*best* way to make a website?

N

NleahciM

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
3,517
Hi - so a while back I was big into the whole web development thing. I worked for a local university for a while in their web development department and whatnot. Back then we used homesite for everything. (homesite is a text editor designed for website design). I even wrote a monstrous HTML tutorial, complete with a built in HTML editor which was written with something like 20 pages of Javascript. Ah good times...


Anyways - that was years ago - and I haven't hardly worked on any websites since then. So now I'm faced with putting together a website for a local company. This would be easy, except I have to leave it so that they can work on it. So this means that I need to make it so that it can be easily edited with a WYSIWYG editor. I'm thinking I should probably make the website from the ground up with whatever editor I choose for them - just to ensure compatibility and whatnot. Also it would be a good way for me to get familiar with whatever editor I choose - as I really have never used anything but text editors.

So which should we choose? They already have Microsoft Frontpage, but I remember looking at some code made by frontpage a while back and it was about the ugliest HTML I had ever seen. So surely there's something better? I hear good things about Dreamweaver?

So - does anyone have any advice for me? Thanks!
 
gymboy689 said:
i swear by notepad but dreamweaver is good as well
Click to expand...
You should really check out Homesite or CuteHTML if you want to stick with text based HTML editors. They make your life much easier.
 
if you want to make it brain-dead easy for them to maintain, then the WYSIWYG tool of choice is Composer. And i'm not recommending it because it's free, i'm recommending it because it's extremely easy for anyone who doesn't know a lick about HTML to use.
its as easy to use as Word, but unlike Word (or FrontPage), it actually generates decent HTML code.
 
When you say that they need to edit it, do you mean that they need to actually work on the underlying code, or just edit the content? If it's the latter (which seems more likely), then look for an appropriate content management system for them, develop the site using whatever you're comfortable with, and leave them the GUI the CMS provides. Here's a recent thread along those lines.

If it's an editor, I like EditPlus
 
lomn75 said:
snip snip... look for an appropriate content management system for them, develop the site using whatever you're comfortable with, and leave them the GUI the CMS provides.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think a CMS would be a better solution to your problem.
 
lomn75 said:
When you say that they need to edit it, do you mean that they need to actually work on the underlying code, or just edit the content? If it's the latter (which seems more likely), then look for an appropriate content management system for them, develop the site using whatever you're comfortable with, and leave them the GUI the CMS provides. Here's a recent thread along those lines.

If it's an editor, I like EditPlus
Click to expand...
How hard is something like that? I've only worked with static HTML pages... (well static as in not being created on the fly)

And I'm not sure if our host allows that - I know we have a CGI bin - is that enough? Or is there something else I need to look into? Man I really am out of date on this stuff... :eek:
 
i'm kinda curious about CMS myself. i'm not sure what they do exactly. i mean can you use it to generate HTML code from regular text, then insert that code into your website? If so, how does it accomplish that? Or do have to use some pre-generated templates?

I made my own content publishing system that takes text from a web form. it then stores the input into a DB. Then i have another page that pulls all the text entries and formats them into HTML. Then i use that page as a server-side include in my templates, i can put different text into different areas of my website simply by pulling the appropriate data using SELECT statements..
e.g. On my news page i'll use:
SELECT text FROM articles WHERE catergory='news'..

is that similar to how CMS's work?
 
Virtually all decent CMSs have installation instructions. Several of them are even fully-interactive installs instead of refering to an install.txt file. You may need PHP / SQL / Perl (that'll cover virtually any, though SQL is not strictly needed) on the server to run them.

Coranto / NewsPro is a good basic Perl CMS. It's out of development but should still be available on the web. I use MovableType for my homepage, which is Perl and optional MySQL. I'm not certain how their corporate license works, but it's an extremely adaptable template system, and there's a good user base with plenty of hacks and how-tos. The thread I posted earlier mentions a lot more, which I have no experience with. In general, though, there's not a real need to reinvent the wheel unless you're wanting to teach yourself how to program one.

As far as difficulty -- sure, configuration is more complex than HTML simply because it's not purely static, but it's still not that hard. Here's a sample of the templates used for my homepage
Code: 
<div id="content">
<div class="blog">

<MTEntries days="7">
	<MTDateHeader>
	<div class="date">	
	<$MTEntryDate format="%B %d, %Y"$>
	</div>	
	</MTDateHeader>

<$MTInclude module="standard_entry"$>

</MTEntries>

</div>
</div>
In this case, it's fully modularized and documented via an HTML manual. MT comes with some basic templates, but they're well-organized enough that editing them (as I've done) is relatively simple. Coranto requires you to build ground-up templates, I think. These files are editable either through your browser or as templates that you work with offline and then upload. The system does the dynamic work when you change the content and generates static files for inclusion, which makes it very lightweight on server load. Alternately, systems could pull straight from a database on every page pull -- that's still accomplishing the goal of a CMS, and the real tradeoff is whether or not the content changes frequently. For a forum, the static page generation would be absolutely stupid. For a company press release page, though, where something is added weekly (or even daily), dynamic generation for every page might be excessive.

As far as user interface, it's a web page login very much akin to this forum. I log in, select the "New Entry" button (or Edit Entry, or whatever), and get a page with title, body, and some other particulars, plus submit and preview options. In that regard, CMSs are ideal for systems that you set up and then leave in someone else's hands, as there's no fundamental jump in skills beyond that of using Yahoo Mail.
 
IMO Frontpage licks balls. It adds a bunch of bullshit tags that are unneeded and clutters everything to hell.

Dreamweaver on the other hand isn't so bad. It still clutters things but its all fixable if it really bugs you.

Still, though, notepad (I use Metapad) for design and coding is my perferred method as it allows you to get your hands really really dirty and sometimes even cut the tip off. ;)
 
1) Learn the HTML tags.
2) Use Dreamweaver (and tweak, if necessary, using your knowledge of the tags)

There's no need whatsoever to stick with notepad, typing all the little tags manually, when you can click a couple of buttons and save so much time.
 
cuemasterfl said:
1) Learn the HTML tags.
2) Use Dreamweaver (and tweak, if necessary, using your knowledge of the tags)

There's no need whatsoever to stick with notepad, typing all the little tags manually, when you can click a couple of buttons and save so much time.
Click to expand...


Exactly. People that say dreamweaver/frontpage is cheating suck. Its just giving us an edge and saving us so much time!
 
I disagree. However, it's just what you get used to, I think. So, try both ways and decide what you like better. For me, notepad is also better because I make a design then spend the rest of the time doing php code, so there's no need for a bulky program such as Dreamweaver or Frontpage.
 
fusionrs said:
Exactly. People that say dreamweaver/frontpage is cheating suck. Its just giving us an edge and saving us so much time!
Click to expand...
word..

when you have a site with several thousand pages to maintain, there is no how, no way in hell that notepad is going to get you anywhere.
 
See, but there are different standpoints there; I create one design, i then create a template which i use for every page, but there is only one copy of the template: index.php

I use PHP and $_GET variables to decide what page i'm going to show in the template. Lots of websites do this. Some even do it the exact opposite and have many php files and one "template" file which is included around the the content, if that makes any sense.

So I create a design in Photoshop, split it up, put it around a content <div> and call that page index.php. I then create code to decide what page i'm going to include, be it the news or articles, etc. The included pages have no design in them, besides maybe div classes that are very easy to change. By doing this, I can manage thousands of pages and never worry about the design; if I need to change the design I can edit one file and all the pages are updated.
 
Veonik said:
I use PHP and $_GET variables to decide what page i'm going to show in the template. Lots of websites do this. Some even do it the exact opposite and have many php files and one "template" file which is included around the the content, if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Hm, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm a PHP newb, so maybe that's the problem. But what I do is I create the template (well, a php file that uses includes to add content to the page: header, navigation and content, the content being the only one that varies from page to page), and all the content, which are all separate files, is included. Is this any different from what you're saying? What do you mean by using $_GET variables to decide what page is gonna show?

I'm just looking for a way to be more efficient; just interested in learning. I'm currently working on a ~140 page site (the first site I'm not doing for myself), and I'm a bit overwhelmed.~

By the way, in case I'm not clear, what I do is this:

Code: 
<body>

<? include("modules/header.html"); ?>

<div id="wrapper">

<? include("modules/leftnav.php"); ?>

<? include("modules/home.php"); ?>

</div> <!--end of wrapper-->

</body>
</html>
 
Anarchonixx said:
*snip snip*
Click to expand...

Yeah, basically that; but I dont even include the header and nav and crap; that's all built into index.php

And for $_GET its like this:

You have links like
Code: 
<a href="index.php?mod=articles">

and then you have php code that pulls that out:
Code: 
<?php

$mod = $_GET["mod"]; // NOTE: Most new PHP parsers dont require this anymore but its best to set the variable just for a failsafe.

include("modules/" . $mod . ".php");

?>
 
Veonik said:
Code: 
<?php

$mod = $_GET["mod"]; // NOTE: Most new PHP parsers dont require this anymore but its best to set the variable just for a failsafe.

include("modules/" . $mod . ".php");

?>
Click to expand...
it's much simpler to just call
PHP: 
include_once("modules/" . $_GET["mod"] . ".php");
plus it lets you disable global variables for slightly improved security and portability.
 
liqdfire said:
leave now
Click to expand...


I think many will agree that both frontpage and dreamweaver are wonderful time savers! Frontpage 2003 is alot better than the previous versions.
 
fusionrs said:
Frontpage 2003 is alot better than the previous versions.
Click to expand...

This is actually very true. I still use DreamWeaver, mainly because I am already familiar with it, but FP2003 is much better and cleaner than prior versions.
 
I like Dreamweaver. I don't really have a need for it because my site's not one of those monster sites where there are dozens or more pages to update; mine's just a small site (still incomplete, too busy to work on it. :( ).

I haven't tried Front Page 2003, last one I used was like FP2000.
 
BillLeeLee said:
I like Dreamweaver. I don't really have a need for it because my site's not one of those monster sites where there are dozens or more pages to update; mine's just a small site (still incomplete, too busy to work on it. :( ).

I haven't tried Front Page 2003, last one I used was like FP2000.
Click to expand...


Give 2003 a shot. Surprised me! :)
 
lomn75 said:
it's much simpler to just call
PHP: 
include_once("modules/" . $_GET["mod"] . ".php");
plus it lets you disable global variables for slightly improved security and portability.
Click to expand...

True, but I use the variable over and over in my scripts so I just got used to setting them all first.

Also, my way allows for disabling global variables as it sets the variable regardless if global variables are turned on.
 
maw said:
word..

when you have a site with several thousand pages to maintain, there is no how, no way in hell that notepad is going to get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

If you had a site with several thoudand pages to maintain I'd sure hope you'd use or write a CMS. Thats how the sane people do it atleast, you wouldnt be using Frontpage or Dreamweaver for sites that large unless you had a tun of time.
 
Dolby said:
If you had a site with several thousand pages to maintain I'd sure hope you'd use or write a CMS. Thats how the sane people do it at least; you wouldn't be using Frontpage or Dreamweaver for sites that large unless you had a ton of time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the problem with the DW v Text Editor debate is that people are confusing site style design with site backend design. For large sites, the first part is the only case where DW should hold any edge (as from that point on, you'll probably only be -- and short of a complete redesign, certainly should be -- using DW for its text editing capabilities). The only other case is if you have several thousand pages with no shared code, and there's just no excuse for that. If that's the relevant situation, you don't need DreamWeaver -- you need to be replaced by a trained monkey.

The real question, then, is whether or not the WYSIWYG capabilities of DW are worthwhile even for design. My personal feeling is "no" -- the best way to design your site's style (again, IMO) is to put a webserver on your development machine, edit the files directly, and then refresh the view in browsers as you go. A site layout should be (and certainly can be, via CSS) clean enough that a $30 text editor is the most you'd need. Let's be honest here, no one uses notepad by choice except to say "look at me, I'm a prima donna luddite." Good tab control, syntax highlighting, autocomplete, and such are all improvements. Heck, as a minimum, swap notepad for MetaPad as linked above. Given that it's possible to put multiple versions of IE side-by-side in Windows, plus Firefox, Opera, and old Netscapes, all of which are archived if needed, you get much better coverage of what you actually will get by going straight to the browsers than what any WYSIWYG interface will ever give you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top