iWeb

Pemba

I have just started putting together a small website with blog/podcast capabilities using iweb. I have no experience of web programming yet after a days work I feel I have put together a nice package, albeit without the strain of html/dreamweaver/css!

What I would like to know is how this programme has been received by the wider public and what do web programmers think about it? What pitfalls should I watch out for? Will it be difficult to get this online?

Thanks

Breezer

Way too simplistic. No support for even basic HTML, never mind CSS, PHP, etc. Rubbish templates. An advertising service for .Mac. Admittedly I'm basing this on iWeb '06 and I used it for about 20 minutes, during which it crashed several times.

I suppose if you just want a very simple blog, don't care that it looks rubbish, can manage to stop it crashing and particularly if you use .Mac, it may be OK. It's definitely not a web designer's tool. While I'm not a blogger and therefore I haven't spent much time with any of these apps, at first glance online tools like Wordpress and Google Pages impressed me more.

Dont be at yourself

For what it is, it's very good. It's not a suite aimed at web designers.

It's a very simple programme used by people with no skills in web designing to share their photographs, movies and maintain a blog with absolutely no expertise required. It does that job better than any other programme.

I disagree on the quality of the templates too. They look far, far better than most of the wordpress/blogger ones knocking about. I'm toying with the idea of switching my blog to iweb, on account of its usability and clean, functional templates.

Breezer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's not a suite aimed at web designers.

It's a very simple programme used by people with no skills in web designing to share their photographs, movies and maintain a blog with absolutely no expertise required.

I agree. The OP asked what web programmers thought of it. I used to design websites as a small business and just giving my opinion that it'd be useless for something like this.

Trev M

I think its grand as a basic package myself, and have viewed a few sites put togther with it , it does the job and personally I cant stand over elaborate flashy web sites.

unklerosco

I like, for basic and quick websites that look nice its better than anything else i've tried... Only problem I have is that the sites u create with it are s-l-o-w

Trev M

Also If you wanna say insert an MP3 its puts quick time media player in and results in the page takin a while to load....
example http://web.mac.com/trevmooney/GigSmart_Live_/TBF_05_03_08_Part_1.html

unklerosco

A pic Gallery is even slower...

http://www.abbyflowers.ie/Abby_Flowers/Weddings.html

Trev M

That actually loaded up pretty quickly for me here

WizZard

unklerosco wrote: »

A pic Gallery is even slower...

http://www.abbyflowers.ie/Abby_Flowers/Weddings.html

It references this file, which doesn't exist...

Apart from that it's not bad. The Javascript files could do with being compressed/optimised though,as they're big

Type 17

unklerosco wrote: »

A pic Gallery is even slower...

http://www.abbyflowers.ie/Abby_Flowers/Weddings.html

There is an ongoing issue for European users of .Mac Web Galleries - see discussion here.

I was going to use it for a start-up photography business, but it was so slow that I went with an Irish hosting service instead... :rolleyes:

Pemba

Trev M wrote: »

I think its grand as a basic package myself, and have viewed a few sites put togther with it , it does the job and personally I cant stand over elaborate flashy web sites.

I just found rapidweaver http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/ there. Anyone using it?