Any really really good WYSIWYG editors for Windows?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I've seen the power of iWeb but I don't have a Mac. Anything that can create really nice websites that are also WYSIWYG?

 

[Cerb]

Are you certain that iWeb has full support for IE 7-9, FF 3+, Chrome, and Opera 10+? A little Googling shows many users with problems.

...and that's the problem with WYSIWYG web design: what you see is what you get, but not necessary what they get. So, use any one you come across that you like. If you really want to make it work right, you'll have to dig into the code, or keep it all very simple.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Are you certain that iWeb has full support for IE 7-9, FF 3+, Chrome, and Opera 10+? A little Googling shows many users with problems.

...and that's the problem with WYSIWYG web design: what you see is what you get, but not necessary what they get. So, use any one you come across that you like. If you really want to make it work right, you'll have to dig into the code, or keep it all very simple.

Seen a lot of iWeb sites. They all look fine to me. A number of people build their entire small businesses off of them. As in that's what their business does - builds websites in iWeb for other people.

http://www.3424cowper.com/Welcome.html

http://2328greer.com/index.html

http://3675lacalle.com/

 

[mikeymikec]

First link: The explanatory text is an image. Web page design is really easy if you just have one big image as your web page

Second link: About Nancy and Jennifer goes onto a second line and no longer keeps its distance from the next element down in the page (in FF and IE9 - in the latter Jennifer is partially obscured). And those are quite basic site designs.

Third link: Using images where text could have easily done the job.

I bet all three site designs were done using iWeb-supplied templates even then.

Adding to Cerb's comments, web page design via WYSIWYG editing software is kinda like trying to build model aeroplanes while wearing oven mitts.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

First link: The explanatory text is an image. Web page design is really easy if you just have one big image as your web page

Second link: About Nancy and Jennifer goes onto a second line and no longer keeps its distance from the next element down in the page (in FF and IE9 - in the latter Jennifer is partially obscured). And those are quite basic site designs.

Third link: Using images where text could have easily done the job.

I bet all three site designs were done using iWeb-supplied templates even then.

Adding to Cerb's comments, web page design via WYSIWYG editing software is kinda like trying to build model aeroplanes while wearing oven mitts.

Let's put this into a real world, non-techie perspective.

I know the person doing this work and his business is thriving because of it. Compatibility issues aside, it brings him boatloads of money and his clients have no complaints. It works. You can have all the techie arguments but at the end of the day people pay for it and are happy with it.

His sites work fine on my Google Chrome and the iPhone and the iPad and my Android phone.

Now step back and examine the options:

1. Pay a programmer hundreds of dollars that I don't have to design these websites for me, and pay them hundreds of dollars more to update and revise designs. And I still have to go into the code to change anything if they're not available.

2. Spend time that I don't have to learn how to code from scratch. CSS, HTML5, jQuery. How long would that take to become a master at it? If it's a few days, sign me up! But I'm going to guess that it took the people here many many months and lots of frustration and time invested to get very good at it.

3. Get a WYSIWYG editor and get going within a week. Compatibility issues are just going to have to be a fact of life.

Small compatibility issues vs. thousands of dollars spent vs. months of time to learn all this stuff

At the end of the day, I want to start with a blank canvas, have a bunch of widgets at my disposal, and just drag widgets, images, videos, and text into place, align, resize, layer, and publish. Just like what you would do with Photoshop or InDesign. Only instead of printing it you convert it into a website.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

It only took me a couple of days to learn HTML and CSS to create a website for my church. It looks great IMO. Take a look at some free templates to get the hang of things. Use w3schools.com

 

[Ken g6]

What's more useful than a point-and-click WYSIWYG editor is an "instant feedback" editor. You type your code in one window, and you see the result instantly in another. I often use Stylish for CSS editing, but it's not quite instant - I have to click a button to get it to update.

Googling for instant feedback I found Mozilla Thimble, which looks interesting.

 

[Cerb]

Let's put this into a real world, non-techie perspective.

I know the person doing this work and his business is thriving because of it. Compatibility issues aside, it brings him boatloads of money and his clients have no complaints. It works. You can have all the techie arguments but at the end of the day people pay for it and are happy with it.

His sites work fine on my Google Chrome and the iPhone and the iPad and my Android phone.

Now step back and examine the options:

1. Pay a programmer hundreds of dollars that I don't have to design these websites for me, and pay them hundreds of dollars more to update and revise designs. And I still have to go into the code to change anything if they're not available.

2. Spend time that I don't have to learn how to code from scratch. CSS, HTML5, jQuery. How long would that take to become a master at it? If it's a few days, sign me up! But I'm going to guess that it took the people here many many months and lots of frustration and time invested to get very good at it.

3. Get a WYSIWYG editor and get going within a week. Compatibility issues are just going to have to be a fact of life.

Small compatibility issues vs. thousands of dollars spent vs. months of time to learn all this stuff

At the end of the day, I want to start with a blank canvas, have a bunch of widgets at my disposal, and just drag widgets, images, videos, and text into place, align, resize, layer, and publish. Just like what you would do with Photoshop or InDesign. Only instead of printing it you convert it into a website.

Then, use a WYSIWYG system. Just that those issues will exist, and there isn't [yet] a grand perfect WYSIWYG editor or template-based site creation system. It's a trade-off you make. The key difference is that in Photoshop or InDesign, you have a canvas that isn't interactive, and which exactly defined, rather then being declarative hints to a program. Apple simplicty-first design is going to be hard to find elsewhere, but there have been fair WYSIWYG website editors for well in excess of a decade, now.

 

[beginner99]

Let's put this into a real world, non-techie perspective.

I know the person doing this work and his business is thriving because of it. Compatibility issues aside, it brings him boatloads of money and his clients have no complaints. It works. You can have all the techie arguments but at the end of the day people pay for it and are happy with it.

His sites work fine on my Google Chrome and the iPhone and the iPad and my Android phone.

Now step back and examine the options:

1. Pay a programmer hundreds of dollars that I don't have to design these websites for me, and pay them hundreds of dollars more to update and revise designs. And I still have to go into the code to change anything if they're not available.

2. Spend time that I don't have to learn how to code from scratch. CSS, HTML5, jQuery. How long would that take to become a master at it? If it's a few days, sign me up! But I'm going to guess that it took the people here many many months and lots of frustration and time invested to get very good at it.

3. Get a WYSIWYG editor and get going within a week. Compatibility issues are just going to have to be a fact of life.

Small compatibility issues vs. thousands of dollars spent vs. months of time to learn all this stuff

At the end of the day, I want to start with a blank canvas, have a bunch of widgets at my disposal, and just drag widgets, images, videos, and text into place, align, resize, layer, and publish. Just like what you would do with Photoshop or InDesign. Only instead of printing it you convert it into a website.

So basically you are a lazy and trying to justify it?

 

[Scooby Doo]

What's more useful than a point-and-click WYSIWYG editor is an "instant feedback" editor. You type your code in one window, and you see the result instantly in another. I often use Stylish for CSS editing, but it's not quite instant - I have to click a button to get it to update.

Googling for instant feedback I found Mozilla Thimble, which looks interesting.

^This

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

So basically you are a lazy and trying to justify it?

Haha, more like I have other responsibilities and limited time and interest. You know, because I'm an adult growing a small company. Nice try though.

 

[slugg]

Fuzzybunny,

You may want to try Microsoft Expression Web. It is basically the current successor of Frontpage, if you can remember that. It's very easy to use and has a couPle nifty features worth mentioning: Adobe format import and SuperPreview.

You can import photoshop and illustrator files into the editor, then quickly point and click, drag and drop to turn it into a layout. Or you can use Expression Design to do more artwork for your site; another component in Expression Studio.

SuperPreview is just awesome. You set up multiple web browsers in it, then you can preview your web pages in all of those web browsers at the same time. They get tiled on your screen and as you scroll in one place or click, it mirrors your interaction on ALL the browsers at the same time.

Expression Web also generates the cleanest code I've seen in a WYSIWYG editor. I use it, but I don't use the WYSIWYG editor; I use it kinda like an IDE for PHP/HTML/JavaScript/JQuery. The fact that it manages and handles all my files for me, let's me debug my code, and has SuperPreview is just awesome.

If you need something free, look into Microsoft WebMatrix.

 

[mikeymikec]

Let's put this into a real world, non-techie perspective.

I know the person doing this work and his business is thriving because of it. Compatibility issues aside, it brings him boatloads of money and his clients have no complaints. It works. You can have all the techie arguments but at the end of the day people pay for it and are happy with it.

I don't think I put up any "techie arguments" - I want websites that I design to look professional in any semi-modern browser. As you dismissed all of my points right off the bat, I think we disagree on what looks professional.

Using images to display especially the main body of text upsets screen readers for example (as well as other tools used by the disabled to view websites), will print poorly and wouldn't be used by search engines to help index the site properly.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't think I put up any "techie arguments" - I want websites that I design to look professional in any semi-modern browser. As you dismissed all of my points right off the bat, I think we disagree on what looks professional.

Using images to display especially the main body of text upsets screen readers for example (as well as other tools used by the disabled to view websites), will print poorly and wouldn't be used by search engines to help index the site properly.

And likely won't scale well to mobile devices which is a significant portion of the market these days. It's easy to write off legally blind people as a small enough group to ignore, but once you include iOS and Android mobile devices you're excluding a huge chunk of the market.

 

[beginner99]

Haha, more like I have other responsibilities and limited time and interest. You know, because I'm an adult growing a small company. Nice try though.

Exactly but at the same time you think developers cost to much? They have the same responsibilities as you have (feed their family) and knowledge in any kind of work either requires you take the time to learn it or pay for it.

Learning that iWeb thingy or even the Microsoft Aplication mentioned probably takes just as much time as basic css and html knowledge. And about templates, their are tons of free html and css3 templates available. Basically changing text is all you need to do.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I don't think I put up any "techie arguments" - I want websites that I design to look professional in any semi-modern browser. As you dismissed all of my points right off the bat, I think we disagree on what looks professional.

Using images to display especially the main body of text upsets screen readers for example (as well as other tools used by the disabled to view websites), will print poorly and wouldn't be used by search engines to help index the site properly.

The "using images for text" thing I understand and agree with. Besides that, I can't find anything else wrong with those websites I listed.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Exactly but at the same time you think developers cost to much? They have the same responsibilities as you have (feed their family) and knowledge in any kind of work either requires you take the time to learn it or pay for it.

Learning that iWeb thingy or even the Microsoft Aplication mentioned probably takes just as much time as basic css and html knowledge. And about templates, their are tons of free html and css3 templates available. Basically changing text is all you need to do.

Huh? Developers cost a lot because it takes them way less time and they produce way better quality than someone like me could produce, just like someone like me can shoot, process, and deliver a wedding shoot in way less time and with much better quality than someone who's not a photographer could. And I would cost more than DIY. If you're going to shoot a wedding would you learn photography from scratch, especially if you have no interest in it?

Now imagine there's a robot that can shoot the wedding for you. Gets shots that everyone is happy with. All you have to do is buy it and read the manual.

Frankly, web design frustrates the hell out of me. I take elements and I drag them and physically manipulate them in space. I do design work for fliers and brochures. I do CAD work. I Photoshop. It's all dragging, resizing, etc. Coding just plain sucks to me.

I don't see a point in wasting so much time and enjoyment on a weakness of mine when I could be using a tool to minimize this time investment and using my other time for more value-adds.

 

[mikeymikec]

 

[Markbnj]

Frankly, web design frustrates the hell out of me. I take elements and I drag them and physically manipulate them in space. I do design work for fliers and brochures. I do CAD work. I Photoshop. It's all dragging, resizing, etc. Coding just plain sucks to me.

I don't see a point in wasting so much time and enjoyment on a weakness of mine when I could be using a tool to minimize this time investment and using my other time for more value-adds.

You're absolutely right that it doesn't make sense for you to put that time in. It's not your business. At the same time, though, you don't get anything for free. If there were relatively simple wysiwyg tools that could produce clean, testable, reliable, cross-browser markup that implements your unique business requirements then everyone would be using them. Instead, every client of our 60-person boutique development firm is using either our in-house HTML/CSS specialists or an outside design firm. Both those resources cost $130+/hour, minimum. There's a reason we have more work for them than they can do.

The relevant questions are: how valuable to you is your business, and how integral to that business is the web presence? If your business is potentially very valuable and the web is an integral part of it, then at some point it makes sense to invest the capital to implement your unique vision. At the other end of the range you would certainly use a tool or a hosted template-based solution. It all depends on your specific circumstances, but don't think you're going to get a drop-dead gorgeous website that takes your business to the next level from some editor .

 

[DaveSimmons]

One thing to keep in mind is if you pay the $x,xxx for the design of the site, you should then be able to maintain it yourself. It's like having a logo designed professionally, you do it once and then use it for years.

 

[GregGreen]

Huh? Developers cost a lot because it takes them way less time and they produce way better quality than someone like me could produce, just like someone like me can shoot, process, and deliver a wedding shoot in way less time and with much better quality than someone who's not a photographer could. And I would cost more than DIY. If you're going to shoot a wedding would you learn photography from scratch, especially if you have no interest in it?

Instead of looking for a quick way to do a job poorly, why not find a developer you could work out an agreement with? You do some stuff for them at no charge/reduced rate and they do some for you?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Instead of looking for a quick way to do a job poorly, why not find a developer you could work out an agreement with? You do some stuff for them at no charge/reduced rate and they do some for you?

How is using a WYSIWYG program necessarily going to produce a poor product? Like I said, I know professionals who make a very good living selling products derived from WYSIWYG programs, in a part of the country with the highest standards of living and one that's inundated with tech professionals, no less. Non-techie people using non-techie tools to produce techie products in Silicon Valley? And they're thriving? Sure thing. That's reality.


At the end of the day, that's my metric for performance. WYSIWYG is a tool. We all use tools. Humanity was built on tools. Some tools suck. Some are better than others. Like my thread states, I'm looking for a really really good WYSIWYG editor (a really really good tool), no different than if I were to ask for a recommendation on a really really good camera or a really really good computer. I have no interest in building the computer or hiring someone to use the computer for me. I just want the tool.

 

[DaveSimmons]

But sometimes the answer is "there is none."

The fact that some people can sell websites built with WYSIWYG tools does not mean they have good tools, it may just mean their buyers aren't picky and/or aren't aware of the flaws in what they're buying.

 

[Nothinman]

But sometimes the answer is "there is none."

The fact that some people can sell websites built with WYSIWYG tools does not mean they have good tools, it may just mean their buyers aren't picky and/or aren't aware of the flaws in what they're buying.

Just like McDonald's food. It may be crap, but millions of people pay real money for it every day.

 

[GregGreen]

How is using a WYSIWYG program necessarily going to produce a poor product? Like I said, I know professionals who make a very good living selling products derived from WYSIWYG programs, in a part of the country with the highest standards of living and one that's inundated with tech professionals, no less. Non-techie people using non-techie tools to produce techie products in Silicon Valley? And they're thriving? Sure thing. That's reality.


At the end of the day, that's my metric for performance. WYSIWYG is a tool. We all use tools. Humanity was built on tools. Some tools suck. Some are better than others. Like my thread states, I'm looking for a really really good WYSIWYG editor (a really really good tool), no different than if I were to ask for a recommendation on a really really good camera or a really really good computer. I have no interest in building the computer or hiring someone to use the computer for me. I just want the tool.

I'm glad you disregarded the actual advice and broke apart the rest of what I said. Good luck.

EDIT: I was going to leave it at that, but I'm just amazed that you, someone who just talked about amateur photographers being ok, but not professional, being unable to see that someone who uses a WYSIWYG product isn't much of a professional web designer or developer. It's the same as a "professional photographer" going around with his T2i taking photos on auto for a client -- it's a joke to people who know what they are doing.