Once you publish an iWeb built site to a folder you can open it in any HTML editor - not just Flux - make changes and publish them.
The problem is that iWeb uses absolute positioning for most elements on the page, using inline styles, rather than setting the rules in an external stylesheet to allow you to easily position items relative to each other in the HTML layout. Consequently, it would be very time consuming to make anything other than minor changes to a web page's content.
If you want to move on to code editing style software it would make sense to maintain your existing site(s) using iWeb and start building new ones in the software of your choice. Flux is not the easiest or best way to get into code entry since it attempts to combine both styles of website creation and is unnecessarily complicated and less efficient in the long run.
Old Toad and Roddy: Thanks for the information.
To bad you can't go back and forth. I need to give you a little background before I can ask my next question.
I've been using iWeb since it was released and like it's ease of use; I don't really want to get into code editing. I've been publishing to a local folder and then uploading with CyberDuck. I found that was a much faster process than letting iWeb publish to iDisk. I also have gotten familiar enough with html and java script to be able to paste scripts (like Google Analytics) in after publishing (I've been using Taco HTML edit because I like being able to store and manage the Clips).
I'm doing the same thing now that I've moved to my own domain on HostGator, except that now I upload with Filezilla. I can continue with this workflow but I'm a little worried about the future of iWeb and so am looking for a replacement. I realize that iWeb will continue to work and I have time to make the decision.
I'm hoping the replacement won't overwrite embeded scripts, like iWeb does, so that I can eliminate that part of the workflow and save a lot of time.
Just reading about Flux sounds like I could build the major parts of the website using the WYSIWG features but continue putting in the code that I know how to do now. Then as I got more familiar with Flux I could get more into coding if I chose to, but I wouldn't really need to if I didn't want to.
Roddy you say Flux is not the best choice. What do you recommend as better choices given what I want to do?
Old Toad do you have any recommendations?
Thanks for your help. I appreciate your guidance.
I use Flux and it doesn't overwrite the original file because it is working on the actual, original html file just like a text/html editor would. Flux uses both drag and drop and actual code writing. They just released a new version yesterday but I've not had a chance to test it and compare it to the current version.
If you download the demo version be sure to view the several videocasts at the site. They were a big help to me.
Go to the Escapers at http://www.theescapers.com and download the trial of Flux 4 which has just recently been released of the last few days. It seems that it is an improvement over Flux 3. You can also download the quick start guide as a pdf.
Hey OT, have you seen that the Escapers have released Flux 4? I did post a new topic about it hoping that you would see it, but unfortunately Wyodor got there first with the normal sarcastic comments that somewhat spoiled it.
I just downloaded the trial version and quick start guide for Flux 4 - seems to be an improvement over Flux 3.
I downloaded it this morning but haven't gotten a chance to try it out. One user at the Flux forum reported it looked good with improvements to the code insertion feature. The videocasts are a big help but a couple of them use the technique if dimming the entire screen except for around the cursor which makes it difficult sometimes to see where they are clicking. Other than that I found them to be helpful.
You're right about the idiot. Has a real attitude problem.
I would have thought you could produce better and more efficient websites using an app like Taco and learn to use it a lot quicker than Flux.
One of the main reasons iWeb produces such large amounts of code for even a fairly simple web page is the way in which it has to create a div, and position it in absolute terms, for just about very item. If you depend on drag and drop in an app like Flux you could end up with even more code and an even slower downloading page!
With all the developments in CSS, HTML has become a lot simpler and HTML5 will make it even more so when its fully adopted. Using a master stylesheet for a site, and keeping the inline styles to a minimum, gives the browser a lot less work to do since it only has to download the file once.
I think I was probably the first to mention Flux in this forum when I first tried it. I decided that it wasn't for me since it took me a lot less time to understand stylesheets and HTML layout, and how to change them than learn how to use this app. Flux is good but confuses the issue by trying to achieve too much. To use it effectively, you really need to understand the basics of CSS and HTML. But then, if you do that, you won't need Flux!
Its worthwhile spending a little time to understand how HTML templates work along with the stylesheet to position items relative to each other. After that, you'll find it a lot easier to create web pages no matter what software you use.
That's because there is no 'Save to File Option'. To save it to a local folder, you need to publish it to a local folder and that is part of the publishing options that you get in iWeb - select from the drop down menu, so there is the ftp option and then publish to a local folder option and it is that option that you want.
You need to publish to get the html and css files that Flux can then open - it can't open anything else.