Website software...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPod - Mac or Windows format?
Next: Fusion + NAT
From: Jochem Huhmann on 2 Jun 2010 08:19 info(a)that.sundog.co.uk (SM) writes: x>> Having played with all of them now, it seems that iWeb actually does >> more of what I need than anything else, albeit a little less 'standards >> compliant', but that seems easier to workaround than change to a new >> composer. > > I reckon moving sites from one template driven web authoring program to > another is, to paraphrase the dear leader, a bag of hurt. Depending on the exact nature of the sites in question I would prefer to use some CMS or blog system (Wordpress is a bit hackish, but rather simple and flexible) and just design the template once. For everything but content-light/design-heavy sites this is usually the way to go these days. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Chris Ridd on 2 Jun 2010 08:42 On 2010-06-02 13:19:32 +0100, Jochem Huhmann said: > info(a)that.sundog.co.uk (SM) writes: > > x>> Having played with all of them now, it seems that iWeb actually does >>> more of what I need than anything else, albeit a little less 'standards >>> compliant', but that seems easier to workaround than change to a new >>> composer. >> >> I reckon moving sites from one template driven web authoring program to >> another is, to paraphrase the dear leader, a bag of hurt. > > Depending on the exact nature of the sites in question I would prefer to > use some CMS or blog system (Wordpress is a bit hackish, but rather > simple and flexible) and just design the template once. For everything > but content-light/design-heavy sites this is usually the way to go > these days. That's a pretty good idea, but it does then mean someone has to keep Wordpress patched and updated on the server. -- Chris
From: SM on 2 Jun 2010 08:48 Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > info(a)that.sundog.co.uk (SM) writes: > > x>> Having played with all of them now, it seems that iWeb actually does > >> more of what I need than anything else, albeit a little less 'standards > >> compliant', but that seems easier to workaround than change to a new > >> composer. > > > > I reckon moving sites from one template driven web authoring program to > > another is, to paraphrase the dear leader, a bag of hurt. > > Depending on the exact nature of the sites in question I would prefer to > use some CMS or blog system (Wordpress is a bit hackish, but rather > simple and flexible) and just design the template once. For everything > but content-light/design-heavy sites this is usually the way to go > these days. I like WordPress more now that it has the version update button in the control panel. Stuart -- cut that out to reply
From: SM on 2 Jun 2010 08:49 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-02 13:19:32 +0100, Jochem Huhmann said: > > > info(a)that.sundog.co.uk (SM) writes: > > > > x>> Having played with all of them now, it seems that iWeb actually does > >>> more of what I need than anything else, albeit a little less 'standards > >>> compliant', but that seems easier to workaround than change to a new > >>> composer. > >> > >> I reckon moving sites from one template driven web authoring program to > >> another is, to paraphrase the dear leader, a bag of hurt. > > > > Depending on the exact nature of the sites in question I would prefer to > > use some CMS or blog system (Wordpress is a bit hackish, but rather > > simple and flexible) and just design the template once. For everything > > but content-light/design-heavy sites this is usually the way to go > > these days. > > That's a pretty good idea, but it does then mean someone has to keep > Wordpress patched and updated on the server. Or use wordpress.com Stuart -- cut that out to reply
From: Jochem Huhmann on 2 Jun 2010 08:56
Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> writes: >> Depending on the exact nature of the sites in question I would prefer to >> use some CMS or blog system (Wordpress is a bit hackish, but rather >> simple and flexible) and just design the template once. For everything >> but content-light/design-heavy sites this is usually the way to go >> these days. > > That's a pretty good idea, but it does then mean someone has to keep > Wordpress patched and updated on the server. This has become much less of a nuisance meanwhile. But you're right of course, someone has to keep an eye on the thing. You can throw dumb HTML/JS/images at a site and forget about it, but as soon as you have any code running on the server you have to care a bit for it. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |