[Veltliner]

iWeb is one of those really great apple apps, that are simple to use, but can achieve great results.

With color fills, framing, etc., text color, and everything is drag and drop.

And the display of photos is good. No color shifts.

There are a few tricky things, that, well used, can even enhance this application.

e.g. When you drop a photo into a text box, and choose "line" instead of picture frame, it gives you a nice little distance to the photo.

If you just copy a photo to the canvas and click to draw a line around it, it fits the photo tightly.

By the way, using the templates would mean missing out a lot this software has to offer. Better start out with a blank page.

[IAmZoraK]

i also use it too, and really enjoy it.

[peeb]

I really with it had alternative image text.

[besson3c]

The front end is wonderful, I'm sure, the backend (i.e. the code that it produces) is frankly unusable, and the whole design of the app does not fit very well in the modern world of web development. Nobody is interested in developing static pages anymore.

However, in fairness, this app is perfect for Johnny who wants to make a page for his Grandma, which seems to be precisely how this app is targeted, so to this end it is a success.

[peeb]

As you point out - some people are interested in producing static pages...

[MacosNerd]

I use it also.

Its a great application and it produces some really nice websites.

To be honest, all I care about is two things.
1. Does it allow me to create visually pleasing websites fairly easily and quickly
2. Does it work, insofar as proper render in most browsers.

For iWeb the answer is too. Besson cares about what the code looks like and that's fine for him. I don't knock that but for me (and I suspect a lot of people), I care about whether it works and it does.

To his other point about static pages, he's correct, iWeb does create static pages, but a lot of people still have a need and desire to produce them. Personally I use Dreamweaver for larger projects but for small things nothing beats iWeb.

[Macola]

I agree about the code being awful. However, there are problems with the front end, too...the inflexibility of the navigation menu, for example. It's a pretty good app for the average user, but it could be improved in several areas.

[besson3c]

Just so you understand why I gripe about the code, it has much more than just idealism or just sort of a personal peeve, but there are real tangible benefits to clean code that are pretty universally agreed upon among web developers:

- faster page loads, less bandwidth consumed

- better search rankings

- better browser compatibility, including potentially with browsers that don't even exist yet, and of course with the ugly Windows IE that is the bane of many web developer's existences

- better manageability, particularly important with large sites

- easier to scale to a diverse range of devices

- easier to integrate into a CMS

- easier for somebody else to inherit

- provides a solid foundation in which your site can grow in size before becoming unwieldy (e.g. a single header and footer file for each page, etc.)

- easier to swap out images when they aren't sliced up in bizarre ways

[Veltliner]

Besson 3c, what do you think of using Photoshop for creating web pages?

Is that code more sexy?

I haven't been able to find a good tutorial on how to do it, using the slice tool, etc. but I have seen a photographer's website done this way, and it looks great.

CS3 does no longer come with Imageready, but most of its tools are still available, but you have to dig it up from Photoshop's depths.

Regarding iWeb:

The argument with fast load times and rating in search engines is very strong.

Still, just starting out doing my own web design, it is a good first tool. And you can get much better designs out of it than Mom's apple pie website.

I never use a template, but start with the blank page, add image, and text boxes. You can add lines and color fills and can get a decent looking site (not like those ugly templates)

I just can't see myself buying Dreamweaver for 400$, and learning another piece of software. Not at this point in time. I rather focus on getting really good in a few key applications.

So, while iWeb may write Frankenstein Code that causes web professionals nightmares, it's a nice first stepping stone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Besson 3c, what do you think of using Photoshop for creating web pages?

Is that code more sexy?

I haven't been able to find a good tutorial on how to do it, using the slice tool, etc. but I have seen a photographer's website done this way, and it looks great.

CS3 does no longer come with Imageready, but most of its tools are still available, but you have to dig it up from Photoshop's depths.

Regarding iWeb:

The argument with fast load times and rating in search engines is very strong.

Still, just starting out doing my own web design, it is a good first tool. And you can get much better designs out of it than Mom's apple pie website.

I never use a template, but start with the blank page, add image, and text boxes. You can add lines and color fills and can get a decent looking site (not like those ugly templates)

I just can't see myself buying Dreamweaver for 400$, and learning another piece of software. Not at this point in time. I rather focus on getting really good in a few key applications.

So, while iWeb may write Frankenstein Code that causes web professionals nightmares, it's a nice first stepping stone.

I use Photoshop and Illustrator for creating websites (actually, I've been farming out this work to graphic designers lately), and with this work I open up a text editor and code the design. I don't like tools like Dreamweaver (especially not at $400), and while it sounds sort of high brow/snobbish to say this, learning HTML and CSS by hand is well worth it if you want to work coding websites. Sooner or later, learning this is the gorilla which cannot be avoided forever if this is what you wish to do. If it isn't, teaming up with a programmer is a great idea - usually great programmers are poor graphic designers and vice versa.

My two cents.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I use Photoshop and Illustrator for creating websites (actually, I've been farming out this work to graphic designers lately), and with this work I open up a text editor and code the design. I don't like tools like Dreamweaver (especially not at $400), and while it sounds sort of high brow/snobbish to say this, learning HTML and CSS by hand is well worth it if you want to work coding websites. Sooner or later, learning this is the gorilla which cannot be avoided forever if this is what you wish to do. If it isn't, teaming up with a programmer is a great idea - usually great programmers are poor graphic designers and vice versa.

My two cents.

Doesn't sound snobbish at all.

I actually like creating a website, but only my own. I have no intention, urge, drive, or need to do it professionally. I know that knowing HTML and CSS would be great, but you can only do a certain amount of things at a good level, otherwise you're starting to spread yourself thin.

But I want to stay independent of a programmer, as I want to do changes when I feel like it. I would even take a little dirty code into account.

Years ago I once bought an HTML book and snoozed through the first 100 plus pages. "Coding" sounds so great, like secret codes and keys and secret messages, but the reality isn't that exciting. This HTML - and now I don't want to sound disrespectful - really bores the hell out of me, as it's merely a translation of content into a formal, descriptive language. I almost fell into a coma reading that book, and I had to be reanimated with a thriller and a comedy. I'd rather produce content.

How do you actually do it, bringing your design from Photoshop onto the web. There are very short tutorials about it on the web, and I haven't found a book so far that deals with it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Doesn't sound snobbish at all.

I actually like creating a website, but only my own. I have no intention, urge, drive, or need to do it professionally. I know that knowing HTML and CSS would be great, but you can only do a certain amount of things at a good level, otherwise you're starting to spread yourself thin.

Definitely! Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that you are doing this as some sort of paid gig. I just figured who in their right mind would want to endure the pains of web design purely for fun?

In this case, I'm sure iWeb is a great tool, I'm sure it keeps it quite fun, and produces satisfying results for your purposes, I'm sure!

How do you actually do it, bringing your design from Photoshop onto the web. There are very short tutorials about it on the web, and I haven't found a book so far that deals with it.

I slice up all of the images in accordance to my layout, dump them in an images folder, and go to work coding the entire thing by hand with a text editor. The specifics of how I code the HTML are too lengthy to include in a single post.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I slice up all of the images in accordance to my layout, dump them in an images folder, and go to work coding the entire thing by hand with a text editor. The specifics of how I code the HTML are too lengthy to include in a single post.

I assume you never used Imageready in CS2 or the remaining tools in CS3?

The photographer I talked to, and who had a great webpage designed with Imageready/cs2 never spoke of coding. And he had no big bags under the eyes. Shouldn't he have had those if he had done the coding manually? Is Imageready a way around manual coding?

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just figured who in their right mind would want to endure the pains of web design purely for fun?

I like your sense of realism. So it hasn't gotten to you yet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I assume you never used Imageready in CS2 or the remaining tools in CS3?

The photographer I talked to, and who had a great webpage designed with Imageready/cs2 never spoke of coding. And he had no big bags under the eyes. Shouldn't he have had those if he had done the coding manually? Is Imageready a way around manual coding?

To put it bluntly, no, it isn't. Imageready also produces lousy code - it's the same basic problem here - WYSIWYG editors are always sort of similar to relying on Babelfish or some other automatic language translator to translate a foreign language for you. They sort of work some of the time, but they are extremely crude tools that are not intended to be substitutes to actually learning the language.

Imageready is useful for slicing up images using the Slice tool, but I also prefer doing this by hand for some reason.

[Veltliner]

I just reviewed my first website, and I can see the code errors.

On one page, the color fill background of the text was of a lighter dark gray than the browser background, and iWeb merged them both, which made the text harder to read.

In another case a text box, coming right after another text box, slid a little farther down the page, and created an empty space.

In one case the text box was missing one thin frame, but that was my mistake - I must have placed it outside the work area.

But that's about it. The key thing: general layout, and, above all, color reproduction of used photos, is excellent.

This makes iWeb a very useable tool. Regarding the fact that it comes for free with a Mac and is fun and intuitive to use, I must really say:"Love it!"

[CaptainHaddock]

I agree with Besson's criticisms of the HTML code produced, but it's practically impossible to have a usable WYSIWYG editor that produces "pretty" code, because of the severe layout limitations inherent in HTML. That iWeb works at all — and works well, from the interface point of view — is astonishing, in my opinion.

And can I just say, I really want Apple to make a pro web design app to be to iWeb what FCP is to iMovie.

[phobos]

For a extremely more powerful program than iWeb but with a similar working methodology try RapidWeaver.
The amazing thing with it is that you begin with a template based site building and when you become more accustomed with programming, css or even flash you can incorporate all that in an instant.
And for all the creative people who get bored by things like that, there's a transparent way to use all those tools without having to learn all of it in detail. You have to try it to understand what I'm saying.
And on top of that there's a really active community willing to help and share extremely customizable themes.
I think there's a demo on their site so you can try before you buy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

I agree with Besson's criticisms of the HTML code produced, but it's practically impossible to have a usable WYSIWYG editor that produces "pretty" code, because of the severe layout limitations inherent in HTML. That iWeb works at all — and works well, from the interface point of view — is astonishing, in my opinion.

And can I just say, I really want Apple to make a pro web design app to be to iWeb what FCP is to iMovie.

I just don't see how Apple could attract people to buy what would amount to be a text editor. Many pros could develop using simply Textedit.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just don't see how Apple could attract people to buy what would amount to be a text editor. Many pros could develop using simply Textedit.

You're missing the point. iWeb is not marketed to the pros but rather consumer and even the prosumer I know lot of photographers (professional photographers) who use iweb to market their images and their services. They build their own sites, they do not care to dig into the code. its not what is important to them, they'd rather spend more time honing their photographic skills, or going out on jobs then hand coding.

I use iweb and/or dw for my own enjoyment and not for professional reasons, i.e., not making money on web design.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

You're missing the point. iWeb is not marketed to the pros but rather consumer and even the prosumer I know lot of photographers (professional photographers) who use iweb to market their images and their services. They build their own sites, they do not care to dig into the code. its not what is important to them, they'd rather spend more time honing their photographic skills, or going out on jobs then hand coding.

I use iweb and/or dw for my own enjoyment and not for professional reasons, i.e., not making money on web design.

Reread what I was responding to, particularly the last paragraph/line.

[MacosNerd]

My mistake - I missed that and misunderstood your post.

[besson3c]

No sweat!

[ehunt]

Dudes you've obviously been using it for a while and I love it as well for my family site etc.....would port over a public site as well if I could figure out how to do meta tags in iWeb...right now I export the site, add them into the coding manually and then upload...is that the only option?

[besson3c]

If by meta tags you literally mean <meta>, just FYI search engines don't really use these anymore, if this is your primary motivation here.

[Veltliner]

I checked out the loading times of my iWeb built website on other computers.

Must say: no complaints here. iWeb truly works well, and I'm sure it'll get even better over the years.

[besson3c]

Slow rendering speeds are dependent on what browser you are using, what template/content it is rendering, your network speed, and the performance of the web server. This makes benchmarking difficult, but in theory with less text needed to render a page and a simplified page structure, both bandwidth and rendering times are reduced.

The net gains of optimizing pages for performance also vary, but in general I recommend doing this for this reason as well as the several others I have listed. The net gains are particularly justified with a large, high traffic site.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If by meta tags you literally mean <meta>, just FYI search engines don't really use these anymore, if this is your primary motivation here.

What do they use now if not the meta tags. I thought they still used them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

What do they use now if not the meta tags. I thought they still used them.

They don't use them anymore because they can easily be abused.

Google relies upon data scraped from page crawls. It also recognizes alt and title tags. There are a number of techniques for improving Google search results (having clean code is one), but meta tags are now obsolete.

[MacosNerd]

Thanks - learned something new.

[Veltliner]

Regarding the bad code of iWeb:

I just ran into serious trouble.

At first is was only one text box sliding over another.

After two hours of work and setting up the page again, nothing works. The fonts are wrong, the size of the fonts are wrong, orientation is wrong, colors.

At the moment I'm stuck as I have no idea how to save that page. First I thought it was the bullet points, and I removed them. And it just got worse and worse, and even setting up a new page, and typing it again (I tried to avoid copying problem sections), didn't help.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just don't see how Apple could attract people to buy what would amount to be a text editor. Many pros could develop using simply Textedit.

Look at Apple's website, in particular all the newer pages and additions — they're all full of nice yet unobtrusive Javascript effects and transitions, generated behind-the-scenes by Scriptaculous and other free Javascript libraries. Designers like me would love a design-oriented app that not only generated clean structural mark-up, but allowed seamless drag-and-drop use of these Javascript effects. I'm not a programmer, so that kind of thing takes me way too many hours mucking around in a text editor.

In other words, make a pro app that lets an experienced designer build a site as nice as Apple's site, and streamlines all the menial tasks that I currently use a text editor for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

Look at Apple's website, in particular all the newer pages and additions — they're all full of nice yet unobtrusive Javascript effects and transitions, generated behind-the-scenes by Scriptaculous and other free Javascript libraries. Designers like me would love a design-oriented app that not only generated clean structural mark-up, but allowed seamless drag-and-drop use of these Javascript effects. I'm not a programmer, so that kind of thing takes me way too many hours mucking around in a text editor.

In other words, make a pro app that lets an experienced designer build a site as nice as Apple's site, and streamlines all the menial tasks that I currently use a text editor for.

Well, the first step might be a robust toolkit that allows developers to call upon these popular Javascript libraries in an easy and flexible manner. Right now, this is a big hodge podge and we generally have to interface directly with these different JS libs.

I agree that this would be nice though!

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

Look at Apple's website, in particular all the newer pages and additions — they're all full of nice yet unobtrusive Javascript effects and transitions, generated behind-the-scenes by Scriptaculous and other free Javascript libraries. Designers like me would love a design-oriented app that not only generated clean structural mark-up, but allowed seamless drag-and-drop use of these Javascript effects. I'm not a programmer, so that kind of thing takes me way too many hours mucking around in a text editor.

In other words, make a pro app that lets an experienced designer build a site as nice as Apple's site, and streamlines all the menial tasks that I currently use a text editor for.

Looks like an Apple version of Dreamweaver, only with that portion of Apple Ease. And not at 400$. I second that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Looks like an Apple version of Dreamweaver, only with that portion of Apple Ease. And not at 400$. I second that.

Without all of the obsolete cruft such as a WYSIWYG editor and site management junk...

[Veltliner]

Found a solution, and another problem, and another solution.

1. Solution to the garbled page: sometimes you create a new text box, but cannot move it, nor write in it. It kind of slides underneath another text box. If that happens, a bug maybe, start anew.

To avoid that: plan how many text boxes you need, and try to get to land them on a free portion of the page.

Addition: Even in the final version I had a garbled box in the published version (website published to a folder on the desktop), but it came out fine in the web version.

2. When uploading the site to the web using Fetch it did not work. Going to the site, you'd end up having a "index/" page. This, because iWeb creates its own directory.

Solution: open the folder containing your website on the desktop, and only send the content to your server via Fetch. Ignore the extra index.html file. It's a copy of the file already in the website folder.

Thus you get the right directory with your web address on top of the directory, and it works.

Now my website is up, and nothing is garbled. Now that I know the little nicks in the program (cost me a few hours, though) iWeb works fine for me.

[besson3c]

Veltliner: I suggest having a look at your site in IE 6 if you wish it to be accessible to Windows users. Whenever Safari or Firefox struggles to render content directly, you can usually count on IE having a field day with it.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Veltliner: I suggest having a look at your site in IE 6 if you wish it to be accessible to Windows users. Whenever Safari or Firefox struggles to render content directly, you can usually count on IE having a field day with it.

I'll definitely do that.

Just in case there was a misunderstanding: Safari didn't have problems. The garbled page was only garbled in the folder, sitting on the desktop. Just to be on the safe side, I totally removed that page and created it anew.

[chris v]

I'm using Numbers and iWeb to replace my old manually made production schedule. I made a nice looking timeline in Numbers, and I send it to a blog I created in iWeb in PDF form, which my fellow employees can access with a password.

It was a nice integration between the two, when I found it, and it solved a major dilemma for me, which was basically how to computerize and distribute information that I used to keep manually on a big huge whiteboard.