Best web-authoring software?

[law guy]

What are folks preferences between GoLive, Frontpage, or... My interest is to create some pages that beyond what .Mac offers. Sure, .Mac is much more convenient than back when I had to transfer my files through DOS onto a university server, but I'm butting up against what the templates will allow. Thanks for reflections on your web authoring software preference.

[Rower_CPU]

Dreamweaver. Period.

It's pretty much the standard for web authoring at this point.

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Dreamweaver. Period.

Agreed. Exclaimation Mark!.

-Doc

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Dreamweaver. Period.

It's pretty much the standard for web authoring at this point.

rowan, i was wondering about something that maybe you could answer for me. i just started using dreamweaver and they go on about how you can enter values for cell height and width within a table. but then they go on to say that in order to stay compatible with most browser you SHOULDNT enter values for a cells height and width. im confused.

the book that said that is from new riders. its called Inside Dreamweaver MX.

heres the actual text.

Dont set the width and height attributes of table rows or cells to specify these dimensions.......this does not work consistently and will most likely cause table problems.

then it goes on to say...

dont rely on splitting or merging tabel cells, some browsers have a difficult time rendering table code containing these attributes, and with a little planning, the same effect can be producted in other ways.

can you please tell me how im suppose to have a fixed with cell if i cant specify the dimensions.

and can you explain to me the ways that they say i should use to get the same effect of merging table cells.

thank you very much.

[Rower_CPU]

I think they're referring to the fact that specifying widths/heights is not part of the current HTML spec and newer browsers might ignore the values.

It's better to allow the cells to adapt to the content that fits inside.

As for column spans, I think it still works fine.

[wsteineker]

Rower's right there. I just finished a site this morning that was a prime example of the aforememtioned problem. Most table cells can be set to auto stretch, so that takes care of width issues. As for height issues, just draw a new table to fit the graphic you're hoping to use and then create cells within that table to fill. It's pretty easy stuff.

In case you can't tell, I also recommend Dreamweaver. It just rocks. I can't recommend it highly enough. As for companion books, I'd recommend Dreamweaver MX: The Missing Manual by David Sawyer McFarland. It's edited by David Pogue and published by Pogue Press and O'Reilly. The whole Missing Manual series is great, but this one is an absolute gem. Easy for first time users to understand, but thorough enough that even power users can learn a thing or two. It's been an invaluable asset.

[tjwett]

Originally posted by beatle888
...can you please tell me how im suppose to have a fixed with cell if i cant specify the dimensions.

and can you explain to me the ways that they say i should use to get the same effect of merging table cells.

thank you very much.

what i do alot is make "spacergifs", atleast that's what i call them. they are usually bars of a plain color and have the certain width that i want. if it needs to appear more than once just use the same image to save load times. usually you can get them to be less than 1k in size though. it's best to use the content of a cell to declare it's size.

[anneleonard]

Originally posted by law guy
What are folks preferences between GoLive, Frontpage, or...
Sorry- no-one else has picked up on this... but frontpage? :eek: PLEASE , whatever you do, don't use frontpage. it produces the most ugly, clunky webpages, and there's much better alternatives.
I use Dreamweaver MX, there's so many useful little aspects to it, I don't think I'll ever know about all the features that could help me write webpages.

[losfp]

My weapon of choice is HomeSite, but since you can't get it for Mac, at home I have to use Dreamweaver MX - a close and worthy second place winner :) I pretty much use the code view exclusively, and the site/file management features are sweet! now if only it had tabbed code windows...

[AlphaTech]

I'm going to be the non-conformist here and go with GoLive [6].

When I was looking for a web authoring package I downloaded the trial versions of BOTH Dreamweaver and GoLive (mx and 6). I have to say, the trial version of Dreamweaver blew massive chunks all over the place. With GoLive I was able to see how things would look (very handy preview function where you do NOT have to save the file first). GoLive also has multiple undo's, so you can even go back to the point where you opened the document. That comes in handy if you hit save and then realize that you need to go back a few steps (or more). GoLive also has a built-in, very easy to use FTP client. I use it more then Fetch, even though I purchased Fetch. GoLive can also easily handle flash content as well as anything else you might want to toss into the pages. You can view the pages in several different ways, from layout (graphic) to source (the code) to a split screen, and even a preview (I prefer to preview in a browser).

GoLive also has an integrated site management system. I'd hope that Dreamweaver has something similar, but with GoLive, I use that small window to show my site folder (on my drive) as well as the ftp clint part. That means it's a simply drag-n-drop to upload/download files to/from my site. I even think that the ftp part of GoLive is faster then Fetch, or at least it doesn't time out like Fetch does at times.

Hands down, GoLive is a snap to use, and doesn't cost any more then Dreamweaver (they are within $10 of each other). Oh, and creating tables is too easy with GoLive...

Whatever you do, don't use Frontpage. If you need a way to decide for yourself, download the trial versions of both GoLive and Dreamweaver. I did, and it did help my decision.

[JupiterZen]

Originally posted by law guy
What are folks preferences between GoLive, Frontpage, or... My interest is to create some pages that beyond what .Mac offers. Sure, .Mac is much more convenient than back when I had to transfer my files through DOS onto a university server, but I'm butting up against what the templates will allow. Thanks for reflections on your web authoring software preference.

A simple text editor and a couple of browsers for testing is all a good webdeveloper really needs.

BBEdit is nice because of the code coloring.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by JupiterZen
A simple text editor and a couple of browsers for testing is all a good webdeveloper really needs.

BBEdit is nice because of the code coloring.

For the novice/beginner, the web authoring applications are a god-send. For one thing, you don't have to learn/figure out the codes for things like tables. For people that don't know HTML (or XHTML) code, the applications make things very easy.

BBEdit is decent, but it doesn't have all the functions/features of either DreamweaverMX or GoLive 6.

[law guy]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I'm going to be the non-conformist here and go with GoLive [6].


Have you found the integration of GoLive with photoshop / illustrator to be helpful or not a big deal?

[AlphaTech]

I haven't used Illustrator files in my site. Photoshop on the other hand works very well with GoLive. It makes things easier then it could be. Of course, I am talking about PS7, since it's OS X native. I'm using all software in OS X now. I don't even use classic mode any longer, for anything.

[Mr. Anderson]

I've used dreamweaver and golive, they both have their moments. I prefer golive myself, but it basically comes down to what you're happy learning yourself.

Either one will be able to do pretty much what ever you'd like.

D

[iTarzan]

A simple text editor and a couple of browsers for testing is all a good webdeveloper really needs.

Amen brother.

[JupiterZen]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
For the novice/beginner, the web authoring applications are a god-send. For one thing, you don't have to learn/figure out the codes for things like tables. For people that don't know HTML (or XHTML) code, the applications make things very easy.

BBEdit is decent, but it doesn't have all the functions/features of either DreamweaverMX or GoLive 6.


I wasn't naming BBEdit for its HTML features, only because it's a nice text editor. Better that using Textedit.

Webauthoring tools almost always make my brain hurt. Palletes full of buttons with icons just so you don't have to understand what you are doing anymore. Nice if you're fooling around at home, but I don't know anybody who is professionally developing websites that is using an authoring tool like Dreamweaver or GoLive.

Only handcoded you can get the best cross browser compatibility and the best control over what happens. Coding around the HTML specs to achieve the things that you want.

[AlphaTech]

JupiterZen, The guy is asking for opinions on the three packages he listed. From what I take from his comments, he doesn't want to have to learn HTML/XHTML code right away to create the pages he wants. I use GoLive BECAUSE you can use the application for setting up items that can be a pain in the a$$ to set up if you are not a web guru (which I'm not). Setting up tables and such with the packages is a hell of a lot easier then trying to do it via code.

With that in mind, I typically view my web pages in the source view and make changes there. The main reason I do that is because I am using css, and the pages don't display properly in the WYSIWYG mode.

ALL of my pages (sans the store and discussion boards) are XHTML Strict encoded. I took the time to make sure they meet the w3 standards for such. The pages display properly in the major browsers (IE, Netscape and Opera) which are the ones I checked with. I have listed on my contact page which versions I tested and which operating systems I tested them under (OSX and windows).

GoLive ALSO color codes all code type entries, so you can easily see them. It also helps that it colors all text following the call out until you have closed the tag.

I did have some assistance in learning about coding when I started my site. Before that, I had not done ANY web page creation. With the minimal assistance I received from my friend (who's job it is to create web pages for a large corporation) as well as how GoLive handles things, I was able to learn what I needed to fast.

I will NOT advocate that the novice web designer jump right into something like BBEdit since that can make it many times more difficult then it needs to be. The web development applications are MORE then just text editors. For one thing, GoLive's ftp part, and site management are god-sends. I use both constantly. I can easily manage my pages with the site manager as well as choose from a variety of templates (if I choose to). I didn't use the templates, since I wanted something different then what they offered.

I also have to seriously recommend staying clear of any use of Quark 5 or InDesign for web page creation. They do NOT do even a moderate job at it. Quark 5 actually causes serious issues since you can't (or at least not easily) create pages that flow dynamically based upon the window size. That is one of the major things I needed in my site. I wanted to make sure that as long as people keep the window to a resonable minimum width the pages would display properly and not force you to scroll left to right. I hate sites/pages that do that.

[iGav]

I'm with Alpha.... GoLive all the way for me.... :)

[JupiterZen]

AlphaTech,

I agree it's easy to create things like tables and complex frame setups with tools like Dreamweaver. I admit doing it myself time to time. But having to learn the trade myself in the days before these tools even existed, I formed a very good understanding of what I was doing. And I think this understanding of the basics by having to find out yourself will always pay of in the future.

These tools like Dreamweaver make it look really difficult to even create a simple webpage, with all the options they provide. Doing it by hand might be a little bit harder in the beginning, but HTML isn't much of a real "programming language". And IMO the basics of tags around what they modify is easily understood.

Than you're off creating simple pages AND you know what you are doing. Without having to learn another complex application like Dreamweaver.

But maybe I'm just a little to eager to learn how things work. Some people just want to click and go.

I must agree with you on not even considering things like Quark or InDesign. These apps are created for a completely different purpose and mistakenly got these HTML export options in the middle of the internet hype.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I think they're referring to the fact that specifying widths/heights is not part of the current HTML spec and newer browsers might ignore the values.

It's better to allow the cells to adapt to the content that fits inside.

As for column spans, I think it still works fine.


thanks!

[iJon]

golive all the way for me. but i never used dreamweaver that much. i used both and i just seemed to pick up on things on golive faster.

iJon

[Doctor Q]

My experience: Front Page (on Windows), Dreamweaver 4, Dreamweaver MX, and a text editor.

What I use most often: text editor.

What I recommend: Dreamweaver MX.

The last version of Front Page I used (about a year ago) didn't even produce proper HTML. Tags were incorrectly nested, so HTML parsers I tried to use choked on its output. The one advantage to Front Page is if you are running the web site on a Windows server with IIS and want to take advantage of the Windows-only features of Front Page and IIS.

[steeleclipse]

web design isnt really my favorite thing to do, yet it pays the bills. for people like me, Freeway is quite effective. does anybody else like it?

[filipp]

I agree with JupiterZen, all a hardcore developer needs is a good text editor, and the browsers to test things in. I have been using Mac for one day now and I have actually started learning BBEdit, great stuff I must say. All this dreamweaver, goLive and so on, you dont make the HTML the way YOU want it, but rather the way macromedia or adobe things you should.

It takes more brainwork to do web developing in a texteditor, but that's the way I work, no complains ;)

Go BBEdit!

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by filipp
All this dreamweaver, goLive and so on, you dont make the HTML the way YOU want it, but rather the way macromedia or adobe things you should.

Not even close bubba... I've been using GoLive to work on my site since I redesigned it. I originally used Quark 5 just to get something up, since I knoew 0 html code, and didn't even know where to start. A friend of mine helped me to learn the very basics of html code and I jumped in with GoLive.

MOST of the time, I use the "Source" view, which allows you to do anything you want since it acts [essentially] as you much louded text editor. GoLive does NOTHING to the code of my pages, unless I tell it to. Since I work on the source 99.5% of the time, I can see everything that is being put there. The remaining .5% of the time has to do with special projects that I took on for where I used to work. I used the layout view to make the table for a web page to send out pages to pagers. It was a hell of a lot easier to do it via the layout view then to try and do it via html code. Especially since I had never created tables before. It was also a snap to change the tables that way. I attempted to alter the source to change the tables, but even bbedit screwed the pooch there.

Also, unless you have actually used the applications, you have no grounds for your comments about them. I HAVE used Dreamweaver, GoLive as well as bbedit. The one application that I stick with is GoLive. It's just better then the others, at least for me, for creating pages, uploading them, and previewing them. Bbedit's system for previewing pages forces you to save them first, not so with GoLive. I can make any changes I like, preview it, make more changes, preview again, and then save before uploading the page.

If you don't feel like learning tons of html code immediately, and before, you create your pages, use something like GoLive. If you want to spend the next X days reading up on html, and trying to figure it out and then trouble shoot the pages when they don't display/load properly, then go with the text editor. Personally, I'd rather learn things on my own schedule.

Oh, and BTW, if you have every used an Adobe product, then GoLive is a snap to learn. Especially since it comes with manuals. It also comes with LiveMotion2, at least the copy I picked up did. Dreamweaver is a bit more difficult to learn, but not impossible (as some would have you believe).

[anneleonard]

But i'm using dreamweaver in just code-view- does that make me any less of a web-coder? I haven't tried BBEdit yet even though I have got a demo version, but dreamweaver seems a bit more user-friendly with quick inserts and pop-up helps for inputting variable names, etc.
As an aside to this, somewhat, has anyone else noticed safari using stylesheets completely differently from camino, IE, mozilla etc? its not exactly a mainstream browser, but its weird in a stylesheet that it won't read

a.stylename:hover {}

when every other browser will! Its been quite infuriating, but I've come out of the other side reasonably unscathed:rolleyes:

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by anneleonard
But i'm using dreamweaver in just code-view- does that make me any less of a web-coder? I haven't tried BBEdit yet even though I have got a demo version, but dreamweaver seems a bit more user-friendly with quick inserts and pop-up helps for inputting variable names, etc.
As an aside to this, somewhat, has anyone else noticed safari using stylesheets completely differently from camino, IE, mozilla etc? its not exactly a mainstream browser, but its weird in a stylesheet that it won't read

a.stylename:hover {}

when every other browser will! Its been quite infuriating, but I've come out of the other side reasonably unscathed:rolleyes:

The KHTML engine Safari uses is a little quirky, but I think it will improve quickly.

Have you tried this?

.stylename a:hover {}

[JupiterZen]

Originally posted by anneleonard
But i'm using dreamweaver in just code-view- does that make me any less of a web-coder?

That's not what I meant to suggest. It's just that most pro web coder I know don't even code HTML anymore. It's all JSP and some ASP these days which generates the HTML for the pages.

No use for Dreamweaver there.

[AlphaTech]

Safari has yet to make it's handling of CSS2 up to the same level as all other browsers. I ues a css file for my pages, since that's less code that needs to be in the page.

One of my goals when creating my site/pages was to have it load fast for everyone. Using a css file helped with that, as well as using a tiled header image, since it only has to load a small file that gets repeated.

I had a friend test it on his dial up connection, and even a page with a largish image in it loaded fast.

[bousozoku]

I chose GoLive a while back after learning how to code HTML with a text editor.

It allows me precise placement of items using the grid control and is easy enough for creative types to pick up quickly with a how-to book. Everything falls to-hand as it does in Photoshop or Illustrator.

I use Dreamweaver at school and it's nice enough. However, it seems less than intuitive. I've searched for weeks for the control to turn on the toolbar with the components and never found it. I would expect something under the Window or View menu with something like Toolbars or Palettes.

Whatever you do, buy a Visual Quickstart guide to go along with it.

[gopher]

I go BBEdit all the way too.

[filipp]

Originally posted by JupiterZen
That's not what I meant to suggest. It's just that most pro web coder I know don't even code HTML anymore. It's all JSP and some ASP these days which generates the HTML for the pages.

No use for Dreamweaver there.


Exactly, if all you do is HTML coding, you may be just fine with a dreamweaver or a goLive. But as soon you need some dynamics on your page, a simple editor is the only way to do real coding (PHP, ASP, Java and so on).

BBEdit is great in the way it colors the code

[iTarzan]

BBEdit is great in the way it colors the code

Thats nothing special really, Emacs, Vim and other text editors do the same thing.

Emacs not only colors the code but it actually expediates things depending on what mode your in whether its c, java, or html-helper-mode. Every language known to man gets colored with Emacs. Emacs is a Lisp interpreter so writing a few chunks of Lisp can extend the editor. It garbage collects and byte compiles also so its portable too. Its a remarkable program, I highly recommend trying it out.(it comes with OSX, open up the terminal and type "emacs *html then press alt-option+x then type global-font-lock-mode and hit enter and it will color the code, if you have your termcap setup(its hosed by default))

I ues a css file for my pages, since that's less code that needs to be in the page.

Yeah browsers cache the css page so if you use one for multiple pages you have less to download with each new page as alot of stuff is moved into the css.

Anyone who wants to learn about CSS I recommend Eric Meyers book "on CSS, Mastering the Language of Web Design" its on New Riders(they release the best books imho)

[yzedf]

ssh to the server and vi baby! ;)

of course... my website sucks! but that's beside the point, right :(

[groov']

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Dreamweaver. Period.

Amen

[losfp]

I had a fiddle with GoLive last night, and while it certainly looked pretty good, I couldn't quite get to grips with it. Maybe I'm just more used to the Dreamweaver interface as I'd been using Macromedia products all the way from Dreamweaver 3, Homesite 4 & 5 :)

Looks like either one will suffice as long as you learn its idiosyncrasies (BBEdit is not too bad too! but isn't as feature-laden as the aforementioned 2)