Freeway Pro, Site Grinder...?

[Esh]

Has anyone any experience of using Softpress Freeway Pro, SiteGrinder, or any other 'non HTML' web design software?
I've been using WebPlus X4 to design websites, which while this is awesome to a degree, I'd like to try other programmes. I've seen a few sample websites from Freeway, and they look pretty good. I've been learning HTML/CSS and am attending a few courses in the new year, but until then, I'm stuck with this WYSIWYG programmes? Any other such programmes? Thanks

[dedwardp]

The only software I've ever used for a site would be Dreamweaver, I have taken a look at Site Grinder in the past but I never gave it enough time to look at it properly and really work out how to use it. It sounded promising when I downloaded it but, as I say, I never gave it a chance or looked at it enough.

I really only use code and so haven't really bothered with any software, but the one I have used before is Dreamweaver.

[SparkCreative]

Yeah, I use Freeway and I love it. You can do pretty much anything on it nowadays and from what I've heard from people who know about those things, the code it generates isn't too bad.

Here's the most recent site I made with it:

Welcome to Eos Interiors

Oh, and my site too.

[socreative]

Yeah, I use Freeway and I love it. You can do pretty much anything on it nowadays and from what I've heard from people who know about those things, the code it generates isn't too bad.

Here's the most recent site I made with it:

Welcome to Eos Interiors

Oh, and my site too.

with tables and image maps? yeah, right

[Esh]

Thanks guys...nice website Spark Creative.

[Corrosive]

@Esh there is no substitute that I know of that allows you to avoid the hand code learning curve. Save any money you'd spend on software and download Notepad ++ for free and tuck in to some good tutorials for the HTML and CSS basics. Try these; 38 Great Tutorials To Convert PSD To HTML/CSS | DesignBeep for starters

Invest in knowledge not shortcuts.

[Corrosive]

Yeah, I use Freeway and I love it. You can do pretty much anything on it nowadays and from what I've heard from people who know about those things, the code it generates isn't too bad.

Text in images, inline styles, no external (and so cached) stylesheet, tables, image maps for links. Whoever the 'people who know about these things' are you've spoken to don't know squat about coding a good layout. It just flies in the face of everything you need to be competitive online nowadays. It is the usual story with WYSIWYG, on the face of it, it looks great but there is some seriously nasty stuff lurking just below the surface...

[Esh]

@Esh there is no substitute that I know of that allows you to avoid the hand code learning curve. Save any money you'd spend on software and download Notepad ++ for free and tuck in to some good tutorials for the HTML and CSS basics. Try these; 38 Great Tutorials To Convert PSD To HTML/CSS | DesignBeep for starters

Invest in knowledge not shortcuts.

Thanks for that. My intention is to be able to code properly in the long run hence starting with the html etc, so these tutorials should be helpful. I was looking for other programs to use until I get to that stage though. To be fair though, I've come across quite a lot of people who use non-coding software and they and their clients don't have a problem. It's usually web developers who make a fuss about it! Apart from the more obvious SEO reasons (some of which can be done in WYSIWYG editors), I'm trying to figure out why its a big deal if the end result is good? Even though the designers/developers are using difference methods/software (which they've taken the time to learn, if the result is the same/similar, isn't it just like the Adobe/non-Adobe argument? Any enlightenment? This isn't an ignorant reply I'm genuinely interested. You can tell I'm only a learner at web stuff!
Thanks

[Esh]

Another dumb question. Regarding the 'nasty stuff lurking behind the scenes'...So long as the site can get good ranking on search engines/listings etc, the person viewing doesn't see the code, it's only developers who tend to go and view the code on sites, so why does this matter so much?

[Corrosive]

To be fair though, I've come across quite a lot of people who use non-coding software and they and their clients don't have a problem.

That's a fair point. Truth is that a website can indeed look great to the untrained eye but, to a professional, the work will look very poor indeed. I guess the closest analogy would be buying a car. I know nothing about mechanics so shiny bodywork, clean interior etc might be the only visual clues I'd have as to the quality of the vehicle. I wouldn't have a clue if the brakes were worn down or the big end about to give up on me, but a trained mechanic would.

True that clients often don't know good code from bad but that is why they trust the professional to do a good job in the same way that I trust the professionals who service my car for me. Just because clients don't have a problem isn't a reason to cut corners and do a half-arsed job. In fact it is even more reason to do a good job.

It's usually web developers who make a fuss about it!

I guess this is somewhat self preservation on our part. If I take the time to handcode a layout that does everything the right way and then someone undercuts me by hacking out a web page in quarter of the time using save for web in Photoshop for instance then I'm going to get defensive. And that is as honest as I can be about it! Cowboy builders will upset those who build properly for exactly the same reasons. Doing a bad code job is exactly the same thing!

We are forever picking up clients who have had bad build jobs done. In fact we had one a couple of weeks ago who had his website built using an online editor (name escapes me now). It was all absolute positioning and the like. He had fallen out with the guy who built it and wanted some updates. He was ever so upset when we told him it needed totally rebuilding because moving anything would make it topple like a house of cards.

Apart from the more obvious SEO reasons (some of which can be done in WYSIWYG editors), I'm trying to figure out why its a big deal if the end result is good? Even though the designers/developers are using difference methods/software (which they've taken the time to learn, if the result is the same/similar, isn't it just like the Adobe/non-Adobe argument? Any enlightenment? This isn't an ignorant reply I'm genuinely interested. You can tell I'm only a learner at web stuff!
Thanks

SEO is a BIG reason for this. Online is competitive (and become increasingly so). Build quality, speed of download, flexibility etc is all really important for surviving online. Those sites on the Freeway Pro demo page have inline styles and so not cached for quick download times, nested tables that don't clearly separate style from content so Search Engines struggle to sort the wheat from the chaff and so on. Using the right tools and tags for the job is essential for helping SEs make sense of a page. I must say I'm not aware of the Adobe/Non-Adobe argument. HTML and CSS is just that when it all boils down to it. It doesn't matter one jot about what programme is used to code it as long as the quality is good.

Anyway, don't just take my word for it; What Beautiful HTML Code Looks Like | CSS-Tricks

Hope that helps and I totally understand why you have asked these questions. I was asking the same ones three years ago!