Forum:
I have a question: how do you folks feel about website builders akin to Squarespace?
Is it able to achieve an Old Internet feel, or is that goal only for the realm of the handcoded NekoWebs and Neocities sites?
Does it even matter how the site got there, as long as *you* are the one behind its inception?
:think:
edit: OH yeah! Took me a minute to remember what I mean: What You See is What You Get (WYSIWYG) editors! Yay? Nay?
« Back to the Reclaiming the Internet Forum
Handcoding vs WYSIWYG (SquareSpace/Wix/etc)
Report Topic
6 Replies
Reply by lime360
posted
Permalink
Reply by Dax
posted
My buddy uses a VM with FrontPage 2002 to build the base of his Neocities page, and then tweaks on the backend from there. He totally swears by it! I think that's probably a good middle ground if you want to build the framework/skeleton and fine tune it after
Reply by Albi Elle
posted
@Dax
Frontpage!! That's how I started out before I grew comfortable handcoding. Glad that's still around.
Reply by NosyCat
posted
updated
In my experience, website builders heavily depend on JS and create inaccessible websites. That doesn't fly in 2024. And it's not even hard to learn HTML+CSS. People do it all the time.
P.S. Dear Al, banning the full name of JS isn't how you keep scripts from being injected in forum posts. All you've accomplished was forcing me to retype the entire post. Luckily it was just a couple of lines.
Reply by Albi Elle
posted
@NosyCat
Cleaning up after WYSIWYG code was the bane of my existence, and why I did end up preferring just handcoding-- it'll be neater from the start.
Reply by Carboniferous
posted
The problem with WYSIWYG editors is that they're built with modern web standards in mind. Blocky, cold, sterile. It's kind of difficult to use one to fully express yourself when the editor itself is mostly designed for use on corporate websites.