How to build and host a website for free - 2
- a multi-part series on creating your first website -
Part 2 - Building a small site the easy way
First steps
Let's start with the assumption that you're going to build a simple site with a few pages for your family, or a local group that has a fairly simple agenda. In this case we can use the normal web page type of site, and there'll be maybe 10 pages or less. This will be what is called an HTML site / a flat site / a hard-coded site / a hand-coded site.
As we saw in Part 1, you will need to do these things:
- buy a domain name
- choose a web page editor
- build the site
- choose a host
- upload the pages to the server
Web page editors
These come in two basic types: text code editors (aka HTML editors or raw code editor) and visual (aka wysiwyg) editors. Visual editors are what most of us use, including me - I build the first stage in a visual editor then adjust the code in an HTML editor - and a what-you-see-is-what-you-get editor is just fine for now.
There are two types of these: the popular type like Kompozer (free) and Dreamweaver (commercial), which can all work with HTML files - and the one-way rapid layout type like WebDwarf (free) or SiteSpinner (commercial), which work in a proprietary code then export to HTML, but cannot import or work with HTML pages.
In addition there are online versions of the visual type that are normally called sitebuilder apps or something similar.
The 2 easy ways to build a web page
Here's my take on this: the single hardest thing for any newcomer is laying out a web page so that it looks like what you want, and the bits go where you want them and stay there.
This is so difficult for a newcomer that I cannot even start to recommend a visual editor of the Dreamweaver or Kompozer type, unless a template solution of some kind is used - otherwise you'll simply spend days trying to get the tool to work. And your page still won't look how you want, because your aspirations will be handicapped by what you can do with the tools. You'll know exactly what I mean if you ever started on a website and just gave up because it was too difficult - and that applies to tens of thousands of people.
You really don't want to go this route because it might put you off websites for ever.
Easy method 1
However, as stated, if you use pre-built templates then it is much easier. It works just fine, if you can find the template you need. Search 'free website templates' and you can find plenty of resources.
Online and host-supplied template site-builders work in exactly the same way, you pick one then add your content. Again, this is fine if you like what's on offer. Their template entirely determines what your site looks like. The advantages are that you get your site up fast, and the design will be OK - in contrast to what will happen if you try to go it alone the first time. The disadvantage is that you may need to search for a time, to find a template that is acceptable to you.
Easy method 2
On the other hand my preferred method is to use a rapid-layout app because that way you get exactly what you want, without the layout hassles. You can layout a page exactly how you want almost immediately, and move anything anywhere instantly. There are none of the issues that you have with Kompozer, for example, trying to get stuff to stick on the page where you want it. But the fast layout apps have two disadvantages: they are one-way only, they work in a proprietary file format and then export to HTML - you can't tweak an existing page, you can only rework the master file and then re-export it. And also you have to design the page yourself, there are few templates for use with these apps.
Nevertheless, this is my preferred solution. One you can try is WebDwarf, which is free. The best commercial version that I know of is SiteSpinner. These applications export to HTML based on divs and CSS, which is a layered, vector technology that is now recognised as the best (and now of course the only acceptable) system. They did so years before Dreamweaver had cottoned on to this, and was still using tables for layout. Table-based layout is the old, 90s-era method, that is now long superseded except for tables of data.
WebDwarf is a free version of SiteSpinner and is still developed, CoolPage is similar but ceased being supported in 2002, though it is still viable for specialist use. WebDwarf validates to HTML Transitional but not Strict, meaning that it is not of the highest quality but acceptable for our purposes.
My easy web page build method is quite simple: build the page in a rapid-layout app, then clean it up in a text code editor. In your case you will use a simple visual editor like Kompozer for this second stage.
As it's not easy to find a quick review of webpage editors from someone who puts usability as the #1 feature for any tool anywhere, and a review having the potential to save you you a huge amount of grief, I figured I'd oblige. ==>
Dreamweaver
One of the best web page editors. Does everything - visual and code, layers or table-based, HTML / PHP / ASP. Extremely hard to use for the beginner, like Photoshop, but probably even harder to get the result you want. Good for improvers, very good for experts. Much of the benefit comes from all the add-on features, like the very good validation tools.
SiteSpinner
Another of the top apps. Was using the current code layout system of divs and CSS a long time before Dreamweaver. A one-way fast layout program with capabilities similar to Dreamweaver, but far easier to use. Builds the same page in about a tenth of the time it takes in Dreamweaver, as it works in real code and with layers. The page is output to .ims format, which is then exported to HTML.
Frontpage
Microsoft's venerable web page editor. Was a good tool in the 90s when pages were built with cells and tables - very low quality by any modern measurement. Produces poor-quality code, with low accessibility and code validation scores. Using it with Frontpage Extensions on a server provides hackers with lots of nice attack vectors. Hard to lay pages out correctly until you learn its ways (like many web editors though). Frontpage-created websites are often crude, due to the restrictions imposed by the creaking method of page construction using cells. RIP!!
NetObjects Fusion
Another one-way app. An alternative to SiteSpinner, but on balance SS is better. In theory NetObjects can read / import HTML pages but you need to see the result - 'not usable' is a polite description.
CoolPage
One of the leading layer-based web editors back in the day, around 2001, this is one-way quick layout app was maybe 5 years ahead of most other apps. Developed by a brilliant coder who was years ahead of his time, this is the fastest of all web editors - you can layout a complex page in a couple of minutes, to pixel-perfect positions, with anything wherever you want. However there are numerous drawbacks to this program now and I certainly don't advise you to use it, it's a fascinating example of what could have been if it had sold and was still supported. The code isn't good now, it's old HTML, upper case, validates to HTML Transitional with a little work. Not for use except by experts who can clean up the resulting code - but the best there is for concept layouts.
Kompozer
This is an update of Nvu, the open-source web editor which ceased being supported. Kompozer is also not one of the busiest projects. It's basically a simpler version of Dreamweaver - you'd use it if you like that style of working but don't want the complexity. Not a bad editor in this style. For novices, its best use is for adding stuff to a page created in a basic rapid-layout app like WebDwarf. You can build a page fast in WebDwarf, export it to HTML, then touch it up with Kompozer.
MS Sharepoint Designer
Lots of arguments about whether this is a valid choice or not as a web editor. Some say it can only be used within the Sharepoint system (and this seems to be Microsoft's stance), others that it's OK, and yet others that it somehow caused system problems and had to be uninstalled. Given the latter I think this one is best avoided, since there are plenty of alternatives.
There are also of course a very large number of other choices in free web editors - check out the page on this site:
I'm not familiar with the editors on that page so perhaps one there is a better choice than the one I'll suggest for you. You need to ask two important questions though:
1. Can you lay out a page fast with it?
2. Does the code validate?
These are the crucial issues with web editors now, due to real-world requirements that include time constraints and commercial results. If the answer is no to both, then I think it wise to look elsewhere. The ideal web editor builds a page very fast in rapid-layout mode, and the resulting code validates to a Strict doctype (a Transitional doctype is basically a bodge-up that puts a browser into quirks mode). The only one I know that complies is SiteSpinner, though since this isn't my game any more (I only work with CMS and ecommerce now), I can't state this as fact.
WebDwarf
The free version of SiteSpinner, this is the web page editor I advise if you're interested in usability. For me this is vital as I just want to lay the page out quickly and get on with other stuff. It's a one-way app that doesn't work in HTML, it builds the page in a proprietary code (.ims) then exports it to web format. This is a fast way to build a page that has a lot of advantages over the Dreamweaver type that only work in HTML native. The problem with native HTML apps is that you can't really do much in HTML, it's a pig to work with and very limited - much better to work in real code and then export it. However, this means you can't import and work with a web page.
Download WebDwarf
Build that site
Let's go ahead using WebDwarf. We'll build a small, simple site, and upload it to our chosen host. You'll need these basic pages:
1 - the index page, aka front page or home page
2 - some 'inside' pages with your desired content
3 - an About Us page, with your name & address, and what the site's purpose is
4 - a Contact page, with quick-contact details such as your email and phone number
5 - a Links page, for weblinks to other useful sites, and for building reciprocal links
6 - a TOS page, with your terms of use for the site and any conditions, copyright etc
So you can start with 4 to 6 pages or so, and that will do fine. But note: if you are definitely going to have 10 pages or more, don't use this method - I advise you to use the micro-cms method we will look at later on. It's far less painful and it's the modern way. In the hands of novices (of course it's different for experts), the HTML page method is suitable for very small sites with a limited agenda.
Local site folder
You need a folder for your local site, ie the master files on your PC. Create a folder within My Documents or wherever else you think best, and call it 'website' or whatever. Inside it create three folders: html, gfx, and master. These folders hold the web pages, the graphics used, and the master files or source materials.
Set up WebDwarf to open in and save to the master folder. We should start with the index page or index.html - this is the filename of the front page (and is always this name or a close variant). I advise you to use the .html file extension, out of the possible variants such as .html, .htm, .php, and .asp.
Building pages
How to actually build pages and link them is really the subject of another tute, in Part 3. For now - just experiment. An outline of what you need to do is as follows: in WebDwarf, create your first page either from scratch or by using a template. I recommend the latter for your first-ever page, using one of the templates they provide, or simply by modifying the start page they give you.
Save the page as 'master' (the page filename). Use it as your own template, and build all your pages from it as a master layout guide. After making this basic page, you'll use it as the basis for all the site pages. So:
- save the master
- export to html
- view the page and check it
- create a template
- build more pages
There's a quick guide to building your first page, in Part 3 of this series, next up.
|
Related Link
|
This tutorial is by volunteer editor Chris Price. In the computing area his interests include website software, web usability, and running his ethical SEO agency.
Registered site visitors can contact Chris by clicking here.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Please rate this article


Subscribe to our
Is there the promised part 3 anywhere? I'm unable to find the link.
Thx
http://www.000webhost.com/
They offer a free domain name and free no-ad hosting. They have served me flawlessly during the past year for my school to home web site.
Jim
So far I've not encountered a web hosting gives a free domain other than subdomains. Let me know if there's one :>)
Similarly I note that 000webhost.com restricted free domain name to Premium Hosting which costs $4.84/month. The Free Hosting allows 5 sub-domains and no free domain.
I have been using the now "dead" application Front Page for many years, and I still use it rather satisfactorily for my static website, which serves me fine. I have on my shelf a new unopened Dreamveawer box, but I never got the ambition to start learning it, though I love all other Adobe products.
It is hosted by a very reputable company, and although I pay close to $200 a year for hosting, it's worth it since I have never had problems with them. Since I don't care about any dynamic functions on my site, this suits me just fine and as long as my host will continue to carry the necessary software to run Front Page, I will continue to use it.
One question I have is: What if I want to retain my domain name and have a "mirror" site at another host built with Dreamweaver? How is a thing like this done?
Shab
http://www.gravitram.com
Interesting material - your site is a good web resource.
I'm familiar with the sculpture of John Robinson, perhaps you know of him?
The various issues you mention:
1. Creating a duplicate site
This is not a great idea because search engines and the web in general will not appreciate it. It's called 'duplicate content' and it doesn't do anyone any good. There is a risk your main site will suffer. However you can easily build a development site to play with, either offline on a local computer on your LAN, or on a website that is hidden from public view.
2. But why would you want to do this? For fun / experimentation / to see if you could create a better site? Not bad reasons at all - but perhaps a good idea to be a little more definite, as any route at all will be a considerable time investment.
Also I guess I should point out that your site, although a valuable text resource, is about the least-visual sculpture / art / design site I've ever seen. Some of this may be down to your personal preference but FrontPage must play a part here as it is known for producing the worst-looking sites (except for experts maybe - although I can show you FrontPage sites built by people with 10 years' experience and they still look terrible).
Personally I'd give your new Dreamweaver copy away to a student in need and think about a visual CMS, if you want your site to look better. The obvious candidate is Joomla as it's not the hardest to use and it's the best rich media CMS. It will of course take a lot of time input to learn, but I don't think any more than Dreamweaver though. I know which of the two will be better for you in the long run and there is absolutely no contest there - Joomla. You need a mentor though otherwise it's just too painful. Exactly like Dreamweaver of course.
Like all these things it's a matter of opinion but you can try most of this stuff for free, so it's easy to suck it and see...
chris.p
Thanks for the info, especially the comparison of the various tools. Am wondering if you've had a chance to evaluate Microsoft's Expression suite. It is accessible to me via my educational institution, but haven't made up my mind about whether it's worth the time investment to try to master it, especially since - as you pointed out - there are so many other useful tools out there.
Sorry, I haven't tried Expression.
The main reason is that I build large sites or very small ones, and nothing in between. Large sites are best built with database-driven software like a CMS or micro-CMS. Very small sites are just fine with the tools I described.
In-betweenies are a big area for debate, but I will never build an HTML site of over 10 pages again - a small CMS wins that battle hands-down. I just do 1-page to 4-page sites in HTML. A smallish site (10 - 50 pp) will be great in SkyBlueCanvas CMS or CMS-MadeSimple. Or WordPress if preferred, there isn't much difference.
My own opinion is that Dreamweaver etc are best for pro users who use it every day and can get a fast result for a custom project that needs to look really good, with different page layouts throughout the site. The average user would be making a big mistake trying to build a 30-page site with an HTML editor. Just my opinion of course.
chris.p
For TOTALLY free, use dyndns.org to get your domain (something like mysite.dnsalias.net). Put dynamic dns on YOUR pc, if your running XP you can add IIS and host the site yourself.
Sure. This works, no problem. But you'll have some issues though:
- site traffic bandwidth is limited to your DSL upload speed. So if you have an average sort of connection with 30kb or 60kb upload bandwidth, then people will find your site dead slow.
- site visitors will take all your upload bandwidth if the site is busy, ie has about 3 people on it (for this bandwidth). So your own browsing etc may be slowed because you'll have no upload channel.
- what about security? The main reason you pay a host is to take care of business on the security. Anyone can host a site anywhere, it's not hard - but you will get a ton of probes and attacks if the site is visible at all. Some will get on to your PC if you're not a server tech.
But like you say, dynamic DNS is a fun thing to try especially for a temporary site or a kind of private one. It's an easy way to set up PC-to-PC downloads and stuff. Or just use HFS or Core Micro-FTP Server if that's all you want to do.
chris.p
I suppose "mysite.dnsalias.net" is a subdomain.
Yes, this is a subdomain.
One of the issues is that you can't take it with you, you have to stay there forever - or start again from scratch. So if you build your site up, then find you have to move - things look a bit tricky...
Also bear in mind that all sites move at least once. Or 99.9% of them do at any rate. You'd have to be phenomenally lucky to choose the right host first time out, and then never change your site direction at all and need to change. It does happen of course, but never to anyone you know.
Another thing is that if you do work on building up a subdomain site, a percentage of that value leaches off to the main domain. It's not a lot, but it's still enough to figure. In the past it wasn't so bad but Google recently said they're tying up subdomains and domains closer. That means if you spend $10 on your site (or 10 hours worktime), some of that benefit you won't see, it goes to the domain owner.
chris.p
Really enjoyed the information,but you shouldn't downplay the flexibility of some of the template/wysiwyg options.
I've dealt with a very satisfactory service for over 2 years:
http://www.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=ext_accountCreation.home
And with some tweaking in the CSS module, I fairly easily produced the pretty distinct site found here:
http://yknot.terapad.com/
It's completely free(as long as you tolerate their Adsense ads), nearly 100% up-time, with very good server speed. It has met my needs and may do the same for others. Check it out.
Fair comment. Your site is good, lots of resources.
Please accept my deepest apologies for knocking the template system :) **
I'm a CMS fan but I guess there's more than one way to skin a, er, site.
chris.p
** I just looked at the article again and figured I positioned a sentence wrong - actually I was knocking the standard visual editor method, not the template method. Have another look now I moved that sentence back into the correct paragraph.
Hi Chris, this article is particularly informative and helpful, 5 Stars from me, and looking forward to Part 3 :>)
BTW, I bumped into Freehostia. Just sign up and get a test homepage hosted free on a subdomain, FTP allowed, no ads, no hidden fees, at least for now. Of course it offers other packages with better features or higher capacities.
I've been using freehostia for a couple of years, to host a recreational softball league website. It's been working great for us.
Post new comment