Forums | MacLife

I can see the utility of turning non-standard fonts into images but an app like iWeb should warn you before doing so.
Perhaps offer a bifurcated fonts menu with standard core web fonts at the top and non-standard fonts below. Something to make the user aware that they wont end up with text.

I certainly hope this is merely an option you can turn off, otherwise that would have to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a program for a while.

This is actually rather dire...
There isn't a shred of indexable text on the entire page (disable images in your browser and you're left with an empty page), loads and loads of in-line and onpage CSS, no semantics (Apple: ever heard of <p>, <h1>, and <ul>?they're really nice tags).
In many ways this is far worse then what even MS Frontpage used to generate.

Gatchaman wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Text as images sucks and think of this:
Say I want to keep your info handy to call you latter, I can't copy and past your contact info into a document to save, or to use in an email.
I would have to take out a pen and paper and manually copy from the picture of your contact info.

Yep, and nothing on your page will show up in a search engine either.

This is just stupid.  As in AOL-stupid.

I totally agree.  I would also be terribly slow for dial-up users.  For these reasons, I am only going to so my personal web pages on iWeb, and for my two professional sites, I am going to keep them in dreamweaver.

Gatchaman wrote:

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

If you try to add html code in a text box, does it render the code, or does it display the code as if you had used the "code" tags?

Since it converts all the text into graphics, it probably can't do either.  Sometimes I think this company is run by retards.

That settles it then... No iWeb for me.  Damn.  I really wanted it too. 

Gary Patterson wrote:

Not a deal-breaker, because my needs are purely personal,

Unless you're the only person looking at your web page, your needs are not purely personal.

dojotony wrote:

I was on my friends iWeb created site and the text was just that -- text -- and not an image. 

So no need to worry, everyone.

Link?

Gatchaman wrote:

dojotony wrote:

I was on my friends iWeb created site and the text was just that -- text -- and not an image. 

So no need to worry, everyone.

Link?

Yeah, some elaboration at least, would be appreciated. 

Czachorski wrote:

Gatchaman wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Text as images sucks and think of this:
Say I want to keep your info handy to call you latter, I can't copy and past your contact info into a document to save, or to use in an email.
I would have to take out a pen and paper and manually copy from the picture of your contact info.

Yep, and nothing on your page will show up in a search engine either.

This is just stupid.  As in AOL-stupid.

I totally agree.  I would also be terribly slow for dial-up users.  For these reasons, I am only going to so my personal web pages on iWeb, and for my two professional sites, I am going to keep them in dreamweaver.

And you cant print from it, and blind people wont be able to read it, and almost blind people cant increase font size and so on...

W

iLife '07 - here we come!

allan wrote:

I think people are missing the point of iWeb. Yes, the code is bloated and messy (but compliant) and doesn't allow the webpages to be easily searchable, printable, etc.

I think most people who use iWeb won't care about these things. Their target audience will be typically very small (ie.,  mostly family and friends) and they probably won't be submitting their iWebsites to search engines, etc. If one finds these limitations too much, they should look to something like RapidWeaver instead, where you can add meta tags, alt tags, blog comments, etc.

All very true, but they're also likely the kind of people who won't consider that grandma on 28.8k dialup (all 56k can muster on old wiring a lot of the time) can't bring up page after page of graphics boxes on her Quadra (or Pentium 150).

I hope they continue improving this the way they have with iMovie.

Gatchaman wrote:

All very true, but they're also likely the kind of people who won't consider that grandma on 28.8k dialup (all 56k can muster on old wiring a lot of the time) can't bring up page after page of graphics boxes on her Quadra (or Pentium 150).

Haven't you heard?  Dial-up is dead...no one uses it anymore.  Check the USB modem on Macbook thread for details