Is iweb a good thing for the web ?
Lets try and get this fixed first.
I am a simi pro at the field now *sigh* when it comes to hard coding a site from code.
Ever since pages came out I clamored to get pages to export html and start using that as a basis to design faster.. alas it would not be..
Sooo a year later we now have iweb. basicly pages in a new skin. It outputs code that actually displays a page correctly now. Buuut at what price?
here is a sample,, does not exist
As we can see here it ignores style sheets at all cost except that it still has style sheets as well! What the heck! ..
And what of images inplace of text ? It does not even try and do an image replacement hack. Is this a good thing ?
Sure it will lead to much better looking sites when in the hands of designers and such..
So is this ok? It sure defeats every thing I learned for proper html creation....
So fellow developers, what will you do? Rapid weaver and karelia crew have not seen this coming. sure haveing tools that make correct code and such are great but they missed the thing that makes design fun, freeform control, not themes.
Will you now try and add this in ??
Or can we all in the world try and steal my old ideas that have been tortured to maddness on the web
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=234397
http://creativebits.org/opinion/rethinking_webdesign_design_apps
in the past ?
Pro app that feels like gold and produces gold.. Or is less control better ??
**
Dont fight ya'll I am just a tried designer that still cant find a reason why two worlds cant combine into one.
- tripdragon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
User login
Navigation
Latest critique
Active forum topics
good idea.. much needed.. but won't work in the end. IMHO.
Like many of Apple's ideas - iWeb is an excellent concept and probably serves a very tight niche of consumers, but I doubt it will gain any real acceptance.
I'm seeing a pretty strong parallel between this and Keynote.
At the end of the day, simple online tools like Blogger, Flickr, MySpace etc.. etc.. will be sufficient for the basic web user.. more established designers will use more established tools like Dreamweaver, MovableType etc.. and larger organizations will rely on workflow-managed web production or outsource to experience design firms that in turn will want more control (Dreamweaver, GoLive *chuckle*).
You'll see a small - thouroughly satisfied - group of iweb users who proudly parade their sites around.. but as far as a shift to this platform? unlikely.
Hmm.. I don't see a
Hmm.. I don't see a sample..
_________________________
http://www.killbridge.com
My opinion, as a student of design...
... is that this is just another example of trying to apply old concepts and methods of creation to a new medium. Treating Web pages as though they were drag-and-drop Powerpoint slides ignores one of the most elegant parts of designing for the Web: the code. Just like there is no easy way to make a print design piece, no canned-layouts, there is likewise no easy way to make a Web site. If you want to make a good design, inside and out, you're going to need to pay attention to the underlaying code of the page. The sooner we stop trying to pretend that Web pages aren't actually Web-based, the sooner we'll be able to allow ourselves to expand the ways we treat the medium.
one note,, i can't get teh
one note,, i can't get teh code to display, does not matter it was jamming the old style sheet code in teh block code...
Your missing the point though. we are about to get flooded with these kind of sites now,, well that has never stopped..
but websites are magazines. they provides news and content. the problem is that a web site is foolishly to complicated to design. even if your pro most can atest to how much it sucks to design and then bug squash every single broswer problem...
These sort of applications
These sort of applications have been around for a decade. I remember using something quite similar back when I first started playing around with the Web. iWeb, while valuable to people who just want to share their thoughts and pictures online for friends, is really something of a non-event when it comes to those of us in the professional design field.
As I stated before, websites are a new medium being held back by dated concepts. Websites are not magazines, and they are not as easy to design as magazines (although I never considered that very easy to begin with.) Most of the process of designing and coding for the Web can be quite enjoyable: the thing that makes it a pain is indeed the problem of incompliance in certain Web browsers. But iWeb nor any other program is going to eliminate those sorts of hassles. In fact, if the Mac weren't as standards-compliant as it is, an app like iWeb could actually spell trouble for Web design, giving people the ability to create Web sites for Apple's .Mac walled garden and not give any consideration to those who choose to live outside those walls.
I think iWeb should have
I think iWeb should have been complimentary with any .Mac membership; perhaps have a web interface to it instead of a stand-alone application that does not have FTP capabilities.
Speaking of web design, I'm no designer but I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm getting from an application called ShutterBug.. Give it a whirl..
Waleed
www.waleedsgallery.biz
I have a feeling that nobody
I have a feeling that nobody interesting will use iWeb. Just Ma and Pa sharin' photos of little Billy with Grandma and the like. People with something important to say will know better (or will learn very quickly).
My two bits...
The web app I use depends on what I'm doing. If it's a quickie, then a theme-driven package may do. If it's a corporate site, we're building our own templates and starting from scratch in GoLive.
As for iWeb, I think it's very interesting and being that mom and pop can build great looking and functional sites with it, I think will raise the bar a bit. Or at least I hope it will, and that's always a good thing for designers.
Terry Thornhill
e-zign Design Group
"depends on what I'm doing"
My thoughts are similar to Terry's.
When I'm working on text documents, I might use InDesign, Pages, or even AppleWorks when I want to do some mail merges.
I have and use GoLive, but if I want to share some photos with family and friends, I've used iPhoto web pages, and now I'll use iWeb pages. (Which acually has a pretty nice slideshow interface, considering the simplicity for the user.)
In the case of some photos for a limited group, the photos will be the focus, and iWeb pages will do the job well, and without utilizing more time from me than necessary.
Andy
makes the web a prettier place
I think in the end, it will make personal publishing on the web a better place. Look a Myspace...it is horrible. Ugly as hell...TOO MUCH freedom to mess things up. I am a designer, but I admit I use .Mac for publishing video and photos. I could code it myself in Dreamweaver, but it is SO damn easy to drag, drop and upload. For special projects (birth announcements and invites) I do my own layout, but for most people iWeb will make their web publishing so much nicer.
iWeb
I think this is a beautiful App for the consumer. This application is designed for the consumer...not for the pro who needs more flexibility/options. Any comments about how Dreamweaver or writhing your own code is a better way to work does not apply here. In fact it seems pretentious. This application & it's integration with all the other iApps seems to me to be a very powerful media assets & distribution tool for the masses (consumer) & for anyone that just wants to get things done quickly for personal uses. I can also see this as a powerful self promotional tool for anyone that is in other businesses that are not web design related (i.e. real estate agent, unknown musicians, artists, etc.) They could care less about the beauty of code. These tools are for digital communication for someone who could care less about or does not have the time to deal with all the things mentioned here. Including learning all the intricacies of pro applications. To state otherwise to me seems a bit shortsighted & arrogant. This is about personal web publishing, & anywhere someone may want to take that, in an integrated, easy package...not about the beauty of code. This package just keeps getting better & more powerful. All the consumer apps mentioned here do not have the flexibility, integration or the power of the iLife suite.
I'm sorry but you ar eso
I'm sorry but you ar eso wrong on the pro area for me. I will make it a point to use iweb for pro work very soon. Now granted it will be a static page it will be used.. Of course I will have to hack in some thing cause I can edit code. But the time it saves in setup and bug testing with the sacrifce of clean code is justifiable. Not wanted but is worth it.
What is still needed though is simple. This needs to edit all to a style sheet, and be smarter about it. It also needs smart css padding margins, and image text replacement hack ala csszengarden... But hopefully some just *gets it* and builds their own version of iwork for something like rapidweaver
Pro needs
I didn't say that these apps could not be applied in some situations for pros. I said that they were designed with the consumer space in mind.
My 2 cents
I agree with spongy to an extent...
People are mentioning that no one will use this as pro people will use dreamweaver and hard code, but you seem to forget what suite this comes in? it comes with iLife, and who is iLife aimed at? a general consumer, apple have pro apps like aperture etc... and then consumer apps like iphoto and iWeb, i think this is a amazing thing for the web, it makes web creation easy for CONSUMERS who just want to have fun. Im sure apple will release a pro version of this down the line. But this is a very good move on apples part, they are opening new doors for basic users and consumers.
Just my 2 cents though.
- Liam
I'd question anyone who
I'd question anyone who plans on using this for professional work. The code is bad. Sloppy. Period. It doesn't really bother me that Grandma and Grandpa have poorly-coded websites. I don't expect them to know any better. But professionals? Hell no.
What does bother me is that the code is bad and it doesn't have to be. Apple could've put a little more work into iWeb and made a really good, well-behaved app. Instead they cut corners, and that bums me the hell out.
It's not about releasing a quality product any more. It's about making it good enough and shipping it ASAP and collecting the money.
poor code
Have you used the app or are you making assumptions? This is the first release of this application...i assume it will get better. I think you're being a little harsh. Along with all the other apps in this suite it adds up to less than $16 dollars an app. I think that's a bargain. Garageband alone is worth the price of the suite. The ease of use & integration of these apps makes it worth the price for someone who wants to do these things & doesn't have the knowledge or time to accomplish what these apps offer. These apps can also be used separately or in combination with one another, in that sense I can see some application for these apps in a pro situation. Also, they are just plain fun to experiment with.
Indeed, this is the point of
Indeed, this is the point of iLife: to allow regular people to do 'insanely great' stuff easily, quickly, and dare I say, enjoyably. Sure, iWeb could also be used in some simple non-mission-critical applications by professionals. But if I'm understanding Tripdragon's argument correctly, he's arguing that iWeb could be a sort of Pro app for web design.
When I design a Web site, I want it to comply to standards, be easily modifiable through CSS, and have well-structured code. To sacrifice this sort of underlying order is to deny one of the most important parts of Web design! You don't just design how it looks... you design how the information is presented and how it's ordered. The design of what's underneath is just as important as the way it works on the outside. While iWeb may be more than satisfactory for those living an iLife, it most certainly does not stack up for those of us living a Pro life.
grrr
Grr this is getting annoying
"does not stack up for those of us living a Pro life"
that made you head sound as big as a planet........ im sorry i don't mean to bash. im just annoyed that people keep saying its no good for a pro app, it is true yes, but its not designed to be used as a pro app, its for those people who don't know how to design their own website, and them basic level users now have a really simple way of doing. People here keep going off track as to what iLife is aimed at, yes this is a community with professionals and students (such as me) we have dreamweaver, photoshop, aperture, motion, PRO DVD etc......... basic users get iPhoto, iWeb, iMovie, iDVD.
"...its not designed to be
"...its not designed to be used as a pro app, its for those people who don't know how to design their own website."
That's exactly my point. While I'd gladly use iWeb to post a few pictures up that I took a party or something, that is a part of my "iLife." That's what iWeb is for: personal things. I would not use it as a Pro app in a professional application. I will not use it to output work for clients that I should be... well... being a pro about. Tripdragon's suggestion that iWeb is some sort of Pro app for web design completely ignores what Apple is trying to do with iWeb in the first place.
As for the comment about the size of my head... that's a little uncalled for.
Overall I think it's good...
Overall I think it's good... It gives people a tool to create a halfway decent website or blog. Personally, I am tired of seeing crapy blogs being created by people with junk wysiwyg programs. you know the kind... the ones with 10 colors, no consistent navigation, fonts and sizes all erratic. Some of these people have great thoughts but lack skills or money for anything else. At least if they have a mac then they could get some decent exposure.
The best part is... PC's don't have anything close to it thats nice. so it makes apple look that much better than windows.
"Websites are not magazines,
"Websites are not magazines, and they are not as easy to design as magazines"
sorry but this is very laughable, not to say stupid.
You think a magazine is easy to design ? God i hope you're not a designer. One thing is granted : you never designed done…