This article originally appeared in TidBITS on 2006-06-19 at 12:00 p.m.
The permanent URL for this article is: http://tidbits.com/article/8565
Include images: Off

iWeb 1.1 and the Competition, Revisited

by Steve Sande

Last week's article, "iWeb 1.1 Takes on the Competition", apparently hit a nerve with TidBITS readers. Not only did I receive a number of email messages from readers who told me about their favorite easy-to-use Web page editing applications, but a spirited discussion appeared in TidBITS Talk as well.

<http://db.tidbits.com/article/08560>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/webx/TidBITS/Talk/ 862/>

Several readers pointed out one serious shortcoming of iWeb 1.1 that wasn't listed in the article - the inability to insert and edit tables. While this shouldn't affect iWeb's target audience frequently, it is a glaring omission for those who wish to use iWeb to develop and maintain small business Web sites.

Another pet peeve shared by many readers is iWeb's inability to open existing Web sites. Many beginning designers like to emulate the design of popular sites, and there's no better way to do this than download the site into an editor and customize it.

Much of the TidBITS Talk discussion was targeted at the poorly generated HTML code that iWeb creates. iWeb's lack of compliance with Web standards means that sites created with the tool may not render properly in all Web browsers, so many readers feel that Apple should focus attention on this subject before the release of iWeb 2.0.

In terms of competition to iWeb, readers mentioned a host of other applications:

<http://www.softpress.com/products/ freewayexpressin.php>
<http://www.freewayactions.com/product.php? id=016>

<http://www.fishbeam.com/en/goldfish/>

<http://www.adobe.com/products/contribute/>

<http://www.nvu.com/>

<http://www.optima-system.com/pagespinner/>

<http://xtralean.com/SBOverview.html>

<http://wordpress.org/>

I plan to dig more deeply into the inner workings of these iWeb competitors soon. My sincere thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the previous article.