Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: website redesign using iweb  (Read 14356 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1652


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2009, 12:34:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris_T
Matching the LR galleries' colors and fonts is just the tip of the ice berg. How about adding the header, menu and footer etc. that are on other pages? I believe all these can be done by someone who can read and edit a LR gallery's source code.
Because of my day job (non-photographic) I haven't had a chance to go into the various sections of the LR gallery code.  It's quite complicated as I recall (at work right now), with multiple files that may need editing.  I took the easy way out and figured out how to place the menu bars and copyright line into the HTML file that got generated from LR.  I was able to match things so that the website was consistent across pages.  It was a bit of a kludge using Dreamweaver to do this but it worked.  I still want to add Pay Pal functionality to individual images but that's also will have to wait until I've got a couple of days off.  I've looked at some of the LR plugins but didn't like the contraints they imposed (you are limited by what the author of the plug in thinks is the right way rather than what you would like).  LR also generates web pages that don't work with some hosts and the LR engine and two of the other files need to be modified.  This is a well known problem.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2009, 12:58:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Alan,

If we revert to post #1 in this thread, Stewart said "it has to be simple......"  Would you recommend Dreamweaver on that basis?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1652


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2009, 01:40:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Alan,

If we revert to post #1 in this thread, Stewart said "it has to be simple......"  Would you recommend Dreamweaver on that basis?
NO!!!  In fact, it would be great if LR 3.0 made it easier to modify for web output without have to go in and do the programming (Obviously agreeing with the OP, just noting that it can be done and that I always want to know how things work).
Logged

Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2009, 02:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer
... it would be great if LR 3.0 made it easier to modify for web output without have to go in and do the programming ...
Bingo! That's exactly what I would like to see, but I won't hold my breath. If Adobe should do that, not only would many web "designers" go out of business, but Dreamweaver sales will take a hit. The next best thing is for a LR plugin to do this.

BTW, you did a good job with your LR galleries to match other pages.

Creating a web site is not unlike taking a photograph. Anyone can come up with a "simple" one with a template (or a click), but a good one takes insight and hard work.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2009, 10:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stewarthemley
So I stumbled across iweb, had a brief play and it seems a possibility. But before I invest hours/blood/sweat/tears designing the thing could anyone who knows be kind enough to say if iweb is okay to use or whether there are other simple options.

tough call, not sure what your end goals are.

iWeb is simple yet lets you create a pretty extensive site that flows together decently well, gives decent looking results, and is more customizable than most realize. I use it and it gets the job done.  Seems to be reliable enough, and it's easy to tie into any host is so it's pretty automatic to keep the site updated.

I use it, and sure it's not the most sophisticated or spectacular results in the world, but then I'm probably the only one that ever reads my website anyway ... good enough for me. I just like trying to improve my writing skills, so I write stuff.  Biggest downside is you can't pull the site back into another program to do more advanced stuff.

Logged

Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2009, 01:05:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Plenty of helpful advice here, but I'll add a comment referring to the use of blogging software. In the context of this discussion I think that it is overlooked that an application like Wordpress, while it is first a blogging tool, it is also a CMS (Content Management System) albeit a fairly simple one. There are Wordpress installations which have little resemblance to a traditional blog with the chronological topical entries we expect blogs to have. There are photo gallery themes which are free or available for little cost which may work for some users seeing this thread. And, of course, there are Wordpress photo sites which are more sophisticated, requiring more coding skills.  

Another blogging application is the free, open-source, Pixelpost. These can be setup with no written article areas and simply be a gallery. It's up to the user. I once had a Pixelpost site, on which there was no writing other than image descriptions, an About page, Contact, etc.

For the OP it still may be easiest to go with the other suggestions, but one can also experiment with Wordpress for free, if only on a separate site in an effort to learn a bit for future web offerings. The nice thing about Wordpress is that they have done a good job with security updates and the updates are now very easy for the user to do with just a simple click or two.

I'm not pushing Wordpress or other tool, just hoping to clarify that a CMS can be used in many ways to achieve one's goals. I don't use Wordpress (though I have built sites with it), however I do suggest (as others above have) that it may be right for some folks. And if one wants a discussion forum added, it's little more than installing a forum package in another directory, linked from other site pages... just like here on LL or anywhere else.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2009, 01:06:36 AM by DFAllyn » Logged

Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 998


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2009, 01:27:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Another vote for Rapidweaver.  It can be used as simply as iWeb, with a wealth of stock templates, or taken off the beaten path to a fully custom design solution.  I built my site from scratch with it and no template, knowing nothing about web design before I started.  I had to learn a few things about CSS in the process, but it is remarkably easy to master compared to HTML.  There were a couple of occasional headaches in getting everything to work right with older versions of IE, but nothing was all that frustrating.  It really surprises me that something as open and accessible, built on the premise of lots of upgradeable plugins, works as well as it does.  There are also a great many tutorials online now for it as well.
Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2009, 08:47:38 AM »
ReplyReply

As a matter of courtesy to people who replied, hereís a brief update.

Lightroom is out, for me. Itís simply not designed to be a website design program Ė and doesnít claim to be. Yes, it can produce good looking galleries but getting them into a website to match the other pages is beyond me right now.

iweb is incredibly simple/fast to master and use. One of the most intuitive programs Iíve used just lately. But for me it has a major limitation: you canít get the image past 800x600 pixels (as far as I can see, and having checked on user groups Ė but great if Iím wrong). Also, the way to check the results in a browser is clumsy and just crashes (new Macpro, Snow Leopard - the latter might be the reason).

Rapidweaver looks good, really good, but so far Shutterbug is the star for me (thanks, Wolfman). There was that usual learning curve where everything was coated in a nice pink haze but that cleared after maybe an hour of good, concentrated cursing and now itís looking incredibly good value. I have no connection and hereís the link for anyone interested: http://xtralean.com/SBOverview.html

As soon as I have completed the thing Iíll include the address in my signature.  I have to select all the images Ė is there anything more difficult? Ė so it may take a little while.

Again, thanks to all who replied and I found every reply useful.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2009, 09:16:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the up-date Stewart. Probably useful to note (for the benefit of Windows folks) that ShutterBug is Mac only.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2009, 02:33:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Thanks for the up-date Stewart. Probably useful to note (for the benefit of Windows folks) that ShutterBug is Mac only.

Whoops. You're right, Mark. I should have pointed that out.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2009, 10:19:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stewarthemley
iweb is incredibly simple/fast to master and use. One of the most intuitive programs Iíve used just lately. But for me it has a major limitation: you canít get the image past 800x600 pixels (as far as I can see, and having checked on user groups Ė but great if Iím wrong). Also, the way to check the results in a browser is clumsy and just crashes (new Macpro, Snow Leopard - the latter might be the reason).

as far as image past 800x600 ... not sure what you mean. Are you talking about a gallery page? I know normal pages aren't limited. A page from my site, image is 1000 pixels wide.

I guess I've never even consider gallery images larger than this ... just makes them better for people to steal for screensavers and desktop pictures.

Not sure what is clumsy ... and why it would crash.  Best way to develop for me is just publish the thing and then check it.  Isn't that slow.  Not like it's messed up very often.  How are you checking the results that would be clumsy and crash?

(not that it matters if you've decided on Shutterbug anyway - it does look intriguing)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 10:25:51 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2009, 02:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Wayne

Thanks for your reply and page link, thatís just what I wanted to see. Obviously you can get images (not just pages) past 800 pixels. I checked on an Apple user group and the consensus there was that you couldnít. Think Iíll get back there smartish and make a postÖ I suspect that the reason I couldnít get them bigger was that they were images I had re-sized for my existing (crappy) website and so they were at max anyway. Iíll check later today.

Re the clumsy bit: on all the other website design programs you simply hit a button and see instantly how the site will look in a browser Ė not always the same. With iweb, again according to the user group so it might not be accurate, you have to publish the site to a folder on your computer then view in your browser. Clumsy, bit slow, bit surprising but okay if it works. But on my system (new Macpro, Snow Leopard) iweb crashes as soon as I hit the publish button. This is probably a bug with SL, or a conflict with something on my system.

So, now I have to decide between iweb and Shutterbug. Maybe I'll try first to set the thing up with iweb simply because itís so easy and already on my system. Itíll be a hassle downloading the site, adjusting, rechecking, etc but I shouldnít have to do that too often Ė hopefully. And if that's just too fiddly, I'll fall back on SB. Either way I'll have achieved the aim of being able to change my site easily to how I want it.

Like your website, by the way. Thanks again.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2009, 10:50:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stewarthemley
It’ll be a hassle downloading the site, adjusting, rechecking, etc but I shouldn’t have to do that too often – hopefully.


With iWeb if you publish via FTP, it will only publish changes you have made.  This is the major drawback to publishing to a folder, where it publishes the entire site each time.  So if you are wanting to check your pages on your local machine this is a little bit of a hassle.

There is a pretty easy way around this, however.  Each mac has Apache web server installed.  You can set up iWeb to publish to your "local" webserver via FTP.  Once you do that, you can access the site using the standard local host addres ... either enter 127.0.0.1 as the address, or simply type localhost.

This way each time you want to check things in a browser you publish the site, which will only have to update changes, and then pop over.  It's actually very fast.

There are basically two steps.  First you turn on your local webserver in the sharing preference pane.  

In iWeb, set it to publish to FTP Server.  The site name is Documents (which is the default folder name for the local host).
In the FTP server settings, the server address is localhost.  The user name is your account name for your mac followed by your password. the directory/path  is /Library/WebServer and the Protocol is FTP.  Once you have the FTP server settings setup, you should be able to click the Test Connection Button and it should let you know it succeeded.  If so, you're ready to publish the site.  The first time you publish the site it will tell you the folder Documents already exists and ask if you want to replace it.

Once it's published just enter localhost in your web browser (or IP 127.0.0.1).  As I said the advantage is you when you publish from then on, only your changes are published.  This usually takes only seconds if you have just modified a page or two.

This actually works with most web development tools.  You can in fact enable virtual hosts for the local host, meaning you can develop a multitude of sites and access them each individually on your local machine.

Once everything is ready to go, just change the configuration to upload to the actual host.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 10:51:07 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7946



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2009, 12:12:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
There is a pretty easy way around this, however.  Each mac has Apache web server installed.  You can set up iWeb to publish to your "local" webserver via FTP.  Once you do that, you can access the site using the standard local host addres ... either enter 127.0.0.1 as the address, or simply type localhost.

If you end up creating a dynamic site with some mysql/php server side components that you want to test locally, you might want to check MAMP.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2009, 03:17:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Wayne, for that detailed info. I'd noticed that I had a server somewhere on my system but it seemed a step too far to try to play with it. But it does look like a quick solution for checking. And it's a good point that only changes are uploaded to a published site each time so that would be much less hassle. Actually, I tried again to load my iweb site to a local folder and this time it worked. I changed nothing, no new programs, no system update so not sure what happened with the first few attempts.

And thanks Bernard for that link. Who knows, I might end up learning more than I expected and need that facility. Seems to be a popular route with this new digital thingy we all do: start out trying to grasp the basics then end up firmly in the competent level. Well, almost.

As I often do, given a choice I vacillate wildly. Today I'm back to favoring Shutterbug again. It lets me move stuff around a little bit more which is the whole object of this exercise. I have a SB version and an iweb version and switching between the two I prefer the SB one. I'm pretty certain I'll use one of those programs but whichever, progress is being made, thanks to the contributions made here, so thanks again everyone.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2009, 04:42:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Again out of courtesy to those who helped, I have the site up now. It's very simple, so I resisted the temptation to use any of the bells and whistles that are so easy to add. I still have to sort out the images, but the layout is okay for now. The aim was to be able to change things quickly and easily and that has been achieved. I used Shutterbug in the end and thoroughly recommend it (no association with them). The site is at:  www.stewarthemley.com

Thanks again for all the help offered.
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2009, 10:23:21 AM »
ReplyReply

The images are great - you have a real eye for telling details.

(But the page width needs fixing, as it is too wide for a 1280 wide screen. In fact, better to avoid fixing it at all if you have the technical wherewithal, as it makes life much simpler for all users and all screens. You can always impose constraints flexibly in the style sheet.)
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2009, 04:34:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LoisWakeman
The images are great - you have a real eye for telling details.

(But the page width needs fixing, as it is too wide for a 1280 wide screen. In fact, better to avoid fixing it at all if you have the technical wherewithal, as it makes life much simpler for all users and all screens. You can always impose constraints flexibly in the style sheet.)

Thanks very much, Lois. You're right about the page width: I checked it on my wife's very small mini-laptop screen (don't know the correct term for the latest crop of very small ones) and it went off the edges. I also checked it on what is probably a more common screen size - 19" - and adjusted things to fit. I have to find out if/how to make it automatically fit any size screen.

But the great thing for me is the ability to change quickly and easily. I've used three different backgrounds already!
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6817


« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2009, 05:16:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Stewart,
Congratulations for your new website and for your photos too. Building your site took some time but the result is really worth the time you spent.
Logged

Francois
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2009, 07:21:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: francois
Stewart,
Congratulations for your new website and for your photos too. Building your site took some time but the result is really worth the time you spent.
Thank you for your kind words, Francois.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad