What web design software? 6

[Novexx]

I have just purchased some commercial webspace, and have managed to get an basic "under construction" page up while I try to learn a bit more about web design/HTML and all the rest.

I dont have any web authoring software at the moment, and did my first page with MS Word 97. Word already seems to be pretty limited in what it offers, so I would like to get some "proper" software.

I am in a bit of a quandary here, I use(for good or bad)MS
apps most of my working day, am used to them & now find them pretty intuative and easy to use. The first software that came to mind was MS Frontpage, but my host uses Apache
and clearly states that certain Frontpage items will possibly not work correctly.

I have also looked at Adobe Go-Live, which my host seems to promote. Problem is that I have had a few hours on Go-Live &
the interface is not second nature whatsoever, and I could do without having to get used to Go-Live before starting on design.

Which do you recon on? And also do either offer the option of creating the HTML in the backround (initialy anyway), or is this a bad idea.

Thank You.

 

[YNOTU]

The only one you should look into = Dreamweaver MX
period.

It's going to help you in the longrun. Especially when you start building dynamic webpages connected to a database etc...

 

[wiredwoman]

I'd have to agree with Dreamweaver. If you have to use a WYSIWYG editor, go with this one ... made by Macromedia and will allow you to expand into other integrated areas (Macromedia Flash, Fireworks, etc.). When you know your HTML, move to the code area in DW or (Allaire/Macromedia) Homesite. It's a journey, that's for sure.

I use Fireworks for templates, navigation and design, some Paint Shop Pro, some Photoshop for graphics and Homesite for all code from style sheets to ASP; it can all be done in Homesite (which has a forum here).

Don't use Front Page. UGH. Mega bloated code. (Opinionated)
Man that thing is scary, you move an element and it creates 80 lines of code to support it.


JT / WW



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am woman, watch me code.

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

While Dreamweaver certainly is the best tool out there, consider buying a book on HTML and learning to hand-code.

In the long run, hand-coded HTML will usually be more optimized, and usually avoid a lot of extra bits that a lot of software seems to throw in.

But if hand-coding isn't your thing, then yes, Dreamweaver will certainly be your best bet. And you're bound to pick up HTML as you go along, and start to dabble with the code occasionally, instead of using the GUI to create bits.

See how you go!

Hope this helps,
Dan

 

[MrBelfry]

If you don't want to fork out loads of money try HTML-Kit which I use for my sites. It is not a WYSIWYG editor so you'll still need to know HTML

MrBelfry

http://www.mrbelfry.co.uk

 

[tmphuskers]

Download the trial version of Dreamweaver MX.
It only retails for $399. (Golive retails for the same, but I wouldn't go with Adobe, Frontpage is 199)
Spend the extra money.

You will thank us all in the long run.
I have used Frontpage, hated it.
Love Dreamweaver. And I am not a pro by any means.
I have never taken an HTML class nor read a book on it.
I just dug right in and DW made it possible.
Also I recommend buying this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764549316/104-8743763-9506333?v=glance

And just like wiredwoman said it works awesome with Fireworks and Flash (obviously since they are all made by macromedia).
Spend the cash. It's worth is.
Building Templates are a breeze and the navigation and layout of DW is very nice. I really enjoyed using it.

 

[YNOTU]

[tt]And when you get started with dynamic content. I recoment this book

 

[viol8ion]

Stay away from FrontPage at all costs! It is lame, and buggers your code.

Adobe GoLive is okay... but I have to agree that Dreamweaver is the way to go! Also, buy a book on HTML, or visit w3schools.com.

Another option, if money is an object, is 1stpage2000, an excellent free wysiwyg editor. The problem is that you will have to do an extensive search to find a copy for download, the officila site's d/l doesn't work, lately.

When in doubt, deny all terms and defnitions.

http://www.wuli.com

 

[Novexx]

OK OK I submit,

It looks like Dreamweaver then?

Before I splash out on it, I take it that Dreamweaver is;

Reasonably easy to use straight from the box (being used to mainly MS apps)?

Will allow quality pages from WYSIWYG?

Will (when I'm ready)let me use HTML, and all sorts of other trickery that I know squat about at the moment?


My next question was to get pointed in the right direction of some books on the subject - but you have already answered
this (I doubt that Dreamweaver even utilises this new cutting edge PQA technology (predictive question answering).

Seriously though, thank you all very much for your comprehensive & knowledgeable assistance.

 

[YNOTU]

[tt]Anytime and good luck

 

[SkipCox]

I'm pretty new at designing a web page but, am I incorrect if I assume a pretty good grasp of html is still required somewhere along the line? Or, is it assumed that experience with html is a prerequisite to using Macromedia stuff?

Skip

http://scc.i8.com

 

[TonyJollans]

Hi All,

Firstly, I am not a web designer.

Secondly, I had experience many years ago with GML so HTML is not alien to me.

Now, when I wanted to do a web page, I tried FrontPage and very quickly found it wanting (never mind the bloat). So I tried DreamWeaver which seems to be everyone's first choice. I did NOT find it easy to use straight out of the box and, whilst it does have some nice features, I don't personally like using it and find what it generates hard to work with. I have now picked up a free HTML editor (AceHTML) and use that to code it all myself - I haven't looked hard and there may well be better options but I am happy at the moment.

So my advice would be to try before you buy. Get a trial version of DreamWeaver (or any other expensive software for that matter) and see how you get on with it before committing. Good luck!

Enjoy,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We want to help you; help us to do it by reading FAQ222-2244 before you ask a question.

 

[tmphuskers]

To Skipcox:

Depends on what version TonyJollans was using. Dreamweaver 3, did take some getting used to.
MX is far better and easier to follow and understand.
Especially with the above books mentioned.
And no you don't have to have knowledge of HTML.
Yes, it's nice to have but not required to understand this program. But I didn't.
Some of the intent behind this program was to be easy for the weekend warrior, and robust enough for the rocket scientist.

But always always try it first. But even if it is something that takes you a little while to grasp, learn it. Because long term you will thank everyone for it.
Compared to everything else out there, Nothing compares to Dreamweaver MX, period,

And lastly, I am not a professional web designer either. I am the weekend warrior.

 

[SkipCox]

Thanks tmphuskers,

I'd downloaded The MX trial a month or so ago but, hadn't installed it. I'll give it a try this week.



Skip

http://scc.i8.com

 

[cian]

Personal opinion but I see little point splashing out 400 bucks on an editor. Yes Dreamweaver is an excellent tool but I believe you can build better pages by hand.

HTML-Kit as mentioned is an excellent tool and is free.
Building pages by hand gives you much better control over your pages, you learn more, it is very rewarding, it's just as fast and you need very very little to do it, even Notepad on Windows is fine.

again personal opinion.

All the tools you need you can get for free from graphic editors, servers, html editors etc etc



<!--#sig value=''É'' url=''

http://www.ssi-developer.net''

-->

 

[LordGarfield]

If you just want to build a site for fun and the time is not a boundry. Just buy a book to learn HTML, then javascript, then mysql and php. you also can leanr vbscript and asp.

wich editor to use. well my friend on windows is called notepad.

if you wanne build professional webapplications. Learn the same thing and take time for it.

If you need just one site for yourself but need it verry fast done with good functionality. then visit

http://www.macromedia.com

they have it all. fireworks, dreamweaver and flash.

have fun designing.

 

[Kjonnnn]

My site uses FP. If you use Office you can use FP. Didn't use any templates and created a fair decent site (while some coding guru's would beg to differ). While FP &quot;may&quot; not be the supreme package that some of the &quot;experts&quot; recommend, the learning curve is not as steep as Dreamweaver.

I also have Macromedia Studio and am tryn to figure it out.

 

[SkipCox]

I currently use notepad.exe...I just wondered if MX was as good as I've heard.

Believe me, I still have plenty to learn about html and every day opens a new door.

A few months ago I tried to get started with word, works, web pages for dummies, and other &quot;instant&quot; software. After a few days learning some basic html, I never consider starting with anything else.

Thanks for the comments; you've all be especially helpful when you critique websites here.

Skip

http://scc.i8.com

 

[viol8ion]

What I like about Dreamweaver is the split screen, and the code only screen options. With a click you have a text editor that is better than Notepad because it color codes your entries.

Also, if you are missing tags, it will highlight the bad tags. Helps in troubleshooting if you have a complex page.

While it is important to know HTML, WYSIWYG is a valid method to building web sites. Just because one can cut lumber with a hatchet and build a house using pegs and logs, it is not the recommended method, that is why builders use power tools. Efficiency. Only a moron would go into business building houses with hand tools, and I would have to suspect any web designer that says they refuse to use the current tools available that simplify redundant tasks.

Of course, I suppose there is always room in this world for masochists!

When in doubt, deny all terms and defnitions.

http://www.wuli.com

 

[cian]

viol8ion
WYSIWYG certainly is a valid way to make pages, if it outputs valid code i.e. complient

Your analogy is inaccurate and unfair to handcoders. You cannot suggest doing it by hand is not the recommended method. The recommendation is to write complient code..whether you can do this with a WYSIWYG editor or a text editor it makes no difference.

&quot;current tools&quot; or current methods...big difference.


<!--#sig value=''É'' url=''

http://www.ssi-developer.net''

-->