Best Web Design Software
- Thread starter ian
- Start date
Hello, I must admit my impatience and strangely slow connection got the better of me and I missed the middle 2 pages of this thread, but I have always used "1st Page 2000", it's free and handy for people just starting out as it gives you a description of all the tags and some mostly useless built in scripts.
I'm a professional web designer now and I still use it
.
They are apparently releasing a new version with WYSIWIG functions, but I think I'll stick with what I know.
I used Dreamweaver for about 3 days but I really don't get on with Macromedia software (I'm still struggling with Flash) and just deleted the trial. Don't even get me started on FrontPage, we get clients bringing their old sites done in Frontpage and I have to sit taking them apart and recoding them for days. Grr.
I'm a professional web designer now and I still use it
.They are apparently releasing a new version with WYSIWIG functions, but I think I'll stick with what I know.
I used Dreamweaver for about 3 days but I really don't get on with Macromedia software (I'm still struggling with Flash) and just deleted the trial. Don't even get me started on FrontPage, we get clients bringing their old sites done in Frontpage and I have to sit taking them apart and recoding them for days. Grr.
www.evrsoft.com, it's free and well worth a look.
Though from the point of view of anyone who is used to different software, it's probably not that great.
Though from the point of view of anyone who is used to different software, it's probably not that great.
nymthehavoc
New Member
I am using DW since the beginning, although I have to admit it makes man a littly lazy somethimes and dont let creativity to fly.
I tried frontpage but didnt like it.
and lately tried golive for a day or so but as the new DW has total CSS support and golive dont I would not change for that either.
I like css a lot it makes design so much easier
I tried frontpage but didnt like it.
and lately tried golive for a day or so but as the new DW has total CSS support and golive dont I would not change for that either.
I like css a lot it makes design so much easier
Vaelor
New Member
As I mentioned in the other thread (which probably prompted this one), I have never used Frontpage. And by that, I don't mean I've never touched it whatsoever, I mean it's never been my editor of choice, not even out of inexperience or ignorance, when I first got into web design, etc. I've taken a look at it out of curiosity, but was immediately appaled with what I saw and admittedly have avoided it like being kicked in the groin ever since then.
I began my webdev with Netscape Composer, which I still sometimes crack open if I'm working on something I just don't care about (ie. correcting somebody else's work for them without compensation, etc.). Then I discovered Allaire Homesite, which I loved for it's middle-ground position of having both a WYSIWYG editor, and a code editor, which had wonderful color coding in it. The more I learnt about HTML, the more I found myself designing my web pages in the code window rather than the WYSIWYG window, until finally I was only using the WYSIWYG as a quick way to preview my work without having to save it and open it in a seperate browser window.
Also, Homesite had a fantastic CodeSweeper feature, which cleaned out junk code and excess obscelete HTML tags from any HTML page. It could chop a Frontpage generated page down to a tenth of its filesize in seconds flat. >=)
In those days, Homesite was integratable in some ways with Macromedia Dreamweaver (and if not I'm not mistaken, was eventually bought out by Macromedia in the end and just integrated into Dreamweaver?) which piqued my curiosity to check out the latter package. I liked the interface, and the generated code was much cleaner than Frontpage, though still a little chunkier than I'd already come to like it by that stage. I used for a while for more complex matters like layers and image maps, but stuck to hand coding my basic HTML work.
Eventually I was only using Homesite as a pretty colored text editor, and it used to crash a lot on my buggy old Win98 system at the time, so one day I needed an OS reinstall and just left Homesite off.
Ever since then I've been doing all my web design work in a text editor called NoteTab Light, a freeware Notepad replacement with a couple of nifty features like one-click Preview in Browser, Multiple Open Document Tabs, and Strip HTML Tags (dare I say it again, REALLY useful for cleaning up Frontpage generated pages! =P). Besides these little perks, it's basically just a plain text editor though - I haven't even touched a WYSIWYG editor in several years now.
So there you have it. In short, if I had to use (or recommend) a WYSIWYG package, it'd be Homesite - if it still exists! - or Dreamweaver if it doesn't, but personally I use a text editor for everything these days, and wouldn't have it any other way.
I began my webdev with Netscape Composer, which I still sometimes crack open if I'm working on something I just don't care about (ie. correcting somebody else's work for them without compensation, etc.). Then I discovered Allaire Homesite, which I loved for it's middle-ground position of having both a WYSIWYG editor, and a code editor, which had wonderful color coding in it. The more I learnt about HTML, the more I found myself designing my web pages in the code window rather than the WYSIWYG window, until finally I was only using the WYSIWYG as a quick way to preview my work without having to save it and open it in a seperate browser window.
Also, Homesite had a fantastic CodeSweeper feature, which cleaned out junk code and excess obscelete HTML tags from any HTML page. It could chop a Frontpage generated page down to a tenth of its filesize in seconds flat. >=)
In those days, Homesite was integratable in some ways with Macromedia Dreamweaver (and if not I'm not mistaken, was eventually bought out by Macromedia in the end and just integrated into Dreamweaver?) which piqued my curiosity to check out the latter package. I liked the interface, and the generated code was much cleaner than Frontpage, though still a little chunkier than I'd already come to like it by that stage. I used for a while for more complex matters like layers and image maps, but stuck to hand coding my basic HTML work.
Eventually I was only using Homesite as a pretty colored text editor, and it used to crash a lot on my buggy old Win98 system at the time, so one day I needed an OS reinstall and just left Homesite off.
Ever since then I've been doing all my web design work in a text editor called NoteTab Light, a freeware Notepad replacement with a couple of nifty features like one-click Preview in Browser, Multiple Open Document Tabs, and Strip HTML Tags (dare I say it again, REALLY useful for cleaning up Frontpage generated pages! =P). Besides these little perks, it's basically just a plain text editor though - I haven't even touched a WYSIWYG editor in several years now.
So there you have it. In short, if I had to use (or recommend) a WYSIWYG package, it'd be Homesite - if it still exists! - or Dreamweaver if it doesn't, but personally I use a text editor for everything these days, and wouldn't have it any other way.
Some years back I tried building a site for my employer with NetObjects Fusion. I can honestly say that the version I used was worse than Front Page. After it deleted pages I made, crashed continually while uploading, and caused me to redo all of my work three times, Front Page was a welcome relief. Of course it didn't take long to hate Front Page, and I eventually found Dreamweaver, which I still use. At one time I used Front Page in conjunction with Dreamweaver: if I had tables to design, I'd design them in Front Page and paste the code into Dreamweaver. I've always liked Front Page's table designer. But that's about it. Front Page also has the annoying habit of breaking ASP code, bizarre, since both are MS technologies. InterDev 6.0 wasn't too bad back in the day, but it's now very obsolete wth VS.NET integration.
How does the latest software rate on support of XHTML? Is there a push for it, or are they ignoring it?
How does the latest software rate on support of XHTML? Is there a push for it, or are they ignoring it?
i agree with you on NetObjects Fusion. I have had nothing but bad experience with their software as well. I last used it at my previous job about 2 years ago. not sure why, but my employer loved that program. :shrug:
I have never written any asp code in front page, only dreamweaver, i am suprised to hear that front page has problems with it. it quite sad really, when you think about it.
I have never written any asp code in front page, only dreamweaver, i am suprised to hear that front page has problems with it. it quite sad really, when you think about it.
ian said:
ummm ... not everyone hates front page and some very large corporations use it as their primary designing tool. The dislike of FP98 and therefore every rendition of FP since then is totally misplaced, particularly in the light of the fantastic improvements in FP2003.
Take a look at the ugly code dreamweaver is putting out and compare it to the latest FP ... FP is catching up quick and DW's latest rendition is unimpressive.
Vivvy
drummondjacob
New Member
As do I: the sloppy internal CSS code that FP generates is nothing when compared to the fine control that Dreamweaver gives you.
The reason FP is still quite popular is simple: It's ridiculously easy to use, providing Word-like formatting... what people don't realise is that all this formatting is is being done by sloppily written, INTERNAL stylesheets. People hear that DWMX2004 is amazing, but are confonted by a comparitively daunting screen layout.
Furthermore which "very large corporations" use FP as their main Web Design tool, Vivvy?
The reason FP is still quite popular is simple: It's ridiculously easy to use, providing Word-like formatting... what people don't realise is that all this formatting is is being done by sloppily written, INTERNAL stylesheets. People hear that DWMX2004 is amazing, but are confonted by a comparitively daunting screen layout.
Furthermore which "very large corporations" use FP as their main Web Design tool, Vivvy?
Vaelor
New Member
Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me. =) Sure, FP2k3 is probably better than FP98, but it's still not better than not using FP. >=)Vivvy said:
Microsoft, of course. =Pdrummondjacob said:
BTW, good to see you here Vivvy. Was beginning to worry that with the fall of WMF, I might never see you again! =)
Vaelor
New Member
Just looking at another thread here prompted me with the urge to reiterate what is, granted, a fairly overused and redundant to repeat, but still very relevant point...
Look at http://www.eazyhtml.com/... when HTML is this easy to learn, why resort to a WYSIWYG editor at all, unless it's to delve into the seriously hardcore aspects of web design? If you just want to bang up a simple page, just code it up! We live in a lazy, lazy world, when people feel that spending five minutes to do something poorly is better than spending fifteen minutes to do it well. That's like kids in chat rooms (or, in fact, ANY text based medium these days!) writing '2' instead of 'to' - because of course, that extra single keystroke really slows you down! =/
Vaelor = Broken record, I know... but still, I could live to be a hundred and never understand why people prefer to cut corners for convenience instead of just doing something right...
Look at http://www.eazyhtml.com/... when HTML is this easy to learn, why resort to a WYSIWYG editor at all, unless it's to delve into the seriously hardcore aspects of web design? If you just want to bang up a simple page, just code it up! We live in a lazy, lazy world, when people feel that spending five minutes to do something poorly is better than spending fifteen minutes to do it well. That's like kids in chat rooms (or, in fact, ANY text based medium these days!) writing '2' instead of 'to' - because of course, that extra single keystroke really slows you down! =/
Vaelor = Broken record, I know... but still, I could live to be a hundred and never understand why people prefer to cut corners for convenience instead of just doing something right...
Vaelor
New Member
zkiller said:
Y'know, I was pretty tempted to say that myself, but I figured that would just be pushing it... =)
Seriously though, I can't say I've ever heard of any corporations, very large or even very small, that use Frontpage as their primary design tool. The only instance I can think of is small offline businesses ( < 10 employees) who outsource to an independant contractor to design them a company website, and then Honest John Contractor charges them $50 an hour for a "professional web presence", then bangs it up in Frontpage in half an hour and bills them six hours work for it. =) That I've heard done....
drummondjacob
New Member
"then bangs it up in Frontpage in half an hour and bills them six hours work for it. =) That I've heard done...." - Vaelor
A couple of my friends have been ripped-off like that. However it's extremely easy spot a website based on an FP template, so just avoid those web deigners. Also, even if you were using DW you couldn't create a profesional looking site in six hours.
One last thing, there is a reason why FP seems so awful: it simply isn't aimed at the professional market. Microsoft only says it is to make the home users (who do buy it) feel secure.
A couple of my friends have been ripped-off like that. However it's extremely easy spot a website based on an FP template, so just avoid those web deigners. Also, even if you were using DW you couldn't create a profesional looking site in six hours.
One last thing, there is a reason why FP seems so awful: it simply isn't aimed at the professional market. Microsoft only says it is to make the home users (who do buy it) feel secure.
StephanieCordray
New Member
drummondjacob said:
I don't know anybody who can do a website in 6 hours and have it look decent, let alone half an hour.
Templates are templates are templates regardless if you Frontpage, Dreamweaver, TopStyle, any other wysiwig editor, or even notepad.
Yes it is easy for home users but you can use it for a lot more if you know how to use it. Trust me, I've seen some splendid sites done using FP. Given the attitude exhibited here toward the product none of you would know that without looking in the source code so don't be so quick to judge it just because you can't use it with the same skill.
My own preference is for Dreamweaver but there are a lot of reasons for that. I like having both the code and design view available at all times... I can't do that in FP. I have to switch windows. In addtion, Dreamweaver has better support for css, php, etc. But that doesn't mean I hate FP. I see it's limitations for me considering that I focus on content management systems more than anything else is all.
For static web pages, FP is plenty good enough. I think webmasters like putting it down because it has made it so much easier for the do it yourself site builder to do their own and it seriously cuts into money webmasters could be making even for small sites. While I can understand that, it's not a good reason to put a product down. Besides, being able to use a wysiwig editor doesn't really make them designers or even better designers... I'm not very good at it myself but I can use those editors and notepad very well, lol.
i started with FP once and with time i learned to hate it while using it! if the average joe wants to make his one site, the more power to him and i'd even offer him advice/help if he ask me for it.
the layout and some of the basic coding for nmpoc.com i did in about an hour using dreamweaver and photoshop. then came the more complex asp scrips for the user profiles and so forth, so i probably have a bit over 6 hrs into it now, but point being is, that you can whip up a site in dreamweaver just as fast as in front page, given that you know the interface and how to use it.
if the average joe wants to make his one site, the more power to him and i'd even offer him advice/help if he ask me for it. the layout and some of the basic coding for nmpoc.com i did in about an hour using dreamweaver and photoshop. then came the more complex asp scrips for the user profiles and so forth, so i probably have a bit over 6 hrs into it now, but point being is, that you can whip up a site in dreamweaver just as fast as in front page, given that you know the interface and how to use it.