Hi All
How does Freeway compare with Dreamweaver.
Had a view comments about Freeways ability.
Personally I love Freeway, I think its a bargain piece of software and I am learning all the time.
Regards
Mike
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Freeway and Dreamweaver are completely different in terms of their
design goals. That said, if viewed from a certain distance (probably
best measured in AU) they do the same job, roughly speaking.
In simplest terms, Dreamweaver is a plain text editor with a WYSIWYG
design view.
In simplest terms, Freeway is a Desktop Publishing application that
prints in HTML.
Dreamweaver is the go-to tool if someone dumps an existing site on you
and asks for a few changes.
Freeway is the go-to tool if someone asks you to come up with four new
mockups of their site by Wednesday. And it’s Tuesday afternoon.
Both can be used for serious production work, both can and do produce
professional results, but Freeway is really well suited to “green
field” work where you start from scratch, while Dreamweaver can easily
assimilate an existing site, add pages to it, make local or global
changes, etc.
Walter
On Jul 15, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Mike Thornley wrote:
Hi All
How does Freeway compare with Dreamweaver.
Had a view comments about Freeways ability.
Personally I love Freeway, I think its a bargain piece of software
and I am learning all the time.
Regards
Mike
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I would suggest that using Freeway to create a site that will knowingly be passed on to a client or another developer to edit in Dreamweaver is not the best or most financially viable option.
Although the code FW creates is standards compliant and works perfectly well I can’t help feeling that anyone using DW or some other code editor isn’t going to be best pleased when offered the raw code to continue working on. I foresee a situation where the other developer either charges the client for additional work required to knock the code into a format they are comfortable working with, or worst case scenario wants to recreate the site from scratch.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Paul,
Can you please explain a bit about the gap the developer is asked to
bridge to get your Freeway sites ready for handover? I’m assuming
there are issues with consolidating stylesheets and scripts but what
other steps are you (or the developer) facing that could be improved on?
Many thanks,
Tim.
On 27 Jul 2010, at 09:26, Paul Everett wrote:
Hi, yep it is becoming a headache for me designing in Freeway to
have a developer edit it in Freeway… he is having to work out the
Freeway way… not particularly happy… costing me many hours more.Oh well… still enjoy using Freeway, for serious sites I use the
developer and we build it from the ground up without Freeway, no
complications later especially if passed on.I may get scolded here for saying this… I hope not.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
FreewayActions.com - Freeware and commercial actions for Freeway
Express & Pro.
…
Protect your mailto links from being harvested by spambots with Anti
Spam.
Only available at FreewayActions.com
…
http://www.freewayactions.com
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Tim Plumb wrote:
Can you please explain a bit about the gap the developer is asked to
bridge to get your Freeway sites ready for handover?
On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:22 AM, Paul Everett wrote:
The Developers/coders just find it easier to start with ‘unbranded’
code so to speak not Dreamweaver nor Freeway.
I retooled a site for a long-time FW user for the very reason Paul E.
mentions. The client gladly chose to pay more to have me code it
rather than go the quick-and-easy route with FW again because it would
be easier to maintain for either myself or another (non-FW) designer
and to also get the leaner code we both wanted quickly and easily
which made, for me, the overall experience of building the site more
pleasant and less frustrating. It was about control.
Understand that I offer that as an example, not as an attempt to
undermine FW. I simply use the tools that work for me in the most
efficient manner and in this case the client also felt FW didn’t have
the necessary tools to provide the results he was paying for without a
lot of extra work. Finding the right tool is a very personal decision
that depends on numerous factors, some of which may vary from project-
to-project or influenced by outside forces such as employers or
clients. You have to be able to objectively assess the merits of any
tool on a regular basis and know when it is or isn’t the best choice.
Todd
Twitter: http://twitter.com/XiiroMedia
Skype: toddbrilliant
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Todd,
Thanks for the feedback. I’d like to think that these gaps between the
sites Freeway produces and what coders or developers are happy to
accept can be closed (at least to a certain extent) by Freeway itself.
The application does a very good job (IMHO) of pulling sites together
but makes certain assumptions that are hard, or impossible, to change.
If you work with a developer who wants to call the ‘Resources’ folder
‘images’ for example you’ve got some work to do to adjust your site
before handover.
The thing to remember is that what is one developer’s perfect code
will mean nothing to the next. I’ve not found any two web developers,
and I’ve worked with a lot of them, who agree on how to code their
sites. Every single one of them wants to change the code produced by
the last.
Having said that if there is a list of things that would make handing
over a newly generated Freeway site to a developer a reality then I’d
be interested in hearing what those things are.
Regards,
Tim.
On 27 Jul 2010, at 16:40, Todd wrote:
I retooled a site for a long-time FW user for the very reason Paul
E. mentions. The client gladly chose to pay more to have me code it
rather than go the quick-and-easy route with FW again because it
would be easier to maintain for either myself or another (non-FW)
designer and to also get the leaner code we both wanted quickly and
easily which made, for me, the overall experience of building the
site more pleasant and less frustrating. It was about control.
FreewayActions.com - Freeware and commercial actions for Freeway
Express & Pro.
…
Protect your mailto links from being harvested by spambots with Anti
Spam.
Only available at FreewayActions.com
…
http://www.freewayactions.com
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I’m imagining that scene in The Matrix, when Neo says (paraphrasing):
“We’re gonna need preferences. Lots of preferences.” You don’t
remember that part? Maybe it’s just me.
Imagine if every one of those assumptions that Freeway makes were
factored out to become user-level or document-level preferences. Yes,
you’d have a preferences pane to rival BBEdit’s, but you’d also go a
long way toward changing minds in the professional community.
Walter
On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Tim Plumb wrote:
Having said that if there is a list of things that would make
handing over a newly generated Freeway site to a developer a reality
then I’d be interested in hearing what those things are.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 27 Jul 2010, 4:00 pm, waltd wrote:
Yes,
you’d have a preferences pane to rival BBEdit’s, but you’d also go a
long way toward changing minds in the professional community.
Oooh…yeah, I could see that. Would give the wrist a good workout.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Well rather than lots of prefs (which is one option I guess) I was
thinking of profiles. I’d love to have a ‘rock star’ output profile
that massages my Freeway output in the way I want. Want to have code
that looks like apple’s site? Simply download the Apple profile.
Maybe. 
Regards,
Tim.
On 27 Jul 2010, at 17:11, chuckamuck wrote:
On 27 Jul 2010, 4:00 pm, waltd wrote:
Yes,
you’d have a preferences pane to rival BBEdit’s, but you’d also go a
long way toward changing minds in the professional community.Oooh…yeah, I could see that. Would give the wrist a good workout.
FreewayActions.com - Freeware and commercial actions for Freeway
Express & Pro.
…
Protect your mailto links from being harvested by spambots with Anti
Spam.
Only available at FreewayActions.com
…
http://www.freewayactions.com
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Ralfy
Have you any site live created in Flux, would be interested in viewing them.
Mike
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
That reminds me a lot of XSLT, which I have to work on from time to
time for the Online Library of Liberty. You start out with a document
in XML, then apply these transforms to it that can twist it into
entirely different shapes. It would be an interesting new wrinkle on
the current options of HTML Level (3.2 - X-1 Strict) and Output (More
Readable/Efficient).
A really good example of this would be CSSEdit, which lets you set a
template for formatting your CSS. That’s a much simpler domain, to be
sure, but a similar approach might make it possible to let end-users
write their own formatters, the better to suit “house style” somewhere.
Walter
On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Tim Plumb wrote:
Well rather than lots of prefs (which is one option I guess) I was
thinking of profiles. I’d love to have a ‘rock star’ output profile
that massages my Freeway output in the way I want. Want to have code
that looks like apple’s site? Simply download the Apple profile.
Maybe.
Regards,
Tim.On 27 Jul 2010, at 17:11, chuckamuck wrote:
On 27 Jul 2010, 4:00 pm, waltd wrote:
Yes,
you’d have a preferences pane to rival BBEdit’s, but you’d also go a
long way toward changing minds in the professional community.Oooh…yeah, I could see that. Would give the wrist a good
workout.FreewayActions.com - Freeware and commercial actions for Freeway
Express & Pro.
…
Protect your mailto links from being harvested by spambots with Anti
Spam.
Only available at FreewayActions.com
…
http://www.freewayactions.com
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Mike,
Click on my name above to view my contact info and send me an email and I will contact you off-list with a couple of links. Doesn’t feel quite right posting links to Flux created sites on the FWT forum.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On Jul 27, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Tim Plumb wrote:
The thing to remember is that what is one developer’s perfect code
will mean nothing to the next. I’ve not found any two web
developers, and I’ve worked with a lot of them, who agree on how to
code their sites. Every single one of them wants to change the code
produced by the last.
Ain’t it the truth, Brother! No argument there. As a group we’re a
fussy lot. But for me it’s not about FW being able to generate the so-
called ‘perfect’ code, it’s about making fewer assumptions and
offering a lot more control so I can tweak things as I see fit without
resorting to Actions or workarounds. I want Tools, not Actions.
Having said that if there is a list of things that would make
handing over a newly generated Freeway site to a developer a reality
then I’d be interested in hearing what those things are.
I’m more on the other side of things, meaning I’m usually the one who
gets sent files rather than sending them to another dev. So, with that
in mind:
There’s more but unfortunately at least some of what I find important
is, in part, - programmatically - outside the scope of what FW can
currently do or is intended to do which is why I prefer to use an
editor. It’s just easier. If I want to use a WYSIWYG app then I would
reach for Flux because despite its clumsy UI it simply has the
features that are more in line with my needs.
Todd
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Thanks Todd. That was exactly the sort of list I was looking for.
Food for thought indeed.
Regards,
Tim.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Todd nailed it.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options