Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

RobOnTheCape · Feb 22, 2012, 05:53 PM

Hello all,

I need a fairly basic web site, but using the GoDaddy web tools I'm getting flustered. Has anyone used the iweb tools, and if so, for the beginner is it as intuitive as Apple products tend to be. I need to show products, endorsements, links to videos etc...

Though on the Apple site they have literature on iweb, I just now found out I would have to purchase it from Amazon as Apple has discontinued offering it, and they will no longer be hosting websites as of this coming June.

Feedback greatly appreciated.

cgc · Feb 22, 2012, 07:54 PM

Yup. iWeb is easy but I prefer RapidWeaver due to a better plug-in/add-on repository and RapidWeaver is updated regularly. iWeb has much better photo galleries though.

Waragainstsleep · Feb 22, 2012, 08:02 PM

I've never used Rapidweaver but I have used iWeb to build several sites. I think its a shame Apple has abandoned it. Its really very easy to use. Excellent for producing websites with basic functionality that look very polished.

RobOnTheCape · Feb 22, 2012, 08:07 PM

Just what I was hoping to hear. Thanks

besson3c · Feb 22, 2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I've never used Rapidweaver but I have used iWeb to build several sites. I think its a shame Apple has abandoned it. Its really very easy to use. Excellent for producing websites with basic functionality that look very polished.

I think one of the reasons they abandoned it was because there is no real future in that whole model of creating static sites that way, when you could create the same sort of sites with an entirely cloud based platform?

besson3c · 09:17 PM

RobOnTheCape: have you considered creating your site on WordPress? WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here. Don't let the "blog" title fool you, you can create non-blog websites using Wordpress as well. Large sites such as the Conan O'Brien site are even driven by WordPress.

RobOnTheCape · Feb 22, 2012, 09:05 PM

Great -I'll take a look.

Waragainstsleep · Feb 22, 2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think one of the reasons they abandoned it was because there is no real future in that whole model of creating static sites that way, when you could create the same sort of sites with an entirely cloud based platform?

Pity they don't offer such a similar cloud-based tool then.

Its just handy. We run a Snow Leopard Server VM in the office hosting half a dozen low traffic websites for small businesses. Nothing flash, cleaners, holiday homes, a nursery, that sort of thing. iWeb is perfect for doing that.

besson3c · Feb 22, 2012, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Pity they don't offer such a similar cloud-based tool then.

I guess, but maybe they feel like that this is best left for others?

Its just handy. We run a Snow Leopard Server VM in the office hosting half a dozen low traffic websites for small businesses. Nothing flash, cleaners, holiday homes, a nursery, that sort of thing. iWeb is perfect for doing that.

It's perfect until it isn't.

The problem with these sorts of sites is that the content is all completely unstructured, so when/if the user outgrows the site moving to a system that requires separating the content from the template and providing this document structure can be a big PITA, and often a pretty significant undertaking. With unstructured content doing searches, creating index pages of blog posts, categorizing pages, adding metadata to pages, etc. is not easily possible without a database.

Because creating dynamic sites not only minimizes this sort of painting yourself into a corner scenario, is the so-called Web 2.0 way, and allows more room to grow with adding on web-based forms and dropping in various widgets and things that require template modifications and/or server processing, I don't see Apple as being a trend setter being terribly interested in yesterday's model for how the web worked back in the days where everybody used Dreamweaver.

Not only this, but a CMS based site (which is what I'm talking about here) in addition to these features would allow for constant updating of the platform without making users pay for and/or downloading updates and having to deal with these sorts of support issues to deal with, say, the Facebook "Like" social plugin no longer working because Facebook decided to change this code and Joe Schmoe hasn't updated iWeb for 4 years because it was working just fine. It also allows for some additional capability that can reduce support overhead such as dynamically lazy loaded assets (such as jQuery, etc.) that administrators can update to support new technologies as they come and go, as well as deprecate old ones.

All of this is to say that iWeb was a pretty inferior product that served a useful purpose, but was more utilitarian than exciting in a way we expect from Apple. If Apple is working on a system that allows users to build websites I'd bet they are making this a web application, perhaps with a supplementary mobile app (like WordPress has).

WordPress is getting pretty close to this model with its apply to self-update themes and plugins (as well as itself), all of the plugins out there, all of the gazillion themes available for it, and its ubiquity. The way themes are designed and implemented is a bit old school (the system is not MVC based, for instance), but there is a tremendous user base behind it. WordPress is freaking huge.

besson3c · Feb 22, 2012, 11:34 PM

BTW, Waragainstsleep, can I ask why you host these websites yourself rather than just referring them to one of the many shared hosting providers out there?

Waragainstsleep · Feb 23, 2012, 08:40 AM

Sure.

It pays for the internet line.

Eug · Feb 23, 2012, 10:30 AM

I gave up on iWeb years ago because it was so limited. I don't know if they've solved the problems with it more recently, but it seems like Apple hasn't been paying much attention to it.

gregfripp · Feb 24, 2012, 12:38 PM

at the risk of sounding stupid, here are my thoughts.
I built a very simple site using iWeb, but i could not add the features i wanted.
i lookedaround and evenualy chose Sandvox.
sandvox has all the features i needed.
have a look at my very simple site and you will see.
highspeedbroadbandforboveytracey.co.uk
greg

cgc · Feb 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

Stacks (a plugin for Sandvox and RapidWeaver) are amazing and can allow webmasters to do all kinds of things and even work with proper CMS backends or SQL databases. Pretty amazing what can be done with little effort on the development side.

euphras · Feb 25, 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by gregfripp

at the risk of sounding stupid, here are my thoughts.
I built a very simple site using iWeb, but i could not add the features i wanted.
i lookedaround and evenualy chose Sandvox.
sandvox has all the features i needed.
have a look at my very simple site and you will see.
highspeedbroadbandforboveytracey.co.uk
greg

Looks great! I like sites with a rather minimalistic appearence.