Yet another web design software question

[ampguy]

I would give Roger more credit than that.

Between him and his relative who hosts his current site, I think they could delve through this during afternoon tea:

http://codex.wordpress.org/New_To_Wo...Where_to_Start

and then decide if it was right for them, or not.

Originally Posted by photomoof

As easy as that might sound to you... I think Roger's point, what is?
MySQL
PHP
WP logins
Modules
Linux or BSD
Special subscription hosting

Just for the record:
"PostgreSQL for WordPress (PG4WP) gives you the possibility to install and use WordPress with a PostgreSQL database as a backend. "

"non tech graphics folks" can in fact use it in many situations because it is already installed on the servers they subscribe to.

Yes it is easy to "install" if you go to a site like PowWeb where they have already installed MySQL, PHP etc (which really is "special subscription hosting").

Using a completely preinstalled application suite does make sense for many. My experience has shown me that at least 50% of people do not even know exactly where their files are stored on their computer hard drive.

Few people running a Mac know that Apache and PHP are already installed.
But how do you think the "Roger's" of the would react to this handy info:

The default location of mysql.sock is in the /tmp/mysql.sock directory. We’ll need to change this to /var/mysql/mysql.sock as this is where PHP will look for it. So first off, create a my.conf (or in this case my.cnf) file in your text editor and save it as my.cnf in the /etc folder with the following code:

[client]
socket = /var/mysql/mysql.sock

[mysqld]
socket = /var/mysql/mysql.sock

http://superfancy.net/coding/php-mys...c-osx-leopard/

Which is why in the end I push Blogger, Smugmug, Wordpress.com and the like.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by photomoof

You (like many of my associates who are coders) are looking at Roger's (and I use Roger as an everyman) probable disinterest [befuddlement] in your link's "easy" directions as a sign of well -- they just aren't trying if they don't get it. Surely if they read it over tea it will suddenly become obvious - why don't they try harder?

I have fought with this thinking for 25 years, everyone does not find what you link to trivial. Even very smart people like Roger - or me.

In photo terms:

• Using manual focus does not mean better photos
• Knowing how to develop film does not mean better photos
• Knowing how your sensor works does not mean better photos
• etc...

I remain professionally interested in [and have developed] applications which free creative people from the drudgery of knowing code.

Bless you, Fred...I am a photographer. Not a geek. As a retired professor, I can assure you, I do NOT want to know code for a reason. I would rather take pictures as part of my business.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Sebben

Firstly, the term "webmaster" is some relic from the 1990s.

No. We still exist, and still get paid, just like those of you professional photographers that still get paid. And just unlike the "not expensive" photographer that people hire for $100 for those horrible shots that people get anyway, there are the so-called "geeks" (thusly called by the so-absolutely not-a-geek) who charge $100 for something that really sucks.

Yes, "anybody" can do it. But can "anybody" make it well and not "so what?"-ish? No. It does not answer the question.

I don't use a "software" that publishes a website (just like professional photographers cannot answer "which easiest lens is the easiest one for wedding photography?"), so I cannot answer the question either. Like professional photographers who have flashes, flash meters, camera systems, lenses, editing software, types of memory card, kinds of insurance, consent forms, etc., so do "relics of the 1990s" webmasters/designers/programmers: a set of tools, skills, know-how.

For content alone, one piece of software isn't enough: it relies on you knowing who will host it, how it will be hosted (is it Linux? Windoze? Do you need a database? Do you need PHP, Perl --which modules?--, MyopicUnique --"geek" joke--; there are some who are targeted to a certain demographic: Lightroom for the "I have no clue about anything but somebody will publish what I put together somehow", Muse for the "I'm a typewriter who *really* has no time to code and loves the fixed column canned website, Dreamweaver for the "my boss still has a job description from the late 1990s and doesn't like to try anything new", FrontPage for the "I inherited this Windows 98 machine and it's great so far for storing my aunt's recipes"...

It's like building a house: you decide first how you want it, how big, where, and then you get the contractor as needed. Don't hire the contractor first and let him decide what you want.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

What's the simplest web design software you can buy (or get free, for that matter)?

What exactly is this website supposed to do for you?

[nextreme]

Joomla is what you need for content management. Requires your hosting site to be running the software (it probably is). For look and feel, there are a lot of templates available (some free, some not) or you could hire a template maker to custom make one for you, I don't think it would cost that much.

cheers
steven

[ampguy]

I looked at Roger's current website, and assumed he wanted to update it by a few decades. Roger, let me know if I am off base, and you want to do something new.

Google "free wordpress templates" and I'd be very surprised if there wasn't one that met your needs.

For the rest of you, check this out, and read it all, done in WP, of course

http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/05/26...-the-internet/

[TobiasL]

As being a web developer/designer for the last 15 years I would say making a website hasn't been easier, even if you have no interest in learning code. But I wouldn't recommend a software like Dreamweaver, I was completely lost when I tried it even though I have long experience in coding websites.

There are a couple paths you can take. If you do want to learn to code a webpage I would use the software NetBeans (it has a very simple interface and user-friendly) along with a tutorial like this http://htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/ or buy a book.

Second option would be use a tool like WordPress or Drupal. You can create any sort of site with these, there are bunch of plugins and templates. If you decide to have someone do a design for you then there are many web designers out there that are already familiar with WordPress and Drupal.

Third option. If you are familiar with Photoshop and have the skills for layout design then you can do the design there and ask someone to convert it to a html page. All you do is give them the PSD file.

Fourth and last option would be use a online service, this can be a shortcut for getting a website, blog, gallery etc. but they have their limits and price.

My general recommendation would be to try a CMS (Content Management System) like WordPress because they make your life easier in many ways. My mom is over 60 and used to hate computers but now she blog everyday, upload her pictures etc. thanks to WordPress.

[Rogier]

Check out http://500px.com pay them $50 and be done with it....

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Actually what he wants:

"I want to buy (or acquire for free, if it's free) a program that allows me to create uploadable content. I'm currently leaning towards using just PDF..."

He seems to want to work in a familiar environment. Fully understanding that database driven content is totally independent of its form, is not easy for most people even though writers like Roger are used to handing in a manuscript (content) and seeing it in many forms (magazines or online).

Exactly. Separating content and form is, for me, a bit like handing an editor a dictionary and a camera and saying "Here's my latest article."

Captions need to be somewhere near the picture to which they refer, not sprawling all over the screen, and a paragraph has a 'natural' length which is related to its width.

A lot of web design reminds me of word processing programs from the 1980s; bright green or bright orange type on a black screen, in an ugly typeface, "because that's what's available". Quite honestly, I prefer the simple text-and-pictures layout of my site to the vast majority of what I see on the web.

If it's 'old fashioned', that's fine by me: I suspect that most people who are interested in the sort of content I provide will be a bit old-fashioned too. Almost all the site was created in the last decade or so, and the internet itself is only about 20 years old, so suggesting that I want to 'update it by a few decades' struck me as a slightly odd comment (I know it wasn't you who said it).

Your point elsewhere about not wanting to build a camera is well made. By the same token I don't make my own shoes or grow my own food.

I have a new (content-driven) idea which I think may work. I'll give it a few years -- two or three -- and if it doesn't, I'll just pull the plug on the lot. The amount of work has never been justified by the income; I'm not doing it purely as an ego trip; and if it goes, it goes.

Cheers,

R.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Exactly. Separating content and form is, for me, a bit like handing an editor a dictionary and a camera and saying "Here's my latest article."

I didn't quite understand that but I get the gist that you wish to publish articles as you have been doing up until now. What is the basic problem with the way you are currently doing things? Is it simply a layout improvement you desire or are you looking for more "features"?

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

I have a new (content-driven) idea which I think may work. I'll give it a few years -- two or three -- and if it doesn't, I'll just pull the plug on the lot. The amount of work has never been justified by the income; I'm not doing it purely as an ego trip; and if it goes, it goes.

Ah!!! Language is a funny thing: it depends on the tribe. No, not "dialect". You go to a farmers' market and ask who sells blackberries, you'll find someone who sells fruit. You go to the shopping mall and ask who sells blackberries, you'll find someone who sells cellphones.

I think we'll need to pick your brain as to what "content" and "content-driven idea" means. Je peux te donner un coup de fil, and we can hammer zis zing out. Ditez-moi.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I didn't quite understand that but I get the gist that you wish to publish articles as you have been doing up until now. What is the basic problem with the way you are currently doing things? Is it simply a layout improvement you desire or are you looking for more "features"?

Dear Kevin,

Highlight: yes, exactly.

The basic problem with the current route is simply the hassle of my sending imperfect HTML to my brother in law so that he (a) has to do more work on it and in doing so often (b) changes the look from what I want. Basically, I just want to save time for both of us. No, I certainly wouldn't want more 'features'.

Cheers,

R.

[Jamie123]

No disrespect to Roger, but I think his website looks very 90s basic html (i.e. outdated) so I can certainly understand the wish to update.

Roger, I think Wordpress would be a pretty good fit for what you want to do. Go for it!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Kevin,

Highlight: yes, exactly.

The basic problem with the current route is simply the hassle of my sending imperfect HTML to my brother in law so that he (a) has to do more work on it and in doing so often (b) changes the look from what I want. Basically, I just want to save time for both of us. No, I certainly wouldn't want more 'features'.

Cheers,

R.

Okay, that's clear to me now. Do you still wish to follow the home-grown strategy, write html and collaborate with your brother-in-law or would you prefer a self-service solution, as others here have been suggesting (Joomla, WordPress, etc)?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

No disrespect to Roger, but I think his website looks very 90s basic html (i.e. outdated) so I can certainly understand the wish to update.

"Dated" looking websites have surprisingly strong brand recognition and appeal in the internet space. Take for example Luigi's website (Leicatime) or even the one authored by Ken Rockwell.

[ampguy]

Roger, if you like old fashioned designs, then you can get even more authentic old fashioned by doing away with the straight lines and frames you currently have, with crooked boxes like this theme:

http://www.obox-design.com/demo-them...me=left-handed

actually, i like this theme very much, and where it's sister scribble for tumblr

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Okay, that's clear to me now. Do you still wish to follow the home-grown strategy, write html and collaborate with your brother-in-law or would you prefer a self-service solution, as others here have been suggesting (Joomla, WordPress, etc)?

Dear Kevin,

Stick with brother in law if at all possible. We both travel a lot, and I couldn't fit web maintenance in with that.

It is very difficult to convey how extremely grateful I am to you and to the others who are bearing with me so patiently and slowly.

Cheers,

Roger.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Roger -- if you learned how to do the WordPress thing itself (if you've never done it, it can seem a little scary ---like using a manual car in rain-soaked one-lane Scottish roads for the first time---, but once you get used to it, it's extremely easy.

I could arrange to show you a quick demo (with caveats). I'm trying to set up a free-hosted WP site for my own use while I get my personal webhosting situation done with.

[Ade-oh]

Originally Posted by Kevin

"Dated" looking websites have surprisingly strong brand recognition and appeal in the internet space. Take for example Luigi's website (Leicatime) or even the one authored by Ken Rockwell.

Easy there, tiger! Ken's a web design genius: he must be, he keeps telling us so!

Funnily enough, faced with a similar problem to Roger, I have just enrolled myself on a course in basic web design at my local community college. It's a little over £200 for 60 hours tuition and does appear to get me a nationally recognised qualification, if I pass. I shall report back...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Agreed. If I were hiring a designer for Roger's site, I would want them to look at him, and his work, and publications, and maintain some of the "dated" feel. It is important especially in the case of a journalist, that a website have a brand, as you point out. I would not want his site to look like everyone else's, or there is no point, but I would want it to be trivial for him to update and manage.

Also I would discuss if it is even possible to monitize his site - at a meaningful level. I have had a great deal of trouble making any specialty site reach even a modest 50k a year.

Quite honestly I could live with $30K or less, especially my new idea works. When you live in rural France in a house you own free and clear, with no debts, it's amazing how comfortably you can live on quite modest revenues. It's not like living in NYC! Bear in mind, too, that a lot of the stuff on the site gets 'double use' in magazines and books.

Cheers,

R.

[Kevin]

+1

I support photomoof's recommendation of following a strategy of writing articles in a logical markup language as opposed to a presentation markup language (HTML is a presentation markup language). Such a strategy, however, would initially mean more learning, work and complexity for you and your brother-in-law.

Nevertheless, migrating existing content to and writing new content in a logical markup language would provide you with unlimited flexibility. Generators already exist to automatically translate your articles - written in a logical markup language - to different "presentations", including but not limited to PDF and HTML.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Roger -- if you learned how to do the WordPress thing itself (if you've never done it, it can seem a little scary ---like using a manual car in rain-soaked one-lane Scottish roads for the first time---, but once you get used to it, it's extremely easy.

Online blogging solutions like WordPress are indeed simple and straightforward ways to perform self-service authoring and publishing, and solutions such as these usually incorporate features that you may find extremely useful:

WordPress Features

[Roger Hicks]

Brother in law pretty much understands it already: Microsoft-trained and fun stuff like that. The big problem is that I don't really want any more learning curve for me than is absolutely necessary.

Gabriel: yes please. I've been meaning to get to Paris for a while anyway, as I have to see about some visas... Willl call when I find your number again! If it's as easy as using a manual car in rain-soaked one-lane Scottish roads, it doesn't sound too intimidating. How about picking up an Enfield Bullet loaner from the factory, then iimmediately riding it through rush-hour traffic in Madras, with right-foot shift and left-foot brake, when you're used to left-foot shift and right-foot brake...? I did that in 1990.

Cheers,

R.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by photomoof

If he lets you use markup, you would only need a text editor, so you don't introduce any of the hidden gremlins in Word, and then just email it to him.

If Roger goes this route I'm guessing he might prefer a WYSIWYM Program instead of hacking out some flavour of XML/markup in a text editor. At least that is how it comes across, also because he mentioned that he bought Dreamweaver.

Moreover, most if not all modern XML editors can load a schema and help authors write clean documents.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Kevin

"Dated" looking websites have surprisingly strong brand recognition and appeal in the internet space. Take for example Luigi's website (Leicatime) or even the one authored by Ken Rockwell.

I think there's a difference between classic and dated. A Leica M3 looks classic while a Canon T50 looks dated.
I definitely think a simple classic (i.e. timeless) design would fit Roger but unless the 90s look is part of the concept of the page I think an update would be good.

There are, of coures, brands who use a deliberately anachronistic website design (like, e.g. Maison Martin Margiela's site) but these are exceptions.

Of course you are always going to recognize something that stands out even if what makes it stand out is that it is terrible. You could make a horrible Flash website with animations, music, pop-ups and use Comic Sans as a font and I'm sure people will remember it. But is that really what you want?

And I honestly think Luigi's business is working out despite his awful website not because of it. If he didn't have such a good reputation on internet fora I think many people would be hesitant to do business with the owner of this website.

(PS: All of the above comments relate to the general topic of "datedness", not specifically to Roger's site. I don't think his current site is bad at all, I'm just saying that, IMO, it could probably use an update.