Another alternative: I received an email today saying CoffeeCup will be releasing its responsive Site Designer later this month. I use their Responsive Layout Maker to create wireframes and I think this is why I got the email. The workflow will ideally use both apps: RLM to design and wireframe the site; this is imported as the 'template' for Site Designer to add the design elements. Holding off on MACAW until I see this in action.
Hi Franko,Originally Posted by franko
Have you heard anything new regarding the CoffeeCup "RSD?" That would be totally new, yes? I have a handful of their products and then just fell away from them. Would be curious about the one you mentioned. I'll keep checking their site also.
~Kitty
Hi Barbara
Could you send me the demo template as well, please? I am in the same position as Peter and would like to continue using NOF if that is what you are suggesting?
Regards
Coffee Cup soft launched RSD last Wednesday to owners of Responsive Layout Maker. Pre-launch cost is $89; it will be $189 on full launch. Can't report on it because I'm not going to spring $89 for it as Macaw does everything I might need responsively. CC's workflow appears to be design the wireframe with breakpoints in RLM; then export to RSD to add text, gradients, colours, images, etc.
Hi Barbara,
Could you please send the template to me too.
Thanks
Gary
Macaw's workflow looks much simpler than CC, looking at the websites, more akin to NOF. Is that right Franko? I have no experience of either Macaw or CC but looking for places to jump unless NOF comes out with a Responsive program very soon - NOF management please note!
Trying to comply with Google's Mobile Usability guidelines is a real pain with NOF as it stands.
I've started using Macaw to fill the gap when a client wants a simple responsive site. It's not a substitute for NoF as it's not a website generator; it's a graphical interface for creating html and css on a page by page basis. No nav tools; you have to style anchors. No ftp; no components. If you want to add a slider, for example, you have to paste the code into the appropriate place (much like using Ctrl-T in NoF). And there are no templates; if you're not a good designer and have at least a good working knowledge of html and css (and preferably JQuery/javascript) then Macaw probably isn't for you.
But if, like me, you're starting to see the need for one, two or a few page sites that are responsive and usually vertically scrolling (this seems to be the new design requirement for smartphone-era web sites) then Macaw fills the gap for me.
It's one of the tools in my toolbox. That said, when NoF becomes capable of generating responsive sites (and that's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think unless you're locked into a limited range of templates as you are with Artisteer) then NoF will still be my primary app for web development.
Last edited by franko; 04-28-2015 at 10:57 PM.
Thanks Barbara!
Hi all,
I'm really sorry I didn't reply earlier as I hadn't read this thread yet. I had sent Peter some information per email but it was two/three weeks ago and in the meantime I have decided not to bother with the responsive issue in NOF anymore and have worked on improving my understanding of wordpress in order to create my own templates there, so I've been very busy concentrating on something else.
Basically I just meant a jQuery redirect, just to match the requirements of google mobile friendly. The landing page can be responsive (also with NOF) but it also can be static, if it is done in a certain way. But a redirect is not a long term solution. It's rather just a nuisance for site visitors IMO.
And the information I have from Google and also via the media (Sydney Morning Herald) indicates that redirects are not acceptable as a solution, although they seem to be helping at the moment. It also seems the presence of a viewport meta tag is acceptable to google as evidence of a mobile friendly site. But that won't last, either.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote