 | Mar 27 2009 |
RODDY MCKAY From the response of users in the iWeb forum, it seems that the long awaited bug fix doesn't really fix anything very much at all. iWeb still doesn't include the features that a lot of users have requested and the main one they added, the dysfunctional FTP, is a disaster for many. iWeb is basically a good application - it just needs to be made to work out of the box and be developed in the same way as its main competition. I find it astounding that reviewers for certain well known publications are reporting positively. It makes you wonder if they have actually used the application. Until the iWeb FTP actually works, optimization and SEO functionality are added and MobileMe is given a radical overhaul, the only option is to publish to a local folder if you want your site to be findable and viewable on a PC running IE. My main problem with this latest version of the application is its tendency to screw up text and text hyperlinks in a random fashion. The only way to fix this is to delete the offending item, save, quit, reboot, add it back and republish! Apple needs to apply some knowledgeable programmers to this application and to thoroughly test it prior to release before I would give it the rating that the "professional" reviewers have.
(Version 3.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 4 2009 |
NORAA iWeb 3.0 is a much needed update, and a good update at that. While not adding a whole slew of new features, iWeb 3.0 is considerably faster than it's predecessor, in both editing sites and publishing them. In addition MobileMe Galleries created in Aperture FINALLY show up and work in iWeb (for me this is huge). While still not a perfect product (I wish I could make a web page with relative widths as opposed to fix widths - ie 90% vs. 800 px) the program is maturing very nicely.
(Version 3.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Jul 22 2008 |
NORAA Still doesn't fix the problem with MobileMe Galleries created in Aperture not showing up in iWeb (Galleries created in iPhoto show up just fine). This is getting exceedingly frustrating. Maybe an Aperture update is needed.
(Version 2.0.4) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Apr 11 2008 |
IW WARNING: Websites you create in iWeb are at the moment not compatible with Firefox 3 beta. If this is still the case when Firefox 3 is released, iWeb will be as good as useless.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
AWRC Interesting, another iApp update with an opaque comment about "compatibility". Methinks these are 10.5.2 "pre-patches" so that when 10.5.2 is released, all the iApps continue to work smoothly. Which suggests significant enough changes to 10.5.2 that rather a lot that of stuff that hasn't been pre-tested with 10.5.2 and patched accordingly is going to crash and burn when people upgrade.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
DANA SUTTON I've made comments like this before, but let me get this off my chest once again. On the one hand we have these dumbed-down apps that can let a newbie post pictures of the new kid to share with the folks back in Peoria. On the other we have the expensive, hard-to-learn, bloated and ever-buggy Dreamweaver. Why for the love of God can't we have something in between, a fairly simple and reasonably inexpensive full-service WYSIWG Web page creation tool. Why does no software developer get the point that here's an important ecological niche to be filled, that, if done right, could make a ton of money?
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| [ 8 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jan 30 2008 |
KNUSSEAR Kompozer - free and multi-featured
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
JKT 1. RapidWeaver (partially WYSIWYG, especially with third-party plug-in additions and themes). 2. Sandvox.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
DANA SUTTON Sorry, I'm familiar with both of these and neither is what the heart yearns for. I want something where I can design pages the way I need to, and not be limited to anybody's prefab templates, that rules out RapidWeaver. Composer is admittedly better but it has the massive problem that there's no documentation for it, and I can't figure out a reasonably easy way to do certain moves I need to make, like linking to a specific anchor in a page. In Composer that seems horribly difficult although it is a pretty basic operation that page designers need to do. All in all, although Composer has been around for years, my verdict is that it is STILL not ready for prime time, evidently because it's traditionally been a pretty low-priority item for the Netscape development team. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise if somebody would produce halfway decent documentation.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
 | Jan 30 2008 |
SULEIMAN KHAN Shakespeare who once wrote that infamous line: "To be or not to be, that is the question," has done the impossible and answered your question from the grave friend. Rather than complain you need to work hard, every day, to learn how to harness the incomprehensible and sometimes surreal power of DW CS3. It may seem to you now as though DW is the bastard child you never wanted and never really cared for...Or as though you are a child in the middle of a very big, very large, and very huge swimming pool. But I say, dear child, why not take that plunge and venture down into the deep end? Perhaps you too shall quickly understand how learning how to swim can change your life. | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
DANA SUTTON I've been using Dreamweaver on a daily basis for years, it's not "the bastard child you never wanted and never really cared for." It's more like a disreputable uncle who keeps going off on disgusting binges and has to be bailed out of the drunk tank, always at my expense. Each and every time he swears he'll never do it again, but next Saturday night there he is again. I know him all too well, and I'd really like to get that s. o. b. out of my life and trade him in for another uncle with nicer habits.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
JKT Actually a mixture of the Blocks plug-in (yourhead.com) with the BlocksBox theme (http://www.jonasthemes.com/) allows you to create your own individual and completely unique looking site within Rapidweaver. There are some limitations to what you can do, but it does allow for an almost WYSIWYG website creation experience at a price point that is a lot closer to that of iWeb than it is Dreamweaver.
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
KNUSSEAR Perhaps I spelled it wrong Its KompoZer, not Netscape Composer. I find the help quite complete
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 31 2008 |
SULEIMAN KHAN hmmm, an uncle with nicer habits you say? I think I may know a thing or two about where you...wait...what's this??....oh my God I can't believe it's not butter!!!!
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
MAC ADAM Thanks Apple, I was think you was forgot it ! But add more features please, like flash, etc
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 24 2007 |
TOURNESOL I guess the iWeb team has listened to costumers about the very cryptic URLs in iWeb 06, but the change they have made in iWeb 08, to compensate for that, is just to simplified. The URL of subpages made with iWeb 08 will now be called exactly the same as what you call that subpage - the name that also shows in your navigation menu. That is a very big problem, because I'm from Denmark I use the danish characters æ, ø and å in my webpage titles, and you can guess what happens when æ, ø or å is included in the URL. No Windows IE users can see that page. Ex. my daughters 1 year birthday is named '1 års fødselsdag' (1 year birthday) and when that show up in the URL as www.mypage.dk/1_års_fødselsdag.html no one except Safari users will be able to see that page. I then name the page something like '365 dage' (365 days) because then it will work and most people will know what that page is about, but it shouldn't have to to be like that. So please Apple, at least make iWeb 08 change URLs that contain less compatible characters that wont work in most peoples browsers. Otherwise I have to come up with really obscure titles for my subpages, because I can't just call them what I want to.
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 2 2007 |
GLOBETROTTERDK Typical Anglo centric mentality. I understand your frustration, but why not use ae for æ, oe for ø and aa for å? That is the accepted way of dealing with this issue.
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| Nov 3 2007 |
TOURNESOL Because if Apple can make it work in iWeb 1.0 and then brake it in 2.0 then I'm not sattisfied. None the less, after the latest Transmit 3.6.2 update they now upload files using UTF-8 on the file names as well, so now I can use æ ø and å again thanks to my FTP client :)
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| Sep 28 2007 |
ORION MK. V RapidWeaver is so much better - more stable, flexible, manages multiple sites (iWeb can, but not without other apps), and has a solid development community. http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/13216/rapidweaver
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Sep 29 2007 |
MIKE RATT Rapidweaver is not the same concept.
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| Jan 30 2008 |
ONEBLESSEDGUY No, he's correct. I knew almost nothing about web page development. I was using iWeb. The "rumor" was that iWeb would allow you to publish to a non-.Mac account. This rumor was just that. This program is a very good, easy, WYSIWYG editor. I like the ease of it. However, .Mac is a HORRIBLE deal. If they would make iWeb like it was rumored to be I would most likely go back to it. Placeholders rock. However, forced to having a .Mac account (Did I mention how horrible of a deal it is?) is worse than learning css and html. I'll take my learning curve with Rapidweaver. Rapidweaver is excellent and you can do things that iWeb will never be able to do. If you do get Rapidweaver get CSSedit too. I love it for seeing how people do their sites. My 10 cents,
(Version 2.0.3) | |
| Sep 28 2007 |
it can't manage more than one website, it doesn't export more than one website, Quicktime's poster doesn't work, it supports google Adsense and nothing else? it doesn't publish on FTP, it doesn't support flash movies drag and drop, it could have blog integration with facebook but it does not. its concept looks the same of Pages, which I don't like.
(Version 2.0.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Sep 17 2007 |
JEFF NAILEN I can't believe I'm giving a negative rating to an Apple product, this is a first. But only to warn people not to buy iWeb/iLife until they get the bugs fixed in iWeb '08. My small business site I created in iWeb 06 is not rendering correctly in iWeb '08 2.0.1 I didn't start using '08 until the 2.0.1 fix was issued, so this is all under 2.0.1. I didn't move or rename my site, I opened it in 2.0.1 which had made a few changes to the '06 created pages. I went thru and corrected the changes, mainly font & spacing changes until it resembled the site I created and saved. In iWeb the pages look great. But when I publish the pages several font and spacing changes are made in the published pages different from the changes I corrected in converting a '06 site to '08, mainly: some fonts are converted to bold and spacing changes are made so that it is no longer WYSIWYG: the pages in iWeb still look great, the published pages look terrible and unusable. The process of publishing the pages is changing fonts and spacing so that the published pages are far different than the unpublished pages. It's no longer WYSIWYG like iWeb '06/1.x was. I've given this feedback to Apple and posted this on their support forum which is full of many similar and other complaints on iWeb '08. iWeb '06 1.1.2 was great, but this one needs much work! Unfortunately I can't recommend it unless they issue a major fix. In the meantime, RapidWeaver, Sandvox, and iWeb '06 are good alternatives.
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Aug 24 2007 |
MOREEAZ What is really strange after I updated Iweb to version 2 and uploaden the same page, it loads a lot slower then the uploaded version with version 1.02. As proof visit www.visualantis.com/foundation is the old version with 1.02 and www.visualantis.com/foundation2 the new version. After that I did another test, to see if you turn your first page title into index, and so not create an iweb created index. As an example for that you can see www.visualantis.com/foundation3 You know the funny thing of it all is, when I had version 1 I was even able to edit my entire site in the right display in dreamweaver or golive, but after the first update this became an impossibility. What is really great and suprisingly never mentioned is that you can simple copy and paste your entire site content to illustrator and then rasterize it and make slides from there. Export this to web with HTML and then you can edit it in dreamweaver or whatever you want. You can even choose the size of each slide similar are making a site in illustrator from scratch. The iweb version: http://www.visualantis.com/maurice and the illustrator version http://www.visualantis.com/maurice.html Count the loading time for yourself, its an amazing difference. I really tried everything also html-optimizer but the loading time never went better then version 1.0X IF you want to edit your site in dreamweaver then stick with verison 1.0 for others stick with 1.02 or if you use the illustrator conversion trick then 2.02 would do the trick too. I am able to create the same page in iweb in minutes which takes me hours in Illustrator alone so there you go.... keep up the smile, mac rules the mind of the creative people....
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Aug 24 2007 |
MOREEAZ Another thing that you should be aware of are the clipping masks created in IWEB when you paste the site into Illustrator and make slides, you will see that the slides are to big for the layout of the site, as an example check www.visualantis.com/foundation-ill.html this is the same site, but from iweb-> illustrator to the www. Note the space above the page, that is because the clipping mask of the top image is to big. If someone from here can explain me how I can make this clipping mask as small as the image that is visible, then I am the most happy guy in the world. Mr Creative
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| Aug 28 2007 |
MOREEAZ Just deleted iweb 2.01 and reinstalled iweb 1.0 Exports from there can be edited in Dreamweaver directly!!!!
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| Apr 27 2007 |
TOURNESOL Aperture till only works so so with iWeb. The images is in random order in iWebs media browser and the quality of the thumbs and slideshow images in iWeb are inferior to the quality when iWeb is used in conjunction with iPhoto.
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 10 2007 |
MACLOVER1.1 I shyed away from iWEB since it came out, I must have opened it once to look at it for about 5mn with all sorts of prejudices in mind... wanting to be "cooler than thou"... and turned to RapidWeaver for my easy layouts as the buzz surrounding it seemed just so trendy, but after a lot of heartache with RW (I'd rename it Sluggishweaver...please !!!) I finally gave iWEB a real test-drive this Easter wek-end... and look what hatched out of the rabbit's egg: SURPRISE... I'm wondering why on earth I used RapidWeaver at all. I find iWEB much more flexible... looked at some add-ons and articles as well that help it do more stuff (like flash support, template customization, multisite support..). It is way cool, drag and drop and so on.. damn I wasted all this time on RW... based on some silly emotional issue. STOOPID ME.
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 12 2007 |
MACMEND.COM Does anyone remember Claris HomePage now there was an app made it easy to build sites, but for those with no design nouse it fell down. Heres an app that makes design simple and good design at that there are not enough templates though....but the building of the site lacks depth. I would compare it to rapidweaver which aims to be simple, lots of themes/templates and people writing plugins for it, but often seems incomprehensible and geeky its depth and lacks the drawing together that iWeb has in its templates for different types of sites or pages on sites. In this respect i want an app that lands somewhere between the two. For ease of use iWeb wins, for value for money Rapidweaver, Stability about the same, Features each wins and loses in differing areas. Roll on iWeb 2
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 5 2007 |
NORAA I rarely rate software poorly - usually if it isn't good I just won't use it, and that's the end of it. But iWeb has pushed me to my limits. It has such great potential, and is a really great idea! I love being able to create a simple and good looking photo page. I find the blog feature allows for a lot more creativity and flexibility than a lot of the free blog sites out there (i.e. blogspot, livejournal...myspace just sucks). Alas, that damn this is buggy beyond use! I have no problems creating my sites at all, that part goes smoothly. It's trying to upload said sites that causes huge issues. First, why must every page of every site be created, even if no changes have been done to them? And what is up with uploading to .Mac? I either get an error that the .Mac servers are busy about half way through the upload, the upload stalls randomly and won't keep going, or something else prevents the upload. Worst part, while uploading (and creating the pages) my entire system is brought to a grind (and I have a fairly new MacBook Pro). Typically what happens is: first any open applications begin to show considerable slow down, then I can no longer open any new applications - the icon will bounce in the dock once and then that's it, spotlight will then cease to work not finding anything I search for, and finally icons from applicatios being to disappear - it's like hte entire system is having a massive stroke. If I manage to force quit iWeb (which doesn't always happen) and then restart, the system is fine - but seriously, this is just nuts and unacceptable for a product that has been in release for over a year.
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 6 2006 |
ARES iWeb 1.1.1 is better. IMHO it still needs : - modify templates, font color and size - remove duplicate files, especially images - compress .png (see PNG Crusher) - correct these bloated filenames - access Aperture library - a better blog editor (->Journler) - update only an image or a text, not the whole page - a better code, to improve compatibility with 3rd party apps
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 27 2006 |
my web site still have some problem when publish some "blogs templates" with images in it... the "shadow" image appears displaced, not in the "background place" for the original image... in fact, if you browse the site with Safari, DONT SHOW THIS ERROR, but, if you are using Firefox or other browser, they show you this... these problems were introduced in 1.1 version!
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 26 2006 |
BB79 95MB - again! - you've got to be kidding me. Why can't they just release a patch?
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 21 2006 |
BRET MARION Since upgrading to 1.1, no images open on photo album pages and I get numerous errors uploading my site. Many many instances of this discussed on iWeb discussions at Apple website. Hopefully a fix for this mess is in development. I went back to 1.0
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 20 2006 |
D9 Seems iWeb 1.2 or 1.1.2 can't be far behind. My pre-existing iWeb site will not Publish in iWeb 1.1 (necessary upon updating to the new version). It has problems it says w/ uploading JPEGs or being over the iDisk quota. But of course, none of that is actually true. iWeb 1.1 has a serious bug that will need updating. Check out this AppleCare link: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303789
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 16 2006 |
TOURNESOL iWeb 1.1 does NOT optimize site!!! I duplicated my iWeb site folder which at the time was 15Mb in size. I then updated iWeb to 1.1 and exported my site to a folder without making any changes to my site. I had heard somewhere that I would see a dialogbox asking if I want to update my site for the new improved loading times in iWeb 1.1. Didn't see any of that. Well I then looked at the newly exported folder and compared it with the old one. The old, as stated above, is 15Mb in size - the new "optimized" one is 16.3Mb How come? Is it once again only .Mac users that will see the full benifit of this update?
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 16 2006 |
NEXIALYS i'm also interested by iWeb, but will NEVER use it with the actual version... i need to host my blog somewhere personal... i have my own domain, and until mac.com offer domains redirect and an affortable price for hosting via paypal, i will never use it.
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 16 2006 |
S P L A T ! "...comment and search support for blogs and podcasts published to Apple .Mac" when you buy GoLive or Dreamweaver are able to publish ONLY in Adobe/Macromedia sites??? you need improve this application or will be die!
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 16 2006 |
D9 Why would you need iWeb if you have Dreamweaver? Right, you wouldn't, so Apple sees no need to create a program that works outside of its control. The whole selling point for iWeb is that it is an easy-to-use Mac solution for creating a web site; those interested are not concerned nor proficient in developing a site of grander scale. It befuddles me why people continue to lambast .Mac when it never proposes to do more than it says. You want more email, go gMail; you want a better web site, go Dreamweaver; you want a robust PIM, go Daylite. But if you want a simple but fully integrated solution, then .Mac is your answer.
(Version 1.1) | |
| May 27 2006 |
you do not do understood the IDEA!!! i mean, why dont make a GREAT software with the "freedom to choose" other elements/free features for your website... btw, a lot of bugs in this suite!
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| May 15 2006 |
MACERICG To anyone reading the bad reviews of iWeb who would like something made for Mac users at home, try out Freeway Express.
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 23 2006 |
ARES iWeb is not a clone of Dreamweaver, just a cool application for home users to easily create a website with a mouse and a true WYSIWYG editor. The good: It is easy to use, the editor is great (far better than Rapid Weaver) and you can create a page in a couple of minutes. The bad: iWeb is the worst iApp and it generates huge, bloated web sites. It is OK for making no more than three or four pages and sharing ten or twenty pictures, that's all. The .mac online service is better and generates smaller sites. I am very disappointed because iWeb has too many flaws and it fails for an entiere web site or a blog (an this one is ridiculous, visitors can't even add a comment to a $100 .mac blog). - more than one single site - modify templates, font color and size - remove duplicate files, especially images - compress .png (->PNG Crusher) - correct these bloated filenames - access Aperture library - a better import from AppleWorks, Pages and Keynote - add comments to a published blog - a better blog editor (->Journler) - update only an image or a text, not the whole page - a better code, to improve compatibility with 3rd party apps Right now it is just beta software.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 27 2006 |
...i second your motion!!
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| Apr 12 2006 |
SJJ_PUBLIC The inability to modify templates is a huge shortcoming, at least for blogs. It works fine for creating pages of photos from iPhoto, but you could do that just fine from within iPhoto in the previous version of iLife. In fact it was easier because you didn't have a separate application to deal with. In theory you can create blogs with iWeb, but only if you are willing to create ones that look exactly like the templates. While you can modify a blog entry page when you make a new entry, subsequent entries go back to the formatting of the template and you have to do your modifications all over again. Want to make an entry without a photo in it? You have to delete the photo placeholder, then rework the page so that it doesn't have a ridiculous gap between the title and the content. That makes it pretty useless for blogging.
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Feb 16 2006 |
EDOUARD ROGER Such a bad app ! Rapid weaver is really better than this!
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 31 2006 |
ASTROBRUCE First, we should recognise what this app is trying to be. Not a full web design program, but a way to broadcast iLife created stuff on the web, preferably using .Mac. Even given these limited aims, there a serious deficiencies. It is hard to simply view a page in a browser (you have to save the entire site first, then view). If you have made changes to only one page, you still have to save the entire site, and same goes for uploads. Images are stored in image folder corresponding to each page, meaning site-wide images (links, background images) are store multiple times, leading to bloat. Sometimes text is converted to a png image, sometimes not, with no warning. It integrates with iPhoto and iTune nicely, though.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 24 2006 |
ROGERTJACKSON Dana, thank you for the link to your manual. You are correct that Home Page inserts some strange proprietary code. Hiowever, there is an option in the Home Page preferences that can eliminate some of it. Once I've done what I need to do in Home Page, I finish up with Mozilla or BBEdit. For the home user like me who doesn't want to spend a zillion dollars on a Dreamweaver, bare-bones tools like Mozilla are still valuable. You know, it would not surprise me to learn that many folks wish iWeb was more like Home Page. Heck, I'm still waiting (and hoping against hope) for some company to revive it.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 15 2006 |
FAT KAT Just spent all weekend working on a new website using iWeb and I'm very disappointed to say that the webpage will only open the front page in Internet Explorer - none of the subsequent pages will open. Netscape does a little better but it's still not that polished. Of course, it looks great in Safari but not all of my friends/relatives use Safari. Any other users having this issue?
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 11 2006 |
DANA SUTTON It may seem silly to write about a piece of software not yet released. But let me say what I HOPE this is (even though I'm afraid it is not): a program that would stand in the same relationship to Dreamweaver that Pages does to Word. I. e., a cheaper and simplified page for casual users designing program with an easier learning curve. Since the disappearance of apps. like Claris Home Page this is a niche that's gone unfilled (don't bother talking about Mozilla Composer, that was never ready for prime time). I'm afraid, though, that this is going to be nothing more a "digital lifestyle" gimmick were you can only shove stuff into prefab templates in predetermined ways, and not actually be able to design your own pages (or manipulate html when you have to). Let's hope I'm wrong.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ 6 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jan 11 2006 |
DENNISG I completely agree. Since the death Home Page and Adobe PageMill, there's been nothing in the middleground of WYSIWYG web-site creators. My biggest fear with iWeb is that it will be like RapidWeaver, an easy-to-use program that's crippled by its regimented approach to web-site creation. iWeb would be perfect if it were more like Freeway Express, but far more intuitive. Oh, heck ... I just wish it were an OS X version of Home Page.
(Version 1.0) | |
| Jan 14 2006 |
STORMWATCH Then try Shutterbug. It's something between Rapidweaver and Freeway.
(Version 1.0) | |
| Jan 14 2006 |
DANA SUTTON Thanks for the tip, I'm sure Shutterbug is great for the limited purposes its authors intended. But I think what I and dennisg were talking about is not just a graphics-handling app. but a full-service page creation program (again, a kind Dreamweaver for the rest of us).
(Version 1.0) | |
| Jan 24 2006 |
ROGERTJACKSON Unfortunately, think the original viewer is correct. In my opinion, the canned Apple templates combined with skimpy editing tools all adds up to one thing: this app misses the mark for all but those who would spend no more than a half-hour doing anything. I have Claris Home Page 3.0, which I run on Classic. I'm not about to get it up yet. The code may be dated, but I can spruce that up with BBEdit or even Mozilla.
(Version 1.0) | |
| Jan 24 2006 |
DANA SUTTON I read your comment about iWeb on the Mac Update site. You write "I have Claris Home Page 3.0, which I run on Classic. I'm not about to give it up yet. The code may be dated, but I can spruce that up with BBEdit or even Mozilla." This is a way of getting the job done (although Home Page 3.0 inserts a lot of unnecessary proprietary code). But here's an important warning. If your "sprucing up" using Mozilla's Composer involves the insertion of any Unicode glyphs (even such simple ones as curly quotes or em-dashes) or other elements introduced to html within the past few years, NEVER REOPEN YOUR FILES IN HOME PAGE, because it will turn your subsequent additions into garbage. Another possibility is simply to use Composer, which will allow you to buy an Intel Mac :). One major difficulty with Composer is the absence of documentation, but some people where I work cooked up a sort of homebrewed instruction manual, you may access it at http://eee.uci.edu/help/composer-mozilla/
(Version 1.0) | |
| Aug 24 2007 |
MOREEAZ What is really strange after I updated Iweb to version 2 and uploaden the same page, it loads a lot slower then the uploaded version with version 1.02. As proof visit www.visualantis.com/foundation is the old version with 1.02 and www.visualantis.com/foundation2 the new version. After that I did another test, to see if you turn your first page title into index, and so not create an iweb created index. As an example for that you can see www.visualantis.com/foundation3 You know the funny thing of it all is, when I had version 1 I was even able to edit my entire site in the right display in dreamweaver or golive, but after the first update this became an impossibility. What is really great and suprisingly never mentioned is that you can simple copy and paste your entire site content to illustrator and then rasterize it and make slides from there. Export this to web with HTML and then you can edit it in dreamweaver or whatever you want. You can even choose the size of each slide similar are making a site in illustrator from scratch. The iweb version: http://www.visualantis.com/maurice and the illustrator version http://www.visualantis.com/maurice.html Count the loading time for yourself, its an amazing difference. I really tried everything also html-optimizer but the loading time never went better then version 1.0X IF you want to edit your site in dreamweaver then stick with verison 1.0 for others stick with 1.02 or if you use the illustrator conversion trick then 2.02 would do the trick too. I am able to create the same page in iweb in minutes which takes me hours in Illustrator alone so there you go.... keep up the smile, mac rules the mind of the creative people....
(Version 2.0.1) | |
|
Main
