bobwillz — 2011-06-28T08:01:24-04:00 — #1
Is any free software like dreamweaver is available for website design ?
ralphm — 2011-06-28T10:05:52-04:00 — #2
scampsall — 2011-06-28T11:23:23-04:00 — #3
You can download Microsoft Sharepoint Designer '07 for free and its reasonably good. I've found it really good to learn with, because, unlike any text editor I've seen, it will give you a list of options when you're writing your code eg. if you're writing css for the <body>, it'll throw you a dropdown with all the possible styling tags.
Its got its quirks, the main one being that because its MS it follows Internet Explorer rules, so sometimes (quite often!) your page will look broken in 'design' view, but be fine in a decent browser! For me though, this has helped me learn and be aware of IE issues.
Also, because its 2007, it'll offer you some HTML that may be deprecated/it doesn't recognise newer HTML standards (this isn't an issue, it'll just highlight them as an error).
Just google it and find the download from the Microsoft site
system — 2011-06-28T21:24:49-04:00 — #4
Honestly, why bother with a "replacement" when it's a fat bloated pile of crap that the only thing you can learn from it is how NOT to build websites?
Go get yourself a flat text editor -- any of them will do, Crimson, win32pad, notepad++, editplus -- if you're stuck on a quackintosh there's text wrangler which I've heard good things about... hell even notepad will do.
You want to upload, get filezilla. You want to see what it looks like rendered, actually preview in the SHOCK browsers... Which you should be doing anyways given what useless junk "preview panes" are.
Dreamweaver is a blight upon the Internet responsible for as many if not more broken sites than Frontpage, and should be stamped out at the earliest opportunity -- and the sad part is that if you're looking for a all-in-one tool with a WYSIWYG tacked on the alternatives are WORSE.
alexson — 2011-06-30T06:55:48-04:00 — #5
If you're happy to code by hand, which really is the only way once you get the hang of it - and well worth the time spent, I'd recommend UltraEdit, I've been using that for years and it is really good.
black_max — 2011-07-01T03:08:57-04:00 — #6
Take some of the grrrrr out of DS60's post and I'd agree with it.
system — 2011-07-01T05:46:04-04:00 — #7
alternative of dreamweaver are
aleksejs — 2011-07-04T02:42:16-04:00 — #8
Just stumbled on this:
BlueGriffon, The next-generation Web Editor based on the rendering engine of Firefox
BlueGriffon is a new WYSIWYG content editor for the World Wide Web. Powered by Gecko, the rendering engine of Firefox 4, it's a modern and robust solution to edit Web pages in conformance to the latest Web Standards.
system — 2011-07-04T05:40:26-04:00 — #9
Given the website for that has a broken tab menu, effectively invisible search box, presentational classes and inlined style... and a 109k .png doing a 20k jpeg's job... and the broken tabs not gracefully degrading scripting off and amounting to more of that "pageloads are evil" nonsense than actual usable page layout... and the 3k <HEAD> more than half of which not a single user agent would give a flying purple fish about...
If the output is any worse, "BlueGriffon" may be a candidate for the new "blight upon the Internet".
aleksejs — 2011-07-04T05:59:49-04:00 — #10
What You See Is What You Get... and What You Get Is What You Deserve for using WYSIWYG
system — 2011-07-04T06:08:19-04:00 — #11
Well, the mere NOTION of a WYSIWYG for web design is as silly as drawing a pretty picture in pixels and calling it a web design... With the plethora of resolutions, font rendering, available fonts, and device capabilities, the only thing you can be 100% certain of is that why you see will NEVER be what the user gets unless they happen to have that same magical mix of hardware, OS and preferences that you do.
Of course there's not a WYSIWYG out there with the slightest sense of semantic markup to it... much less the concept of "separation of presentation from content" which runs entire contrary to what WYSIWYG's do... or the idea of targeting multiple devices and capabilities from one set of content since WYSIWYGS are pretty much "desktop screen only" affairs.
anarch — 2011-07-04T12:23:07-04:00 — #12
Notepad++ or if you want something a little more dynamic for writing many different types of pages... I like Aptana.
mittineague — 2011-07-04T23:51:24-04:00 — #13
think back to animated gifs and autostart midi files
When I got an AOL hometown site I used HotDog Expess but soon found it limited.
... skip foward many years until trying RoR ....
I figured I'd give Notepad++ a try, no more "not enough memory" troubles and customizable!
I didn't care for "Convention over Configuration".
From what I understand - and I have never used DreamWeaver - is that it can produce valid markup if used correctly. Others please correct me if I'm wrong, but to summarize to one sentence:
- Don't trust designing on Web View to reproduce any given browser rendering.
eva bevo convert2media scam
gary_turner — 2011-07-05T00:56:36-04:00 — #14
Rather than bemoan wysiwyg shortcomings, let's look at what it is we're trying to do.
When building a page, or a site for that matter, the goal is to get the content onto the page in a well structured document: The choice of words, and the logical structuring of the text. Depending on the content, structuring includes the division of the text into paragraphs or sections, using lists or block quotes and so on. Then naming the structural elements for what they are; adding the html element tags.
If you're using a wysiwyg editor, you're forced to conflate composition and presentation (equivalent to typesetting). When composing the document, our attention should not be distracted by typesetting at the same time.
There is a side benefit to keeping the layers separate; a well structured html page will be fully functional and make complete sense to the visitor without any presentation or behavior elements. If not, the page is a failure.
anarch — 2011-07-05T01:14:43-04:00 — #15
Someone actually uses a wysiwyg edit for creating a web content?!!
It sounds easier to just draw on a piece of paper and scan it to call it a website.