What software to use for new site

frontpage? dreamweaver?

[gmac17]

I have about 5 sites, 2 with about 30 pages each. I currently use frontpage 2000 and like the whole "shared borders" thing so I don't have to make the same change on 30 different pages when I make a menu change.

I'm about to not only redesign my sites, but also create some new sites with 100-200 pages each.

What would you recommend to someone who isn't very technical who wants the best way to not only create, but also to manage a site? Should I stay with frontpage? The sites will be almost all static, maybe some forms using cgi.

Thanks in advance.

[encyclo]

Once you get past building sites with just a few pages, then the only real way to go is to use a CMS (Content Management System), which will give you dynamically-generated pages from a template. Not only do you get the advantage that you just change one template and it changes the whole site, but the adding and managing of the content (which is the most important part of the site) becomes a whole lot easier too.

There are numerous debates about the pros and cons of various CMSs - but I would suggest that you look at Mambo Server, Drupal and Typo 3 - all of which are free to download and use.

[edited by: tedster at 2:34 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2004]
[edit reason] post move from HTML Forum [/edit]

[bill]

FrontPage 2003 does have a new templating system called Dynamic Web Templates that require the use of the Windows SharePoint Services. I haven't used them personally, but it looks to be a CMS type system where you can designate what areas of the page can be updated. If your whole team is using FP and the SharePoint server, then this might be an option. There are several help articles in FP2003 which outline how to convert a website from Shared Borders to Dynamic Web Templates, so this must be the way FP is looking to manage webs in a group in the future.

[brandonh]

Dreamweaver has templates as well... You could define a template for the site that wraps up the header, menu and footer. When you update the template, it will update the HTML pages in the site.

A CMS might be a bit of overkill unless you need to maintain revisions of each page.

-Brandon

[pinesprings]

I really like NetObjects Fusion 8. I started with 7, then upgraded to 7.5, now 8.

I downloaded Dreamweaver and checked others, but NetObjects is better and easier to me.

The program offers more features than before such as being able to edit photos, etc.

You can have top, left, bottom borders be the same on all pages, or a combination of many types of pages and even easily create your own border page in seconds.

That's my choice, but i do not know the other programs like I do this one.

Good Luck.
pinesprings

[pinesprings]

Also, the software has hundreds of templates to use and the entire website does not all have to be the same template.

pinesprings

[NeedScripts]

I would recommend FrontPage 2003, but you can also look into the Mambo CMS system if you prefer to do so.

[shigamoto]

Go for an CMS, you would be surprised how simple everything is. Of course it takes some time getting used to and configure the right way, but once it's there you can never be without it.

Currently I use Mambo and Dreamweaver MX (for design and stylesheet tweaking), it's a good combination.

[Adrienne]

I'll cast my vote for Adobe GoLive. It's a great WYSIWYG program with excellent site management tools. You can directly edit the HTML in your pages in a split-screen view. You can check the validity of all your external links with one click. You can make page templates, components, etc. so elements update automatically. You can also lock portions of a template so that the user can only edit specific portions of the page.

You will hear endless arguments that Dreamweaver writes better code than GoLive but this is jive. All WYSIWYG editors can write terrible code, depending on what the designer is trying to do. Make a clean design & you will get good code. Maybe it won't validate 100% but validation is of questionable worth anyway IMHO.

Another great advantage of GoLive is that you will get seamless integration with Photoshop & ImageReady -- so your graphics & images can be easily created & optimized for your pages. If you already use Photoshop then definitely go with GoLive.

If you are into Flash you can pop Flash movies into your site with GoLive.

The best way to decide is to download the free trial versions & try them out yourself.

[nalin]

I most like quanta (specifically for file transfer reasons - we do dedicated servers and (s)ftp is not secure by any stretch of the imagination nor is it well supported in dreamweaver, quanta will do ssh based transfers), but dont know that a windows port is available.

I second the mambo suggestion, very clean CMS.

[RonnieG]

I was once a tekkie, with 30+ years in the business. I hand-coded my very first site, just 6 pages, but then went to FP/98. I am now using FP/2002 to maintain 4 sites, from 20 to over 200 pages each, much like yours, mostly static with a few forms, all with common borders and custom themes, and a couple of frames pages for special purposes. I love how FP's graphical site structure view lets me re-arrange pages within the structure, and how its folders view lets me rename pages and move them to sub-folders without having to re-code all the cross-links within the site. My forms are simple and my web hosting service supports FP Server extensions, so I don't need to do CGI, yet.

I do use FP's HTML view often to check the generated code and tweak as necessary, including SEO coding. I test with IE and Firefox, and have yet to see or hear about any presentation or functionality issues. My largest site and all its pages get great search engine placement for the few key words that apply, probably mostly because it is very specialized and has been relatively stable for 3 years.

I have looked at several of the products mentioned in this thread, but decided that the learning curve and transition, for little or no gain, and risks of significant search engine placement degradation for some months after re-engineering them, was just not worth the effort.

My vote: If it ain't broke, and supports what you need to do with your redesign and new sites, don't fix it!

[Macro]

I'm with RonnieG.

Incorporate a clever use of include pages and you can do pretty much anything a "content management" program can.

(Why does stuff like "which will give you dynamically-generated pages from a template" fill me with dread? :) It is increasingly the case that software is "taking over". I prefer to see my complete page as is and not hit a browser to see how it will look when it is "dynamically generated". Call me a technophobe. Sometimes I feel that these techologies are used just for the sake of it though I'm sure there are some rare situations where they are actually required)

[europeforvisitors]

Once you get past building sites with just a few pages, then the only real way to go is to use a CMS (Content Management System), which will give you dynamically-generated pages from a template.

I've got a site with some 4,000 pages of editorial content, and FrontPage 2003 works fine for me. A CMS might be useful if I had different people contributing to the site or needed to work on it at various locations, but for my purposes, it would be overkill.

[Macro]

>> A CMS might be useful if I had different people contributing to the site

Frontpage already has good features for workgroup type situations with the ability to "check" files out etc. So, even if it's a group of people working on a site FP may still be a good tool. If those people are not all seasoned webmasters it may even be the best tool around for the purpose.

[justgowithit]

I’ve never used Frontpage so I can’t comment intelligently about it. I have many friends who use FrontPage for simple, text-based site but say it doesn’t cut it for anything more involved. However, I have used almost every other WYSIWYG tool before and I can say with confidence that Dreamweaver is my choice by far. NetObjects is good if you’re not getting very sophisticated and you’re not in a competitive arena. Trying to get code to validate in NetObjects is impossible – not to mention that the code is bloated beyond belief making file sizes unnecessarily large. A file created with NetObjects may be 30K where the same file created in DreamWeaver would be about 10K – Big Difference.

I also love the flexibility that DreamWeaver affords coders. I like to code a lot of my own stuff and it’s very easy in the split window set-up. Also, as far as I know Dreamweaver is the best out there for dynamic site creation as far as WYSIWYG tools go. You can create a pretty solid (but basic) dynamic site using DreamWeaver. This topic can be argued until the cows come how, but that’s my two cents.

[europeforvisitors]

Different people have different needs. I've tried several versions of Dreamweaver, and I've never liked the program. It just doesn't feel right, and--for me--it gets in the way of content creation. FrontPage, in contrast, is the best Web editor or authoring tool that I've ever used for what I do (i.e., creating evergreen content for an editorial Web site that has grown to some 4,000 pages since 1997). If I were building a catalog site or running a design studio, my needs might be different. To each his own, different strokes for different folks, etc.

It's easy enough to try different applications: for example, Dreamweaver had a downloadable trial version the last time I checked, and FrontPage has an online simulator that lets you experiment with the program. Getting hands-on experience with an application is far more helpful (and less risky) than making strategic decisions based solely on other people's advice. After all, if you make your living with a piece of software, you're going to be using it a lot--so it makes sense to use the application that feels most comfortable and efficient to you.

[Macro]

>> I have many friends who use FrontPage for simple, text-based site but say it doesn’t cut it for anything more involved

The PC hardware industry is like this with everybody having an "expert" opinion whether they know anything, or not. Maybe your friends do know FP inside out, maybe they don't. But, until recently FP was the main tool for the Dell websites. I would say the Dell sites are a "little more involved" than a "simple, text-based site".

[justgowithit]

What's the deal? Relax man, I was just giving an opinion. I didn't mean to indirectly offend FP and ruin your day. You may have noticed that I said, “I’ve never used FP so I can’t comment intelligently about it”.

I’d agree with the “different strokes for different folks rule”. Use whichever program fits your needs.

[Macro]

>>What's the deal? Relax man
My problem isn't with you, or with recommendations for other programs. It's with those instant "experts" who don't have a clue but go around spreading mis-information. When they encounter someone who asks them "why" they suddenly start fumbling. I have to deal with people like this everyday and they p*ss me off.

So, it's not about you. Sorry if it came across that way.

[Jon_King]

From the Macromedia site:

"Macromedia® Dreamweaver®, the leading professional visual HTML editor, with more than a 70 percent market share...."

DW has worked great in most aspects of creation and management of many sites for our company.

[europeforvisitors]

"Macromedia® Dreamweaver®, the leading professional visual HTML editor, with more than a 70 percent market share...."

A 70% percent share of what market? I imagine they're referring to the professional Web designer market (and especially studios that use Macintosh), rather than to the larger market. As the saying goes, statistics don't lie, but you can lie with statistics. :-)

[Jon_King]

>>the leading professional visual HTML editor

The WYSIWYG web development market.

[XtendScott]

Learn CSS, best new technology to save tons of time in the future for updates. If you have the cash, get DW if you like the wysiwigyiyiy thingyiingy. Also it has a good text editor in it. Learn how to code in the text editor. Actually pretty easy if your good at CSS. <div id="content"><h1>Heading<h1> <p>now my info</p></div>

Style sheets can format everything else and you can have styles for a "printable" version also.

Use ServerSide Includes or other PHP,ASP,CFML languages for larger sites and a good database if necessary. Scripted languages make common characteristic changes to pages pulled from database very easy. Change the output and all the pages that request that script change automatically. That is the same with SeverSide Includes.

XS

[ArmedGeek]

I've tried various website editors and always wind up right back to vi. vim, specifically. The only potential problem is, say, having to change a header in a couple hundred pages (I won't even bring up sed/awk) but I code everything in mason (HTML::Mason) so there is only one of everything anyhow.

I suppose what I'm saying is, don't think that WebSiteEditors(tm) is THE way to go.