Favourite free WYSIWIG Website builder

[VileFriend]

I am conducting a survey on free downloadable WYSIWYG Website builders like CuteSITE Builder only not JUST a trial! :p
Can you tell me yours please? :eyebrow: Thanks.

[Zero Angel]

I use Arachnophilia 4.0 (http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/index_old.html). Its a simple customizable editor that has everything I need, nothing I dont.EDIT: Oops, posted when I was tired.

[Dynasty]

*takes out giant sized key and thwacks WYSIWYG editors with it*

:D

[foxxx]

this is a really gay poll.. take it down eh?

[Phil]

I have used one called Trillian Web Page that's decent. I don't have the link right off.
But honestly, I found it a pain to do many things with.
If there are any GOOD free WYSIWYG editors out there, I'd like to know. The few I've tried are really lacking. It seems all they are good for is "seeing the text on the background".

[MikeParent]

I have a really great tool for seeing how the page will look - its called a browser :-)

[foxxx]

dbindel, i happen to disagree, real developers use software like dreamweaver mx, which is very much wysiwyg based... it's a RAD too (Rapid Application Development Tool) You use a decient wysiwyg editor like dreamweaver mx to piece together a website fast, then intergrate any custom code later.

my point is that it's just a crap poll, bad options, no relivance to much at all...

there are only 2 options for no name editors :/
why not list decient ones? there's over 650+ to choose from.

[foxxx]

you must not build many websites then.

what do you do?

[corvus]

I'm an inveterate text-only HTML editor (I thought colour-coded text was the ultimate tool). Recently I had to do a site in Dreamweaver to make a client happy.
Blah!
No doubt it's a good novice tool, and it does have quite a nice layout editor, but, yes, I spent all my time in code view.
I was constantly taking out friendly formatting that Dreamweaver would put in and break my css. Especially annoying is the gratuitous insertion of <p> tags on every line break.
The site manager is a nice feature, however.

[foxxx]

one word, notepad?
yah GG...

so your unemployed i take it? maybe you should learn to use dreamweaver. Dont be afraid of the wysiwyg enviroment, it wont hurt, it will however make what your trying to do faster, easier and more universal. Even though it may put in alot of <p> and other formatting that you may dislike, it will make sure your code works on multiple browsers which is a time consuming problem.

I've been coding in raw html for years, i'm one of the first users of UC98 and FirstPage (being one who went to school with chris and napolean, and lived with them and around the corner from them)

I work with clients like FujiXerox, AOL/TimeWarner, Raptis Group, CitiMark Group and may more, they all want a fast turn around time and a flawless development. Using an app like dreamweaver deffinatly speeds up development. (RAD TOOL).

It works out better for you as a contracter and them as a client. Faster you turn around their developments the faster you get paid.

[foxxx]

so much fun sturing up **** :D
beats working :D

[foxxx]

yup yup yup... i think i owe him money :S
cant remember :S

there down on the coast still, i'm livin in the city now... got an office etc...

[MikeParent]

Originally posted by foxxx
you must not build many websites then.

what do you do?

WYSIWYG is fine for Word Processors, but it's so hit and miss in the web world - with different browsers and different editors using different methods of fudging the design - that I dont see that it's that much of a help. In my mind there isn't really any such thing as "What you see is what you get".

Admittedly, I do mostly ASP stuff so I end up in code view 100% of the time.

Perhaps we should make the distinction here between "designers" and "developers". A good WYSIWYG tool might be of use to a web designer, less so I daresay to a web developer.

[corvus]

Designing and developing are two totally separate things.
mmm, questionable, especially on the client-side. Think of all the times you have spent hours and days cutting code so something works slickly and intuitively in the browser.
If you are talking about development that happens under the hood and transparent to the user I agree there is a big difference, but at the user interface they are very closely related activities.

[MikeParent]

Originally posted by corvus
mmm, questionable, especially on the client-side. Think of all the times you have spent hours and days cutting code so something works slickly and intuitively in the browser.

Perhaps we should distinguish between:

1) Graphic design - look and feel, color scheme, images, page layout and

2) User Interface (UI) Design - how the user interacts with the page

I cant speak for David, but I am referring to the former when I speak of design.

They are intertwined but even these are separate.

Originally posted by corvus
If you are talking about development that happens under the hood and transparent to the user I agree there is a big difference, but at the user interface they are very closely related activities.

I hear ya ;-)

[corvus]

OK, here's a recent crossover example from some Intranet work.
Table of records displayed on a page using ASP. Table pulled data from one recordset, and parsed through another recordset to find the last dated event associated with the record to display next to the record.
Everything works fine. Trouble is, the page now takes about 7 seconds to load n records, because it has to parse about n x n event records to find the most recent for each record. So where's the crossover?

Client-side (design)
You have to deal with the user's perception of delay. I put a javascript loading bar at the top of the page so people know something is happening under the hood. Good UI practice, in line with all the usability guidelines.

Server-side (development)

You have to deal with the delay itself. So I
1. Redesigned the database schema so the last event record is also in the primary table.
2. Re-wrote the server-side script so that the last event goes into both sets of tables (I need all the other associated event records for something on another page).
3. Changed the original query so it only references the main table.
Now it loads in less than a second, and the loading bar barely pops up before it goes. However, if the tables later become gigantic, the user behaviour is still consistent.

The end result to the user is that the page looks the same, just loads faster. No more complaining.
Point being that any time user perception is affected by what you do, design and development are irretrievably linked.

[VileFriend]

Well guys, you've certainly gone past my point of perceprion and evolved the original poll into an indepth discussion on Web page creation, well done and very interesting.:hahaha:
Althoughn David has removed the ability to add to the original poll I just want to say that I would have voted for other even not lnowing any other, as Cute Sitebuilder likes to change a blue link to white which meant that I had to go into notepad myself and edit the correct .htm file with the limited rudimentary html knowlede I have!
C'est la vie!

[MikeParent]

Originally posted by corvus
Client-side (design)
You have to deal with the user's perception of delay. I put a javascript loading bar at the top of the page so people know something is happening under the hood. Good UI practice, in line with all the usability guidelines.


I'll bite :-)

I would argue here that while a javascript loading bar is perhaps (probably) good UI design, the *implementation* of said bar is a development issue.

I think we could split hairs ad inifinitum here. My orginal point was, that web designers, graphic designers, UI designer/developers whatever... would get more mileage out of a WYSIWYG editor that a server side coder would.

(edit) And that there *is* a distinction between *designing* the human interface and *developing* the coding and business logic.

[corvus]

ok, ok, there *is* a distinction...
Good debate, anyway.
Incidentally, no WYSIWIG editor was injured in the making of my example. It was 100% 1st page and preview in the browser.:p

[MikeParent]

LOL!