Community archive
I am just getting into creating webpages and am wondering which people prefer, GoLive or FrontPage. I have some experience with GoLive, but am wondering how Front Page stacks up. I know it is probably like Chevy vs. Ford trucks (everyone has theirpreferences), but I want to be convinced which way to go.
Thanks
Bob
by road-dog
by generalist
Unless FrontPage has changed radically in the last couple of years, I would avoid it if you are starting from scratch. The FrontPage I remember was hard to use and very messy when it came to HTML output. It also, as pointed out in another posting,limited you to servers supporting FrontPage extensions.
I would heartily recommend DreamWeaver, based on personal experience. It is both an industry standard and easy to use.
And from the specs I've found on GoLive, I suspect that it would bea better choice than FrontPage. One of Go Live's big advantages is its integration with various Adobe products. So if you are planning on integrating media from Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator and LiveMotion, using GoLive might be useful.
by sunshowers
by generalist
Cost of product is a big item to consider if you are on a tight budget. While the big names are nice to have, they tend to be expensive.
Clean HTML code is another item. The cleaner you can make it compared to the official HTML specs, the more compatible it will be. You may not have as may bells and whistles but you also have fewer hassles.
You may also want to look for a 'Publish to CD' feature. If you stray too far outside the standard CD-ROM format with your folder/file naming conventions, you can have major problems writing to a CD.
Note that a lot of word processors and such have options where you can output to HTML format. If you don't mind the garbage these output behind the scenes, they could function as HTML 'editors'.
For that matter, you could always publish to Abobe's PDF format and output that onto CD, with a bare bones web page for access to the files.
by sagetech
I converted a 4000 file hand coded website to front page about 6 years ago and more recently converted it back from front page now 10,000 + files to a front page / cgi pearl hybreed website. I am not familiar with other web content creation programshowever I have noted that most of the people who dislike front page are people who dident start out on it and are used to using FTP programs to upload there files, thats a no no with front page, another commen problem is that they dont understand that you should edit open the web on the remote server not a local copy to make changes.
front page does have a few problems but most of them are resulting from a failer to grasp a change in concept that is not well understood or documented.
People who learn front page from stratch seem to have greatly less problems than the ones who have pre existing knolodge of HTML.
In my honest opinion front page has received a bad rap.
When people are properly trained Front Page workes quite well.
Also in an office enviroment it has a welth of features for tracking "still need to be done stuff"
by generalist
When you get down to it, any reasonably designed software package works well if you are properly trained in it.
My biggest criticism of the Front Page version I trained in was the fact that it created some really ugly HTML code. The only thing I've seen that's worse is the HTML code that Word created.
Said HTML code basically restricts you to using Front Page for almost everything.
Another criticism was the fact that you had to be careful of what organization you chose to host your web sites. If it didn't support Front Page extensions, you couldn't host it there.
The above are some of the reasons I like some of the other options better. Properly trained, the other options work well too. And they often have additional features that make work management flow well.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending