Website design software

[Theo Markettos]

FWIW Wordpress is full of security holes and so is a pain to keep up to date. It's ok on a hosted platform, but unless you want to manage the install then I wouldn't want to run it on a server. The /install/ is easy because webhosts provide scripts for it, but often they're not good at keeping it up to date. ('Security holes' in this case means spam, defacement and password stealing)

I quite like Ghost, though it's written in node.js which is slightly less common on web hosts. They do do hosted, though the price is a bit high from the creators. There are alternative sites though that are a bit cheaper ($5/month).

TBH, unless you really want to manage your own server I'd go hosted (on whatever platform you choose). Your ISP might give you free webspace but what you can do with it is usually limited (no dynamic content, for instance). So pick a platform, then pick a host to run it.

Theo

[Tim+]

Try Microsoft Expression. It's the updated free version of Frontpage. It's a WISIWIG editor that will let you compose off-line.

Tim

[Tim W]

Nice. Here are some of my own pages. Not too hard to do and you can have a blog or a news section and a picture gallery and such stuff if you want. All mobile friendly.

You wouldn't have any trouble doing similar. I do it part time professionally, locally in a small way.

Tim W

[Bert Coules]

Tim, I like those, thanks for the links. Were they written from scratch?

[Bert Coules]

Chris, thanks for that and for the links.

[Bert Coules]

My ISP is Plusnet and I've never investigated what webspace they offer, if any. My domains are registered with Easily.

[Bert Coules]

Thanks for the thought. The only problem is that, as I said, I learned the basics a year or so ago when I coded the sites and have now forgotten most of them, beyond the very simplest - hence my thinking in terms of a WYSIWYG-type editor.

That was actually a deliberate design decision. Rightly or wrongly, I

*intended* you to use your browser's back button. Perhaps in retrospect that was an error. Another change I'd like to incorporate is to make the many small images clickable so they bring up larger versions with explanatory captions. I think that might be fun.

In both cases, simply for information.

was set up in response to the many enquiries I received (and still receive) about the BBC's complete Sherlock Holmes project: as you will have seen, the site offers the background to the shows, behind-the-scenes pictures and info, cast and crew lists, biographies, trivia and so on. does the same, albeit on a much more modest scale. I didn't see any need for teasers to encourage browsing: anyone who deliberately goes to either site will presumably need no prompting beyond the basic menu headings, and anyone who stumbles onto them will either be interested enough to look around or will not.

[Bert Coules]

Another one for the list. Many thanks, Tim.

[Tim W]

The first two are all my own work. The third I was in a hurry and used a free 'theme' so I only had to add the content, basically text and images, and install a news manager plugin and a twitter feed. It's a very quick way of getting a site up and running and super easy to edit, backup, add pages etc in the future.

Tim w

[Bert Coules]

Thanks, Tim.

[T i m]

A bit late to the party but our daughter did quite well with Serifs 'WebPlus'. She got it on a special and it even came with at least a years free web hosting (might have been 18 months) and an email address. ;-)

There is the older free version you can try / use:

And the latest / full version for some cash:

(They often do some pretty good offers, especially if you play it a bit hard nosed , and they give a 30 day (7 if downloaded) money back guarantee in any case. I've also been offered 60 days on a sales call).

No other connection etc.

Cheers, T i m

[Bert Coules]

Thanks for that. I'll check it out in the morning.

[Mike Barnes]

Unfortunately that fails when someone lands there from another source, e.g. Google search to name just one.

[RJH]

It's strongly template driven, but I've been using iWeb for a while, and find it OK. Virtually no learning curve, so ideal for my use - monthly updates.

Only of use if you use a Mac, obviously.

[Bert Coules]

A very good point and one which hadn't occurred to me. Thanks.

[News]

I agree entirely. I never upload new pages until I have got them exactly as I require, locally. I really cannot imagine adding or updating 'live'.

[Chris French]

In message , News writes

Just because it's on a remote server doesn't mean it has to be the live site.

Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong it doing it locally.

[F]

Plusnet used to include webspace but no longer do. However, if you've been with them for a while you might find that you have some. Check your account details.

[Mike Barnes]

Quite, a development version hosted remotely is an especially good idea for collaborative exercises. But if only local access is required, hosting it locally can be a lot more convenient. I use quite a lot of development tools on my local system that wouldn't be tolerated on the run-of-the-mill hosting services I use.

[News]

In message , F writes

I don't trust any clouds.