Website Builder, Dreamweaver, or Hand Coding?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by LaPlume, Oct 12, 2015.

0
Page 1 of 2
  1. #1
    Hi everyone,

    I am designing my first professional website for a particular, and I am having some questions as to how to proceed.

    I have thought about using a website builder such as Website Builder, Squarespace, or Wix. Or perhaps, I have thought about using a WYSIWYG editor like Adobe Dreamweaver or maybe simply go the traditional route and use hand coding.

    I am still confused as to the actual process. My understanding was to get a hosting account, a server, and a software to use for designing the website. At this time, I am not really sure.

    What are some of the best ways to go about designing a website?

    I appreciate all the help.
     
    LaPlume, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  2. jdjenkins

    jdjenkins Active Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    #2
    I have used Adobe Muse several times - I think it's much easier than Dreamweaver, but less flexible as it's mainly a graphical drag and drop system. You will obviously need a domain name and hosting. I normally export the project to a local folder, and then upload via FTP afterwards - or you can export directly to the server instead if you want.
     
    jdjenkins, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  3. COBOLdinosaur

    COBOLdinosaur Active Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    95
    #3
    As a professional I need two things a good text editor, and a collection of browsers for testing. If all you want to do is a hobby site for Aunt Martha then, a site builder; "easy to use" crapware tool or the vast selection of worthles, unreliable and puke inducing plugins are available.

    If the site has any importance at all, and actually need a professional treatment, then real professionals doing the high end work for serious money use pretty much the same tools as me:

    a text editor
    some browsers
    lots of coffee
    handy access to standards specifications
    a commitment to delver the best solution not just the first one that works

    There is not tool or toolset that delivers the best product; you have to write the code to do that.
     
    COBOLdinosaur, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  4. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    4,519
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #4
    Your client hasn't already asked you all these questions as part of their decision on which company to go with? I guess they deserve what they get.

    Without seeing their business requirements we can't possibly judge the right tool - and I'd want to see what you are charging them. If you have given them a bargain basement price then WP, wix etc will be the best you can deliver. If you are charging a decent rate then you can go for a more sophisticated solution. You also need to look at the customer's technical ability (assuming they will be maintaining the content) - I moved away from Joomla purely because users found it too hard to use. WP, for all it's detractors, is very user friendly.
     
    sarahk, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  5. dragansk

    dragansk Active Member

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    #5
    What kind of web site are you designing? I think the best solution is to choose wordpress or any other script. There you can define template (design). it is very easy for editing. With small experience you can design very good web page.
     
    dragansk, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  6. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    4,519
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #6
    Lol, well that narrows it down. "Any other script" could include that guestbook you wrote in '05.
     
    sarahk, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #7
    WYSIWYG's by defintion do not generate semantic markup or gracefully degrading pages. A well written professional website should first have been built as if layout and style do not exist, the HTML saying what things ARE, NOT what they look like. As such starting out in something that is entirely visual oriented is utterly and completely back-assward, and results in bloated inaccessible train wrecks that are more likely to piss off users than they are to be successful unless your content is just that damned good...

    Site builders are the next step DOWN the evolutionary ladder since they are also incapable of doing things in the right order, much less they seem to universally have been written by people who don't know enough HTML, CSS or JavaScript to be writing software that makes websites!

    Take Wix, with it's ZERO graceful degradation endless pointless scripttardery that even search engines can't see the content of -- much less actual accessibility users on things like braille or screen readers -- where they use 5+ megs in 60 to 70 files on an average page, two and a half megs of that being scripttardery, a meg and a half of that being xhr crap, all for pages that only have half a k of content and maybe a dozen content images. If that doesn't scream "inept mouth-breathing halfwits developed this crap", nothing does since the average wix site wastes 5 megs and 60 files not even counting the content to do 48k in 3 files job!!!

    What other than utter and complete ignorance would make someone use that by choice? It sure as shine-ola isn't professional.

    Though big tip, a LOT of the people calling themselves professionals may be working professionally, but they do not have a professional ethic or produce what should be considered professional work. Just look at all the sleazy scumbags crapping out sites in turdpress. As I often say if you don't know what's wrong with this:

    <body class="home blog">
<div id="parallax-bg"></div>
<div id="page" class="hfeed site">
		<header id="masthead" class="site-header" role="banner">
		<div class="header-wrap clearfix">
			<div class="site-branding">
				<h1 class="site-title"><a href="http://demosite.center/wordpress/" title="WordPress Demo Install" rel="home">WordPress Demo Install</a></h1>
				<h2 class="site-description">Just another WordPress site</h2>
			</div>

			<div class="header-search-icon"></div>
			<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="http://demosite.center/wordpress/">
	<label>
		<span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
		<input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search &hellip;" value="" name="s">
	</label>
	<input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>

			<nav id="site-navigation" class="main-navigation" role="navigation">
				<h1 class="menu-toggle"></h1>
				<a class="skip-link screen-reader-text" href="#content">Skip to content</a>

				<div class="menu"><ul><li class="current_page_item"><a href="http://demosite.center/wordpress/" title="Home">Home</a></li>
    Code (markup):
    You shouldn't even be allowed to have a website. The same goes for the sleazy halfwit "shortcuts" known as frameworks, which generally speaking are more to learn, teach bad habits, and to be brutally frank are not shortcuts or easier as they make you work harder, not smarter.

    jQuery used to be my favorite whipping boy with its "how many things the ECMA has told us to stop doing can we teach more people to do" attitude, but of late HTML/CSS frameworks have set a new standard in "Do you even huffing know what HTML and CSS are?" That is why Bootcrap -- the pinnacle of everything wrong with development today -- is a laundry list of how not to build a website.

    Since if you don't know what's wrong with this:

    <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
    Code (markup):
    or this:

        <link rel="icon" href="../../favicon.ico">

    <title>Starter Template for Bootstrap</title>

    <!-- Bootstrap core CSS -->
    <link href="../../dist/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet">

    <!-- Custom styles for this template -->
    <link href="starter-template.css" rel="stylesheet">
    Code (markup):
    Or this stunning gem of ineptitude:
    <nav class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top">
      <div class="container">
        <div class="navbar-header">
          <button type="button" class="navbar-toggle collapsed" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbar" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="navbar">
            <span class="sr-only">Toggle navigation</span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
          </button>
          <a class="navbar-brand" href="#">Project name</a>
        </div>
        <div id="navbar" class="collapse navbar-collapse">
          <ul class="nav navbar-nav">
            <li class="active"><a href="#">Home</a></li>
            <li><a href="#about">About</a></li>
            <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li>
          </ul>
        </div><!--/.nav-collapse -->
      </div>
    </nav>
    Code (markup):
    You probably have ZERO damned business building websites for others. HTML/CSS frameworks by their very nature use presentational classes to the point you might as well go back to writing HTML 3.2 -- though between all these dumbass frameworks and the train wreck known as HTML 5, I've started to think the bleeding edge of 1997 development practices is precisely what they are there to drag us kicking and screaming back to.

    So grab a text editor, grab some browsers, and learn to write HTML and CSS using progressive enhancement. Start out with your content or a reasonable facsimile of future content, put it into a flat text editor in a logical order as if HTML doesn't even exist. THEN you go through and mark up that content semantically to say what things ARE, NOT what they look like. Since that's a semantic markup stage tags like DIV and SPAN have no business in the code at that point. Then and ONLY then do you start creating your layoutS (yes, PLURAL) selecting blocks of semantic code to recieve style with DIV but only when it saves time and/or you've expended what the existing semantics can do. The first layout should be for non media query capable screen targets at desktop resolutions (the mobile first crowd are full of shit) that's dynamic in fonts (declared in EM), elastic in size (declared in EM), and semi-fluid (expanding/contracting to screen size with a max-width so long lines of text aren't hard to read). Then and only then do you test when/where the layout breaks setting media queries to adjust elements or strip off columns to fit -- or if on large displays it feels like a crappy little stripe lower the max-width and give it a query to possible add columns to it! THEN and ONLY THEN should one even consider enhancing the page with JavaScript, keeping in mind the unwritten rule of scripting: "If you can't make the page fully functional without JavaScript FIRST, you likely have no business adding scripting to it!"

    It's called progressive enhancement and separation of presentation from content, and it's how you make pages that are fully accessible to as many users as possible by way of "graceful degradation". Varying from this formula by dicking around in WYSIWYG's, using "site builders" or any of the crappy "frameworks" out there -- much less trying to claim that a overglorified overpriced paint program is a site design tool -- is pretty much guaranteed to be the road to failure.

    ... unless again, your content is just that damned good; sadly most sites don't have content that good!

    Finally something to keep in mind -- something that's really hard to convince yourself OR your clients of -- you're not writing the site for you, nor are you writing the site for your clients! You are writing the site for the people who will visit the site; the USERS. It's WAY too easy to get caught up in the "gee ain't it neat" flashy images and animated scriptardery, in the process losing sight of the most important thing of all: DELIVERING YOUR CONTENT TO THE USER!

    Which is why all these idiotic pages wasting megabytes on doing two to four dozen kilobytes of code are some of the most ignorant nonsense ever; and really ignorance or willfully being a sleazeball dirtbag are the only legitimate excuses for why much of this crap exists and thrives.
     
    deathshadow, Oct 12, 2015 IP
  8. getupudaf

    getupudaf Peon

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #8
    DreamWeaver gues better
     
    getupudaf, Oct 13, 2015 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #9
    If you're a mouth-breather who knows **** about **** and isn't even qualified to flap your gums on the topic. Adobe's overpriced bloated steaming pile of crap just teaches people how NOT to build websites.

    PARTICULARLY if you are dumb enough to use it as a WYSIWYG, or use ANY of it's existing templates, ANY of it's wizards, ANY of the code it comes with like that MM_ scripttardery, or even it's goof assed templating system with it's code-bloat comments that can actually trip rendering bugs in IE and FF.

    Much like the idiotic nonsense of starting from a PSD, I've never seen a website where Dreamweaver was involved that wasn't an inaccessible broken train wreck... to be frank do yourself a favor, use the manuals to start up the wood stove and make microwave art with its disks.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2015
    deathshadow, Oct 13, 2015 IP
  10. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,757
    Likes Received:
    4,519
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #10
    While I agree with @deathshadow I suspect @getupudaf might have been shocked by the vehemence. @getupudaf needs to give reasons for that opinion if they are going to be taken seriously.
     
    sarahk, Oct 13, 2015 IP
  11. jdjenkins

    jdjenkins Active Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    #11
    It would be useful to know the budget for the job, and time available.
     
    jdjenkins, Oct 14, 2015 IP
  12. somnathji

    somnathji Member

    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    #12
    Dreamweaver, Photoshop both are good tools to build a website, necessary to implement j query, ajax and even javascript use to build website more complex. my opinion is that go for hand coding like buy domain and hosting for year
    Free of cost website is just for one day
     
    somnathji, Oct 15, 2015 IP
  13. Mroregone

    Mroregone Greenhorn

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    #13
    Honestly you should build on Squarespace or the brand spanking new Web Development platform called "Pagecloud". They are taking pre-orders right now but basically you can grab HTML off any website and drag it directly into your own website and it shows up instantly! Freaking amazing!

    I build the below websites on Squarespace and Wix. check em out!

    www.cREAtiveCastleStudios.com (A Collective of Top Tier Creative & Marketing Talent)
    www.ClockworkMindPictures.com (A Genre Production Company That Makes Mind Thrillers)
    www.billyboytheclown.com (The World's Most Notorious Klown Killer!)
     
    Mroregone, Oct 16, 2015 IP
  14. jdjenkins

    jdjenkins Active Member

    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    #14
    Nice-looking sites!

     
    jdjenkins, Oct 16, 2015 IP
  15. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #15
    wow, look at the buggy slow loading inaccessible broken train wrecks of how NOT to build a website. You'd almost think they were the nube predating scam artist BS of Squarespace and Wix.

    Especially that second one -- I killed it about a MINUTE into waiting for it to load; basically somewhere around the TEN MEGABYTE mark.

    Seriously, you don't see anything wrong with THOSE?!? Gah, I pity anyone dumb enough to use that malarkey.

    In that same traditional "If you don't know what's wrong with this:"

     <body id="collection-55e2897ee4b08d388eff6d49" class="enable-nav-button nav-button-style-outline nav-button-corner-style-square banner-button-style-solid banner-button-corner-style-rounded banner-slideshow-controls-arrows meta-priority-category center-entry-title--meta  hide-list-entry-footer    hide-blog-sidebar center-navigation--info  gallery-design-grid aspect-ratio-auto lightbox-style-light gallery-navigation-bullets gallery-info-overlay-show-on-hover gallery-aspect-ratio-32-standard gallery-arrow-style-no-background gallery-transitions-fade gallery-show-arrows gallery-auto-crop   product-list-titles-under product-list-alignment-center product-item-size-11-square product-image-auto-crop product-gallery-size-11-square  show-product-price show-product-item-nav product-social-sharing   event-thumbnails event-thumbnail-size-32-standard event-date-label event-date-label-time event-list-show-cats event-list-date event-list-time event-list-address   event-icalgcal-links  event-excerpts  event-item-back-link      opentable-style-light newsletter-style-dark small-button-style-solid small-button-shape-square medium-button-style-outline medium-button-shape-square large-button-style-outline large-button-shape-square button-style-solid button-corner-style-square native-currency-code-usd collection-type-index collection-layout-default collection-55e2897ee4b08d388eff6d49 homepage view-list mobile-style-available has-banner-image index-page">
    <input type="checkbox" name="mobile-nav-toggle" id="mobileNavToggle" class="mobile-nav-toggle-box hidden" />
    Code (markup):
    "... you have no blasted business making websites" kind of way.
     
    deathshadow, Oct 16, 2015 IP
    malky66 likes this.
  16. malky66

    malky66 Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    3,997
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Best Answers:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #16
    Shit a brick!!
    I thought Turdpress was bad...but that takes BAD to the next level, God almighty I swear my eyes are bleeding.
     
    malky66, Oct 16, 2015 IP
    COBOLdinosaur likes this.
  17. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #17
    Normally I quote two or three sections, it's BAD when the endless pointless classes big enough to be a website on their own are so bad, I only felt the need to have that train wreck and the first invalid/gibberish content tag as an example of what utter and complete halfwit nonsense the sites construction method was.

    That body tag with it's ID (on an element that has no excuse to ever have an ID) and endless pointless classes by itself comes to 1.42k!!!

    That takes a very special kind of special... in the same way some Olympics are special.
     
    deathshadow, Oct 16, 2015 IP
    COBOLdinosaur likes this.
  18. COBOLdinosaur

    COBOLdinosaur Active Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    95
    #18
    I looked at just the first one; it was too painful to continue. What I experienced was a slow loading, bloated load of crap-- no wait crap is too polite more like dead and rotting fish covered in puke and dog piss.

    The validator throws 60 messages, the semantics are totally f***ed and it is a total failure from the standpoint of:
    accessibility,
    usability,
    SEO,
    technical quality,
    and for a site trying to promote presentation, if fails big time even with that minor quality. The presentation is so weak I would think a ten-year old kid could improve it, and would probably improve the SEO and other issues at the same time. That is a kindergarten level effort; but I commend you having the guts to admiti being responsible for that garbage.
     
    COBOLdinosaur, Oct 16, 2015 IP
  19. Paulstev

    Paulstev Peon

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #19
    I prefer a website builder
     
    Paulstev, Oct 18, 2015 IP
  20. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    1,999
    Best Answers:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #20
    Well that's uselessly and pointlessly vague.
     
    deathshadow, Oct 18, 2015 IP
    COBOLdinosaur, kk5st, malky66 and 1 other person like this.
Page 1 of 2