Site builders

[genihanna]

What are your opinions on Site Builders, for those who don't know HTML?

Most experienced coders discourage them and frown upon those who do use them. The first thing they say is "You've GOT to learn HTML!" I'm hoping for objective responses here.

If you have any experience with them, I'd like to hear about that too.In particular, does anyone have any "inside information" on Bravenet's Web Wizard? Do you know of any others (not Tripod, or GeoCities - yuk!)?

 

[JYM]

Well, I must say that when I first began making websites, it was because someone I knew had made a website with Freewebs and I thought it would be fun to make my own. What sucks about online Site Builders is the fact that everything is saved on their servers and there was no way to back it up on your computer (it's true you could copy the html and the images, but seeing how I didn't know any HTML at the time, it would make it impossible for me to edit).

Geocities was probably the worst site builder ever, it was the first site builder I tried and after the first day I gave up. Most people don't know html and don't CARE to learn html... so site builders are good for them and one day they might take the initiative of learning html.

These days everyone just makes blogs... which is much easier to use than a site builder.

 

[Barrucadu]

I never used site builders - just dived right in with the html, took me 2 days to learn most common html tags.
I did use some bravenet things though, eg: login system, but they arn't very good.

 

[Lithium]

In my eyes, site builders are the scum of the internet. While it's true that some people do use them to try their best to create a worthwhile website with them, they are few in number to say the most. Go browse some directories of sites that offer site builders and you'll see that nearly 90% of the people using the site builders didn't even have the patience to finish their site. Site builders, regardless of how they may try, create awful websites that not only look bad, but are filled with useless code that bog down your browser.
I wish that the internet didn't try to be so fair in the fact that anyone can make a website. Learning HTML is a must, and if you don't have the will or ability to learn how, and you aren't even going to make an effort using a site builder, then don't bother.
Also, a more reasonable option is using PHP scripts. Fantastico is offered with nearly every cPanel now, and you can get cPanel hosting at many free post2host websites. If you can click the link to install the scripts, then you can edit your site straight from most of the content managing scripts. These sites look better than anything site builders could ever possibly produce and are fairly easy to edit, it's just a matter of convincing people to learn how to do it.

 

[DomainDomain]

Im on the fence a bit with this one. Whilst I feel it is important to learn at least the basics of html, if you dont want to you dont need to. I am currently looking at XSite Pro web design software, which I will probably buy....

But, the the last two weeks I have gone from no knowledge really of HTML, to having 3 basic sites up! It is not hard at all to learn HTML, and would probably be about as hard as familiarising yourself with a new piece of software....

So to sum up, start learning HTML now if you can/want to, it will help, and also check out some site builders (xsite pro looks really good...)

Hope that helps

DD

 

[StudioWorks]

I think your time will be better spent if you uninstall your site builder and learn html. With good html knowledge and with a good editor ( like dreamweaver ) you'll manage just fine.

SW

 

[zenlogo]

The typical response on forums to 'whats a good sitebuilder' is there ain't one. I have to agree that many offer up ugly site and crippled layouts. Having said that, one of the best site builders i've found is offered free as part a basic hosting ($79) package offered by DomainDirect.com. Its intuitive, easy to learn and can do fairly sophisticated 3 column sites with excellent templates. good luck!

 

[adam_uk]

buildiders like dreamweaver, frontpage etc work, and they work well.

but they often dont do things properly, they insert unneeded code, they insert large chunks of code, the code isnt strucutured properly.

tidy and neat code not only provides better SEO but its also cheaper (you need to pay for that bandwidth to be downloaded!!).

I will always say learn HTML, why? at least if you can understand a language and understand what objects do you can learn other ways to tweak it, refine your code and make it look a whole lot better.

structured and well formatted code just improves everyones experience on the web so if you know what the program is putting in there you can correct it when it screws up.

this is also why I destroy people that use tables for design instead of presenting data, its old, uneeded and looks horrible

 

[genihanna]

Whew! I hadda ask, didn't I?

Wow! Thanks for all of your replies!

Lithium- kind of abrasive and not very objective, but very honest! (A lot of small business owners realize the importance of having a website, but either don't have the time to devote and keep their business running too or they cannot afford to hire a professional to do one for them.)

StudioWorks-I've heard a lot of bad things about Dreamweaver?????

ZenLogo- Is this ugly?

Adam- I agree with you about tables! Shows they cannot write!

Thank you all for the input - wonderful response! :tu:

 

[reibac]

One of my concerns in web building is it's validity to W3C standards. So i prefer learning HTML than using a sitebuilder. It makes you a well experienced web developer. You can use any web editor, but as a guide only. And one thing i hate free sitebuilders--annoying ads.