Macromedia Dreamweaver or Adobe Dreamweaver

[Inu^^]

Does anybody out there use Dreamweaver to make their website?
I know I used Dreamweaver to make my site but I also tryed other programs at the time, before I bought Dreamweaver.
I used before that Mozilla to compose my site. Then I bought Adobe Dreamweaver CS3. It pwns. Nothing else said.
It's an excellent program to make your website with. Great features, easy to use.
It's brilliant. I would totally recommend this to people making their site. My site made with Dreamweaver ----> anime-library.org

[Pumazooma]

I use DW8 and DW2004MX. I tend to use them in code mode though as I find the WYSIWYG part isn't always representative of what you really see.

Your top banner sits a little to the left (in firefox at least) and I'm not sure about black text on a very dark background but it's not a bad start.

[kev woodman]

IMHO ditch the splash screen and the animated gif - so nineties it's possibly illegal.

Also on my monitor at 1680 x 1050 your navigation is floating on its own about 200px from your content and your affiliate text disappears off the background so only half of it is legible. Plus your code is a mess with multiple nested divs, spans and table cells which I suspect is largely Dreamweaver's fault.

I'm not going out of my way to be horrible mate but I think that in this case using Dreamweaver has actually made your site more complicated and less flexible than it needs to be. You could have hand coded this pretty easily just using a decent text editor and made a much better job of it.

Everything Puma says is right, DW is ok as a text editor/IDE (although if you're doing any back-end stuff I wouldn't recommend it) but like all WYSIWYG editors you don't get what you see.

[Inu^^]

Originally Posted by kev woodman

IMHO ditch the splash screen and the animated gif - so nineties it's possibly illegal.

Also on my monitor at 1680 x 1050 your navigation is floating on its own about 200px from your content and your affiliate text disappears off the background so only half of it is legible. Plus your code is a mess with multiple nested divs, spans and table cells which I suspect is largely Dreamweaver's fault.

I'm not going out of my way to be horrible mate but I think that in this case using Dreamweaver has actually made your site more complicated and less flexible than it needs to be. You could have hand coded this pretty easily just using a decent text editor and made a much better job of it.

Everything Puma says is right, DW is ok as a text editor/IDE (although if you're doing any back-end stuff I wouldn't recommend it) but like all WYSIWYG editors you don't get what you see.

It's okay I take them as something to look up on and fix.
I will take all your points into account.
I will get rid of the splasher.
Erm Coding was never my best point, so coding it wouldn't be easier for that.
I've noticed that some other stuff are out of place with other people, it seems to be in place with me. But when other people look at it. It's all out of place.

This is what it's really meant to look like, but it only looks right on my computer.
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9731/show1ax7.jpg
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/1851/show2lw6.jpg
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/805/show3ug9.jpg


Those 3 page are the home page, the affliate page and the crew page.

I will fix it up and come back to you.
Thanks for that kev woodman. I appreciate it.

[kev woodman]

It really isn't that difficult to learn a little bit of (X)HTML and CSS and even if you are going to carry on using DW you'll get a lot more out of it if you can understand the code it is producing.

[Pumazooma]

Originally Posted by Inu^^

This is what it's really meant to look like, but it only looks right on my computer.

Ah the wonders of multiple browsers.
The worst offender is IE.

Your page can look beautiful on firefox and all to cock on IE. For no real reason (although it's sometimes something silly like IE needs margin defined as zero where firefox assumes it's zero unless you say otherwise). It's always worth viewing the page in all the browsers you can get your hands on.

I've recently got into CSS and that's very easy to learn and code and reduces a lot of the complexity of the page design.

The HTML for the site is reduced to a very simple set of divs with your text in each one and then the CSS handles where they go on the screen and what they look like. The great thing is that if you want to change something like the text colour for instance, you change it once in one file and all the other pages change the colour. With HTML you would have to edit each page.

There are also a lot of CSS resources around, like the listomatic site which has ready made menu code. Very handy to get you started.

Try and view your DW pages with both code and design views on. You'll soon learn what code produces what result. If you only use the design view you won't learn anything about how the page is made up.

[kev woodman]

Actually I just saw a review of different browsers and the worst for rendering was FF 2.0, IE 7 wasn't brilliant but it didn't do too badly. Opera was far and away the best and obviously IE6 is a complete bag of shit.

[Pumazooma]

From personal experience, stuff looks really nice in FF and safari and always looks pants in IE. IE7 is a lot better but as you say, 6 is the worst.

[kev woodman]

Used to think IE6 was the worst but then I used Safari for Windows - absolutely awful.

[paul]

Safari for window is bunch with iTunes and Quicktime, that really irritate me, the reason I just stick with FF and the stuff looks nice however.

[Administrator]

Yeah. Initially I thought it was good as it managed to load websites quickly coz there was no Cache or History initially.

Now I am convinced that it is shitty and crappy.

[Pumazooma]

To be fair though it is only a beta. It works very nicely as a full version on the Mac but it's just a bit on the boring side.

[Inu^^]

Originally Posted by Pumazooma

From personal experience, stuff looks really nice in FF and safari and always looks pants in IE. IE7 is a lot better but as you say, 6 is the worst.

Originally Posted by kev woodman

Actually I just saw a review of different browsers and the worst for rendering was FF 2.0, IE 7 wasn't brilliant but it didn't do too badly. Opera was far and away the best and obviously IE6 is a complete bag of shit.

Originally Posted by kev woodman

Used to think IE6 was the worst but then I used Safari for Windows - absolutely awful.

Originally Posted by paul

Safari for window is bunch with iTunes and Quicktime, that really irritate me, the reason I just stick with FF and the stuff looks nice however.

Originally Posted by Administrator

Yeah. Initially I thought it was good as it managed to load websites quickly coz there was no Cache or History initially.

Now I am convinced that it is shitty and crappy.

Originally Posted by Pumazooma

To be fair though it is only a beta. It works very nicely as a full version on the Mac but it's just a bit on the boring side.

Meh Opera pwns all.

[Falesh]

You've got to love all the little CSS quirks in IE, 3 pixel jog, double margin, etc. It makes the time at the end of a project when you have finished coding the site to look right in a decant browser and need to make it look right in IE all the more interesting.

No, hold on a minute, that sucks. At least there is:

<!--[if IE 6]>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/ie.css" type="text/css" />
<![endif]-->

So the CSS butchery doesn't need to go into the main file.

[kev woodman]

Ahhh conditional commenting let us praise thee

I know we've had this discussion before but I still say that you have to consider the fact that the vast majority of your visitors will be using IE so you should design for that first and then make adjustments for the others later.

In fact if I was being controversial I would say that the IE team are in a strong position to say that what they say is right is effectively the real standard and that everyone else should follow what they do