Wish list for iWeb 07 ?

[IJ Reilly]

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]

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]

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

 

[hikeNM]

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

If only.

 

[Apple Architect]

Agree...to an extent

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[72930]

.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.

(Virtually?) unlimited storage, lower price, faster iDisk and then .mac will spring back to life

 

[IJ Reilly]

.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]

(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]

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]

... 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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

...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.

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]

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

I agree. Frames would be excellent!

 

[hikeNM]

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]

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. 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. ...But it is related.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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. 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. ...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]

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]

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


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

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

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, http://www.peters-photography.com, to my .Mac website. It's only $10 a year.

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

 

[skinnylegs]

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 Festival 2007/Welcome.html