Frontpagers anonymous - how to wean myself from FP exte...

[David241]

Deb suggested I should ask here. I'm a soon to be CIHost refugee. I want to get on Futurequest, except I have a very minor dependence on FP 2000 extensions: One feedback form, a table of contents, a search form and the silly theme / shared borders.

Could former FP extension users share their experiences with me on how they weaned themselves from FP?

Did you switch publishing software? Did you stay with FP but did not use any of their bots? Were you happy with the "publishing mechanism"? (I seem to have read one post which warned us against staying with FP on a host w/o FP extensions, but I can't find it now)

Any feedback will be appreciated . . .

david

[JoeRT]

I still use FP2000 for much of my composition, but just don't use the bots.[nbsp][nbsp]A few sites I use the shared borders for, but the more I'm working with SSI and PHP the less I do even that.

I haven't tried it myself, but KISSfp is supposed to be good for using FP2000 on non-FP hosts.[nbsp][nbsp]See www.kissfp.com (http://www.kissfp.com) for more info.[nbsp][nbsp]I've been meaning to try it, but just haven't gotten around to it.

------------------
Joe Torsitano
www.weatherforyou.com (http://www.weatherforyou.com)
www.tiswest.com (http://www.tiswest.com)

[Rich]

I can't guarantee the following, so you may want to test with a couple of test pages on your FQ site.

I believe the table of contents and theme/shared borders do not use server-side extensions. These are created by FP on your PC and then uploaded as static pages.

The form does use extensions and for this you should be able to substitute the form mail script that is available from Aota ( http://www.aota.net ).

Rich

[David241]

Thanks, Joe and Rich.
I think I don't have much to worry about, after hearing from you two. I'll either stay with FP2K and live with the loss of extensions, or move up to a less idiot-proof package. Maybe not the high-end but PageMill? HomeSite? HotMetal? Any advice?

Joe, I liked the nifty weather tools on your site.

[sheila]

HomeSite is good. You will learn the HTML raw code if you use that. I like a lot of the features that automatically insert certain types of tags, and the included help/reference files.

If you couple that with Dreamweaver, you have a really great package. Dreamweaver comes bundled with HomeSite, so you get them both for the price of the one.

I use Dreamweaver now for most of my quick edits.

[Dan Kaplan]

I've been very happy with Arachnophilia:

http://www.arachnoid.com/

Ooh, I just noticed they have a new version.[nbsp][nbsp]I'll have to try it out later...[nbsp][nbsp]Says it supports Perl now, that sounds intriguing.

At any rate, it's careware, and it should prove helpful for all abilities.[nbsp][nbsp]I use it basically as a color-coded text editor with preview capabilities, but it's proven very helpful for setting up a table from excel with several hundred entries (not to mention error-free!).

Dan

[David241]

Hmm. .[nbsp][nbsp]Dreamweaver . .[nbsp][nbsp]that's expensive, isn't it? ($300+)What does it do that would be worth it?

[Rich]

Hmm. .[nbsp][nbsp]Dreamweaver . .[nbsp][nbsp]that's expensive, isn't it? ($300+)What does it do that would be worth it?
Saves time. :)

If development time is not a big issue, the cost may not be justified over other lower-cost alternatives, IMHO.

Rich

[sheila]

If you're going to be doing a lot of editting, and you really need to make efficient use of your time, then DreamWeaver is worth it. But, I agree, that you may not be able to justify $300.

The multi-media tech at our school was able to get it for $99 from an educational supply company. I about fell off my chair when I heard that.

[Dan Kaplan]

Did I mention I quite like Arachnophilia?[nbsp][nbsp];)

I don't know what Dreamweaver does for $300, but I know of very few things Arachnophilia doesn't do for $0.[nbsp][nbsp]Pretty simple math, in my mind.

Don't drink and derive (motto of the Whitman math dept.)

Dan

[sheila]

I haven't worked with arachnophilia, although I've heard it much praised in alt.html when I was reading there a few months ago. But my understanding is that it is an HTML editor, not a WYSIWYG type of editor.

Dreamweaver, as is (I believe?) Front Page, and Netscape Composer, and a number of other editors, are WYSIWYG. This means, you can edit while looking at what your page looks like instead of dealing directly with the HTML code (unless you want to). Problem with WYSIWYG editors, most of them muck up your HTML code. They add extra junk and format poorly and so forth. But Dream Weaver doesn't. I can create a whole table by just clicking on a button and telling how many rows and columns. (I can do that in HomeSite too. Does Arachnophilia do that?) I can rearrange elements on my page while looking at the page by dragging and dropping them around.

Anyhow, that's an attempt to give you an idea of what it does. It also does much more. It lets you work with Flash and stuff like that. I haven't really used it to its full potential. All kinds of site management tools and so forth. Pretty darn fancy. If I were in the Web Design business (which, of course, I'm not) I wouldn't think twice about purchasing it. Not for your average hobbyist, though. Definitely too much $$$ for that.

[Dan Kaplan]

Hi Sheila,

I can't seem to sleep tonight, so...

It sounds like Dreamweaver is just a fancier version of Arachnophilia.[nbsp][nbsp]The features sound quite similar, although I've never tested much of Arach's capabilities.[nbsp][nbsp]I always code my own HTML, unless I'm copying in a massive table.[nbsp][nbsp]In that case, Arach has wizards to simplify the process, and one touch buttons galore if you choose to use them.[nbsp][nbsp]It even auto-calculates the rows and columns and recognizes different delimiters (i.e. tabs).[nbsp][nbsp]:)

One of the nicest features is the ability to identify up to six different browsers for previewing, so you can easily proof as you work for cross-browser compatibility.[nbsp][nbsp]I haven't tried it yet, but the new version I just downloaded has a spellcheck.[nbsp][nbsp]It's also very reliable in not messing up your code.[nbsp][nbsp]Actually, I believe that was one of the author's main intents in writing the program.[nbsp][nbsp]I have no idea if it handles Flash...

But, as with any software, I'm sure it comes down largely to personal preference.

Dan

[wolfstalks]

Ok, I use Netscape Composer, because the simple stuff is made so much simpler, BUT then I can edit the raw html whenever I want to.[nbsp][nbsp]many don't realize that Composer has plug-ins that make raw html editing very easy and it's FREE !![nbsp][nbsp] The bottom line is, we all use what we are comfortable with, and what is good for me may not be with you.[nbsp][nbsp]You need to find what you feel most comfortable with!!!
------------------
Have a Good One
Bob

[Dan Kaplan]

Here's a line I ran across just now on a Geocities page:
P.S.-There's an error in my html editor, so if you see things twice or out of order, don't be alarmed. THANX. I can only shake my head at the thought process that must've gone into that...

Dsgusted

[David241]

Thanks everyone.
I've stuck with FP so far. I'll move up once the site has been fully configured, transferred etc.

Can't say I'm sorry to lose all the extensions.

What I do miss is:
1. The site search bot. FQuest doesn't provide one. What do you all use?

2. The "site publishing" feature. Kept track of all the updates etc. (though it was slow!). All I have now is WS-FTP, and doing it by hand. There must be a better way. I looked at Kiss, too much money for what it does. How do _you_ all manage site publishing?

David
www.consultingacademy.com (http://www.consultingacademy.com)

[Rich]

What I do miss is:

...

2. The "site publishing" feature. Kept track of all the updates etc. (though it was slow!). All I have now is WS-FTP, and doing it by hand. There must be a better way. I looked at Kiss, too much money for what it does. How do _you_ all manage site publishing?
FP site publishing features do not use extensions. If this is not working, be sure you have the web server installed or reinstall FP.

Rich

[David241]

Thanks, Rich.
Yes, I did get FP2000 to publish using FTP. I guess it could be used to publish except for:

What was scary (and discomforting) was:
1. It kept pointing out to files (with names beginning in bash etc and others) that I knew nothing about and asked if I wanted to remove them. I told it not to. What are those anyway?

2. It still keeps making those vti-bin files, using up my storage quota, I presume.

3. And it's slower than WS-FTP.

So much about FP.

Any ideas about a search script?

David
www.consultingacademy.com (http://www.consultingacademy.com)

[Rich]

What was scary (and discomforting) was:
1. It kept pointing out to files (with names beginning in bash etc and others) that I knew nothing about and asked if I wanted to remove them. I told it not to. What are those anyway? LOL. I used FP97, FP98, and then threw it in the trash when I got FP2k for what you pointed out as well of a whole bunch of other new "features."

Rich

[Sostres]

I'm in the process of weaning myself from FP. I'd been using it for 3 years and never learn any html at all.[nbsp][nbsp]So I didn't want to go cold-turkey on the WYSIWYG.[nbsp][nbsp]I tried a lot of the free and cheap editors out there, but wasn't catching on as quickly as I would have liked.[nbsp][nbsp]If WYSIWYG is of importance to you, the solution is easier and cheaper (albeit more embarrasing) than you think.[nbsp][nbsp]Download AOL's free aolpress (http://www.aolpress.com).[nbsp][nbsp]It is a bare-bones WYSIWYG editor that's actually easier and more intuitive to learn than FP. Plus, as you go along, you are almost forced to learn some html.[nbsp][nbsp]It does tables better than FP does and I've never had any trouble publishing or with the site itself (which is more than i[nbsp][nbsp]can say for FP). Since it is free you should give it a try.[nbsp]