Well if you're looking to really get into it on an almost professional level, then I wouldn't waste my time learning nvu. GoLive is a nice program, but I wouldn't waste my time on that, either, because when CS3 comes out sometime next year, Adobe is ditching GoLive and making Dreamweaver their website program (though it'll probably have significant changes in order to make it more Adobe-esque).jimbobyorks said:so the sites could get quite complex over a period of time once I have learnt enough, heard of dreamweaver before but no experience, wondered if there was a package that did the lot. do not want to learn this nvu app if there are limitations. Go live looks interesting as use photoshop, illustrator, acrobat and indesign in the workplace.
No kidding. I've been developing web sites for about 8 years now and here's the key: the only software "package" you actually need as far as a development environment goes is a basic text editor. Don't waste your time getting dependent on WYSIWYG editors and wizards and junk like that, because eventually you'll have to untrain yourself from them anyway. Get yourself a decent text editor that maybe has a nice feature like syntax highlighting (which is about the extent of features I need) and then start learning to code. Learn the code, not an application, or you're just wasting your time in the long run.zim said:if you are concerned with limitations of an application then just learn to code for yourself otherwise you will always be faced with limitations.
Personally I bet if all the energy that is wasted in learning how to manipulate Dreaweaver was spent on a simple xhtml/css reference such as "Creating a Web Page with HTML" by Castro Elizabeth or even a simple Visual Quick Start Guide, then the individual would come out stronger. The truth is that although visual design applications are out, they are not perfect yet. Drewaweaver isn't truly a visual design application... sandvox, iWeb, etc.. are visual design apps because there is no, with some small exceptions, way to work other then seeing visual information. Back in the 90's designers treated the web as a "visual thing" and later paid the price because they learned that their sites were inaccessible to the outside world.stevep said:The usual 3-way split between html purists, Dreamweaver/Photoshop combo-ists and the freeware/cheapware solutions, whenever this question is asked.
It all depends on whether your web authoring intentions are short-term, one-off just to produce one site, or whether you want to look ahead long term and maybe start web design seriously.
I can't disagree with the suggestion of downloading a free html template and filling in the blanks if you just want one small website up and running as quickly as possible.
I also can't disagree with the html-only approach as I've never properly learnt html. However, it does strike me that it seems a bit weird to go back to a text based solution when everything else we do (especially on a Mac) is wysiwyg. A bit like using WordPerfect v1 instead of MS Office.
I'm firmly in the DW/PS camp myself, cos it suits me. I can still have a look at the code if I need to (and yes, I do need to fairly often - and I suppose I've picked up a bit of html knowledge by doing that), but above all, a website is a visual thing so it seems to make sense that I use a visual tool to put it together.
Your final choice may well boil down to money - maybe £500 for the DW/PS route compared with as little as £0 for one of the other solutions. Maybe the html fans have a point after all........