








(9)
Your rating: Now say why...






| Downloads:174,342 |
| Version Downloads:13,499 |
| Type:Development : HTML |
| License:Free |
| Date:27 Jun 2005 |
| Platform:PPC |
| Price:Free |
Overall (Version 1.x):![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Features:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ease of Use:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Value:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Stability:![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
+1
+544
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KompoZer
http://www.kompozer.net
+544
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/33915/kompozer
+1
What should have taken 5 minutes in MS Publisher, has wasted 5 hours of my time so far. I bought a Mac because I was tired of having to become a computer engineer just to get my equipment to do "what it says on the box" - I guess Nvu users are of a different mentality.
-1
+68
Yes, the readme warns against running it from the disk image. But this is a mac, we expect software to "just work"! If the program can't run from a locked disk image then either fix it or don't ship it on a locked disk image!
Rubbish.
+1
+23
+228
+2
+20
+22
I find this strange considering other ultra-simple wysiwyg html editors such as WebMinimalist has this simple necessity.
I find it a shame 'cause this app has some really handy features but I think I'll stick to Taco at the moment which seems to be the only TRUE, free wysiwyg html editor for OSX, and judging by it's 4.5 star rating I'm not the only one who thinks so.
+1
-1
Anonymous reviewed on 03 Jul 2005
Of course, people who do professional web design should be able to afford a commercial product and not have to rely on a free and open-source app. BUT, while they are at it, why not turn Nvu into a really excellent, state-of-the-art editor that can kick GoLive's and Dreamweaver's b*tt?
Like many reviewers before me, I am very excited about this app and I'm sure it will become as great as, say, Firefox. I really hope so, because I don't like GoLive, nor Dreamweaver.
So, thumbs up to the Nvu developers, keep going, I'll buy all of you a large mug of coffee.
Anonymous reviewed on 03 Jul 2005
I'm sure Nvu is great if you just want to hack up a couple of simple pages without needing to know about HTML. However, if you do professional web design, you can safely forget about Nvu at this stage. There are just too many inconsistencies and bugs if you really need to rely on the details and focus on high-quality, elegant code.
You can only switch between HTML 4 and XHTML 1 and between transitional and strict DTDs, and that is not honored correctly (if set to XHTML, an HTML 4 header is inserted anyway). It does the most vile thing a web editor can possibly do: it automatically reformats and changes your existing code, even if you tell it in the preferences not to. If you use inline CSS formatting, it inserts a huge bunch of completely unnecessary CSS formatting statements. This is about as bad as it can get; a regression to the bad, dark, old world of the web-editing stone age à la Claris HomePage (1997). Not good!
To sum it up, if you're still stuck in the HTML 4 era (1997-2000), and don't care about what's happening in the background (i.e. code), Nvu will be quite a useful piece of software. If you're going to do state of the art web development (using XHTML 1 and CSS), Nvu will not work for, but against you. It's more fun developing with a standard text editor (as before) than wasting time editing out the bad stuff Nvu automagically puts into your code.
The interface looks very promising but needs a lot of polish. There are some nasty bugs that absolutely shouldn't be in a 1.0 final release, like if you close the last document window, the menu functions for creating or opening a new document no longer work; the only way to get out of this is to quit and re-launch Nvu and then open a file from within the document window that's created on startup.
So -- looking forward to a hopefully bright future viz. open source WYSIWYG web editing on Mac OS X, and may the force be with all developers working on such a project.
Anonymous reviewed on 30 Jun 2005
(I've used the 1.0 final release; maybe this is different in the 1.0 PR...)
Anonymous reviewed on 30 Jun 2005
Anonymous reviewed on 30 Jun 2005