page layout program. It has less features then the other template editors but with greater design functionality and flexibility.





    The WYSIWYG editors are all more expensive and more complex. In this group you have Nvu, Seamonkey, Freeway (Express and Pro), GoLive and Dreamweaver.



    Nvu (Free) is the basic one. Offers all the basics expected but naturally lacks the features and polish of for-money competitors.



    Seamonkey (Free) is related to Nvu. It's decent enough for building a website from scratch, but is better used as the updating tool after you built one using Nvu.



    Freeway Express (99 USD, 89 USD download version) takes a different approach. It follows a page layout paradigm similar to Quark Xpress or Adobe Indesign. You're insulated from the code and it cares far more about how the web page will look then the code underneath (which is actually pretty good, though just HTML 4 in the Express version). Editing images in the program is also a nice bonus.



    Freeway Pro (279 USD) is indeed a different program the same way Final Cut Express and Pro are different programs. It offers additional features, more polish, and for all those people caring about the code XHTML 1.0 Strict is the top end of the various code exporting options. It is not about hand coding or semantic mark-up and doesn't even do a particularly good job at optimizing for search engines. It really is about design rather then code.



    Then we come to the 800 pound gorilla of web development, aside from the hand coders. Dreamweaver (399 USD). It's big, has lots of features, but really is designed for coding. It does offer a good WYSIWYG mode but the cost and learning time for Dreamweaver if you're not a professional makes the other options better.



    GoLive (399 USD) is pretty similar in features to Dreamweaver but offers some decent benefits that Dreamweaver lacks. However since Adobe bought Macromedia death ir probable. Otherwise most of the up and downsides are the same.







    I personally love Freeway. Primarily because it is at the heart a design/page layout program. It's not about code or templates or even WYSIWYG like the other programs it's generally compared to. It really is about making a website look like how you'd like the website to look. To be fair though the learning curve (unless you know page layout) is higher then Rapidweaver and the template family of programs, but (unless you know Dreamweaver/GoLive) the learning curve is quite a bit less then those and importantly you don't need to learn code. Which is not to say you need to learn code to use Dreamweaver, but that is where the program's strength's reside.





    Well I hope the roundup helped.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    RapidWeaver has been updated to 3.5.0 and there is a tutorial of the new features at ScreenCastsOnline. There are links so you can subscribe to their RSS or iTunes (Podcasts).



    Try one of the free apps and wait until MWSF2007 to see what improvements iWeb 2.0 gets before purchasing another product. To get an idea of what iWeb can do watch the Quick Tours videos.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Nice review Electric Monk.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell


    Nice review Electric Monk.



    Takes a bow. Thank you kindly gentle sir.



    I had to go through this a little while ago myself, and so I figured putting it down somewhere would be a good thing.



    Plus I dislike the whole learn-to-code thing you get a lot when people ask for help with web development. I personally have more than enough things to do on my plate, and being told to learn code when you really don't have to (unless you're a professional) these days bugs me.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    i used to think that way too back when i started out in this business. but the more experience i got, the quicker i came to the realization that i was just limiting what i could deliver. that's not to say that you have to go out and completely learn html, css, javascript, and etc right away although it helps. for me i was able to pick it up over time due to having to occasionally muck about in code when golive/dreamweaver did something goofy. if you are not able to easily access and modify the code generated by these apps, you will likely never learn much that will ultimately help you down the road. considering how easy it is these days to integrate your designs within a cms/publishing system/blog if you just understand the basics, you will just be destined to creating static pages.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    dazabritdazabrit Posts: 273member
    GoLive is NOT dead!!!



    Dreamweaver is going to be the Pro-end of Web Design in the new Adobe/Macromedia Suite and GoLive is being 're-imagined' as a feature-rich iWeb killer for the less technical of us human beens.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    All GoLive really needs is the Sidebar style of web design, an easy way to build database driven sites and Universal Binary status.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell


    Unless you use .mac, you have to "publish to a folder" your whole site and then upload that folder with a separate ftp app. You can't even just edit and upload the individual pages that you change.



    You may be interested in this MacOSXHints hint and its associated comments.
Sign In or Register to comment.