Wish list for iWeb 07 ? [Archive]

Apple Architect

Apr 11, 2007, 04:41 AM

How about the following.

1. Ability to watermark images
2. Ability to downsize images - select the resolution of the image
3. Support for comments and trackbacks when not using .Mac
4. Native support for HTML code
5. Ability to change template designs (both ones already used and the ability to create your own)
6. Better code optimization. The code at present is a mess.
7. Support for providing image tag details.

www.xposedimage.com (http://www.xposedimage.com)

just interested in what people would like to see improved, added or removed in the new iWeb release

Nicolasdec

Apr 11, 2007, 07:24 AM

1. HTML code
2. PHP support.

northernmunky

Apr 11, 2007, 09:24 AM

1. Access to edit the HTML code (inserting external banners etc.)
2. Ability to more easily link to external files (So I can link to my external video server)

andiwm2003

Apr 11, 2007, 10:57 AM

right now you have to publish all of your sites or none. i want to work on a site without having to publish it and at the same time being able to modify existing pages and publish only those.

more image compression options to save disk space and upload time

more templates

include iweb enhancer like function

simpler website names that do not reveal your apple account name

make it generally faster and the code cleaner

hikeNM

Apr 11, 2007, 11:39 AM

right now you have to publish all of your sites or none. i want to work on a site without having to publish it and at the same time being able to modify existing pages and publish only those.

You can(or at least if you're using .mac). Just highlight the specific page and go to publish to .mac.

If you want to publish all, click on publish all to .mac.

Oh, and I'd take more templates for sure!

Eraserhead

Apr 11, 2007, 12:03 PM

Less Hatred (in iWeb) towards third party FTP upload, there is no way I'm buying .Mac, it's rubbish.

Export just the changed files to a folder, I don't want to export my holiday snaps page EVERY SINGLE TIME which takes ages even on a MB Core Duo.

Customisable templates.

Html Support, might be nice too.

Image resize would also be good, there are too many 300kb images on my website, otherwise the html isn't bad, it's not as good as writing it by hand, but it doesn't matter, the html files are a LOT smaller than the images.

Also stop using images for links at the top, AFAIK you can achieve the effect with html, and it loads the navigation links first not last.

aricher

Apr 11, 2007, 12:44 PM

Beyond what others have posted it would be nice to have some better layout tools along the lines of what Rapidweaver offers. Mouse-overs, html, etc.

SpaceMagic

Apr 11, 2007, 01:20 PM

There are some great ideas mentioned so far... all things I'd really like.

For me:

1. FTP Support
2. HTML editing (ok, perhaps this isn't user friendly... but have HTML 'boxes' in which you enter custom HTML).
3. Image resize
4. Image alt tags
5. Only republish changed files
6. The ability to group images/shapes.
7. SPLIT Sites! So annoying that you export every site when you click Publish to folder...

Per chance to dream:

1. A bit of Flash content
2. Ajax
3. Live update... as in, when I write a new blog, it auto updates rather than going through the whole process of exporting and uploading.
4. The ability to upload the blog online/via email/via anything other than export/upload everytime
5. Whole platform opened up to make it easier for 3rd party plug ins.

Things I don't think will happen:

1. Full HTML editing... not User friendly/not iWeb's market
2. Ability to change templates

Eraserhead

Apr 11, 2007, 02:20 PM

2. Ability to change templates

I don't agree that they won't allow it, you can in Keynote and I'd love to banish the red from the "modern" template from my site (http://www.matthewhutton.com/main/News/News.html) and replace it totally with Blue.

andiwm2003

Apr 11, 2007, 03:03 PM

..................................
Per chance to dream:

1. A bit of Flash content
........................................

please no Flash!

fortunately being able to make flash websites would certainly involve licence fees that apple would have to pay. so flash in iweb is unlikely.

Rant (if you like flash stop reading here): flash is a useless, slow, buggy, memory wasting monster that only provides for some effects without any use. i haven't even installed flash on my firefox and most sites work without flash just fine. you just don't see some useless graphics.

Artful Dodger

Apr 11, 2007, 03:09 PM

Like SpaceMagic, Some Flash abilities would be great (sick of taking screen shots or using work arounds everytime) as well as uploading only changed pages/pictures and so on…:cool:

puckhead193

Apr 11, 2007, 03:17 PM

make file-sharing easier.
much more templates

hvfsl

Apr 11, 2007, 03:33 PM

Two things really:

1) Much better image optimisation. Plus the ability to select the compression options of each individual image. At the moment if I create anything in iWeb, I have to re-compress all the images in Photoshop.

2) More themes

aricher

Apr 11, 2007, 04:56 PM

Live update... as in, when I write a new blog, it auto updates rather than going through the whole process of exporting and uploading.
4. The ability to upload the blog online/via email/via anything other than export/upload everytime

I'd love to see this as well. It would be great to be able to blog from my iPhone.

Angsty

Apr 11, 2007, 07:01 PM

I'd like the ability to manage different, independent sites and upload them as totally separate entities - to different servers as required.

I would also like the ability to switch to a HTML view of the page and CLEAN up some of that fat and bloated code (sheesh - I used to mock Frontpage for the bloated code it generated!)

I would also like to use relative references for my page layout so that it reasizes to the user's window. (I don't like the LH and RH side blank space on my pages!!)

hikeNM

Apr 11, 2007, 07:47 PM

please no Flash!

Rant (if you like flash stop reading here): flash is a useless, slow, buggy, memory wasting monster that only provides for some effects without any use. i haven't even installed flash on my firefox and most sites work without flash just fine. you just don't see some useless graphics.

I agree. Most flash stuff looks cheesy to me.

IJ Reilly

Apr 11, 2007, 08:02 PM

fortunately being able to make flash websites would certainly involve licence fees that apple would have to pay. so flash in iweb is unlikely.

You can already export Flash from Keynote and drag it into iWeb pages. It works fine, unless you happen to be one of those Flash-haters. :p

A template editor, desperately needed. Even template capture (similar to Pages) would be welcome.

janitorC7

Apr 11, 2007, 08:48 PM

I want to be able to edit my code.

I want it to produce cleaner code, come on, I know apple can do that...

I want it to be Dynamic, at an online interface, add a database to dotmac, would it really be that hard, and I'm sure it would save bandwidth.

I want FTP

I want a CSS layout and Design, come on apple, standards.

I want apple to build a pro application for Web Designers, a suite even. I mean come on, this is a real need, bring the power that was brought to the film industry by final cut to the web world, coding environments, multi browser engine previewing, code snippets, File Organization and optimization, Content Management System (helloooooo they have WebObjects, think of what kind of point and click online apps they could let us build.

just my $0.02

EricNau

Apr 11, 2007, 09:47 PM

And a counter that works without .Mac.

Apple Architect

Apr 12, 2007, 11:22 AM

There, we have it. The list of items that should be included in iWeb 07/Leopard

Code items

1. Edit my code.
2. Produce cleaner code/Code optimisation
3. More Dynamic
4. Database backend
6. CSS layout and Design, standards.
7. Favicon support
8. Comments
9. Page counters outside of .Mac

Input Output

1. Better file naming
2. FTP
3. ability to manage different, independent sites and upload them as totally separate entities
4. HMTL View of the page
5. Only republish changed files
6. Live update (from mobile devices)

Layout

1. Use of HTML for navigation rather than images
2. Relative page dimensions
3. More templates/Themes
4. group images/shapes
5. Better tools for layout (alignment etc)

Image

1. Better image optimisation (compression/types)
2. Image resize
3. Image alt tags
4. Ability to watermark images

Third Party Items

1. Some Flash ability
2. Whole platform opened up to make it easier for 3rd party plug ins

I actually don't think this is very much but having used the application now for however long it has been out I guess that these changes would be very useful. The final thing that I would add. Make it quicker. The app at present is too slow, although i guess the outputing of just the changes would be a good step forward in speeding the app up.

Finally, Provide a pro application for Web Designers, a suite even, in the same way as aperture and iPhoto compliment each other for different target markets.

IJ Reilly

Apr 12, 2007, 11:32 AM

Some of these wish lists are getting a bit out of hand. Keep in mind, iWeb was designed as a .Mac tool, not as a competitor for DreamWeaver or GoLive. Quite a bit can be done to improve iWeb within the context of its intended purpose. Expecting it to develop into something which it is not, and wasn't intended to be, is kind of unrealistic.

hikeNM

Apr 12, 2007, 11:33 AM

If Apple adds all the stuff that's wanted here(flash, html, etc.), will the program cease to be what it's intended to be? To me, the beauty of the program is the simplicity of it, nothing flashy on the screen. It's just a straight up WYSIWYG page maker. Publishing is as easy as ever, especially if you have .mac.

To me, if you want flash, you're out of the scope of what iWeb was intended for.

IJ beat me to it.

Nicolasdec

Apr 12, 2007, 05:27 PM

I think we should send this thread to apple. hopefully it will make a change...:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

hikeNM

Apr 12, 2007, 06:52 PM

I think we should send this thread to apple. hopefully it will make a change...:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

If only.

Apple Architect

Apr 14, 2007, 04:50 AM

I would agree with this comment, to an extent. Flash clearly is not the target area for iWeb.

I think a lot of the other changes are quite minor and would simply make the product more useable.

This big set of changes are stop the close integration of iWeb and .Mac - although a revenue stream the product should simply work with other web providers. You don't see Frontpage requiring all uploads to LiveSpace.

There are a significant number of people who this change would be a welcome relief. The hours it takes to publish sites would reduce down to minutes - the product being bette for it.

If Apple adds all the stuff that's wanted here(flash, html, etc.), will the program cease to be what it's intended to be? To me, the beauty of the program is the simplicity of it, nothing flashy on the screen. It's just a straight up WYSIWYG page maker. Publishing is as easy as ever, especially if you have .mac.

To me, if you want flash, you're out of the scope of what iWeb was intended for.

IJ beat me to it.

IJ Reilly

Apr 14, 2007, 12:46 PM

This big set of changes are stop the close integration of iWeb and .Mac - although a revenue stream the product should simply work with other web providers. You don't see Frontpage requiring all uploads to LiveSpace.

Unless this has changed in a big way recently, FrontPage relies on a web server running FrontPage extensions for full compatibility (which also means it has to be a Windows server). Content from iWeb similarly relies on .Mac servers for full functionality, but does not preclude uploading content to non-.Mac servers. Provided you know what will work and what will not, iWeb is no less restrictive than FrontPage.

howard

Apr 14, 2007, 01:24 PM

I'd like better blog customization. I can't find a way to even change the fonts on the blog or any of the blog pages.

other than that the only thing I really need is the ability to code html without publishing and opening textedit.

but an easy way to make iframes would be nice too.

zioxide

Apr 14, 2007, 05:33 PM

Finally, Provide a pro application for Web Designers, a suite even, in the same way as aperture and iPhoto compliment each other for different target markets.

They have one. It's called TextEdit.

IJ Reilly

Apr 14, 2007, 07:48 PM

I'd like better blog customization. I can't find a way to even change the fonts on the blog or any of the blog pages.

Sure, you can do that. Open the Font Browser, select and change the text to whatever font you like. You can also add or subtract any graphical elements you wish. The problem is, these changes need to be replicated on every entry or page, because iWeb doesn't have any method for saving the customizations as templates. This is the really big weakness of iWeb as it's currently designed.

Les Kern

Apr 14, 2007, 07:57 PM

A way to colaborate.
I have 150 teachers who use it, along with 2500 students. Sites can't be combined any easy way. There is a third party SW package that says it does this, but it is not easy to use and has limitations that can not be circumvented.

EricNau

Apr 14, 2007, 08:18 PM

Some of these wish lists are getting a bit out of hand. Keep in mind, iWeb was designed as a .Mac tool...
.Mac is dead. You know that, I know that, and everyone else knows that.

It's time Apple let go and stop trying to push a product that is, quite simply, a rip off.

If you want to use iWeb, you need .Mac for half of the features, and that needs to stop.

The idea of .Mac was great, but Apple dropped the ball, they didn't deliver, and now it's too late.

psychofreak

Apr 14, 2007, 08:21 PM

IJ Reilly

Apr 14, 2007, 08:29 PM

.Mac is dead. You know that, I know that, and everyone else knows that.

It's time Apple let go and stop trying to push a product that is, quite simply, a rip off.

If you want to use iWeb, you need .Mac for half of the features, and that needs to stop.

The idea of .Mac was great, but Apple dropped the ball, they didn't deliver, and now it's too late.

This gets the big, old "whatever" response from me. I think Apple gets to decide whether .Mac is dead or alive, and how they want to leverage its value with a product like iWeb.

BTW, I like to get more for less. Everybody does. But I don't think this thread needs to turn into the 4,529th debate about the value of .Mac. Okay? ;)

EricNau

Apr 14, 2007, 08:37 PM

(Virtually?) unlimited storage, lower price, faster iDisk and then .mac will spring back to life :)
I can agree with that. ...but I don't see it happening.

This gets the big, old "whatever" response from me. I think Apple gets to decide whether .Mac is dead or alive, and how they want to leverage its value with a product like iWeb.

BTW, I like to get more for less. Everybody does. But I don't think this thread needs to turn into the 4,529th debate about the value of .Mac. Okay? ;)
You're right - I'd hate to get into the debate once again, but I just felt it applied to this thread.

To me .Mac should be about bonuses, not basic features. ...I don't think Apple should charge for features in iWeb that virtually every other WYSIWYG html editor includes for free (try and find me any other app that charges $100/year for a hit-counter).

...So that's what I most want to see changed in iWeb. :)

IJ Reilly

Apr 14, 2007, 08:52 PM

To me .Mac should be about bonuses, not basic features. ...I don't think Apple should charge for features in iWeb that virtually every other WYSIWYG html editor includes for free (try and find me any other app that charges $100/year for a hit-counter).

Obviously your vision for what .Mac should be and Apple's vision of what .Mac should be are quite different. Guess who gets to decide?

Maybe because iWeb was bundled with the latest version of iLife, some people think that it's supposed to be a general-purpose WYSIWYG editor. It isn't. It was designed as an integrated .Mac tool, which incidentally (and only incidentally) can be used outside of .Mac if you're prepared to accept the limitations. Maybe that doesn't work for you, but what you'd prefer doesn't change the application's purpose in Apple's scheme of things.

EricNau

Apr 14, 2007, 08:58 PM

... Maybe because iWeb was bundled with the latest version of iLife, some people think that it's supposed to be a general-purpose WYSIWYG editor. ...
...And I think that's the problem. iWeb is the only iLife app closely integrated with .Mac - it's not consistent.

Apple probably should have bundled iWeb with .Mac rather than iLife to avoid this confusion ...and then there would actually be a bonus for .Mac. ;) :D

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2007, 01:00 PM

...And I think that's the problem. iWeb is the only iLife app closely integrated with .Mac - it's not consistent.

Apple probably should have bundled iWeb with .Mac rather than iLife to avoid this confusion ...and then there would actually be a bonus for .Mac. ;) :D

I won't argue that point -- it's certainly a valid one. I believe Apple's marketing of .Mac has been pretty abysmal all round. Shortly after it evolved from iTools, it became Apple's poor stepchild. Apple is missing an opportunity here. I'm not sure they might take better advantage by breaking iWeb off from iLife, or bundling iLife with .Mac, but surely some improvements in the marketing of these products are needed.

Still, for me (as a .Mac subscriber), the appearance of iWeb increased its value substantially.

hikeNM

Apr 15, 2007, 03:49 PM

but an easy way to make iframes would be nice too.

I agree. Frames would be excellent!

hikeNM

Apr 15, 2007, 03:58 PM

Still, for me (as a .Mac subscriber), the appearance of iWeb increased its value substantially.

It surprises me some of ya'll here seem to think that iWeb should be bundled with .mac. Granted, subscribing to .mac makes iWeb much nicer, but, as IJ, said above, iWeb really just looks much nicer than any other WYSIWYG editor.

I've never had anybody look at my personal page and not comment on how good it looked. To me that's the first selling point.

Secondly, the ease and integration with the other iLife apps is awesome. Having all of my photos and movies right there with drag and drop capabilities is worth it. I've used Dreamweaver quite a bit(and I definitely don't know all the ins and outs). To me, the work required to make a page with Dreamweaver look anywhere near as nice as iWeb isn't worth the effort to use Dreamweaver.

Even if I didn't subsribe to .mac, iWeb would still be what I use.

I guess I am the "consumer" Apple was shooting for when they created iLife.

EricNau

Apr 15, 2007, 04:38 PM

I won't argue that point -- it's certainly a valid one. I believe Apple's marketing of .Mac has been pretty abysmal all round. Shortly after it evolved from iTools, it became Apple's poor stepchild. Apple is missing an opportunity here. I'm not sure they might take better advantage by breaking iWeb off from iLife, or bundling iLife with .Mac, but surely some improvements in the marketing of these products are needed.

Still, for me (as a .Mac subscriber), the appearance of iWeb increased its value substantially.
Exactly. If iWeb was advertised as a tool for .Mac to upkeep members' homepages, that would be a huge selling point for .Mac, and there wouldn't be anything for me to complain about.

But to be honest, the only reason I bought .Mac was because I wanted the extra features in iWeb only found through .Mac. :o I'm assuming this was Apple's marketing strategy - let them experience iWeb, but only offer the good features through .Mac.

...Although, I probably won't be continuing my subscription. Right now I feel like Apple is taking advantage of me. I'm (rather stupidly) paying $100/year for a hit counter + blogging ...it's insane.

I would feel very different if Apple regularly release little perks for .Mac members - free iTunes credits here and there, a few extra widgets, special Apple Store promotions, etc. etc.

.Mac members should feel pampered, not forgotten.

Sorry for my rant. :o ...But it is related. ;)

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2007, 05:07 PM

It surprises me some of ya'll here seem to think that iWeb should be bundled with .mac.

Now, I really didn't say that, did I? I was only observing that Apple is marketing iWeb as a .Mac tool, not as a general-purpose WYSIWYG html editor. I wasn't necessarily endorsing that approach.

Exactly. If iWeb was advertised as a tool for .Mac to upkeep members' homepages, that would be a huge selling point for .Mac, and there wouldn't be anything for me to complain about.

But to be honest, the only reason I bought .Mac was because I wanted the extra features in iWeb only found through .Mac. :o I'm assuming this was Apple's marketing strategy - let them experience iWeb, but only offer the good features through .Mac.

...Although, I probably won't be continuing my subscription. Right now I feel like Apple is taking advantage of me. I'm (rather stupidly) paying $100/year for a hit counter + blogging ...it's insane.

I would feel very different if Apple regularly release little perks for .Mac members - free iTunes credits here and there, a few extra widgets, special Apple Store promotions, etc. etc.

.Mac members should feel pampered, not forgotten.

Sorry for my rant. :o ...But it is related. ;)

Is okay. ;)

Apple's marketing did work for you, if only for a year.

I don't agree with the $100 hit counter complaint though. Obviously, .Mac is far more than a hit counter, even if you're only talking about using iWeb for the integrated blogging and podcast features. Can these features be found elsewhere for less or no money? Perhaps, but Apple's specialty over the years hasn't been in inventing new or cheaper features, but in making features work more easily and seamlessly. I think they've gone along way in that regard with iWeb and .Mac integration. This is the first of three different methods I've tried for blogging, and the only one that stuck. The others were just too much of a pain to keep up, and/or produced crude results. I was also impressed by how quickly and easily iWeb allowed me to produce a quite professional-looking web site. I'm making a lot better use of .Mac now.

Apple used to provide .Mac subscribers with perks. I don't know what happened to that policy. Though one of them, Virex, turned out to have a negative value, some of the software and other stuff was somewhat useful at least. And, as you say, at least we didn't feel forgotten.

skinnylegs

Apr 15, 2007, 05:21 PM

I've never had anybody look at my personal page and not comment on how good it looked. To me that's the first selling point.Can I check out your personal page? No ulterior motives, I'd simply like to see how yours is laid out.

I am about as much a nOOb as they come and I created and frequently update a couple of websites I created with iWeb. I anted up for .Mac and I seldom, if ever, use it for anything else but that doesn't really bother me.

As far as suggestions......

Someone mentioned it earlier but I'd like to see simpler website addresses and more templates. Also, I can't figure out how the blog thing works but that's probably just me. For instance, I'd love to have a page where people can write a paragraph or two and have it update to the website. Can this be done?

hikeNM

Apr 15, 2007, 06:27 PM

Can I check out your personal page? No ulterior motives, I'd simply like to see how yours is laid out.

I am about as much a nOOb as they come and I created and frequently update a couple of websites I created with iWeb. I anted up for .Mac and I seldom, if ever, use it for anything else but that doesn't really bother me.

As far as suggestions......

Someone mentioned it earlier but I'd like to see simpler website addresses and more templates. Also, I can't figure out how the blog thing works but that's probably just me. For instance, I'd love to have a page where people can write a paragraph or two and have it update to the website. Can this be done?

Sure. Before you look though, I must give a disclaimer. My idea of a good website is that it's clean looking and has nothing flashing on it. So most of my pages reflect that.

Also, most of my pages are not much more than just the templates Apple provides. Call me dull, but I think they look great.

This is the title page for one of mine. There are links at the top.
http://web.mac.com/ronandmeredith/iWeb/Balmorhea%20in%20September,%202006/A%20Trip%20to%20the%20Oasis.html (click here)

Here is another. http://web.mac.com/ronandmeredith/iWeb/New%20England%20in%20October,%202006/Fall%20in%20New%20England,%202006.html (click here)

AvSRoCkCO1067

Apr 15, 2007, 06:32 PM

Can I check out your personal page? No ulterior motives, I'd simply like to see how yours is laid out.

I am about as much a nOOb as they come and I created and frequently update a couple of websites I created with iWeb. I anted up for .Mac and I seldom, if ever, use it for anything else but that doesn't really bother me.

As far as suggestions......

Someone mentioned it earlier but I'd like to see simpler website addresses and more templates. Also, I can't figure out how the blog thing works but that's probably just me. For instance, I'd love to have a page where people can write a paragraph or two and have it update to the website. Can this be done?

I use .mac for my website as well. I just use Yahoo to redirect my website address, www.peters-photography.com, to my .Mac website. It's only $10 a year.

Anyway, my website is www.peters-photography.com - made 100% with iWeb. I too am looking forward to an upgrade, though.

skinnylegs

Apr 15, 2007, 07:26 PM

AvSRoCkCO1067

Apr 15, 2007, 07:43 PM

hikeNM......nice job! I really like your websites. I 'gotta go to New England!

AvSRoCkCO1067.....that is an iWeb template? Very nice! How do you use Yahoo to redirect to your website. Please explain.

Here is a website I created for the Annual Bazaar at my parish.....

http://web.mac.com/sjesser/iWeb/Fall%20Festival%202007/Welcome.html

You know, it's built off of the "White" iWeb template. But you're right - pretty much everything is built and designed from scratch.

With Yahoo, I just bought a url and used a "redirect" option in my preferences. I haven't done it for a long time, so I'm not sure about the exact steps, but it was pretty straight forward...:)

howard

Apr 17, 2007, 11:29 AM

Sure, you can do that. Open the Font Browser, select and change the text to whatever font you like. You can also add or subtract any graphical elements you wish. The problem is, these changes need to be replicated on every entry or page, because iWeb doesn't have any method for saving the customizations as templates. This is the really big weakness of iWeb as it's currently designed.

this only works in the "entries" page, and I can't find a way to change it in the "blog" master page. So if I change the entries page to a different font the blog master page does not reflect that. same as the archive.

IJ Reilly

Apr 17, 2007, 11:39 AM

this only works in the "entries" page, and I can't find a way to change it in the "blog" master page. So if I change the entries page to a different font the blog master page does not reflect that. same as the archive.

True story. You can edit everything on the master page except the fonts used for the entries. Put that on the wish list. :)

rennafire

Apr 18, 2007, 04:45 AM

I logged in looking for an answer to an iWeb question and found this Wish List - thanks! Many of my peeves/wishes have been mentioned.

A wish: I'd like to add a shopping cart on mine, but can't figure out how.

hikeNM, you may have the answer to my question: How to get text to wrap around an image. You've got it happening on one of your pages, but no version of the (very minimal) instructions has made that function work for me.

I've also gotten compliments on my site. To my eye it has a very iWeb template look, but most folks viewing it don't pick up on that - they just see clean design, in contrast to all the cluttered pages out there.

If I just had that shopping cart (crass, I know), I'd be pretty happy.

hikeNM

Apr 18, 2007, 11:16 AM

hikeNM, you may have the answer to my question: How to get text to wrap around an image. You've got it happening on one of your pages, but no version of the (very minimal) instructions has made that function work for me.

I definitely had to hunt to find out how to text wrap also. This is how I do it, and please, if there's anybody out there that knows a quicker, better way, please tell me!

First, write your text by using a text box given by a template, or by creating your own.

Second, drag the picture into the text, and, here's the catch, when you drag the picture into the text. Hold down the command(Apple) button. If you don't hold down the command button, iWeb doesn't know that the pic is going into the text and it lays it under the text.

Third, hightlight the pic and resize it to the size you want.

Fourth, with the pic still selected, click on the inspector. Click on "T" in the top middle. Click on Wrap in the top middle. Select "object causes wrap". Choose which direction you want the wrap to be.

And in four easy steps(or maybe eight or nine), you too have caused text to wrap around a picture. Maybe it's just me, but it seems wrapping text could be made a little easier.

Hope this helps!

IJ Reilly

Apr 18, 2007, 12:04 PM

hikeNM

Apr 18, 2007, 01:32 PM

A little easier perhaps: Drag the image into iWeb, then cut it. Place the insertion point into the text box, and paste. Then choose wrap from the inspector. Of course if you're dragging to a placeholder then this isn't necessary.

I'm not following when you say "cut it". Pardon my ignorance!

P.S. Sorry to the OP for hijacking your thread.

furcalchick

Apr 18, 2007, 07:53 PM

hyperlinks, make them editable by colors, etc. i'm working on a site right now, and i would like to have adjustable text to fit my site instead of the stupid gray that i have now. it's so lame, even the most basic editors have that. apple really dropped the ball on that one.

ability to have complex forms on the page.

comments if you're not using .mac. this should have been done so that non .mac users can do it almost as easily as the .mac users.

i think the rest of the complaints have been accounted for already.

IJ Reilly

Apr 18, 2007, 08:24 PM

I'm not following when you say "cut it". Pardon my ignorance!

Edit/Cut or cmd-x.

wmmk

Apr 18, 2007, 09:08 PM

Forums. sure, it'd be .mac only, but forums would be great. For desktop users who travel occasionally and post religiously to their blogs, some online (.mac) interface for updating blogs doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. After all, they did it with .mac mail!

hikeNM

Apr 18, 2007, 09:23 PM

Edit/Cut or cmd-x.

IJ, I've been sitting here for the last hour trying to figure out how to do what you suggested. And I finally had an "a ha" moment. It works great! Thanks!

Also, I second the vote for having different color hyperlinks besides gray!

rennafire

May 3, 2007, 02:10 AM

Sorry for the long delay on replying. hikeNM, I just tried your method (quoted below) and it worked great. Thanks, IJ Reilly, too, but I also am not getting "cut it" - plan to experiment more later.

As long as hikeNM's method works, I'm in business with wrapping.

Many thanks!
rennafire

www.rennashesso.com

I definitely had to hunt to find out how to text wrap also. This is how I do it, and please, if there's anybody out there that knows a quicker, better way, please tell me!

First, write your text by using a text box given by a template, or by creating your own.

Second, drag the picture into the text, and, here's the catch, when you drag the picture into the text. Hold down the command(Apple) button. If you don't hold down the command button, iWeb doesn't know that the pic is going into the text and it lays it under the text.

Third, hightlight the pic and resize it to the size you want.

Fourth, with the pic still selected, click on the inspector. Click on "T" in the top middle. Click on Wrap in the top middle. Select "object causes wrap". Choose which direction you want the wrap to be.

And in four easy steps(or maybe eight or nine), you too have caused text to wrap around a picture. Maybe it's just me, but it seems wrapping text could be made a little easier.

Hope this helps!