Namo WebEditor

Opinions and tips on V6 - Share Content Blocks

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I have just bought the new V6 of Namo WebEditor and my original impressions are that this is great value for money. I got a boxed version for £52 delivered, much cheaper than Dreamweaver. So far it would appear to do everything that DW does.

In a thread last month someone asked if there was a way to make changes to lots of pages at one time, (similar to the template feature in DW). At first I thought that it couldn't do this then I found "shared content blocks". These can be created for common page features such as headers, footer or menus. All you then have to do is update the block and the others are updated manually.

Is anyone else using Namo? If so what are your opinions on it? Have you found any other useful features or tricks?

Edited: (Spelling)

[artdog]

BD DDU,

Bet you thought you were the only one!
I've been using Ver 5.5 and like it. I haven't used
anything else so I can't say that I know better. But
for a true newbe when I bought it I've become quite
proficient using it.

Did you have an earlier version before 6? I've been
wondering if the upgrade is worth it.

Artdog

[vkaryl]

I've tried both. They're okay - namo because it is magnitudes less expensive than dw, dw because it does what it's supposed to do (if you can wade through the sheer size of it to figure out how to do whatever it is you need to do simply - don't like dw - it's a total KLUDGE of an application....)

HOWEVER. Vanilla includes are really better than the proprietary methods used by the above-named programs - because simple includes (either SSI or php - whichever flavor is your pref) are "tweakable" by ANYONE whether or not they have access to perhaps prohibitively expensive software.

If YOU are a (singular) entity, that's of course not a problem. For those of us who have to "include" others into the "update" equation, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to manufacture web pages with programs using proprietary methods.

[BTW, this was NOT my /rant on dw. I'm saving that for a day when I REALLY need to let off steam....]

[artdog]

vkaryl,

Is Vanilla an add on to DW or another program? People have started asking me about making sites for them and I've wondered if Namo would be a problem for them at some point. I'm glad you chimed in.

Artdog

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I am a single entity so fortunately I can use what I want. WRT making websites for others I bought my boxed copy, complete with manual, of Namo Webeditor 6 for a total of £52 here in the UK.

This makes it possible for you to propose that your clients buy a copy for the purposes of editing their own site. This assumes of course that they are reasonably PC lit and that you are not seeking repeat business.

Did you have an earlier version before 6? I've been wondering if the upgrade is worth it.

This is the first version I have had so I cannot comment on this.

[cicgirl]

I have the 5.5 version and love it!

[vkaryl]

artdog: "vanilla" in this instance is simply a nickname for basic. As in "basic" includes whether SSI or php....

namo is a fine editor, I just wouldn't use anyone's proprietary versions of includes.... because as I said above, ANYONE can redo a "vanilla" (that is "basic") include with nothing more than notepad.

[artdog]

Got it.

Have you used Front Page at all?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

ANYONE can redo a "vanilla" (that is "basic") include with nothing more than notepad.

I think that you mean anyone who has the background and training, not ANYONE per se.

[vkaryl]

I think that you mean anyone who has the background and training, not ANYONE per se.

No, I pretty much mean "ANYONE per se". If the include is already working, and the "anyone" in question can use one of the programs spoken of here to produce html (of whatever quality....), then heesh should be able to simply update content within a vanilla include using notepad.

The thing is, once one has used a wysiwyg editor to base out a simple site, and one sees how the proprietary includes are constructed and work (or don't, depending....), one should be able to use a text editor to do updates etc. Wysiwyg is a fine tool, but one shouldn't become totally dependant on it for site mechanics, updates, and so on.

[BTW - just so we're all on the same page here, my "background and training" in html, includes, etc. began in about 1995, when I decided to use the free space my ISP offered to set up my own site. I knew ZERO/ZED/ZILCH about html, and the only "programming" experience I had wasn't - it was coding and MUSH softcode at that. I used various online tools to get definitions and examples of what I was supposed to be doing, and I made OCEANS' worth of mistakes. I still have not taken "real" classes; I'm entirely self-taught, and one of the BEST teachers out there is the w3c site - if you have the patience to wade through it. I am neither "brilliant" nor do I have a "young therefore flexible" mind: I'm 56, and while I do English really well, math is ANYTHING but a thing of beauty to me.... but my mind IS flexible though aging - so I'm not a complete throw-away I guess....

And my first purchased editor was wysiwyg: WebEditPro from Luckman, for which I paid $100 - almost a fortune to me at that time. But I quickly found out that for many many things I wanted to do, it was FAR easier and faster to just code it up in notepad.... For several years, I laid out sites in WEP, then did all the coding by hand....]

[vkaryl]

Have you used Front Page at all?

artdog, I used FP long enough to decide I was way happier in other directions, program-wise, and then I deleted it. That was maybe '97, I've tried each version since, and STILL delete it almost immediately.

I know people who do good sites and swear by it. Each to hisser own.