Mac OS X Website Builder Face-Off
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Sandvox
Having been beaten down once before by Apple's decision to release Sherlock 3, the folks at Karelia software started afresh. Sandvox is the result, and Karelia unfortunately finds itself back at square one, competing directly against iWeb.
Sandvox combines elements from both RapidWeaver and iWeb. It's not modal, you edit your web pages directly. It's also template-based, but there are rules you must follow. The templates will only bend so much.
Within them, there are a lot of nice features to play with. As well as the text, photo, and weblog pages common to all these applications, Sandvox introduces the concept of "pagelets," little boxes of fun that can be filled with all sorts of automated or multimedia content. Drag an RSS feed into a Sandvox document and it becomes an RSS pagelet (doing the same thing in iWeb just displays a link to the feed URL).
Pagelets can be manipulated with the Sandvox inspector; it's simple to stick them in the sidebar, or add them to the main section of the page as callouts. Recently added pagelets include a contact form (which is transparently processed by Karelia's own server--you don't have to worry about the back end), a del.icio.us link list, and a Flickr badge.
Like RapidWeaver, Sandvox's templates can be applied and changed at any time during the edit process. The supplied templates are nicely made, but I suspect only a few of them will appeal to each user, and you might find that a bit limiting. New templates will emerge, of course, once the Sandvox Developers Kit is released.
Remember, this is still beta code. There are unexpected crashes and some odd behavior, such as times when the Inspector wouldn't allow me to inspect, or times when a new selected design didn't get applied.
Sandvox is very appealing, despite its buggy beta status, because the people who made it have thought of so many neat little extras.
Every page can be assigned keywords, every template can be used as a wrapper around your own HTML. The Collections feature, which creates an automated header page gathering together content from other pages, is especially useful and very nicely implemented.
It's an appealing package because the developers have obviously spent some time thinking about real-world uses of their application, and designed features to suit. You can look through the selection of templates and pagelets and instantly think: that one would suit an independent software developer offering downloads; that one is ideal for babyblogging; this one could be used for a corporate web site. Sandvox does a great job of showing you what the end result of your work could be, and of demonstrating the features you might use to achieve it.
For the time being, it shines in terms of features but cannot be used for mission-critical work until it escapes beta.
Final Thoughts
When I started writing this article, I had a number of preconceptions based on previous experiences with RapidWeaver, a built-in suspicion of iWeb, and genuine curiosity about Sandvox. Having played with all three, I now have new opinions about each.
Each of these apps has advantages and disadvantages, and if you have enough time to spend testing all of them, you might be able to pinpoint where each of them is better suited to building a certain kind of website.
If I had to build a fresh new website today, and I had to choose between these apps, I'd probably go for iWeb, despite its long list of annoyances. If Sandvox had already reached final release, that probably would have taken the top spot instead.
And that's not to say RapidWeaver is a bad app; it's not, it's a very polished, usable app with a great deal of power under an apparently simple front end. Personally, though, I found iWeb easier to use. I had to grit my teeth sometimes, though.
Giles Turnbull is a freelance writer and editor. He has been writing on and about the Internet since 1997. He has a web site at http://gilest.org.
Return to the Mac DevCenter
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 25 of 25.
-
sandvox vs frontpage
2007-02-25 15:55:23 jphilip66 [Reply | View]
I am an apple user but still retain a windows system for frontpage 2003 to maintain my website. Always looking for a simpler package than dreamweaver for apple I located Sandvox and Rapidweaver. I have used iweb and agree with this forum that it is a joke if you have an independent host besides .mac. The program has neat features but I have purchased a website outside dot mac. I vote for Sandvox. It works for me. A few crashes are okey, afterall my windows system crashes too. Once the product releases it will be less buggy we hope. Anyway, I have found myself able to use both Sandvox AND Frontpage at the same time. Usually one software supercedes the other. Sanvox provides for Weblogs and Movies. And Frontpage does not. My webhost has provided me with UNLIMITED storage so I can now branch into weblogs and movies. And Sandvox is my choice. For now at least. -
sandvox vs frontpage
2007-05-20 01:22:17 ben-jamin [Reply | View]
i used freeway pro 4 to build a website - very easy to learn and very adaptable. drag and drop and/or use code.
http://www.softpress.com/products/index.php -
sandvox vs frontpage
2007-04-29 07:36:54 pseybold [Reply | View]
Thanks.. as a Windows user moving to a Mac and in need of a tool to design a new web site, I found your comments really useful. Sandvox sounds like the best fit for what I want to do.. I am curious about your webhoster..I am also looking for a lot of storage. Can you recommend yours? Who is it?
-
RapidWeaver and SandVox
2006-04-08 13:51:34 briansouder1 [Reply | View]
I would place RapidWeaver in between iWeb and SandVox in terms of power. iWeb looks like the .Mac web templates all over again, but now you have to pay for it again. To boot, as others have pointed out, our formerly free value added applications that are now part of iLife typically are broken by the OS updates. I still like my .Mac account, but stay away from the Apple solutions. Use RapidWeaver for your .Mac account. It has excellant .Mac integration, and is a n excellant app for people who want simple web design. The most recent frustrating thing about RapidWeaver is they burried the default templates as part of the application package. To modify themes now, you can go to your applications folder and ctrl-click (right click) the RapidWeaver application, and then show package contents. Next, go to the folder: Contents -> Resources -> Install. All of the default RapidWeaver Theme's are here. To modify one, highlight the theme you like and duplicate it. (COMMAD-D) <APPLE-D for people that do not know what command is> (Using Tiger.rwtheme as an example, you should have Tiger copy.rwtheme) Drag your copy of the theme to the desktop and close the applications contents so you do not accidentially modify a default theme (which I have done). Now that you have your copy of the theme on the desktop, ctrl-click (right click) the theme and do a show package contents. Look in the contents folder, and bingo, there is your html and so on to edit. You can make changes to eveything, and then use a .plist editor to change the package info. You will also want to rename your theme to something you will know what it is. To add it as a 3rd party plugin, simply double click the new version of the copied theme on the desktop, and it will install into the 3rd party folder. Where is that you ask? User (your user name -- just click on the house in the browse menu) --> Library -> Application Support -> RapidWeaver. You will see your installed theme in the folder. You can continue to edit the theme in the folder too. I like making changes with the app open and in preview mode so you see the final product immediately. I like RapidWeaver, but I am starting to find it to be too limited, but at the same time, GoLive is so complicated that I do not have time to learn it, and time to edit my website is already too limited to be wasting time.
Now - as for SandVox, remember it is Beta first of all. Even they tell you not to use it for production. I have looked at it a few times, and I can see there is a ton of power there. I am really excited by the program. Unfortuantely, there has been no documentation. I got really frustrated quickly and just gave up twice now. The default theme's leave something to be desired for anything other than maybe a family home page. If they can put together good tutotials, and make it easier than the above description for RapidWeaver to edit templates, I would switch to SandVox in a second. RapidWeaver used to put all of the templates in the Application Support folder, but more recent updates burried them in the Application package. It took me a while to find them, and I know there are other frustrated people out there because I have received email from people asking me how I edited the templates. I like the possibilities of have additional boxes to highlight articles, and it looks like you can make the entire site an RSS feed. The only way I have found to do this in RapidWeaver is to make the entire thing a blog. I have an information based website, and I want people to be able to search it. I do believe you can change the key words in RapidWeaver by going to the page inspector, and changing them on the page tab. I am not sure how well it works with the search engine bots though. Hopefully SandVox offers more control or suggestions on how to get the best results based on the content of each page. -
RapidWeaver and SandVox
2007-03-23 01:42:34 bcbounders [Reply | View]
Brian,
For simpler access to even the default templates, try right-clicking on the template within the Template Viewer in RapidWeaver (v3.5 and up). You have your choice of "Show Contents", which opens a Finder window with the contents displayed, or "Duplicate" which creates a duplicate version of the theme (in your User/Application Support/RapidWeaver folder) and even allows you to name it... all from within the app.
Pretty slick... and saves a lot of Finder fishing.
Hope this helps.
- John
-
RealMac Software unreliable as a company
2006-03-25 02:21:44 kyri [Reply | View]
I'm a registered user of Rapidweaver. And I like the app a lot in many ways, and it truly accelerates web site creation.
However, at the moment I can't recommend the product or the company behind it. Sadly it seems as if the makers of Rapidweaver are overwhelmed by its success.
Months ago Ben, Dan and Simon of Realmac Software were made aware that their contact form template is not spam proof. By entering malicious text into a contact form made with Rapidweaver spammers can make the underlying php script send out hundreds of bcc messages at once.
Numerous users have brought this to the attention of Realmac SW and pointed out that they ran into problems with their internet service providers, since technically, they (the owners of Rapidweaver sites) are spamming and not the culprits misusing the contact forms.
Initially the Rapidweaver makers promised a quick fix. Now they're pointing to the upcoming version 3.5 which is however still months away.
(see e.g. this thread rapidweaver forum thread:
http://www.realmacsoftware.com/support/viewtopic.php?id=3822)
I find Realmac Software's business attitude irresponsible and unbearable and can therefore currently not recommend the product.
-
Another option.
2006-03-21 03:24:10 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
I've just been alerted to another web builder app that I wasn't aware of before: Goldfish
http://www.fishbeam.com/en/goldfish/
I haven't tested it, but mention it here because it might offer an alternative to anyone else who is deciding which app to go with.
-
All I want
2006-03-20 06:16:31 paulrothrock [Reply | View]
All I want is an application that will allow me to view html files (maybe with a little PHP or Ruby in them) as rendered pages so I can nail down positioning and widths without switching between TextMate and a browser, and for it to have a decent text editor, not spew horrible HTML everywhere, and generate XHTML Strict code that looks nice. And it shouldn't cost an arm and a leg.
Is that so much to ask?
-
feeble
2006-03-16 13:28:02 BatmanG8 [Reply | View]
I suppose they're all OK if all you want is static text and images.
But will any of them give you a GUI way (view) to work up more dynamic pages backed by MySQL or PostgreSQL (model) with a choice of glue scripting language (controller)?
-
Shutterbug? WordPress?
2006-03-15 05:34:01 magka [Reply | View]
I've found this review quite helpful for understanding the basic and conceptual pros and cons of the three tools choosen for this review. It appears to me though that today there are at least two more serious options available to Mac users who are looking for a time-saving alternative to hand-coding. I believe it could be worthwhile if a future article would include Shutterbug and WordPress in the review's perspective of tools for quick content publishing and quick design changes. TNX! -
Shutterbug? WordPress?
2006-04-21 21:07:51 sundoggy [Reply | View]
Dude, you are lost. Shutterbug and Wordpress are two totally different types of programs. Shutterbug is similar to these aps in some ways, but is really geared towards photo sites.
Wordpress (if you are talking about the actual application and not the wordpress.com service ala Typepad) is a high-end blogging ap, not for the faint at heart (but a little easier to handle than Movable Type). Wordpress can also be used as a full CMS, especially since v1.5 and 2, but it is in a totally different league than iWeb, RW and Sandvox (more suitable for users of BBEdit and DW), or someone with a bit of coding experience or at least comfortable with some minor hacking. It's a far cry from iWeb, but then it's an awesome powerful solution (and free).
I guess the reason for this post is that you are totally misleading people, obviouslly don't know what you're talking about, and have at the same time insulted WP.
-
iWeb huge timesaver
2006-03-14 08:53:23 yuan-yuansun [Reply | View]
I can't quite agree with the verdict on iWeb - or well, I can. Yes, it's extremely inflexible, it produces terrible URLs, etc. But does that automatically mean that everybody who knows how to make a web sites will be turned off?
Not so! I used to hand-code my site. In 1995. I know how to. But do I want to? NO! I gave up on my website because it just ate up too much of my time.
I admire iWeb. I don't care how inflexible it is. Ten minutes is all it takes to get anyone from idea to website. Beat that!
-
The bottom line
2006-03-13 07:13:25 mattinva [Reply | View]
I think we can all agree that iWeb has some promise, but the bottom line is this: Now that Apple has taken the path of yearly iLife upgrades, they chose to deliberately cripple iWeb so that next year they can promote all the great new '07 features that should have been there in the first place. (Publish via FTP! More Themes! More Page Types! Custom Page Heirarchy! etc, etc) As a side note, I find the rest of iLife 06 to be quite excellent, especially as an upgrade from 04.
-
iWeb - multi site script
2006-03-11 07:20:01 MarkHunte [Reply | View]
I have created an AppleScript to manage unrelated iWeb sites (projects). When I say unrelated, I mean that you may want to create more than one site on different host servers, or even the same host, all of which have nothing to do with each other. iWeb does not allow you to manage unrelated web sites -- it will also Publish/Export all of them at the same time if you have edits in more than one of them.
I published a hint and the applescript on Macosxhints.
To find out more, read the hint here
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060126122633213
The latest Script can be found here.
http://uk.geocities.com/markosx@btinternet.com/scripts/iweb_sites_scpt.txt
Note if you are using file Vault the script will not work for you.
-
iWeb: Text = Images
2006-03-09 08:40:20 freedomdumlao [Reply | View]
One MAJOR limitation that iWeb has is an annoying tendency to convert your text into image files! If those awful blog URLs dont scare off the search engines, they wont be able to read much of the content you spent all day writing.
A review of MacOSXhints.com tells you that the problem is related to iWeb having trouble with some font files that are installed with Office X and other applications, and by finding and disabling these fonts you might be able to get iWeb to knock it off. Overall the frustration was not worth it. If a font is called "Arial" and "Arial" is known to be in the web safe fonts list, then iWeb should not even try to render it on export, it should simple apply a style tag that says "font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" and let the browser work it out.
-
Defeating the "Buy .Mac" Nagging
2006-03-09 05:14:11 DuckFOO [Reply | View]
Macosxhints recently published a hint on defeating the .Mac nagging. You can read it http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060223074129928 -
Defeating the "Buy .Mac" Nagging
2006-03-10 16:05:15 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
Great tip, DuckFOO, thanks.
-
RapidWeaver
2006-03-09 01:36:57 johngriff [Reply | View]
This statement is so not true: "it's impossible to make text wrap round it (an image dragged onto a styled text page) nicely". You simply highlight the image and apply "align image left" from RapidWeaver's 'Format > HTML' dropdown menu. On top of that you can add your own styling to the layout. -
RapidWeaver
2006-03-09 03:56:42 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
Thanks for correcting me on that, johngriff. I failed to spot that during my testing.
-
Rapid Weaver screencasts and plugins
2006-03-09 00:30:30 will_macdonald [Reply | View]
There are some great screencast tutorials for Rapid weaver at http://www.screencastsonline.com/.
There are also some great 3rd party plugins available for new functionality and themes. These are defiantly worth looking into.
Will
-
iWeb is a joke!
2006-03-08 23:51:11 mister_L [Reply | View]
iWeb is not recommendable at all. Everybody who is not a 8 year old or a complete tech-idiot will be frustrated by its limitations.
Better recommendations:
- if you want to build a simple photo-page, use iPhoto instead.
- if you like to build a full-featured blog the easy way use iblog
- for any other website use rapidweaver or sandvox
iWeb is based on good ideas, but it has far too many limitations. Maybe v3 will be satisfying. Itīs still good enough for complete computer-newbies to give them the possibility to post content to the web. but in order to make iweb-websites look different someone else has to build a frameset (with dreaweaver etc.) around first ;).
-
iWeb=puke
2006-03-08 20:16:51 smorris76 [Reply | View]
I tried using iWeb. It's certainly easy enough to build a photo page. Unfortunately that page will take 5 minutes to render in anyone's browser. Then try to make an index page of all your photo pages. It's such a clunky POS I couldn't believe it. It's completely flat hierarchy is pretty much useless as well. -
iWeb=puke
2006-03-09 00:29:09 yvesdec [Reply | View]
true, iWeb seems to be designed only to post on a Gigabit LAN and even on a local G4, the browser renders like it was trying to invent the PDF -
iWeb=puke
2006-03-12 21:29:45 DaveCrist [Reply | View]
I have just spent the past couple of days building my site with iWeb. I am no web monkey, but I, like most of the other posters and the author, was almost immediately annoyed at the limitations of the program...
To follow up this parent, all of the graphics are converted PNGs, which isn't necessarily bad, except for 78k jpegs quickly bloat to 500k!! Pages are loading slowly because of the incredible increase in graphic size....
#2 most annoying nit is that there is no way of modifying and of the html without editing in an external editor... and as soon as you update a page, that change gets obliterated... arg...
oh well... -
iWeb
2006-03-24 19:51:04 alanwolf [Reply | View]
They fixed the png thing in the last update, but you do need to republish your site. It is only better, the optimization still could use a lot of work. I agree about the problem of not being able to adding extra html. I'd like to be able to pull in photos from my flickr account without having them on my server, since I am paying flickr to host them.
