Is Different
Here we go again! Another opening, another show… I mean, another website, another blog!
I had to stop using iWeb. I didn't want to, but I had to. Goodness knows, I waited as long as possible. I think iWeb is better than any other web page editor ever was, in so many ways. Rapidweaver has tried to emulate some of its ease of use, but there is a lot left to be desired, as you can see just by looking at the interface.
iWeb works like a layout program, you just put stuff where you want it, and add, move and alter pretty much as you please.
RapidWeaver, on the other hand, gives me this. Note that it does not reflect the look of this new blog page. And while it is certainly great for what it does, it isn't anywhere as easy as iWeb. Is different. Trust me.
So the main difference is that RapidWeaver isn't "WYSIWYG", meaning I can't see what I'm doing while I'm doing it. And yes, I really like to do that. Another issue is, that the ready-to-use "themes" are locked down tight. One can change colors and some details, but not much. I can't add a text box or image where I want, or a frame, or a sign, arrow, you get the idea. I can't alter or remove any part of the basic layout either. After iWeb, it's like being in a cage.
Now there is a way around the "lock-down", but it's not for the faint-hearted. It's possible to create a copy of the theme, and then modify it using external tools. This is required even if all you want to do is change the site banner to something personal. So, believe it or not, the pages you see which look simple enough took hours to accomplish.
Another thing I don't like, is that RapidWeaver requires "add-ons" for full functionality. Paying for more themes I can understand, and I like the idea of plug-ins too, for pro features. But they've taken it too far. The program has a hefty price-tag by itself, so shouldn't rely on external developers for important features. But I suppose that's a story for another time.
I am using RapidWeaver now, so obviously it isn't that bad. It does what it does extremely well, and as web-page editors go, it is relatively easy to use. Everything else I've looked at has required HTML programming to some degree, usually a great deal of it. Why is iWeb simplicity so hard for developers to accomplish? Unencumbered web creativity for the layman, post iWeb, is far from a reality, alas.
So, why the change then? Well, if you've seen my previous Pages, you know there were issues. I could live with the problems that make iWeb so difficult to use on a modern version of the Mac OS, although by now it's pretty bad. But the pages iWeb creates don't cut it anymore. The site just didn't look good on big, modern screens, or on mobile units, and using the latest browser versions.
I do have the old sites saved, and hope to add some "legacy" content to the Pages eventually. I especially want to salvage all my blog posts, which will involve a lot of copying and pasting, no doubt. I could just leave the code as-is, but the result of that might not even be navigable.
I had to stop using iWeb. I didn't want to, but I had to. Goodness knows, I waited as long as possible. I think iWeb is better than any other web page editor ever was, in so many ways. Rapidweaver has tried to emulate some of its ease of use, but there is a lot left to be desired, as you can see just by looking at the interface.
iWeb works like a layout program, you just put stuff where you want it, and add, move and alter pretty much as you please.
RapidWeaver, on the other hand, gives me this. Note that it does not reflect the look of this new blog page. And while it is certainly great for what it does, it isn't anywhere as easy as iWeb. Is different. Trust me.
So the main difference is that RapidWeaver isn't "WYSIWYG", meaning I can't see what I'm doing while I'm doing it. And yes, I really like to do that. Another issue is, that the ready-to-use "themes" are locked down tight. One can change colors and some details, but not much. I can't add a text box or image where I want, or a frame, or a sign, arrow, you get the idea. I can't alter or remove any part of the basic layout either. After iWeb, it's like being in a cage.
Now there is a way around the "lock-down", but it's not for the faint-hearted. It's possible to create a copy of the theme, and then modify it using external tools. This is required even if all you want to do is change the site banner to something personal. So, believe it or not, the pages you see which look simple enough took hours to accomplish.
Another thing I don't like, is that RapidWeaver requires "add-ons" for full functionality. Paying for more themes I can understand, and I like the idea of plug-ins too, for pro features. But they've taken it too far. The program has a hefty price-tag by itself, so shouldn't rely on external developers for important features. But I suppose that's a story for another time.
I am using RapidWeaver now, so obviously it isn't that bad. It does what it does extremely well, and as web-page editors go, it is relatively easy to use. Everything else I've looked at has required HTML programming to some degree, usually a great deal of it. Why is iWeb simplicity so hard for developers to accomplish? Unencumbered web creativity for the layman, post iWeb, is far from a reality, alas.
So, why the change then? Well, if you've seen my previous Pages, you know there were issues. I could live with the problems that make iWeb so difficult to use on a modern version of the Mac OS, although by now it's pretty bad. But the pages iWeb creates don't cut it anymore. The site just didn't look good on big, modern screens, or on mobile units, and using the latest browser versions.
I do have the old sites saved, and hope to add some "legacy" content to the Pages eventually. I especially want to salvage all my blog posts, which will involve a lot of copying and pasting, no doubt. I could just leave the code as-is, but the result of that might not even be navigable.