What are you making your sites with

[Nexmax]

I recently tried frontpage and dreamweaver. I know you can do most anything with them, but I didn't find them very user friendly. Can some tell me what they are using? How about a few suggestions. I really like what I'm using but to get a polished look then I really have to get into HTML. Surely there is something better than what I'm using and frontpage.

Any help?

 

[Tippy]

I've been using DW for a little over a year now, works for me.

Mike

 

[Nexmax]

Well there is no doubt that it works, and it seems most of the best looking sites are done with one of the two majors. They both seem to do a great job. I just don't like programs that I end up need to read instructions to be able get much of a start with. I didn't really like the navagation. Looks like I will need to start using one or the other, but really wont to look at all rpoducts first. I just don't want to use something I didn't have a better feeling about from the beginning.

 

[Tippy]

I always thought DW was kinda easy to get the hang of, not that my designs are top notch, I just jumped right in and starting playing, I'm not much of an instruction reader

Mike

 

[Sharpy]

If you're using FP here's a great forum where you will find answers in previous threads or can ask questions and get quick answers. Even have a newbie section.

www.frontpagetalk.com/forums/default.asp

Cheers

 

[DomainPairs]

I use 1st Page from Evrsoft. I don't like the way Microsoft seems to try to force everyone to use it's non-standards. I don't have Frontpage extensions on any of my hosts.

I don't like the idea of Dreamweaver as I belive it tries to stuff too much into a page, and I think you should try to avoid Java and only use active-x or Flash if it is essential.

Most sites should be selling a message or a product, but don't. Not many sites should be giving a "total multimedia experience" or demonstrating the skills of the chief executive's son.

 

[thinkaholic]

Netobjects Fusion

www.netobjects.com

I firmly believe that it is not the HTML editing program you use, but the graphics, colors, and layout. Granted, some HTML editors make it easier to put all the peices together, but it is not the HTML editor that makes a great website...it's the designer.

 

[Anthony Ng]

I have to agree with thinkaholic (at least kind of). It's not the coding but the designer in you that works, and that's why we have professional web designers in the first place.

I don't use anything except Notepad (or sometimes Microsoft Word, if the file is too large). And I wrote everything at e.g. richmondhill.com, megacity.com and nameslave.com by hand from scratch. Not that I am any smarter, you can do it too.

 

[ctn]

i like photoshop by adobe,still haven't figured it all out,but i figured alot out ,more than i did with dreamweaver

 

[com]

Macromedia Homepage. You can create the basic scheme, choose the colors, etc. with Photoshop. After you figured out the look and the presentation, you either go dynamic with Flash or static with HTML and Homepage. You can add dynamic capabilities to your HTML pages with Javascript, VBScript or Flash as well.

Homepage is very simmilar to Notepad in a way. No extra headers or stupid formats (like FrontPage). Clean layout. If i just need a quick fix, i use Notepad. Homepage is a good way for you learn the works. In addition it simply speeds up your development.

 

[Nexmax]

Thanks guys. I haven't looked at a couple of those and I will. I use webstudio and for a basic site out of the box, can't imagine much better. To do much advanced you are looking at HTML. I guess HTML is the way to go, but that defeats the purpose this type software. There will always be designers and programmers, I don't want to be either. I do want to run a view web sites without them looking too crappy.

Best to all, nice thread. thanks again

 

[DomainPairs]

Just remember that a lot of surfers disable active-x and put Java on prompt. If they can't get into your site, you need not have bothered to write it in the first place as far as they are concerned.

 

[RMF]

Using notepad is a waste of time, even if you know HTML inside and out. "Macromedia Homesite 5" is like notepad, but MUCH BETTER. I have dreamweaver 4, but I like homesite a lot more. And I use Photoshop 5.5 for graphics.

RMF

 

[unclewilco]

agree RMF i use [allaire] coldfusion studio

(homesite but extra, now from macromedia), and texpad for faster search and replaces and odd things.

photoshop for graphics, image ready for animated wossnames.

most of my sites run off coldfusion, a splatter of asp, and a very odd bit of perl....(gettting converted to CF ), CF studio talks directly to the local server, then syncs it with the live server.. a bit like dreamweaver promises to do (but never really works as it fecks up your CF code, IMHO.

and word to spell check (apart from readersheds.co.uk which is speeelltt right anyway!)


all the best wilco

 

[Anthony Ng]

Have to disagree with you here, RMF. The BEAUTY of Notepad is that it's like a plain paper with nothing on - pure and simple.

 

[airnike764]

All I use is frontpage but I heard dreamweaver is good so I might change

 

[Bob]

I use Notepad

(seriously)

-Bob

 

[RMF]

Have you tried Homesite?. Its just like Notepad, but its more efficient.

RMF

 

[Tippy]

My DW is version 3, I also have HomeSite 4.5, is the HomeSite actually better then DW 3, I've never used it?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[lawpsych]

The new Macromedia Studio MX is sweet ...

I also use 1st Page, which although it's basic HTML, allows you to preview the HTML parts of your site as you develop them.

By the way, the two examples I gave you are quite a bit apart in terms of price ... ranging from rather pricey (Studio MX) to free
(1st Page).

Good Luck!

Best regards,
Sheila

PS By the way, I HATE Front Page ... it's not at all user friendly, and the examples they give through templates are truly ugly. You'd think that Microsoft could hire a couple of talented designers to show off what the program can do, if anything. All it did for me was give me a massive headache.