Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Programming Software The Internet

Ask Slashdot: Web Site Editing Software For the Long Haul? 545

MouseR writes "It seems we can't rely on software, in particular Web site editing software, to exist for the long haul. Every time I rely on something, it takes only a couple of years before it gets trashed. I have used GoLive's CyberStudio before it got engulfed as GoLive from Adobe. Both got trashed. I eventually used Apple's .Mac HomePage. It got trashed and replaced with iWeb. I then used iWeb, hosted on MobileMe, and Apple just killed it again, along with the hosting. So, as I'm preparing to move my stuff on various web sites, onto my own hosting server (outsourced), I'm wondering what kind of visual web site editor(s) I could use, for the long haul. I'm rather sick of changing tools every other year and as a software developer, would rather spend my time editing my web site rather than code it. Any suggestions?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Web Site Editing Software For the Long Haul?

Comments Filter:
  • Notepad (Score:5, Funny)

    by cgeys ( 2240696 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @07:58PM (#36430654)
    Before someone comes in putting down all the IDE's and tools for web designing and suggests Notepad, let me just say this - no, notepad is not replacement for a good, solid IDE.
    • Re:Notepad (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:00PM (#36430670)

      No, but vim is!

      • Emacs (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Emacs is the way to go! And as a matter of fact, I wrote a Lisp Script that just creates the webpage for me!

        It's pretty slick. See, in my client meetings, I record what they want, I then transfer the mp3 to the machine and the script listens to it and Viola! creates the website exactly the way the customer describes it! I then get a fat check and take off in the Ferrari with my porn star of the day and we shag like Tasmanian Devils - without the cancer - Poor Devils!

        At least that's what I remember after I

        • Re:Emacs (Score:4, Funny)

          by Scarletdown ( 886459 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @11:13PM (#36432108) Journal

          I then transfer the mp3 to the machine and the script listens to it and Cello! creates the website exactly the way the customer describes it!

          Fixed that for you. :p

        • I know you jest, but seriously, Emacs has a *wonderful* editing tool for webpages called nxhtml [ourcomments.org]. Why is it wonderful? Because it has a sane way of handling inline JS-, PHP and CSS code. This feature alone blows all other editors out of the water.

          If you want a WYSIWYG, though, I'd have to reccommend KompoZer [kompozer.net].

          • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

            Not even close.

            Check the http://www.jetbrains.com/webstorm/features/ [jetbrains.com] - it has support for inline JS and CSS editing. With inspections, autocomplete and refactorings. There are also nice features like highlighting and syntax checks for regular expressions inside the JS code.

            Oh, there are also lightning-fast "Find usages" feature and code navigation for JS and CSS.

            It's miles ahead of _everything_ else in usability and features.

    • Re:Notepad (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:01PM (#36430680)

      Right, Notepad++ is.

    • Isn't Dreamweaver still around? I seem to remember it doing a pretty good job coloring my code. Plus the instant preview was kinda nice.
      • Re:Dreamweaver (Score:4, Informative)

        by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:03PM (#36430708)

        I've been using dreamweaver for a long time now. It has not substantially changed and is good for editing run of the mill static web pages with a template.

        • Re:Dreamweaver (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:27PM (#36430950)

          I've been using Dreamweaver back since it was HomeSite.

          All around a very good product that has so far lasted for the past decade.
          It is more oriented towards the "I want to code, but see what I am doing" crowd, but it does so very well.

          Aside from that, since you are obviously a Mac User, I would highly recommend looking into RapidWeaver, as it is very capable, surprisingly so for a drag-and-drop editing application, and you can post whatever you make on a server very easily as it is just HTML and Javascript.

          If you need something a little more comprehensive with server-side scripting support and basic drag-and-drop forms, I would recommend considering a CMS application, such as ModX, Wordpress, Drupal or Joomla (in order of consideration).

      • On the Mac, CS doesn't stand for "Creative Suite", it stands for "Complete Shit". I like Dreamweaver on Windows (though I liked it better before Adobe fucked it up) and bought it on the Mac but threw it out in favor of Coda [panic.com]. (Another possibility in MacLand is Espresso [macrabbit.com], too.).

        If I was a rubytard, I would probably recommend nanoc [stoneship.org] or jekyll [github.com].

    • Re:Notepad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:51PM (#36431108) Homepage Journal

      Before someone comes in putting down all the IDE's and tools for web designing and suggests Notepad, let me just say this - no, notepad is not replacement for a good, solid IDE.

      Notepad is not only a useless HTML editor, it's a useless text editor. Use a real one and you'll see the virtue of this argument.

      EMACS or vi on a decent Unix/linux workstation is your IDE. I challenge any web developer to keep up with me in site design and updating. You might be able to stay with me on a trivial site with a couple of pages/templates, but I guarantee you that as soon as you start working on anything non-trivial (like the 100,000+ static documents I currently administer), a real text editor and the basic set of *nix utilities will leave any IDE looking weak and impoverished.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:07PM (#36431238)

      For Web Development a good IDE is actually quite useless. Unless you want your website to look obviously from your IDE your better off using standard text editors. I have had some forced time in an IDE where I needed it to make HTML, I had to spend twice as much time working around it to get stuff done.
      That said, a modern IDE is nice in terms that if you don't try to build your html visually, they often have JavaScript or the server side language development debugging. Notepad++ VIM or Emacs with the appropriate modules installed can work quite efficiently

    • Re:Notepad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2011 @12:57AM (#36432596) Homepage Journal

      Before someone comes in putting down all the IDE's and tools for web designing and suggests Notepad, let me just say this - no, notepad is not replacement for a good, solid IDE.

      No. Notepad isn't a replacement for an IDE (of whatever caliber). It is CLEARLY superior.

      Most IDEs (and all the PhotoChoppers out there) with their top-down development do nothing but produce reams of hackish code bloat that doesn't work well cross-platform or in terms of accessibility. Worse, these sites consume many many times the bandwidth, load dogshit slow, and tend to look like crap on anything other than the dev's machine.

      It's a shitty excuse for NOT knowing how to code the site from scratch (or at least a basic template).

      It's a shitty excuse for having zero compliance with accessibility guidelines and using eye-blinding color pallettes and microscopic font sizes and typefaces CLEARLY unsuitable for web presentation.

      It's a shitty excuse for having a layout take up a narrow sliver of the entire page canvas (or side-scroll "infinitely" as if everyone had a 2048x1535 monitor like the foofy, brain-dead webmaster).

      It's a shitty excuse for having 3 megabytes of markup and images to display 10K in text.

      Yes, learning how to do it CORRECTLY takes a bit more time UP FRONT. But it saves effort down the road as your code is portable, maintainable, and can be rapidly and cleanly altered and appended without massive surgery and metric ass-tons of further prototyping.

      • No. Notepad isn't a replacement for an IDE (of whatever caliber). It is CLEARLY superior.

        Erm, an editor where you can not "configure" the line ending? Rofl.

        All your other points make no sense either. What do web standards or using the wrong fonts to do with the tool you use? Do you really belive that the same idiot, who can not use an IDE correctly, learns "design" by using a text input tool (no notepad is not even an editor)???

  • Emacs? Emacs.
    • I use pico (yes, I really still install pine) or notepad. I still have an old copy of FrontPage 98 as well, which makes really ugly markup, but is adequate to create a tabled template if you then go and hand edit it in text mode. Now that I am using CSS for most everything, well, I still use notepad, pico and a little FP98. This includes a couple of ecommerce sites and a dozen "misc" sites, which means many hundreds of pages that get updated from time to time but rarely replaced. I just add pages as I n

  • Dreamweaver (Score:5, Informative)

    by sarku ( 2047704 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:01PM (#36430678)
    Adobe Dreamweaver. Been stable for 15 years or more.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dracos ( 107777 )

      Still used as a crutch by self-professed "web designers" and clueless recruiters of such.

      Dreamweaver is a tool, not a skill; same as vim, Emacs, Notepad++, Eclipse, or any other editor.

      When was the last time you heard a craftsman get praised for having a tool, rather than possessing true skill?

      Other than the boasting "designer" with his masterful command of drag-and-drop but merely an apprentice's comprehension of what his tool produces for him, you never did.

      • Re:Dreamweaver (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tycoex ( 1832784 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:32PM (#36430990)

        Actually, I'd say that the difference between a professional craftsman and a hobbyist who builds stuff in his garage is often largely because the professional has a much larger assortment of tools to use.

        • No the professional is the one who gets paid to do the work with those tools.

          I know an old mostly retired engineer whose "tooshed" would make most professional machinists happy.

          He can literally build you anything mechanical out of almost any material as long as all you need is a one off part.

        • Actually that's just what they want to convince you! If you truly believe it would take very expensive tools to do the job professionally, then I guess there's next to no chance that you'll do it yourself, as the investment is too large.

          This reminds me of the kind B.S. chefs have been telling us for an eternity: all that matters is you get fresh and awesome ingredients, then you'll have great flavor. If you live by this you'll be making pretty uninspiring dishes - eventually, you'll put it down to lack of t

        • I'd dare say that following the garage analogy most folks here have all the best tools in it, even if a couple people may have borrowed theirs from Flanders.


        • by syousef ( 465911 )

          Actually, I'd say that the difference between a professional craftsman and a hobbyist who builds stuff in his garage is often largely because the professional has a much larger assortment of tools to use.

          There are many differences between hobbyist and professional apart from the tools:
          - Professional may spend 10x as long doing the work -> more practice, more experience
          - Professional tackles all parts of his job, doesn't pick and choose what he feels like doing -> Wider range of experience
          - Professional will avoid taking on the job without adequate tools, whereas hobbyist may try to wing it -> More predictable results
          - Professional is held accountable by standards other than his own
          - Professional wi

      • Dreamweaver is a tool, not a skill ... When was the last time you heard a craftsman get praised for having a tool, rather than possessing true skill?

        You realize the guy is asking about which tools to use, right? It's a fact that Dreamweaver has been one of the most stable tools for creating basic web sites.

      • Dreamweaver is a tool, not a skill; same as vim, Emacs, Notepad++, Eclipse, or any other editor.

        Emacs isn't a tool, it's a sign of either severe masochistic tendencies or a desperate cry for help, because obviously anyone that uses it is a glutton for punishment.

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      Dreamweaver is the application that seems to have long legs. it is assumed, that if another commercial application were made available and was succesful,. Adobe would do all it could to kill it as they did Golive. I used Golive, I liked Golive, and it was killed off to encourage the use of Flash. Unforgivable.

      There seems to be one other HTML Editor in current version, Anacrophila, but I have never used it and it might go away like all the others, but it seems to be the one and only no cost solution. W

  • Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:03PM (#36430704)

    I know im kind of a black sheep around here, but Expression Web & Visual Studio Web combined make a pretty solid base...

  • vim (Score:4, Funny)

    by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:03PM (#36430712) Homepage

    Or butterflies [xkcd.com] if you've got far more patience than I.

  • Recommendation (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:05PM (#36430736)

    I use Bluefish on Ubuntu. It's very functional and has enough longevity as far as I know.

    • I use Bluefish on Ubuntu. It's very functional and has enough longevity as far as I know.

      I second the recommendation for Bluefish on the *nix side of things. That has replaced Quanta Plus as my standard html editor on my Debian systems, since QP is no longer in Sid.

      On the Windows side of the house, Arachnophilia is a good one to use.

    • I use Bluefish on Ubuntu. It's very functional and has enough longevity as far as I know.

      Actually, Bluefish is pretty good; my kids both use it to maintain their pages.

      I occasionally use Bluefish, but prefer to use whetever text editor is in front of me - typically mousepad or leafpad, depending which PC I'm on. Indeed, I often have to clean up their page layout a little, but this is more a result of inconsistency in page design (if any) or haphazard formatting (they're kids) than a criticism of Bluefish.

  • Wrong tag (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:09PM (#36430786)

    Not to troll or something, but I think this should be tagged as "designer", not "developer".

  • by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:09PM (#36430790) Journal
    NVU / KompoZer, it's been a long time since i used it but it was pretty nice back when i did, and it's open source so it can't ever fully die
  • Notepad, TextEdit, TeX, emacs, vi, pico, whatever.

    Never have to worry about the editor itself going obsolete because of emerging HTML standards, never have to worry about the tool itself disappearing.

    Find yourself random web host of choice (I like nearlyfreespeech) that supports direct upload of files, no fiddly web interface forced on you, and voila! Instant future-proof website!

    (Yes, I'm going to have to be weaned off iWeb+MobileMe for my personal domain, too. I'm a lazy bastard, and iWeb was too easy. Now I'll have to go back to hand-coding and/or at least find a simple-to-upload-to-from-iWeb host; which, now that I think about it, nearlyfreespeech should do.)

    • by CODiNE ( 27417 )

      Do you know if the iWeb/MobileMe visitor counter thing will work? Is that something supported by the server and my counts will reset or is it just a text file counter I can copy over to a new host?

      Since you use iWeb and know about web standards.

  • Content Management (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TimTucker ( 982832 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:17PM (#36430858) Homepage
    If you look at the solutions for "editing" sites that scale, ultimately you'll find that what you're really looking for isn't a better visual editor, but rather a content management platform.

    WordPress has a pretty decent track record for longevity, but there are plenty of other options out there as well.
    • by spinkham ( 56603 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:55PM (#36431146)

      I would recommend a static site generator instead.

      You get the benefits of a CMS without the server side software requirements, updates, and security problems.

      I use nanoc [stoneship.org] and love it, but there's tons of other choices [iwantmyname.com] out there.

      • As long as you don't need any on demand dynamic data driven stuff (no account system, no comments system, etc) though you can get third party JavaScript based solutions for some things ( comments, ratings).

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      That combined with nosupportlinuxhosting.com. You have to buy a year at a time but at $12 a year you are all set.

    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:23PM (#36431360) Homepage

      This sounds right to me. Maybe you don't even need to administer the site, but use a hosted solution instead. That way, you can really focus on content creation.

      But part of it is also having realistic expectations. It's very likely that in 10 years, the web will be a different beast, and the view of what constitutes a "good website" will change too. As the web changes, the tools used to create it must also change. Whatever you come up with, don't expect that you'll be using the same tools in 20 years. In computer terms, 5 years kind of is the "long haul".

      Instead of trying to keep your tools constant, try to keep your data portable. One of the advantages of something like Wordpress is that it's so popular that, when it gets superseded by other things, there will certainly be methods to translate Wordpress into those new forms-- and it's generally easier to pull information from a database in a sensible way than to pull it out of HTML.

      So what I'm saying is, don't focus on making sure that you can use the same editor for the next 20 years, and instead focus on trying to make sure you can pull your old content into a new form every 5 years. That's how you future-proof.

    • Based on "would rather spend my time editing my web site rather than code it", I agree with the parent's suggestion. Drupal comes to mind too.

      If you want your site to look a little more original than what a CMS offers by itself, all you need to do is edit the CSS. To do that, I suggest Firefox, Stylish [mozilla.org], and It's All Text [mozilla.org] to give you a nice editing environment (e.g. Vim). Put together, they let you change any or all of your CSS and see results with a single click (well, two clicks if you use It's All Text

    • WordPress has a pretty decent track record for longevity,

      The WordPress platform has a pretty awful track record for security.
      The odds are strong you will get hacked by an automated bot scanning for 0-Day exploits.
      Or if you don't patch/update constantly, an automated bot scanning for old exploits.

  • Just learn HTML. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:17PM (#36430860) Homepage

    Seriously. You are looking for a solution to an impossible problem, and besides that it is *easier* to learn HTML than it is to learn Dreamweaver. Stop being frightened of the technicalities and just try it with a text editor for once.

    • by MouseR ( 3264 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:13PM (#36431290) Homepage

      I actually built a complete e-comerce web site by hand something like 13 years ago. With php scripts (or was it Perl?) and some c-based CGIs. The reason I switched to WYSIWYG is because I don't have time to deal with that and that given web site development is a far cry from my regular Application programming duties, would rather spend whatever is left of my "free" time with my kids than learning to deal with CSS.

  • Utopia Framework (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:19PM (#36430870)

    Hi, I had the same problem so I made the Utopia Framework [oriontransfer.co.nz]. This is a simple tool which allows you to create website content directly. While not really ready wide adoption, I've been maintaining it (originally PHP, now Ruby) for over 10 years, and it's core ideas are (IMHO) very easy to understand and very powerful. The biggest issue right now is documentation.

  • Open Source CMS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dhammond ( 953711 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:21PM (#36430886)

    Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but there are many good open source CMS's that allow you to edit your website through browser based tools -- Drupal, Joomla, etc. My company has built our own CMS that allows wysiwyg editing of websites (which I won't plug). The point is, for the long haul and for a lot of reasons a browser-based solution is best. And no matter what happens to an open source project you can always continue to use the code and extend it for as long as you want.

  • I use Kompozer myself, but have had reasonable experiences with some of the other tools too. Windows, Mac, Linux...you can get Kompozer for all major platforms.
  • RapidWeaver (Score:5, Informative)

    by TimHunter ( 174406 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:22PM (#36430906)

    Try RapidWeaver http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/overview/ [realmacsoftware.com]. You'll probably want to use the Stacks http://yourhead.com/stacks/ [yourhead.com] plugin to get flexible page layouts and Collage http://yourhead.com/collage/ [yourhead.com] for photos.

    I'm not connected to RealMac or YourHead, just a happy user.

    • by MouseR ( 3264 )

      So that's essentially an iWeb -style tool. Looks promising. Thanks for the pointer.

  • Aptana Studio 3 (Score:4, Informative)

    by justfred ( 63412 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:23PM (#36430916) Homepage

    As a PHP developer, I'm used to writing code manually rather than trying to use a GUI code creator.

    Having been through several editors on several platforms, lately I like Aptana Studio 3 (version of Eclipse), mainly because of its FTP deployment, and the fact that it works identically on OSX and Windows.

    (Biting tongue to avoid the troll response, Microsoft Word.)

  • MediaWiki (Score:3, Informative)

    by davecotter ( 1297617 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:25PM (#36430930)
    I know the design can use some updating, and you don't have a lot of design freedom, but if your main goal is to just get information out there, update pages frequently, create new pages, and things of that nature, well i totally love MediaWiki. Your web editing tool is your web browser! I've been using it on my site since forever ( http://kjams.com/ [kjams.com] ) and i have to say i'd never ever want to use anything else. yeah, maybe it's kindof ugly. but it's so *easy*!
  • Notepad++
  • by JoeytheSquid ( 1460229 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:28PM (#36430954)
    I've been a web designer since 1994. As all of my training was in the arts, not scripting or programming, I stumbled along making sites using visual editors until around 2001. At that point I realized that my various transitions from one visual editor to the next (Cyberstudio > Adobe GoLive > Dreamweaver) could be avoided if I did the proper thing and learned how to hand code HTML and CSS.

    So I did. I throttled down my workload and taught myself how to hand code everything. Sure that first year was miserable but I've since put together a rapid development framework that allows me to turn a custom design to a working Wordpress theme in about a business day. The end result is less headaches, a more refined workflow and sites that actually validate.

    Sure, I still rely upon an IDE for my development and most of the Mac IDEs are highly imperfect and rarely updated (Looking at you Coda, Textmate and Espresso), but at least my general workflow remains unchanged. Therefore should I need to drop Espresso and move to the (perpetually) forthcoming Coda 2, I'll be able to make that migration without much trouble.
  • Unfortunately, I don't really see any way to get what you want for the long haul. Companies keep changing, and so does the web. Even if you find one, it will produce code that breaks in browsers a few years from now, and sometimes current ones. What I would suggest is (bear with me) hand-coding your layout once, and then working it as a template for a simple CMS. I wouldn't want to hand code an entire website either, and for most a fully blown CMS is overkill (I don't need forums, or accounts at all: my web

  • If you're looking for a fully visual web site editor - Dreamweaver is still a great program. There are some shortcomings, but it does a fairly good job of visual website editing, and isn't bad at colouring the html code to make code tinkering better. Using Dreamweaver is how I learnt to use html, as a start.

    I use Notepad++ for most of my code tinkering though (html/js/php), so it might be worht having that on the side.

    There are also a bunch of online visual web-authoring tools (through a CMS or a st
    • [......] wordpress for a blog, a CMS for a content driven site, Gallery for a photo gallery, etc

      Wordpress is actually really good for all of those. It depends on exactly what you want to do, but WP is a good, full-featured CMS. I've used it for quite a few non-blog sites. It's also good for a photo gallery - just install the NextGen gallery plugin.

  • I used hot dog pro in the early 90's before I learned HTML.
  • vi is the one true editor. vi is the forever changing and unchanged. vi is the eternal virgin. vi is the foulest whore.

    Seriously, the farther you get from twiddling text files in a text editor over SSH, the more vulnerable you are going to be to having your vendor yank the rug from under you, or just wander off and abandon you.
  • Sorry, but what rock have you been living under?
    The number one visual web development tool for more than a decade now has been and still is Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver is the reason Adobe dropped GoLive after aquiring Macromedia, since they didn't want two tools for the same segment under their roof. And it was the right decision to make Dreamweaver the prime choice.

    If you need a visual web development tool, Dreamweaver is the way to go. If you're using a Mac, as I take you are, Freeway Pro and RapidWeaver are

  • by opencity ( 582224 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:59PM (#36431180) Homepage

    hey I like it more than vi ...

  • BlueGriffon is worth a try: http://www.bluegriffon.org/ [bluegriffon.org]
  • by Plugh ( 27537 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:04PM (#36431212) Homepage
    Drupal. It sucks less than the other CMS I've played with. I still hate it. Just less.
  • by Lord_of_the_nerf ( 895604 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @09:09PM (#36431264)
    I just drop by the Best Buy and pick up one of those forlorn looking day-labourer devs waiting out front there.
  • Fourteen years later, I'm still using Microsoft Frontpage. They call it Sharepoint now, but it still works with the old Apache server extensions.

  • Or vi if you are of the other religion.

  • Some frills like color highlighting can be nice, but all you really need to edit a web page is a test editor.
  • I'm amazed that in 75 posts, Aptana is mentioned once? They're not pushing hard enough into the market ;). I really enjoy Eclipse because:

    • My sites are stored in subversion... use subclipse for that
    • My sites are also stored in ftp... use Aptana for that
    • I'm looking to branch into android... use the Android SDK plugin
    • Use jQuery and other JS tools... there's a plugin for that
    • So far, the only thing that Aptana really fails me at is UI design when coding CFML templates. That's the only reason I haul out Dreamw

  • by Rie Beam ( 632299 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @10:58PM (#36431970) Journal

    I'm a little confused -- are you looking for an online CMS? Or an offline tool for editing? Because that seems to be more than half of the recommendations coming up.

    If you're looking for content management, your options are pretty much limited to how much power you ultimately want over your content. Drupal has a little bit of a learning curve but is easily the most flexible options in the pack; outside of that, try browsing a couple of distribution sites, or hell:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems [wikipedia.org]

    Of course, when it comes down to it, just simply learning to hand-code is not going to be the end of the world, I promise. Nothing has changed in the time you've described on the code-side of things except for bolted-on additions, and browsers are still pretty forgiving to older code (programmers could only wish for the kinds of backwards-compatibility HTML has had during its existence). HTML is not that difficult. CSS is not that difficult. AJAX might be a bit of a push, but JQuery is pretty solid for adding a little extra "zing" for not a lot of extra work. Look into it:

    http://www.w3schools.com/ [w3schools.com]

  • If your are content with iWeb, stay with it. IWeb is not bound to MobileMe, it can just as well publish to your own FTP server. See http://www.apple.com/findouthow/web/ [apple.com] or http://macintoshhowto.com/software/how-to-upload-iweb-sites-without-a-mac-account-iweb-09.html [macintoshhowto.com]

  • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2011 @05:53AM (#36433666)

    Not enough people ask questions like this, so I'd like to congratulate MouseR for raising the whole issue. When you start a project, all too often "architecture" is understood to mean the design (look and feel) and perhaps what underlying software frameworks and servers you'll use. It's very easy to overlook the fact that development tools are mostly shifting sands - not ideal for building your imperishable monument on top of.

    For a start, please note that "classic" HTML is pretty austere. It doesn't really cater for visual design at all, partly because the wise decision was taken to focus on communicating information, and let the client tweak the look-and-feel to his own desires and needs. Thus, the same page of HTML could look entirely different to someone with very short sight, who might choose to make everything look a lot bigger. That philosophy didn't sit well with the commercial brigade who presently set out to extract mountains of money from the Web - nor with artists and all sorts of other folk who want to achieve specific visual effects. But the very simplest way of making sure your Web content remains immune to bitrot is to stick to the simplest possible look-and-feel, which in turn allows you to adopt the very simplest (and thus cheapest and most lasting) toolset.

The relative importance of files depends on their cost in terms of the human effort needed to regenerate them. -- T.A. Dolotta