I am currently using Nvu as a web editor, which is pretty good but has some bugs from time to time. I tried a few others but (among the free or cheap ones) but not really satsfied. can anyone recommend editors you like? Not "Pro" like dreamweaver, something simple with wysiwyg.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
a better editor?
- Thread starter cientificoloco
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
desenso said:
Agreed. And dreamweaver isn't a "pro" web design app.
Jeff Croft just wrote a very interesting article the other day regarding what a real "web designer" should be like:
http://www2.jeffcroft.com/2006/oct/01/what-does-it-mean-be-professional-web-designer/
I totally agree with him.
I've been using TextWrangler and enjoy it.
HTML/CSS is after all, just text
/* EDIT: Good article, radiant!
It is sometimes surprising how far that "psuedo-guru" attitude goes. Working for a state government's official site, I've found people with that level of knowledge/skill in high-up places, being the "go to" people for some very important work. Scary, really.
HTML/CSS is after all, just text
/* EDIT: Good article, radiant!
It is sometimes surprising how far that "psuedo-guru" attitude goes. Working for a state government's official site, I've found people with that level of knowledge/skill in high-up places, being the "go to" people for some very important work. Scary, really.
While I don't use them (I use SubEthaEdit), I've always heard good things about Sandvox and RapidWeaver.
Both cost, however. Sandvox is $49 for a regular single-user license, while RapidWeaver is $40.
Links to both:
Sandvox: http://www.karelia.com/
RapidWeaver: http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/
Both cost, however. Sandvox is $49 for a regular single-user license, while RapidWeaver is $40.
Links to both:
Sandvox: http://www.karelia.com/
RapidWeaver: http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/
radiantm3 said:Agreed. And dreamweaver isn't a "pro" web design app.
Jeff Croft just wrote a very interesting article the other day regarding what a real "web designer" should be like:
http://www2.jeffcroft.com/2006/oct/01/what-does-it-mean-be-professional-web-designer/
I totally agree with him.
thanks for the link, radiant. that was a great article and got me all fired up. something needs to be done about educating the client base.
Don't be scared off by Dreamweaver's "pro" reputation. It's head and shoulders the best web editing software out there, especially the newest version (v8). It has all kinds of built in CSS support, handles various media types flawlessly, and the built in FTP tools are the best anywhere.
Get it, you wont be disappointed, and actually you'll find your learning curve rapidly increase with better software.
Get it, you wont be disappointed, and actually you'll find your learning curve rapidly increase with better software.
radiantm3 said:A lot of seasoned web designers tend to disagree.
Really... and what may I ask do these "seasoned" designers prefer?
I've been in the business, professionaly, for a long time. I know very few designers who don't use Dreamweaver at this point. I know a couple of leftover GoLive die-hards (who have all converted since Adobe's dropping everything but Dreamweaver anyway), and a few who now swear by Amaya and NVU (both of which are actually pretty good tools, especially for the cost!), but that's about it. By and large, Dreamweaver is widely accepted as the industry standard... that's pretty much indisputable.
The only more popular/accurate alternative is hand-coding, but we were talking about WYSIWYG...
mnkeybsness said:
My apologies - thought we were talking WYSIWYG.
Just the same, although in some ways it's like using a sledgehammer to test your knee reflex, Dreamweaver 8 has a MUCH improved code editor as compared to previous versions.
That said, in the little bit I have tinkered with TextMate, it seems the real strength of the tool is for people who do pretty much more than just code HTML and CSS. Maybe I missed the boat, but it seems like TextMate really handles coding in multiple languages at once better than most Apps, but when it comes down to CSS and HTML/XHTML, there's not a heck of lot there that's new or exciting.
Anyone who's a regular user want to give some feedback there?
Read the link I posted above. Dreamweaver was great back in the day. WYSIWYG was a necessity for building complex table-based layouts. Web design has evolved and there are much better alternatives to dreamweaver. I'm not arguing that dreamweaver doesn't control a huge percentage of the web design tools marketplace. And yes every company that is trying to hire a web designer puts "dreamweaver" as a requirement. But those companies tend to be pretty clueless as to what tools a web developer needs this day in age. If marketshare use was an indication of what's the best, then Windows must be the best OS as well.clintob said:
Textmate has WYSIWYG. It's called web preview. As you code, what you see is what you get.Me1000 said:The thread starter...
radiantm3 said:
I didn't make reference to market share - I said it was the industry standard. There's a difference. Generally the two are aligned, as in this case, but not always.
However, as I mentioned earlier (and after further review, it turns out I was correct), the post asked about WYSIWYG editors, and in that realm, Dreamweaver is king. Sure, anyone who's "seasoned" knows that table-based layouts are going the way of the Dodo, and yes, most coding Apps have a "preview" function, or a "view in browser" button, but that's not exactly the same as WYSIWYG.
Now, to your point - I agree that Dreamweaver has lost ground in recent years, especially towards the end of Macromedia's solo tenure. I actually was beginning to grow very weary of the Studio MX suite myself, and I am a fan. But Dreamweaver 8 has implemented a lot of what made other editors popular, and actually the WYSIWYG portion has become less accurate, and less integral to the program (as it should be).
Which brings me back to my last post... I've played with TextMate a little, and for the purposes of HTML and CSS, found little in it that was much different than the hand-coding environment in Dreamweaver (or, for that matter NVU, Amaya, or any other I can think of). They've all got a tabbed interface, they've all got collapsable tags, shortcuts, auto-closing of tags, etc. So what makes it different or unique? I'm not being fecitious, I'm actually asking someone who uses it regularly for some input...
clintob said:
Textmate seems very simplistic until you gain understanding of it's bundle's system. Here is good example: http://macromates.com/screencast/insert_html_tags.mov
I'm the original poster and yes, I was asking about wysiwyg because is what I need, but it's great that the topic expanded this way. I'm learning a lot.
This prompted me the following question: are you guys using mostly code-writing for really complex or fancy websites? I can deal with code, but I find way easier if I can visualise the page as it is. Actually I switch between both views all the time, but I tend to miss the picture when coding.
I used to work in web development like... 12 years ago, so my first editor was... Notepad (I even browsed webpages using telnet!). HTML was very simple at that time so it was not a big deal. I left the job for about 10 years and I'm trying to get back again, but things are really different nowadays.
thanks for the suggestions, I'll try all those editors.
cheers
This prompted me the following question: are you guys using mostly code-writing for really complex or fancy websites? I can deal with code, but I find way easier if I can visualise the page as it is. Actually I switch between both views all the time, but I tend to miss the picture when coding.
I used to work in web development like... 12 years ago, so my first editor was... Notepad (I even browsed webpages using telnet!). HTML was very simple at that time so it was not a big deal. I left the job for about 10 years and I'm trying to get back again, but things are really different nowadays.
thanks for the suggestions, I'll try all those editors.
cheers
Everyone misses the picture when working a code-only environment at first. That's why WYSIWYG came about in the first place - it's really a learning tool much more than a production tool.
That said, because the web has taken a hard turn away from basic HTML and towards standards-based CSS layouts in recent years, WYSIWYG environments have become virtually useless because most don't render CSS correctly.
My only advice if you want to learn is code, code, and more code. The more examples you see, the more things you try to build, the more you'll mess up and consequently the more you'll learn. Just keep plugging along, and don't be afraid to take other peoples' code, dissect it, and try to figure out how it works or even recreate it. I'm NOT saying to rip off peoples' work, but trying to copy things for your own purposes (not for sale) is a great way to learn.
Also, check out these CSS sites and browse around... try these to start, there's plenty more:
http://www.stylegala.com
http://www.alistapart.com
That said, because the web has taken a hard turn away from basic HTML and towards standards-based CSS layouts in recent years, WYSIWYG environments have become virtually useless because most don't render CSS correctly.
My only advice if you want to learn is code, code, and more code. The more examples you see, the more things you try to build, the more you'll mess up and consequently the more you'll learn. Just keep plugging along, and don't be afraid to take other peoples' code, dissect it, and try to figure out how it works or even recreate it. I'm NOT saying to rip off peoples' work, but trying to copy things for your own purposes (not for sale) is a great way to learn.
Also, check out these CSS sites and browse around... try these to start, there's plenty more:
http://www.stylegala.com
http://www.alistapart.com
I'll put in a vote for grabbing some salsa and getting a Taco.
Clint's got a good point, as does radiant.
I tend to scratch out the basics on paper, then refine it on graph paper, and then take it to photoshop to draw up a preview. Then when I need a preview for the design concept, I spit it out in a low res jpg.
Once finalized, I create any necessary graphics in PS.
Then I keep the preview image up, and go back to taking notes (OK, chicken scratch) on paper. I'll make general notes in pseudo code about overall div structure, etc.
Then it's on to Taco and spitting out the main div structure, while adding in some basic stuff in a separate open stylesheet.
Then I build on it and go from there.
Once I have the basic layout, I'll look at it in Safari and FF. Usually at this point I only have bg colors in place for each area. Once the basic layout is there, then I'll pretty it up a bit and add in some default content.
Etc, etc.
For me it's much faster to go through it once and do it right, then to have to go back and reformat a bunch of code spit out by a program. But to each their own, as long as the tables are kept to tabular data.
Clint's got a good point, as does radiant.
I tend to scratch out the basics on paper, then refine it on graph paper, and then take it to photoshop to draw up a preview. Then when I need a preview for the design concept, I spit it out in a low res jpg.
Once finalized, I create any necessary graphics in PS.
Then I keep the preview image up, and go back to taking notes (OK, chicken scratch) on paper. I'll make general notes in pseudo code about overall div structure, etc.
Then it's on to Taco and spitting out the main div structure, while adding in some basic stuff in a separate open stylesheet.
Then I build on it and go from there.
Once I have the basic layout, I'll look at it in Safari and FF. Usually at this point I only have bg colors in place for each area. Once the basic layout is there, then I'll pretty it up a bit and add in some default content.
Etc, etc.
For me it's much faster to go through it once and do it right, then to have to go back and reformat a bunch of code spit out by a program. But to each their own, as long as the tables are kept to tabular data.
That's the thing. I am biased towards textmate, but it doesn't matter what you prefer when you hand code.ThunderLounge said:I'll put in a vote for grabbing some salsa and getting a Taco.
Clint's got a good point, as does radiant.
I tend to scratch out the basics on paper, then refine it on graph paper, and then take it to photoshop to draw up a preview. Then when I need a preview for the design concept, I spit it out in a low res jpg.
Once finalized, I create any necessary graphics in PS.
Then I keep the preview image up, and go back to taking notes (OK, chicken scratch) on paper. I'll make general notes in pseudo code about overall div structure, etc.
Then it's on to Taco and spitting out the main div structure, while adding in some basic stuff in a separate open stylesheet.
Then I build on it and go from there.
Once I have the basic layout, I'll look at it in Safari and FF. Usually at this point I only have bg colors in place for each area. Once the basic layout is there, then I'll pretty it up a bit and add in some default content.
Etc, etc.
For me it's much faster to go through it once and do it right, then to have to go back and reformat a bunch of code spit out by a program. But to each their own, as long as the tables are kept to tabular data.
It's about what suits you best. Even dreamweaver is a text editor. I don't really have any issues with that. It's the WYSIWYG aspects of dreamweaver that I don't like. And 90% of designers who use dreamweaver, use it for that reason. For the other 10% who use it as a text editor, I just don't see the value in spending $400 or whatever it costs these days when you can get so much more from independent mac software developers.
I think that dreamweaver being an industry standard is a big lie. Photoshop? Yes, there's no alternative that's as powerful. I know lots of kids who want to become a web designer and think that knowing dreamweaver is the path to greatness. Dreamweaver is only a must for web designers who don't know how to hand code.
If you do know how to code and still use dreamweaver then that's great. But I just don't see what you value in it so much. Transmit is a much more powerful FTP app than what's built into dreamweaver. All the javascript behaviors produce bloated code. It generates bloated CSS. The text editor itself isn't as speedy as something like textmate, bbedit or subethaedit. The as you type live web previews isn't nearly as accurate as seeing your site come to life in webkit as you type (most mac html editors have this feature). The whole dreamweaver templates is messy and useless in the age of server-side scripting languages like php.
The only thing I see going for dreamweaver as a text editor is the code completion, but that can be seen as a negative as you start to rely on it instead of memorizing tags and attributes yourself. Then there's also the debugging tools. Ok, the color pickers are nice to have as well. But that's not enough to convince me that dreamweaver makes a great editor.
This is all just one man's opinion.
I don't expect everyone to see it my way. I just enjoy voicing my opinion.
radiantm3 said:
Yepper. Couldn't agree more.
DW just seems so bloated and sluggish just opening it, let alone trying to get anything done in it.
TM, BB Edit, even plain old Text works just fine.
Photoshop though... yeah, gotta have it. GIMP is OK, but still not quite there yet.
Off topic, I shouldn't have turned on the tube this morning to listen to. It ended up on H2G2, and now I'm going to have this darn song in my head all day.