The issue is they know nothing about design, layout or even navigation. It's easy to drag-and-drop crap here and there, but they end up with an unusable site. They often cram everything onto one page because they don't even understand how to create multiple pages or the importance of doing so. I've seen even basic websites with very little content that were garbage simply because they didn't know how to organize what they had into something usable.
Also, without basic knowledge of HTML or CSS, they're left with whatever boring crap they get out of the box. I've both developed and consulted on websites and quite often it results in redeveloping some piece of garbage someone tried to put together with a builder.
SPEZ: I think the bigger problem here is they're creating a very important website that is likely going to be visited by thousands of visitors a day. The builders aren't for that. The builders are better off for photos of grandma's quilts.
I do agree with the hosting issues. GoDaddy, 1and1, HostGator, etc. are the names everyone flocks to. There are plenty other places to host however. Even some abroad that won't give a crap about their politics. It's not easy finding those, which is another reason an experienced developer can come in handy.
Knowing a little HTML and CSS doesn't fix those problems for most people, it makes it worse. You can't fix bad taste, and half-finished websites with little content is not an HTML or CSS issue. Also, a lot of web designers now do little more than configure site-builders for people who can't turn on a computer, and bill a couple thousand dollars. After a designer is finished with it, it still needs to be easily maintained and updated, and nobody is going to go through the trouble of coding a content management system from scratch for a webpage designed to host static information.
The developers which can actually build a working full-stack website from scratch are far outside of the budget of most people, and for a generic webpage the difference between that and a modestly competent drag and drop website is not going to be noticeable to 80% of visitors.
they're left with whatever boring crap they get out of the box
The alternative to cookie-cutter design is mySpace 2004. Idk if you're old enough to remember those days, but most people have no business exercising their creative aesthetics when it comes to making a webpage. The amount I despise bootstrap cannot be measured, but I'd rather most people have boring websites than broken ones.
Knowing a little HTML and CSS doesn't fix those problems for most people, it makes it worse.
It makes them realize those platforms aren't very good and that, if they want a real site, they probably need help.
Also, a lot of web designers now do little more than configure site-builders for people who can't turn on a computer, and bill a couple thousand dollars.
Those aren't web designers. Those are liars with a lot of time on their hands who are stealing people's money. I've literally heard jaws drop over the phone when I tell people how their crappy site was actually developed after they paid a thousand dollars for a free template, copy/paste job.
After a designer is finished with it, it still needs to be easily maintained and updated, and nobody is going to go through the trouble of coding a content management system from scratch for a webpage designed to host static information.
They're not looking hard enough. There are people who will maintain it, host it, update it and take care of the headaches for a reasonable fee. That's not something for grandma's quilt website or photos of your stamp collection. If you're running a real business or organization or something as important as the information in the OP, shell out the money and get it done right. We've now seen the consequences of what can happen when you don't. I've helped a LOT of people who would rather pay a small fee than deal with the builders and the hassles involved.
the difference between that and a modestly competent drag and drop website is not going to be noticeable to 80% of visitors.
You'd be surprised. I've seen sites that go both ways and the difference is noticeable in many cases. Particularly once the layout and navigation issues are fixed.
most people have no business exercising their creative aesthetics when it comes to making a webpage.
No. And those people are eventually going to destroy their "builder" site because they screw up even simple edits. I've seen people screw up something as simple as a bulleted list.
I'd rather most people have boring websites than broken ones.
I can't count how many times I've seen the "builder" sites result in both.
The issue is they know nothing about design, layout or even navigation. It's easy to drag-and-drop crap here and there, but they end up with an unusable site. They often cram everything onto one page because they don't even understand how to create multiple pages or the importance of doing so. I've seen even basic websites with very little content that were garbage simply because they didn't know how to organize what they had into something usable.
Also, without basic knowledge of HTML or CSS, they're left with whatever boring crap they get out of the box. I've both developed and consulted on websites and quite often it results in redeveloping some piece of garbage someone tried to put together with a builder.
SPEZ: I think the bigger problem here is they're creating a very important website that is likely going to be visited by thousands of visitors a day. The builders aren't for that. The builders are better off for photos of grandma's quilts.
I do agree with the hosting issues. GoDaddy, 1and1, HostGator, etc. are the names everyone flocks to. There are plenty other places to host however. Even some abroad that won't give a crap about their politics. It's not easy finding those, which is another reason an experienced developer can come in handy.
Knowing a little HTML and CSS doesn't fix those problems for most people, it makes it worse. You can't fix bad taste, and half-finished websites with little content is not an HTML or CSS issue. Also, a lot of web designers now do little more than configure site-builders for people who can't turn on a computer, and bill a couple thousand dollars. After a designer is finished with it, it still needs to be easily maintained and updated, and nobody is going to go through the trouble of coding a content management system from scratch for a webpage designed to host static information.
The developers which can actually build a working full-stack website from scratch are far outside of the budget of most people, and for a generic webpage the difference between that and a modestly competent drag and drop website is not going to be noticeable to 80% of visitors.
The alternative to cookie-cutter design is mySpace 2004. Idk if you're old enough to remember those days, but most people have no business exercising their creative aesthetics when it comes to making a webpage. The amount I despise bootstrap cannot be measured, but I'd rather most people have boring websites than broken ones.
It makes them realize those platforms aren't very good and that, if they want a real site, they probably need help.
Those aren't web designers. Those are liars with a lot of time on their hands who are stealing people's money. I've literally heard jaws drop over the phone when I tell people how their crappy site was actually developed after they paid a thousand dollars for a free template, copy/paste job.
They're not looking hard enough. There are people who will maintain it, host it, update it and take care of the headaches for a reasonable fee. That's not something for grandma's quilt website or photos of your stamp collection. If you're running a real business or organization or something as important as the information in the OP, shell out the money and get it done right. We've now seen the consequences of what can happen when you don't. I've helped a LOT of people who would rather pay a small fee than deal with the builders and the hassles involved.
You'd be surprised. I've seen sites that go both ways and the difference is noticeable in many cases. Particularly once the layout and navigation issues are fixed.
No. And those people are eventually going to destroy their "builder" site because they screw up even simple edits. I've seen people screw up something as simple as a bulleted list.
I can't count how many times I've seen the "builder" sites result in both.
I've built a website that had a slider frame. Those were the days.