New Website... in dare I say it, Rapidweaver!

Ok - heres a thing - Rapidweaver now is pretty much freeform, you can do what you like, in a Responsive environment… Really?? I tested…

Rapidweaver Version

FW Pro version
http://www.easthalldesign.com/ie/

Which site do you prefer? Though I went for a more corporate look in FW - the content is the same…


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sorry meant corporate look in RapidWeaver not FW


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Wow! Nice work. I really like the RW site—especially the portfolio section were it’s broken down by type of project. I know there’s a name for that technique, but I can’t think of it right now.

Which version of RW did you use? What was the learning curve like on RW? In your opinion, which app is easier to use, FWP or RW?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Latest version of RW 5 - very easy once you learn to use stacks and that weird displacement they do - its not as WYSWYG as FW is bit once understood its much easier and a lot faster - Check out the Foundation theme and stacks, Bootstrap theme and sacks and stacks for stacks - amusing stuff and with all the plugins -


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

It looks great! Is Stacks2 something like Backdraft is for FW?
Is it possible to make a site from scratch and how easy is it for a (non) webdesigner to work with? Is it easy to change themes?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

This is why softpress needs to work hard to bring Freeway Pro up to today’s current standards and technology, which includes built-in responsiveness and even a CMS option.

If they don’t, I feel that more and more FWP loyalists will start to look for other website development solutions. As for me, I am actively researching other easier options that will enable me to offer my clients the latest website development technology (responsiveness, Parallax scrolling, navigational sorting, etc) with the least amount of effort.

That doesn’t mean I’m abandoning FWP. I just feel I need another, faster website development tool in my toolbox. I was leaning towards WordPress, since it commands an impressive 15% marketshare, but I am interested in other options, such as RapidWeaver—which Justin demonstrated can work equally as well, but in much less time time. :slight_smile:

-K


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

@Steven totally - theres loads of ways now to use RW as a freeform website design tool - take a look at Foundation for RW… BackDraft on steroids!!!


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I just checked out Foundation. That’s sweet! I love the visual interface.

Justin, did you ask Joe if Foundation works with the soon to be released RapidWeaver 6?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I would imagine so - would be v surprised if it didn’t on their forum they address this too


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Justin, very nice work indeed, visually clean and to the point.

When I look at the code—uncommented references to “Copyright 2014 Joe Workman” appears over 150 times on the home page, this seems a bit excessive?
Also it looks like the Stacks create a lot of unnecessary divs.

The Foundation integration looks promising.

Cheers
Marcel


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Somebody could probably make a fair amount of money writing a plug-in that runs the whole thing through Tidy as the last publishing step…

Walter

On Jun 20, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Helveticus wrote:

Justin, very nice work indeed, visually clean and to the point.

When I look at the code—uncommented references to “Copyright 2014 Joe Workman” appears over 150 times on the home page, this seems a bit excessive?
Also it looks like the Stacks create a lot of unnecessary divs.

The Foundation integration looks promising.

Cheers
Marcel


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

Yep fully aware of the markup this is just a teaser for me really - have spoke to joe too and he agreed - something to do with API and is up for getting ref in the header only.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I dare say.

My understanding is that the way that Rapidweaver’s stacks all have their code ring fenced tends to lead to this ‘wild west’ type of code structure where each developer can, and does, do whatever they like in the site because they aren’t going to step on anyone else’s toes or clash with another library. This happens to a certain extent with Freeway Actions but because we don’t have that safety blanket of code isolation we tend to have to keep an eye on what other Action in the site are up to.

I’d love to see a situation, for either application, where these tools (plugins, Actions, stacks etc) outlined their intent not at a ‘nuts and bolts’ level but at a higher level that the application would then put into play. In theory it would allow all of these tools to leave the implementation to the parent application so you could swap HTML levels (for example) without having to throw half of your code out.
Regards,
Tim.

On 20 Jun 2014, at 22:49, Walter Lee Davis wrote:

Somebody could probably make a fair amount of money writing a plug-in that runs the whole thing through Tidy as the last publishing step…


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

So Tim, what’s you opinion of RapidWeaver? I need to make a decision on an alternate application to use along side of FWP for quick websites.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Overall I like the application. It is very simple at its core but there appears to be a plug-in or stack to fill almost all of the holes in the application’s base functionality. If you don’t feel upset with having to pay for these extras and can keep on top of the frequent changes to the plugins then I think you’ll be OK.

For people that want to throw a web site together without being concerned about the uniqueness of the layout (templates) or the quality of the code (stacks) then it offers a quick way to get things done.

As Realmac look like they are ramping up for the next big version they tend to do a fire sale on existing versions (to swell the user base) so look out for offers like this one on MacZot;
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=450317b3-130a-4c91-a644-cd1dc0254d69&c=7753d8a0-4299-11e3-8bbb-d4ae527547e4&ch=78e96cc0-4299-11e3-8cc6-d4ae527547e4

Personally I’ve tended to go down the WordPress route and have used framework themes to create my own child themes for clients. It is much more of a hand on approach and the constant updates to both WordPress and plugins makes maintaining broken sites a bit of a nightmare at times but it leaves the client with an option to move the site into bigger things with custom backends and a billion plugins that will so pretty much anything you like.

I’ve also got Pinegrow (http://pinegrow.com/) but haven’t used it on anything yet. It is very much like working in the Web Inspector and seems quite a natural way to edit existing HTML and CSS sites. Ideal for a quick update to an existing site or template.

In answer to your question; yes, I would be inclined to give Rapidweaver a go (at least the demo) and see how you get on with it. It depends what you want to do ultimately.
I know a web designer who works locally to me (our kids go to the same school) and everything he does is in WordPress and uses the exact same template. If you look at his work portfolio you can see that he has a cookie cutter approach to his work and he’s able to knock a site out in a day or two without much aggravation. His clients don’t seem to mind (or know) but it bugs me and is something I’m keen to avoid in my own work.
Regards,
Tim.

On 21 Jun 2014, at 00:57, RavenManiac wrote:

So Tim, what’s you opinion of RapidWeaver? I need to make a decision on an alternate application to use along side of FWP for quick websites.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hey Tim, Thanks for the insight and the money saving link.

As you’ve probably seen in other places on this forum, I’ve been talking about WP for a while and I think my hesitation has been that I don’t want to get caught up in trying to search for template every time I take on a new project. Which reminds me a lot of searching for stock images, which, for me, has always been very time-consuming because of the shear volume of images available and my long-term struggle with indecisiveness. Sort of this is good, but I know there’s something better. I just need to find it. :slight_smile:

However, I’ve recently discovered the WP framework themes you’re talking about—which really appeals to me. In searching for a core framework I quickly discovered that some of these theme developers are making huge amounts of money if they can come up with a popular framework. I just saw one on ThemeForest that has captured more than a $1 million in sale. Unbelievable.

Unfortunately, that desire to create an everything in one framework has resulted in a lot of unnecessary stuff being cast into the latest offerings, adding unnecessary bloat, which ultimately affects performance. Plus, from what I’ve read, this approach also makes it difficult for website developers to easily move a site to a different theme, which has always been one of WP’s advantages.

I suppose I should stop taking and get off my bum (as you say in the UK) and give it a go. LOL


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yes there are a lot of plugins but if you research some honest WP reviews (many written by experienced and devout WP users, believe it or not) you’ll find that many feel the vast majority of the plugins are pointless and/or very poorly written (security risks) or are far too specialized to be of any use to anyone but the author or are not supported or updated. Playing the plugin numbers game is a bit of smoke and mirrors so I would be careful about basing your decision too heavily on that aspect. That’s not to say WP isn’t a valid option, it certainly can be, but plugins and marketshare don’t provide useful insight into the viability of the product for your particular needs and expectations.

Todd

a billion plugins that will so pretty much anything you like.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

For a better understanding of this list it might be interesting if the original poster could add a third version hand hacked. This is just because I can’t see any difference on the gleaming surface - in fact the “ADJUSTMENT” of templates is always ending up in nearby the same results.
Alternatively to hand hacked it could be also done in services like squarespace or similar.

The tiny gap between good and great FrontEnd Devopment is not a question of the application in use - it’s just the acceptance that WebDev is “WORK”.

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 20 Jun 2014, 9:21 pm, Helveticus wrote:

Justin, very nice work indeed, visually clean and to the point.

When I look at the code–uncommented references to “Copyright 2014 Joe Workman” appears over 150 times on the home page, this seems a bit excessive?
Also it looks like the Stacks create a lot of unnecessary divs.

The Foundation integration looks promising.

Cheers
Marcel

Marcel, I only counted 15. Are you sure that 150 number is accurate?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Marcel, I only counted 15. Are you sure that 150 number is accurate?

I dont think that actual number is important here - what is important is whether the site was built by Justin or Joe Workman.

D


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options