iPhone X review
Please post your Frontpage Website Examples in this thread.
Please state clearly what version of Frontpage you have used.
If you have previously posted the URL on another thread, please include a link to that thread also. It will be benificial for those whom choose to use Frontpage in the future.
OK, click here
The email links are temporarily disabled, but it's an example of less than a days work from start to finish using FrontPage 2000.
The company is fictional but most of the products and services detailed are what I offer through my normal line of work.
Dreamweaver might produce slightly leaner code, but I like to think that for less than a full day from start to finish, the results are at least acceptable, even if I did use FrontPage (shock, horror).
What's your hourly rate taran **smiles**......
I'm really getting to grips with administration right's etc & believe that my new site will do all I ask of it..... I will have to contact the hosting company again when I get as far as installing the forum again, they have quite catagorically said that I must NOT use FTP Client's or there home grown file management system. During the install of the forum you have to change file permissions, I have not yet thought of a way of doing this without corrupting the FPSE's.
The reason they give for not using file client is that the server is unix hosted. Apprently, it would not be an issue to use FTP & Frontpage if it were hosted on a windows based server?
My hourly rate ?
That depends on what I'm asked to do and by whom...
And yes, your host is correct in their eaplanation of the file system, although you can still get certain problems on a Windows based server, depending very much on how it has been set up.
Give us the URL when your site is finished and we'll have a look.
Good luck with it.
It's gonna be a while, but yes I'll give the the URL and username & password as it's members only & you "Shouldn't" be able to access it without them.
used frontpage 2002 on this site
How easy it is to put together a very professional-looking site with FP? Once you know what to do of course.
The point is that working in FP is a great way to teach yourself web design, and although it may take you a while to acquire the knowledge of the software necessary to equal Taran's excellent example, you can do it.
When I first started out designing sites I had to learn to laboriously hand-code everything, and as Taran rightly says - it's still handy to be able to do a bit of tweaking in notepad from time to time. It's far from necessary however, FP will turn out an excellent site all on its own - all you have to do is have the design sense to make it look good, and the ability to succeed with the other most important ingredient of a decent site - the navigation structure.
It will not come as a great surprise to learn that I'm a FrontPage fan - especially of the latest version (FP 2003) which will hit the shelves later this summer/early autumn. That version is bursting with possibilities, and I personally think that the Microsoft developers have really given us a tool that we can go to work with in FP 2003.
We'll look forward to seeing more of your FP sites as time goes on.
If that only took you about 3 hours, I wouldn't mind seeing one you have spent some time on :-)
Joking apart though. I have to say that in the short time this forum has been running I have gained more of an insite to web design etc than I would have reading many a book. Especially as a lot of the comments come from the 'horses mouth' so to speak.
Having tried FP98 and not liking it one bit, that put me off looking at FP2000/2. Perhaps I should reconsider and have a look at FP2002, and think about 'another' re-design of my site.
The longest part of that site was typing out all the text.
I'm a little disappointed that nobody has picked me up on any of the Red Herrings I left in there (typos), but I guess you're all far too gracious to point them out to me.
The whole point to the site was to demonstrate rapid development of a framework with an overall pleasing to the eye look.
Part of the tweaking process I mentioned would entail lengthy proof reading and testing in different browsers, and so far I have done nothing along those lines. It's quite raw, but not too bad all things considered.
If you download the site root folder and browse the files in there you can see by the file properties that some of the pages were created two days ago and modified today, while some were cobbled together only this morning. As I've said, cross browser testing and proof reading (among other things) would have been part of an ongoing testing process prior to allowing the site to go live, but I wanted to demonstrate that FrontPage can;
1. produce a professional looking site and not be limited to or rely on one or more of the themes and tempates it ships with (although these are fine for learning the program)
2. produce a site in half the time required using most other WYSIWYG editors (at least where I am concerned)
3. challenge the opinions of those who sneer at it by its output.
I'll run the site through some alternative browsers over then next few days and upload a new ZIP file of the root folder once I've done a thorough spellcheck and proof read.
Site development time is subjective anyway. I stayed with Dreamweaver for ages after coming to the conclusion that FrontPage 98 was absoutely God awful to work with. From version 2000 onwards though, FrontPage has shown itself to be an exellent development environment and once you get to grips with it, it's about the most efficient program I know of for getting a site up and running in short order. Keep in mind as well that I only created one image for the site - everything else is clip art from the MS Office collection.
Other programs may offer more for specialist use (PHP, ASP, ColdFusion and similar) but for general webbing nothing beats FrontPage, in my humble opinion of course.
The current version is superb and the soon to arrive version is out of this world.
Food for thought ?
used FP2003 for my site click here
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.