|
Adobe GoLive
The good: Integrates well with other Adobe
products; leaves all input code untouched; offers new database integration; includes JavaScript-based SDK to allow user-created palettes, menus, and tools.
The bad: Numerous files and
floating palettes create workspace clutter; Dynamic Link database writes only Active Server Pages.
The bottom line:
Current GoLive users will want to pick up this ambitious new version, while coder and designer workgroups have the most to gain from the new features.
|
|
|
Lotus Domino Designer R5
The good: Enables developers to rapidly build secure Web applications that incorporate enterprise data and streamline business processes.
The bad:
The bottom line:
|
|
|
Macromedia Dreamweaver
The good: Improved coding environment; new Split view and JavaScript Debugger; helpful HTML and script references.
The bad: Weak site reports; new features not groundbreaking.
The bottom line: Dreamweaver continues to be one of the best Web editors on the market. If you've avoided it because it's a visual editor, it's now time to buy, because version 4.0 retains the product's visual editing power while putting more emphasis on its hand-coding features.
|
|
|
Microsoft FrontPage
The good: Preserves your HTML code
according to your specifications; easy database integration; excellent site management features.
The bad: Doesn't
analyze non-FrontPage pages for browser technology compatibility; DHTML and database integration limited compared to other products; Office components require the Microsoft Office Web Component controls.
The bottom line:
This tool lets beginning and intermediate users easily create somewhat sophisticated sites, but it can't compete with other products for full-fledged, data-driven application development.
|
|
|
NetObjects Fusion MX
The good: Extremely easy to use; extensive style choices and add-ons; professional-looking results for first-time users; dedicated community of users shares tips.
The bad: Generates truly horrific code; nested tables make for nightmares when imported to other programs; text handling takes extra effort from the user.
The bottom line: The
low price and powerful functionality make Fusion MX a godsend for small businesses and nonprofits seeking a practical and good-looking Web site. However, the difficulty of importing, exporting, or hand-tweaking
sites will frustrate professional Web builders.
|
|
|
Trellix Web
The good: Template-driven design takes
only a few minutes to master; wizards walk user through every step of building through publishing to the Web.
The bad: Working
outside of the program's templates complicates simple site modification; help files need work; no access to source code; the tool is free only if you choose to host your site with a Trellix affiliate.
The bottom line:
A fully functional but limited tool best used by beginners or small businesses without the budget for a Web builder.
|
|
