Starting a NON-responsive blank webpage, HTML or Bootstrap?

Nor sure to put this into the General or Beginners category…

I am just now trying to jump into Pinegrow knowing very little about code such as HTML and CSS, as I am very used to having software write what I picture in my head. It is indeed sort of odd that after sixteen years of making websites I know so little of the actual coding, but can wrap my head around SEO and make Google and Bing work for me.

So before I learn brand new things that I have never done before when making a website, I want to start with Pinegrow doing what I already know how to do and like. Personally, I am not a fan of responsive websites and I much rather make a separate .mobi website for the mobile devices and give the desktop version a script to send the phone browser to the .mobi domain. Therefore when I do this, I start off in two different blank webpages and go from there, designing from my visions and plotting.

My question is then since responsiveness is not the concern, should I start of by using the HTML mode or the Bootstrap (which I know NOTHING about)? If I do start of in the HTML mode, what is the process of doing so? Are there any videos or instructions anywhere for this type of thinking?


@Rgator to me it sounds like starting in plain HTML mode is probably what suits your needs, starting with Bootstrap would mean you are by default going to have a responsive site. So select plain html after clicking New Page then you will be presented with a blank page and you can drag any of the HTML elements on to it and build your layout as desired. I think for somebody with an SEO background that initially just adding content and then designing up your page might make the most sense. Hope this is of help, feel free to ask more questions and I’ll be happy to help guide you as best as I possible can.

A bit of a glaring problem here is… the HTML code you drag and drop are… just that!
HTML code! no pretty shiny blocks and image holders and whizzy whazzy wotnots! just a rather barren skeleton that you must flesh out.

And then style with CSS.

You can use PineGrows CSS editor for that. but, as you are visual and Dyslexic, you may just find that -It breaks your eyes!
It breaks mine! whenever I am away from it for a while, I have to try and "tunnel* back into it … relearning as I go.

That’s why if you use the Bootstrap setting, you get lots of blocks - which are already done, BUT, come with a wad of CSS Overhead - to first style the Content blocks, but then, to also . alas for you… make them and the page as a whole, Responsive.

I was just looking for library of NON responsive components… sheesh! it might be easier to make responsive sites now.
looks like it might just be time to stare at code… sad days indeed :wink:

As @rob stated Bootstrap by default is responsive and targeted for mobil first. You can however disable this as discussed here in the official documentation.

I would however suggest moving away from separate developments (mobi/desktop) and instead move towards proper responsive design.

yep, read that, know that, however, your STILL stuffing your site full of Responsive CSS - which you are then not using.
and then expecting browsers to download yet not render. Pointless, excessive bandwidth useage. CSS bloat
its just the RESPONSIVE elements ACTIONS dont appear - you’ve still got all the CSS cruft -but their Responsive nature rendered defunct. If what I’ve been led to believe is true.

I started to post earlier , about custom Bootstrap downloads etc, but thought it might all be a bit much, so binned the idea as I wasnt too sure I’f I was correct.

I am likewise aware of that @schpengle, I was just expanding upon the topic discussion of non-responsive + Bootstrap.

Plus doesn’t it parallel with your first response of people using Bootstrap and Blocks for design and layout if they are not comfortable using pure HTML/CSS to create their designs without the need of a framework to provide quick scaffolding for them? In most cases people likewise use less than 90% of any given framework just to get a grid, menu, etc. They do it for ease of use or lack of knowledge and are left in the same situation you just described of having unnecessary bloat in the site.


Yep, but that was info for @Rgator who would be reading your reply :slight_smile: more than for yourself. The code side is new to him. just so he would know, if he simply used Bootstrap but then clicked the magic button to murder responsiveness.

I then went to look for libraries of NON responsive components for him (and me :slight_smile: ) to play with… on the Internet!

I couldn’t, didn’t have the time as the Internet is soooo big. and so is the usage of the words Component and Library and Responsive. together!
Trying to leave one out wasnt happening.

Taking all of the above info into consideration I still think plain HTML is the correct option as it will allow him to create layouts for both scenarios in Pinegrow. He didn’t say anything about the look of the site so I believe he either can do it himself, has someone looking after that aspect or knows he doesn’t want the overall framework look. Plain HTML ticks the box.

pretty much so - apart from the bit where he said he is looking for a wysiwyg editor to replace FW pro and is a visual kind of guy who creates that way etc etc. Im gonna withdraw from this one now, as … Im doing an online Javascript course, in my old uni at the mo … woo hoo! look at me go!

1 Like

A bit ago, I created a screencast which could clarify some things. Not only for Freeway users, but as well for you expert guys (if it isn’t too boring at least). But it could give you an insight of the Freeway user’s pain in butt.

The video can be found here:

I tried to compare both products - and in a very raw way trying to explain the main things happening when working from scratch.

It was at the very beginning of my work with Pinegrow. So I’m curious what you say (don’t judge me too hard though).




Hi @Thomas, that’s a nice simple yet demonstrative example between the two. I would guess you may have probably scared off a lot of Freeway users though when they saw the differences needed between the two ;-). I am trusting the decisions being made for Pinegrow v3 concerning the new UI/UX will improve many aspects of the app, helping to benefit us all and those transitioning to the app as well.

Your English is very good by the way.

Side Note: Never having used FP, I wish they would have made the downloads full versions they left on their site with the closing their doors notice, since they abandoned it. It looks interesting and I always enjoy testing UI/UX of different apps. I saw on the softpress forum you considered Sparkle to be the replacement of Freeway, do you use it as it’s replacement?

1 Like

I thank you very much indeed.

No! My personal tool is and will be forever Pinegrow (Huh, tough statement, isn’t it?) All I think is, that a general Freeway user doesn’t want to leave the convenience track. Sparkle an Muse is obviously the closest match, never tried both though. Those FW-users dipping their toes into cold water are pretty rare.



You’re welcome, did you ever live abroad? Both your spoken and written English are very good.

Oh I had just seen this comment on the freeway forum:

Thomas - I’m looking forward to the future. With Sparkle, the legit successor is already there. So all I can say is that I’m very happy.

… and thought you were perhaps using Sparkle, was just curious. As stated I like to try lots of apps, demos, clouds for the UI/UX evaluation and experience and seeing how features differ. I find it interesting and insightful.

Hi @Pinegrow_User

Oh - cool, yeah - it can indeed be read as you did, but it was meant the other way round:

The more people stepping to Sparkle, the better (for me and for them). My intention is not to scare people, it is more to prevent them from the wrong expectations. Pinegrow loves the code (cited from - an average FW user usually not.

To me, Pinegrow was the next logic step ahead. It’s about proving what I learned so far and slightly extend all my knowledge. And I expect that from all former FW users, too. In the sense of improving our new hometown*.

This is probably not in Softpress’ hand, but more a matter of former stakeholders being involved in the liquidation process. This is as well a reason, why I’m not handing out my serial -it’d feel somehow a betray.



Side note:

*Unfortunately all my good TalkMates stepped to Coda (long time ago) - and I was close to do this too. But I never understood this application. I’m pretty sure they’d be kept well and safe here in this community, flavoring the talks and the app. In fact, they’re much wiser than me.

As much as I like Pinegrow it is not my choice for an HTML/CSS editor. There are other tools that will provide a richer experience in both areas.

And as much as @Rgator says he doesn’t want a responsive site, it would really be in his interest to think about tackling his new projects as responsive sites. Otherwise he will find duplication involved between the mobile and non mobile sites. Even with a template system.

Bootstrap handles so much of the grunge work and it is difficult to think about NOT doing a responsive site. Speaking from experience where I crafted a home-brew responsive CSS system before tackling boostrap and realize what it provides me.

@Rgator, what other tools have you used in the past? It may help in getting you comfortable with Pinegrow.

What other tools are you using currently? Are you Mac or PC based?

Yes, there are pros and cons to using a responsive website and indeed it is a lot of extra work when not using one. But on the plus side is that you have twice the SEO power when using a .com and a .mobi website. I love seeing my .mobi websites show up in the search query results along with the desktop site.

@Rgator, don’t you have issues with content not being updated on one or both? Where one site has one version and the other site has another? I have seen that before and confusing as to which site is the main one and which one I am suppose to buy from. Though they used either .net or .com and not .mobi or any of the other TLD’s available now.

Someone is, at whatever screen size the page changes to. Also you have not just CSS but Images that are duplicated and resized for different screen sizes as well so it is not just CSS and JS files. Though it beats having an entirely different site created on a new domain for each screen size.

I did not like Adobe Muse in the beginning because it actually created three separate versions of the site depending on if it were Desktop, Tablet or Phone sized screen and then sent the user to that version.

I shall now change my browsing habits, to use an overhead projector displayed on a 3 x3 metre wall, combined with the LYNX, text only web browser :smiley:

Personally I don’t see any issue with the size of my CSS (Foundation or Bootstrap), even when it may appear large to other developers, but then again I don’t build resource heavy websites.

For example i’ve seen developers moan about the size of CSS, I then visit the websites they build and they take an age to load - websites overloaded with images/js and all these plug-ins, animation everywhere, choppy websites when you scroll.

As for responsive/non-responsive, for anyone serious about web development, you should focus on one website, make it responsive and forget about about .mobi websites, unless there is a specific reason for having .mobi, in terms of your users, although I can’t think of any reason why your end users would prefer a watered down .mobile version

1 Like