Computer Science Canada Makin a Website |
| Author: | MyPistolsIn3D [ Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Makin a Website |
What are the best programs to make a website in? At school we are using Dreamweaver and SwishMax, but there has to be other better programs... |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
WordPad > All in Windows. Try learning how to actually do it yourself. Makes the result much neater. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
WordPad is an exceptionally bad idea. It opens the possibility for saving as something other than plain text. On Windows, I like Textpad. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you have to use a program, then please avoid Frontpage at all costs. It creates bloated pages filled with MS only tags. Any text editor would work well. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
cartoon_shark wrote: [FrontPage] creates bloated pages filled with MS only tags.
If you're looking for a bloated page that misserably fails W3C validation tests and doesn't work in most browsers - try saving a MS Word documents as .html 
Otherwise a text editor of choice. Preferably with syntax highlight if you're scripting something. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony wrote: If you're looking for a bloated page that misserably fails W3C validation tests and doesn't work in most browsers - try saving a MS Word documents as .html
That's too evil for even you Tony! Basically, any program that automatically generates HTML for you is probably a bad idea unless your prepared to go through and edit the code which usually takes as much time as writing it from scratch. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
vim doesn't get any votes? You guys suck. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
it's a fair assumption that MyPistolsIn3D's school doesn't run *nix  |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
NotePad in Windows. Once you've figured out how to code proper HTML, you can learn Frontpage. (It's better than dreamweaver). Then you can use your HTML skills to get rid of the extra crap that Frontpage creates. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Notepad or EditPlus 2 which is what I use, though for the PHP syntax highlighting I changed mine a bit to match PHPs built-in highlighting system. And of course, always test your pages with http://validator.w3.org  |
|
| Author: | eklypze [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've always been fond of Dreamweaver because it has a feature to tidy up my messy coding. 
Although it is a fairly large program, and loads slowly on my computer. So I switched over to TextPad which loads much faster, and I'm very satisfied with it.  |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use frontpage... but before I get beaten into a pulp it's only because of the syntax highlighting and auto-indentation. I write all the code myself... it's also useful because it's preview window shows what IE will display, and by opening the page in firefox I can see it there too. One I get the layout done and start on the php scripting I usually do away with the preview and just use frontpage for the indentation... if I had something that would do that for me I'd switch in an instant... |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Get the "View IE Tab" extension for firefox... this way all you have to do to switch from browsers is click the "IE Tab" icon on your status bar and it switches  Don't even need another window opened...
For you editor just use notepad or something ;D |
|
| Author: | MyPistolsIn3D [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yea... I kinda didnt wanna hafta learn html tho lol. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
RapidWeaver Ownz.. It gets my vote for the best non-dynamic website development application. It basically requires you to use that tool alone. If you can live with that it's great. If not then I suggest you try something else. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've used Dreamweaver, and it's not bad (and I like the clean up code option) - but I don't like its functionality for switching back and forth between design and code views. Some of the ways that it implements code done in the design view is nonsensical. I like Frontpage b/c I can have both views open at once. Fronpage does *some* things quite intelligently - so it's much faster to do it in design mode. Some things require the expertise of code view. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anything that writes the html for you is probably writing some horrible code. No matter what you use you still need to make sure the code is standards correct... the W3C validator is your friend |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I vote for pico Got to love the comandline text editors |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Graphical design programs (Frontpage, Dreamweaver) come and go on whims. Plain text does not. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ed is the only way. It's the standard text editor. |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have liked Macromedia Fireworks for doing a website with lots of graphics and images whereas for simple plain websites, notepad it is! |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Which begs the question: Who likes visiting webpages with lots of graphics and images? |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Graphics / images are great, as long as they add functionality to the site. ...which means that they're bad on most sites. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta wrote: I have liked Macromedia Fireworks for doing a website with lots of graphics and images
Although what you should really be doing, is loading all of the colours, positioning and images through CSS. That makes for a plain page to do in a texteditor, and then a plain CSS to also do in (probably the same) texteditor |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Graphics / images are great, as long as they add functionality to the site.
...which means that they're bad on most sites. Content is king. Flashy graphics get people to visit your site once. Text keeps them coming back. Ex: Slashdot. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: Flashy graphics get people to visit your site once. Text keeps them coming back. Ex: Slashdot.
Second. the best page in the universe |
|
| Author: | MysticVegeta [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
hmm well I used lots of images/graphics because mostly I designed anime websites... |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MysticVegeta wrote: hmm well I used lots of images/graphics because mostly I designed anime websites... As long as you design the site properly, then images aren't necessarily bad. Just make sure they are optimized, load fast, and fit in with the style and content.
There's actually a product out there that will let you test your site as specific speeds to make sure it loads quick enough even for low bandwidth visitors. It's called WebSpeed SImulator. Not sure of any free alternatives out there though, if anybody knows of one, I'd be interested in knowing about it. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cartoon_shark wrote: Not sure of any free alternatives out there though, if anybody knows of one, I'd be interested in knowing about it.
The free version might not be as graphically detailed.. What you do is: download the page onto the harddrive, add up the size of the page itself + all the content that was pulled along with it. Total size / download speed of choice = load time |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cartoon_shark wrote: MysticVegeta wrote: hmm well I used lots of images/graphics because mostly I designed anime websites... As long as you design the site properly, then images aren't necessarily bad. Just make sure they are optimized, load fast, and fit in with the style and content.The phrase of the day: Graceful Degradation. If your site's images can't load, does it ruin the site, or can the site still be used? |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony wrote: wtd wrote: Flashy graphics get people to visit your site once. Text keeps them coming back. Ex: Slashdot.
Second. the best page in the universe Win. His material is getting a little old though. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
He doesn't update his site nearly enough. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The point was about having a great site based on content, not flashy graphics or even tricky styles. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd debate whether his "content" is of any value.......Tho your point is still ture. Peoleop will vists the unglist most porrly desgied sites over and over if they have some content they can only get there. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As proven by this place. No, wait... |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
just keep on refreshing the page, something good will come up... soon... soon... |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think slashdot has the greatest layout, but still its extremely popular (because of its content...of course) |
|