The Spring BBSApps › Topic 93
Help!

InContext Spider

Topic 93 · 1 response · archived october 2000
» This is an archived thread from 2000. Want to pick up where they left off? post in the live Apps conference →
~terry seed
InContext Spider -- InContext Spider is dramatically different from other HTML Editors. This is obvious from the very beginning -- once you get into this unique web editor, you might just wonder if you really are using an HTML Editor. The radically different Logical Editor is what will likely catch and divert your attention first. This is a logical representation of a web document with icons (trees, branches, and leaves to represent data relationships, for example) that makes sense once you take the time to understand it; however, it can be quite daunting for new users. The WYSIWYG editor, on the other hand, is extremely cut and dry with simple text and image implementation. Advanced features like tables, forms, background images, and centering are missing in both the web editor and the web browser that comes in the commercial version. Overall, I think InContext Spider is quite counterintuitive for developing web documents. HTML Editors should be designed to make developing web documents as easy as possible, especially for novice users. InContext Spider seems to make this task much harder than it really is. The toolbar icons lack detailed explanations -- something I've grown accustomed to, especially in HTML Editors. The amazing absence of critical features like these are typical of the entire program, unfortunately. While extended use of Spider does reveal some latent power buried deep within the counterintuitive interface, many users will never get this far. Still, for anyone desiring to invest the time and energy into discovering the hidden features, Spider could indeed become a viable HTML editor. The evaluation release available on the 'net consists of everything in the commercial package except for the spelling checker and Spider Mosaic, a web browser based on the Spyglass Enhanced Mosaic product. I was able to review the commercial package as well as the evaluation release; however, the commercial version didn't impress me much more than did the evaluation release. The Spider Mosaic client lacks many of the same features as the web editor, including centering, tables, and background images. If you want a decent web browser, this most certainly isn't it -- try Netscape or Internet Explorer instead. If you want a solid, easy to use HTML Editor with a spelling checker, this most certainly isn't it, either -- try HotDog or WebEdit. If you're looking for a program with a very cool icon and logo, well, you're in luck -- this is one of the few areas of InContext Spider that actually impressed me. Pros: Excellent icon and logo -- very cool Cons: Counterintuitive interface, not easy to use, lacks critical features found in other editors New: One-button publishing, improved interface and tools menu, more Version Reviewed: 1.2 Date of Review: 6/23/96 Reviewer: Forrest Stroud
~kermit #1
Another area or design flaw; It is designed to work within the 16bit Arena; No long file names, no way to adjust the html code generated; This package is ok for small projects, that _one_ person can manage in their head. If you are using either NT, Win95 or a Unix server, the limits of this environment are overwhelmings Compared to the WebAnalyse software that they have, it's depressing
Help!
The Spring · spring.net · Apps / Topic 93 · AustinSpring.com