website building software

[bazzzzz]

hi

any good website building software out there ? free would always be nice :)

[Helior]

Where websites are concerned you can't beat a good text editor (with syntax highlighting) eg. notepad++, it has the advantage of also ensuring you understand the syntax which is really very simple. WYSIWYG editor are pretty **** tbh, theres a free one called kompozer but i've never used it.

[guardy06]

Serif webplus 10 is free, really easy to use too if your new at it. It was the first one i used. But it depends what you need it for really, not sure of its limitations.

[Ian.H]

Where websites are concerned you can't beat a good text editor (with syntax highlighting) eg. notepad++, it has the advantage of also ensuring you understand the syntax which is really very simple. WYSIWYG editor are pretty **** tbh, theres a free one called kompozer but i've never used it.

While I agree that WYSI(N)WYG editors produce a lot of cra p, and varieties thereof, IMO, it really depends on your experience / understanding.

I started with Dreamweaver v3.. and whilst I hate DW now, it gave me the initial knowledge I have today. I used it in "drag-n-drop" mode and then read the code to see what had happened. This is how I learnt HTML many moons ago.

My personal poison these days is Nusphere PhpED for web, or Komodo for Perl scripting (or web if I can't use PhpED for some reason) for which there's also a free version of Komodo-Edit (http://downloads.activestate.com/Komodo/releases/5.2.1/).

Nothing wrong with a "half-decent" WYSI(N)WYG editor to start out with, but don't expect expert results from it and remember to trim all the bloat out when you do start writing code by hand :)



Regards,

Ian

[Mr. Orange]

hmm. i started on Dreamweaver CS4 at school (rich ********) then i just got a trial of Dreamweaver CS4 from adobe..
It's great :D

[jonbanjo]

My personal poison these days is Nusphere PhpED for web

Sounds nice but starting an $299, far too expensive for me!

At the moment, I'm using Kate (a KDE text editor with syntax highlighting for html, php, etc.) for my odd bits and pieces.

I used to like Eclipse with the PDT plugin but my more recent experience with it has gone from bad to worse. My 3.4.? version sometimes starts and crashes randomly. I downloaded 3.5.1 yesterday. Tried to look for new features, Eclipse crashed with a SIGSEGV, problematic frame libjvm.so[...]. I can't even open any of the help/"software options" without a crash now.

I've tried the latest versions available on OpenSuse Java for:
jre-1.6.0-openjdk
jre-1.6.0-sun
jre-1.7.0-icedtea

And all fail. Maybe I'll find an older version of Eclipse that does work for me but I think I've reached the conclusion it's something I should move away from for good. There doesn't seem to me to be much future for it on my platform.

[jonbanjo]

hmm. i started on Dreamweaver CS4 at school (rich ********) then i just got a trial of Dreamweaver CS4 from adobe..
It's great :D

My own view is that things like that are great for quickly drafting up an idea for a layout and for getting an idea how something is coded but they do add a lot of stuff that isn't needed.

In any case, I think if your content pages do start to become something maybe like this (a page for my forum):


<?
require("../common/memberpage.php");

class forumdefault extends memberpage
{
public function __construct($pagetitle, $robots, $validhtml)
{
parent::__construct($pagetitle, $robots, $validhtml);
}


public function showmiddle()
{
//echo a few lines of html
}
}

$thispage=new forumdefault("Home", "INDEX, FOLLOW", true);
$thispage->init();

?>I think you are going to have to be coding the HTML parts by hand.

[jonbanjo]

re my Eclipse comments... Had another thought... I've just downloaded a 32bit version of Eclipse 3.5.1 and changed the (easiest for me using the OpenSuse software manager without possibly getting in the way of anything else) IceTea 1.7 Java to 32 bit. Still some strangeness in the update management section (one part seems to report the same location another can and does access is inaccessible...) but I seem to have got through the PDT update and so far had no crashes. Hope to report back in a couple of days time if running 32 bit is my solution for Eclipse on Linux.

[promedia]

[code]
<?
require("../common/memberpage.php");

[code]


's some bad syntax at the beginning...
I've had PHP Scripts that have NOT executed because of not putting "<?php" / "<?PHP" because you can never be certain of Webserver settings unless specified. You then spend hours trying to debug a piece of code just because of silly things like that.

Plus require is over-rated, it's always better to code error handeling yourself than to have PHP Produced Errors which makes the user/client bewildered...
Since, most people do not direct that for Website logs.

I can't see the benefit of using a class in the given example,
better to use it on something more complex that really does need a class to keep things clean.

Notepad ++ is also over-rated. I personally do not like it. Even slow old Eclipse is more useful...

Jim,

[jonbanjo]

's some bad syntax at the beginning...

I thought I had changed them all...


Plus require is over-rated, I'm happy using require.


I can't see the benefit of using a class in the given example,
better to use it on something more complex that really does need a class to keep things clean.I prefer it to my previous version which just used functions. Perhaps what's missing is what memberpage::init does? It sets up a database connection, retrieves member details, displays the top of the page, provides showmiddle for the content that is unique to a page and then displays the bottom of the page.


Notepad ++ is also over-rated. I personally do not like it. Even slow old Eclipse is more useful...I've been using Kate. It is more useful than a version of Eclipse that crashes every few minutes if it starts at all.

[NeilX90]

Baz,

Depending on what you are doing with your website (and whether or not you want to learn how to code), you might want to have a look at one of the Content Management Systems that are available, free, from a number of organisations.

The advantage of these is that you can either do no programming at all, or learn html, php, javascript etc., to customise your site. They all have a wide variety of third-party plug-ins to enable you to do some very advanced things out of the box.

My personal favourite is Joomla - www.joomla.org - there is a learning curve involved with installing it on your host's server and configuring it, but it's within the reach of anyone vaguely PC-competent. It has a nice mix of ease-of-use and functionality. There are others which are easier to get going (but less powerful) and vice-versa.

With a CMS, you don't even need to be a design guru - you can either use one of the many, free, style templates available on the web or use a program such as Artisteer to design your own.

If Joomla and the like are too much, Wordpress can be made to turn out a cracking site. Although originally designed for bloggers, it's easy to make it into a 'normal' web-site - www.wordpress.org

Worth a look !

[Helior]

In what way is notepad++ overrated??? It's just an example of a text editor with syntax highlighting and some other nice features, there are many like it. Eclipse is entirely differant.

CMS systems are brilliant if your interested in just getting the site up and running, but if your interested in learning how its done there is nothing better than doing it yourself.

Your best bet is too start out with html/css/javascript then move on to a server side technology like php/asp.net. Don't forget to also learn about AJAX and webservices, that is what the web is all about these days ;)

[NeilX90]

The *best* websites will always be hand-coded - of that there is no doubt, but now we're talking about the companies like 37signals who do Coke's or Nike's site. A commercial-quality site requires either a team of proficient people with varying skills, or one multi-talented developer who has an eye for graphics/design as well as the technical skills needed to turn that vision into a fully-fledged page.

There are very few people who fall into the latter category.

What I question is whether it is worth re-inventing the wheel ? By all means learn the languages if it is something that interests you but a CMS will enable you to achieve the same results, as another team has already done all the hard work. Easy option ? Wimping out ? Definitely, and why not.

No one sits down and codes their own word processor when they want to write a letter - they use Word or OpenOffice or any of the other myriad tools available. I'd be interested to know what people think can be achieved by a huge amount of time invested in learning web languages that *cannot* be achieved with Joomla, Drupal, et.al.

I am in no way rubbishing anyone's ability, talent or skill. I would just be very interested to know why you would go down the route of hand-editing and coding html when I can produce the same site you can (possibly even more featured) for a fraction of the effort.

If Baz is only interested in hosting a 'my mate's stag do' web site for a couple of weeks, then all of our suggestions are massive overkill.

Funny how a simple question like OP's produces a great discussion :)

Baz... more info please !

(Edit - thought I'd address the code 'bloat' issue. Yes. It happens. Now who gives a stuff besides people who have a passion for web standards and development ?! If the page loads quickly, looks good on IE6 (*shudder*) to IE8, Chrome to Safari with Firefox inbetween, from 1020x768 up to the monstrous resolutions now available... really... who gives a ****. So you won't be able to put a little graphic showing your site has passed standards validation on it..... the horror ! I have a suspicion I'm going to hold the minority viewpoint in this discussion but site tools offer professional results for amateurs like me. If there are redundant CSS tags in the resultant code I'm not going to lose any sleep !)

[jonbanjo]

one multi-talented developer who has an eye for graphics/design as well as the technical skills needed to turn that vision into a fully-fledged page.

As you say, I believe such people are very rare.


I would just be very interested to know why you would go down the route of hand-editing and coding html when I can produce the same site you can (possibly even more featured) for a fraction of the effort.In my case, I would give history and interest in learning (I did want to play...) as reasons. Mine started life as an off the shelf asp forum. It underwent changes as requirements changed and when I decided to host it from home, changed to php... The way this one went, while I'm no doubt I could get far more features and a much better looking design, I'm not sure I would find it easier now combining song database parts with the forum in a similar way using an off the shelf package. Plus there would be the difficulty of getting the data into a new format.


I have a suspicion I'm going to hold the minority viewpoint in this discussion but site tools offer professional results for amateurs like me. I'm not against self written pages or off the shelf solutions and do agree that it makes sense to look at what is available before starting off on ones own project.


Now who gives a stuff besides people who have a passion for web standards and development ?! If the page loads quickly, looks good on IE6 (*shudder*) to IE8, Chrome to Safari with Firefox inbetween, from 1020x768 up to the monstrous resolutions now available... really... who gives a ****.

If it does... but even then, there are other browsers, eg. I use Konqueror a little here. Isn't it better to work to a standard that sort of says "your code should be OK with any browser that does work to standard"?

[NeilX90]

Fair point on the standards Jon, but it would be hugely helpful if browsers actually worked to said standard ! Hands up any regular web-coder who is fed up with IE6 hacks. Ah... all of you !

The standard answer is to not bother, but my visitor demographics show a significant percentage of people using IE6 to make me *have* to bother. Three style sheets just to cope with the common browsers. I'll say 'argh!' here ! The same for either coding liquid CSS or a fixed-page pixel width of around 1000 for those people who still have a 1024x768 monitor - still a significant percentage as well. I have to confess, though, I have given up on 800x600 visitors - they will just have to accept the horizontal scroll-bar !

Generally, CMS solutions produce (roughly) standard, if somewhat bloated, code. Those with a penchant for that kind of thing can fire up their editor of choice and make it 100% standards-compliant. For the amateur designer, providing a web-site for a friend or a local charity for example, it is a case of working the percentages - if 1 in 500 people can't see my site as intended, I'll live with it. For a professional designer, as you have intimated, that's not acceptable.

I think we're on the same wavelength really - amateur coding is for the enthusiast and people who enjoy the learning experience. The rest of us pull the rabbit out of the hat with a CMS.

The people who fall into neither categories and want to write poems for a girl they've never asked out or post photos of their new baby on a family site either use the host's tools or FrontPage/ExpressionWeb. Whilst the results might provoke a few smirks in the semi-pro camp, do ask yourself what is the aim of a web-site. It is to communicate. If the baby photos are stuck in a standard FrontPage template with 'Smith Family Photos' in a horrid, lurid font, next to the Site-Under-Construction animated-gif-of-web-doom... at least someone tried.

That's me being kind. Do, of course, feel free to laugh and post the offenders a link to a CMS :D

[jonbanjo]

Hands up any regular web-coder who is fed up with IE6 hacks. Ah... all of you !

I'm an infrequent coder (and looking at my pages, I'm not done anything major since March 2007 - for by far the main part, what I have seems to have just worked for me) and don't really know about that. I do try (OK we do use TinyMCE editor for example but that can be switched on/off by user) to avoid JavaScript in most places though. One reason (another being some dol have it switched off) is that when I've looked at other's code, I seem to have read so many "if IE, if some other browser..." clauses, I really can not be arsed with it.


I have given up on 800x600 visitors - they will just have to accept the horizontal scroll-bar !Am trying to support 800x600 without horizontal scrolling.


I think we're on the same wavelength really - amateur coding is for the enthusiast and people who enjoy the learning experience. The rest of us pull the rabbit out of the hat with a CMS.I think there will be the 3rd category who do find their own solution a better fit/ nothing off the shelf really works how they want but that may well be a small minority.


The people who fall into neither categories and want to write poems for a girl they've never asked out or post photos of their new baby on a family site either use the host's tools or FrontPage/ExpressionWeb. Whilst the results might provoke a few smirks in the semi-pro camp, do ask yourself what is the aim of a web-site. It is to communicate. If the baby photos are stuck in a standard FrontPage template with 'Smith Family Photos' in a horrid, lurid font, next to the Site-Under-Construction animated-gif-of-web-doom... at least someone tried.

I feel one point to consider re: bloat is that there are still a fair number around on dial up. Where a page containing double the code it needs might not be a problem on Broadband, I suspect it still could be for those stuck with slower connections?

To me, although I seem to stumble on far fewer these days, perhaps the greatest mistake I see is people thinking they are graphic designers. It is a skill (and one I know I don't have...). IMO, it does take something special to come up with a site that is fantastically eye catching, intuitive and user friendly. Simple but functional with content is IMO far better than a wash of fonts, backgrounds, etc.

[guardy06]

Could do with some feedback from the OP to see what his experience is with building websites and if he's tried any of the above suggestions. :)

[jonbanjo]

True Guardy... And I fear we (or at least I) have again gone way OT for the original question...

[guardy06]

lol, thats maybe true :)

[NeilX90]

Good call Guardy - we're straying away from the original 'what can I use that is free ?' request here, but it is inevitable that some discussion will follow.

Web design is a tricky beast - your site has to work for people who have 800x600 (big respect for Jon for supporting this - most of us don't !) monitors up to the latest 30" resolutions and at the same time work in any weird and wonderful browser someone may have installed.

Now add in the elements of visual design plus programming, and you can see why even a simple site from a professional developer starts in the four-figure mark. Rope in a full-blown company or agency and it's a five-figure sum, very quickly.

Can you copy with this Frontpage ? Nope. CMS ? Pretty much. Hand coded ? Of course, should you have the appropriate talent and experience.

As you say - need the OP's experience and goals to help any further.

[guardy06]

Can't fault the enthusiasm in the replies though, thats what i like about this place.

[jonbanjo]

your site has to work for people who have 800x600 (big respect for Jon for supporting this - most of us don't !) monitors up to the latest 30" resolutions and at the same time work in any weird and wonderful browser someone may have installed.

If I may be allowed one (I'll try final in this thread) drift on this for Neil. My target audiences are "folkies" with an interest in lyrics to traditional songs with additional references and other musicians who have an interest in a text format for exchanging music. While the sometimes presented by the media "traditional folkie = technophobe/luddite, etc.) is untrue (and I know phd sciences people and [proper - not like me] programmers with these interests..., and the abc format for folk was early Internet sharing ...), I doubt it's an area with the same level of interest in 30" monitors - maybe I'm wrong but more one where someone somewhere still finds Netscape does the job.

[NeilX90]

And my final drift... Jon, what you are doing is targeting your user-base based on either a) personal knowledge or b) (as I do) by tracking the browsers, Operating Systems, and system specs.

Both have merits and pitfalls, but essentially we are doing the same thing. The people who are hitting the sites I run for charities are not running 800x600 laptops from 1995. My stats. show that they are using, in the main, Windows XP, IE6 (30%)/IE7(50%)/Firefox 2.x(15%), Other (5%), and that the site takes less than 1 second to load a page for them. Broadband users, then, in the majority.

This fits into the target demographic who have, even in these times, money to spare for a worthy cause. 1 + 1 = 2 in this case, and I am willing to lose a couple of visitors to keep the site workable. Sorry 800x600 dial-up users... we would like your money and interest, but no one is paying the developer (me !) £3k for this website (5 of them !), so I have to target my spare time and audience accordingly.

Targeting... Jon doesn't deliberately make his site look good for 28/30" monitor users as they are probably in the minority, if they exist at all. Bet it works on them though, but might look a little odd.

Some great discussion points here, but we have probably blown the OP's mind with the chat, so I will bow out too !