OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On 5/7/2013 1:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2013 7:28:15 PM UTC-4, Steve Barker wrote:
>> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
>>
>> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
>>
>> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
>>
>> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
>>
>> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
>>
>> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
>>
>> --
>>
>> Steve Barker
>>
>> remove the "not" from my address to email
>
> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability to have complete control over my content and how it will be presented. Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary page as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/
>
Thanks. Know where I can get it?
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On 5/7/2013 11:28 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:15:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
>>> maintaining the below:
>>>
>>> --http://www.ewoodshop.com(Mobile)
>>
>> I really like your site Karl. It is so, so clean and uncluttered. Easy
>> and painless to read and navigate, it's pretty to look at, too. Top
>> shelf, like your woodwork.
>
>
> I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
> website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
> repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
> load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
> them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
>
> But that's a minor criticism compared to a lot of websites I've seen.
>
that particular home page never did finish loading for me. I gave up.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On 5/7/2013 2:25 PM, RonB wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2013 6:28:15 PM UTC-5, Steve Barker wrote:
>> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
>>
>> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
>>
>> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
>>
>> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
>>
>> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
>>
>> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
>>
>> --
>>
>> Steve Barker
>>
>> remove the "not" from my address to email
>
> Take a look at the CoffeeCup suite of tools. The basic program is an enhanced code editor that lets you preview as you go. They also provide a suite of tools, graphics and even some pre-designed formats that can be used.
>
> Reasonable priced stuff.
>
THANKS! Saw that one in another link.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On 5/7/2013 2:34 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability
>> to have complete control over my content and how it will be presented.
>> Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary
>> page as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>>
> Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it
> would no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a
> subscription service. Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no
> doubt that is the future model for a lot of things, especially software.
> And I am also certain that a lot of folks don't want to pay a fee every
> month. Particularly if they do not use the software all that much.
>
>
>
Yeah, I noticed that about M$ also. Can't buy office with a disk in the
package anymore. Have to dl it. I'd be a month dl'ing that. Guess I'm
sticking with Office 2003.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
Steve Barker <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better choices
> than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software. What are
> everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
FWIW, and although I still have my old e-woodshop.net website on a server
running FP extensions, I switched my now primary website to a web based
solution ... Squarespace ... and will not go back to computer based website
design software. Cheaper to host, much more robust uptime, and there are
multitudes of templates that make it relatively easy to maintain a modern
look and feel, with built-in automatic device compatibility.
All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
maintaining the below:
--
http://www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:15:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
>>> maintaining the below:
>>>
>>> --http://www.ewoodshop.com(Mobile)
>>
>> I really like your site Karl. It is so, so clean and uncluttered. Easy
>> and painless to read and navigate, it's pretty to look at, too. Top
>> shelf, like your woodwork.
>
>
> I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
> website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
> repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
> load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
> them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
>
> But that's a minor criticism compared to a lot of websites I've seen.
For the amount of no hassle time I have into it, it has been a bargain.
Your points are valid, and duly noted. Thanks.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
<[email protected]> wrote
>
> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability to
> have complete control over my content and how it will be presented.
> Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary page
> as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>
Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it would
no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a subscription service.
Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no doubt that is the future model
for a lot of things, especially software. And I am also certain that a lot
of folks don't want to pay a fee every month. Particularly if they do not
use the software all that much.
On 05/07/2013 03:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> Steve Barker wrote:
>> On 5/7/2013 2:34 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability
>>>> to have complete control over my content and how it will be presented.
>>>> Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary
>>>> page as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>>>>
>>> Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it
>>> would no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a
>>> subscription service. Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no
>>> doubt that is the future model for a lot of things, especially software.
>>> And I am also certain that a lot of folks don't want to pay a fee every
>>> month. Particularly if they do not use the software all that much.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that about M$ also. Can't buy office with a disk in
>> the package anymore. Have to dl it. I'd be a month dl'ing that.
>> Guess I'm sticking with Office 2003.
>>
>>
> Try Apache Open Office--a product of the open-source community. It's
> free and it will open your MS Offfice files, at least Word documents and
> Excel spreadsheets.
>
>
OpenOfice has been rather stagnant since Apache took over. LibreOffice
is better maintained:
http://www.libreoffice.org/
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Steve Barker" wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array
> of occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on
> web page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for
> messing around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much
> better choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the
> software. What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
------------------------------------------
Have you checked out Google?
I built this using "pages.google.com"; however, it is now called
"google sites"
http://tinyurl.com/bw4djks
Have fun.
Lew
On Monday, May 6, 2013 6:28:15 PM UTC-5, Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
>
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
>
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
>
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
>
> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
>
> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
>
> --
>
> Steve Barker
>
> remove the "not" from my address to email
Take a look at the CoffeeCup suite of tools. The basic program is an enhanced code editor that lets you preview as you go. They also provide a suite of tools, graphics and even some pre-designed formats that can be used.
Reasonable priced stuff.
On 5/6/2013 6:28 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
I use an early code generator (messy) and some hand coding.
Try here:
http://mashable.com/2007/11/18/10-template-generators/
On 5/6/2013 7:28 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
So the best way is by hand.
My son codes by hand, I used to code by hand.
It's the most efficient, and fastest loading.
Most coding in corps are still done by hand.
You asked.
--
Jeff
On 5/6/2013 9:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:28:15 -0500, Steve Barker
>> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
>> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
>> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
>
> Depends if your ambitions are just a simple web page or something a
> little more professional. After that comes the commercial websites, a
> BIG step above.
>
> Dreamweaver CS3 is out of date by today's standards and the current
> Dreamweaver is pretty expensive, bit it is a full fledged developing
> program should you want to buy it. Know that the learning curve is
> pretty involved if you want put it to its fullest use.
>
> For personal use, I might consider one of the following.
> http://www.squidoo.com/web-design-software-review
>
Thanks for the link. Only one strange thing on that page. The 12 in
the chart are completely different than the ten in the list.
--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
On May 6, 7:57=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
> maintaining the below:
>
> --http://www.ewoodshop.com(Mobile)
I really like your site Karl. It is so, so clean and uncluttered.
Easy and painless to read and navigate, it's pretty to look at, too.
Top shelf, like your woodwork.
Nicely done.
I have seen other endorsements for Squarespace, and the folks that use
it love it.
Robert
On Monday, May 6, 2013 7:28:15 PM UTC-4, Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of=20
>=20
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web=20
>=20
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing=
=20
>=20
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better=20
>=20
> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.=20
>=20
> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> Steve Barker
>=20
> remove the "not" from my address to email
I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability to ha=
ve complete control over my content and how it will be presented. Dreamwea=
ver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary page as well a=
s the embedded php scripts in tab format.
http://www.garagewoodworks.com/
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:28:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
>website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
>repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
>load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
>them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
I would disagree, especially in Karl's case where he makes his living
from woodworking. Someone looking to have something built always has a
particular type of item in mind.
By putting a number of projects on the same page, it lets a potential
buyer zero in faster on an example of what they're looking for.
And, your example of scrolling down being slower doesn't make sense.
It's much slower to load a new page than it is to scroll down on an
already loaded page.
On Wed, 08 May 2013 05:22:43 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:28:49 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>>I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
>>website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
>>repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
>>load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
>>them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
>
>I would disagree, especially in Karl's case where he makes his living
>from woodworking. Someone looking to have something built always has a
>particular type of item in mind.
>
>By putting a number of projects on the same page, it lets a potential
>buyer zero in faster on an example of what they're looking for.
>
>And, your example of scrolling down being slower doesn't make sense.
>It's much slower to load a new page than it is to scroll down on an
>already loaded page.
If you have a very slow connection it's faster to load small pages
than one large page. Browsers can (but not always, for some reason)
completely hang until a page is completely loaded. It's frustrating
because you can't even switch to another tab. It happens to me often
which is odd because my connection isn't all that slow (DSL).
On 5/6/2013 7:28 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for messing
> around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
> choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
> What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
I agree with the above posts, pretty much all that software creates
unmaintainable code, fine for a hobby site, sloppy for a business.
Oh, and frontpage has got to be the bottom of the barrel.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Steve Barker wrote:
> OK, completely off topic here. But I know there's a diverse array of
> occupations and hobbies lurking about here. I'm wanting input on web
> page software that may be better than frontpage. It's just for
> messing around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much
> better choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the
> software. What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
There are a ton of them. I messed with several WYSIWYG types some years
ago, didn't much care for any. It wasn't that they were hard - I used to
write system software in assembler - just too "full featured" and I wanted
simplicity.
I had been using a word processor I really like - Atlantis Ocean Mind - and
it has the ability to spit out what you write into HTML so I started using
it for my very limited need for web stuff. Works well and is easy. I did
all the stuff for the site in my sig with it, IrfanView and MS Paint. I
noted someone mentioned Karl's nice site...all of it could have been done
the same way.
http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:15:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
>> maintaining the below:
>>
>> --http://www.ewoodshop.com(Mobile)
>
> I really like your site Karl. It is so, so clean and uncluttered. Easy
> and painless to read and navigate, it's pretty to look at, too. Top
> shelf, like your woodwork.
I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
But that's a minor criticism compared to a lot of websites I've seen.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:15:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> All told, I've spent less than two hours, total, "designing" and
>>> maintaining the below:
>>>
>>> --http://www.ewoodshop.com(Mobile)
>> I really like your site Karl. It is so, so clean and uncluttered. Easy
>> and painless to read and navigate, it's pretty to look at, too. Top
>> shelf, like your woodwork.
>
> I certainly agree that the woodworking is excellent, but not the
> website. Too much on one page. Any time the viewer has to scroll down
> repeatedly the emphasis is lost. And on a slower link the time taken to
> load is noticeable. I would have taken each of the photo subsets and put
> them on separate pages with links to them from the home page.
It works great now if you have a fast Internet connection.
Personally, I find that the less "clicking" I need to do the better I
like it.
>
> But that's a minor criticism compared to a lot of websites I've seen.
>
Steve Barker wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 2:34 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability
>>> to have complete control over my content and how it will be presented.
>>> Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary
>>> page as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>>>
>> Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it
>> would no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a
>> subscription service. Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no
>> doubt that is the future model for a lot of things, especially software.
>> And I am also certain that a lot of folks don't want to pay a fee every
>> month. Particularly if they do not use the software all that much.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, I noticed that about M$ also. Can't buy office with a disk in
> the package anymore. Have to dl it. I'd be a month dl'ing that.
> Guess I'm sticking with Office 2003.
>
>
Try Apache Open Office--a product of the open-source community. It's
free and it will open your MS Offfice files, at least Word documents and
Excel spreadsheets.
On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:34:00 -0400, Lee Michaels wrote:
> Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it
> would no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a
> subscription service. Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no
> doubt that is the future model for a lot of things, especially software.
There are some free web page builders out there. A long time ago I used
the following:
http://www.kompozer.net/
but I wasn't doing anything fancy. And here's a link to a short review
of 5 open source builders:
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/biztools/5-best-and-easy-open-
source-website-builders-.html
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 03:36 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Steve Barker wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2013 2:34 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> I use Dreamweaver and I run a lot of php scripts. I like the ability
>>>>> to have complete control over my content and how it will be
>>>>> presented.
>>>>> Dreamweaver does a really nice job of letting you modify the primary
>>>>> page as well as the embedded php scripts in tab format.
>>>>>
>>>> Dreamweaver is made by Adobe. Just this week, Adobe announced that it
>>>> would no longer sell "boxed" software. Every thing is now a
>>>> subscription service. Just like the local heroin dealer. I have no
>>>> doubt that is the future model for a lot of things, especially
>>>> software.
>>>> And I am also certain that a lot of folks don't want to pay a fee
>>>> every
>>>> month. Particularly if they do not use the software all that much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I noticed that about M$ also. Can't buy office with a disk in
>>> the package anymore. Have to dl it. I'd be a month dl'ing that.
>>> Guess I'm sticking with Office 2003.
>>>
>>>
>> Try Apache Open Office--a product of the open-source community. It's
>> free and it will open your MS Offfice files, at least Word documents and
>> Excel spreadsheets.
>>
>>
> OpenOfice has been rather stagnant since Apache took over. LibreOffice
> is better maintained:
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/
>
>
I was curious about the difference since I down-loaded Open Office
recently.
I didn't exactly identify the "difference", but this was interesting:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/libreoffice-adoption-soaring-but-openoffice-still-open-source-king/
On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:28:15 -0500, Steve Barker
>around with a personal page, but I've heard there are much better
>choices than FP. I have a Dreamweaver CS3 book, but not the software.
>What are everyone's preferences in this arena? THANKS!!
Depends if your ambitions are just a simple web page or something a
little more professional. After that comes the commercial websites, a
BIG step above.
Dreamweaver CS3 is out of date by today's standards and the current
Dreamweaver is pretty expensive, bit it is a full fledged developing
program should you want to buy it. Know that the learning curve is
pretty involved if you want put it to its fullest use.
For personal use, I might consider one of the following.
http://www.squidoo.com/web-design-software-review