For anyone thinking of trying out the competition this deal is an absolute steal:
https://exclusives.macappdeals.com/?rid=35409
RapidWeaver and 9 other apps for around $5.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
not more is it worth!
Cheers
Thomas
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
My personal opinion: There really is not one app within that bundle I would even consider to pay one dime for.
Richard
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
No doubt I am in a minority on this forum but I really like Rapidweaver. When used together with Foundation it’s extremely capable.
Ashley
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
That might be indeed - but I’m as well after the output (produced code). I saw a few RW pages and I simply do not wonder anymore why the expression “DIVITIS” has once been created.
Cheers
Thomas
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
These days I just want a site that works well and looks good on desktop, tablet or mobile. Web designers may look at the page source when viewing a site but everybody else just looks at what is visible on the loaded page. They either like a site or they don’t.
Stacks 3 becomes a public beta tomorrow and should become a stable release in a week or two. This will open the door to lots of improvements and I think Rapidweaver has a very bright future. It’s a good thing when customers have choices from smaller companies otherwise we would all be forced to work with Adobe.
Ashley
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
Web designers may look at the page source when viewing a site but everybody else just looks at what is visible on the loaded page.
You’re ignoring the bigger picture.
Bloated and more importantly poorly structured code can adversely affect Google rankings. Then you have to consider people who use assistive devices to “read” a webpage. And there are other considerations as well.
You’re being awfully dismissive of things that could hurt your (or your client’s) nice-looking website. It’s not about pretty code. It’s about useful, functional and semantically meaningful code.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
https://freewaytalk.softpress.com/person/options
One can get a free RW trial on their site. I’ haven’t looked at it since V4 - two major revs and 7 years ago.
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
On 13 Aug 2015, 8:28 am, Ashley wrote:
Web designers may look at the page source when viewing a site but everybody else just looks at what is visible on the loaded page. They either like a site or they don’t.
Web designers for sure have to know their tools, and ‘we’ will see problems waiting to happen, just by looking at the shitty code. A couple of years ago (around 2008) I build a 6,000+ website in Freeway, which took me about a year to complete. Code matters … still every single page loads within a split second, much faster than their competitors’ brand new wordpress or joomla driven web sites , still everything works perfectly and flawlessly …
We ‘designers’ find the code important. Solid clean code will create strong and reliable web sites (not just the code, but you’ll get the point) .
You can build gorgeous houses with just a wooden frame and dry-wall … people will love how it looks and they will sell like hot cakes, but eventually they will come down over just about nothing.
Same goes for web sites build with shitty code …
My two cents 
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
https://freewaytalk.softpress.com/person/options
On 13 Aug 2015, 8:07 pm, Todd wrote:
You’re being awfully dismissive of things that could hurt your (or your client’s) nice-looking website. It’s not about pretty code. It’s about useful, functional and semantically meaningful code.
I’ve had a brief conversation with an old client who had moved on to such a ‘designer’ … he called me to ask: “Do you know what could be cause of the issues he had with google ranking, and you-name-it?” My answer: “Yes, I do” … and hung up.
Fact is that this client is one you’d rather run over at some point, but the fact that such issues are completely overlooked or (as you said) dismissed by so-called web-designers, and the client ends up with the shortest straw.
Richard
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
https://freewaytalk.softpress.com/person/options
Any site from 2008 is pretty much irrelevant at this point unless you have changed everything to make it responsive.
I used Freeway from 2007 through to 2014 and started with Rapidweaver just a few months ago. I don’t see a shred of evidence that Freeway sites are faster loading or perform better in search rankings.
Ashley
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
I think Ashley is right and has got the better arguments, cause he knows both.
The “modern” web design is nothing else than “template adjustment” - and exactly this is making me sick’n tired - wether if it is done with FW or RW. And the product which is sharing the better “template adjustment system” will do the game. THIS is sad.
Cheers
Thomas
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
On the Rapidweaver side there is clear movement away from using templates. Casual amateurs doing unimportant sites might choose a template theme but everybody else seems to be designing from scratch.
I tried a couple of themes with Rapidweaver 6 but found them limiting, however Foundation starts with a blank page allowing you to build the page with stacks and create your own styling. It’s a very robust versatile system based on Zurb’s Foundation that takes a mobile first approach. http://foundation.zurb.com
Ashley
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at: