Am leaning toward not renewing...

In the past year, I have used Bootstrap Studio for a single production web page - nothing but a quick gallery of four photos, and even that I had to rip unnecessary code from once it was published (example: why the devil does it insist on providing Google with tracking data on my site and visitors when everything added to the project is local?). Otherwise, I've found it actually easier and much faster, since there's so much coding required anyway, to just string together existing Bootstrap objects, code, and templates (I mean, there's so much available for download to do pretty much anything, and code modifications tend to be less than required in Bootstrap Studio). I've spent hours "prototyping," and then end up rewriting/reworking practically everything using external code fragments until nothing from Bootstrap Studio remains anyway. Web design is not my primary function, so I assumed this would allow me to quickly put together simple production sites...but I haven't seen anything "quick" about it. And don't get me started on informational (text-heavy, non-whiz-bang-flashy) websites, which are painful to work on in Bootstrap Studio.

Someone want to convince me in the next few days that I'm completely wrong, and should renew anyway?

Is this a joke? You want someone to convince you to spend a whopping $30 on a piece of software you're already convinced is not useful for your needs?

I don't think you'll be missed.

Obviously not, "a joke;" I was hoping someone with a reasonable perspective and intelligent response might point out where I was ignorant and educate me. But thank you for instead clearly defining the quality of replies I can expect on this forum by example. This sarcastic response goes a long way toward my decision to save that "whopping" $30 (actually $60, since had I considered renewing it would have been a "lifetime" renewal) and spend it instead where it can actually be of benefit to my company.

First post, never asked questions, never asked for assistance and then just comes in and bashes the software. It's either a joke or another software rival trying to make the software look bad, in my opinion.

I've been designing client websites with BSS for over 2 years now with very little "issues". Yes I've had to do a few work arounds, but I've not "had" to do anything post export to this day, not once. So, since you admit that web design is not your primary function I'll assume that also means you're not versed in it as well as you would be if it were your primary function, and were expecting a simple drag and drop noobie application that anyone can use.

Although it "can" be used that way to an extent, there are lots of settings and CSS/JS that will need to be altered to make things look and work how they would be expected to, this isn't your "super noob drag and drop and lets make a crappy cheap website" app as you must have expected it to be. This app can and does create very high quality websites with no, let me stress NO excess code junk that is "injected" into your site that you have not added.

So, if you are getting something allowing Google to track on your sites, that means you added it, not BSS. BSS doesn't build the sites, you do, so anything added to a page is your doing not the apps doing. Check your pages and find out what is adding it and fix it. Simple as that.

Having said that, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Had you posted asking for assistance or questioned things on the page directly before starting disrespectful comments in this post, my guess is, you would have gotten respect back. Pretty simple concept.

another software rival trying to make the software look bad, in my opinion.

You'd be wrong, and even suggesting that seems a bit desperate. I honestly didn't consider there may be other software attempting to perform a similar function, but that wouldn't be relevant to Bootstrap Studio anyway. I'm talking about the software I paid for almost a year ago, not some competitor I never heard of. And FWIW, I'm not going to provide my license number to you to prove it...believe me or don't, I really could not care less.

So, if you are getting something allowing Google to track on your sites, that means you added it, not BSS.

Technically true, practically incorrect. Since one cannot add non-Google fonts from the UI (not user fonts, not even a generic family name like "Times" or "serif" - there are threads here in this forum discussing why which I admit made no sense to me), there will be, assuming any text at all, calls to Google which Bootstrap Studio inserts. One must then remove those references if one cares for the privacy of one's visitors. I created a test website in Bootstrap Studio with a single image and no text whatsoever, and as you note in this instance there were no calls to Google in the exported code. But then, few websites have no text, so there will effectively be calls to fonts.googleapis.com for every website created, providing tracking data from visitors, QED.

Check your pages and find out what is adding it and fix it. Simple as that.

Text. I suppose I could pull a Twitter and post text as images, but that seems...unwieldy.

Had you posted asking for assistance or questioned things on the page directly before starting disrespectful comments in this post

At no point did I post, "disrespectful comments." I described honestly and accurately my experiences with the product not disrespecting anyone, including the programmers. (I admit "respect" is something I wouldn't apply to software, any more than I would "respect" a pen or a hammer; if you thought I was "disrespectful" to Bootstrap Studio itself, well, I have no idea how that would work.) That responders here seem so edgy and immediately dive off the deep end into a pool of anger when anyone suggests Bootstrap Studio might not fulfill all the promises made on the advertising sheets/pages suggests to me folks here may be way too highly invested in the product to rationally discuss any failings it may appear to have from someone who paid for a year's upgrades and received little perceived value. I sincerely apologize for wasting all of our time...I suppose, having been reading this forum for many months now any time I had a question only to consistently discover I should consider the problem a feature and code around it, I should have known better what to expect. My bad.

I'm done with this now, and I thank the respondents for confirming my initial decision. Please feel free to have the last word...or just continue to berate me if it makes you feel better. I stopped playing in flame wars back in the 1980's, not enough life left to waste engaging in them now.

Whatever buddy, just go already. If you haven't found a reason to stay after a year, having never bothered to ask why about anything at all, then you are obviously not looking for one now. Just move on and let it go at that.

then end up rewriting/reworking practically everything using external code fragments until nothing from Bootstrap Studio remains anyway.

You admit you've created a grand total of ONE WEBSITE with BSS, so just how much effort do you expect any of us to expend trying to convince you to stick with a program you hardly use (especially since you claim you've had to discard everything BSS studio creates?) If you find it faster and easier to grab code fragments from the web, then you'd probably be happier with a program like Visual Studio or Atom.

a quick gallery of four photos, and even that I had to rip unnecessary code from once it was published

Would you care to post your original BSS "gallery of four photos?" I'd love to see the unnecessary code you claim you had to remove?

Since one cannot add non-Google fonts from the UI (not user fonts, not even a generic family name like “Times” or “serif”

Not true. Just type the name of any web-standard font (eg. impact) into the Font Family box in the Look & Feel panel and you will see it change. No Google fonts needed. Though I don't understand your prejudice towards Google fonts. Just what super secret data are you afraid they're going to glean from users on your website? Google fonts are pretty much ubiquitous on the web now.

Frankly, it sounds to me like you either don't understand how to build websites, or you really haven't taken the time to learn BSS. I've built 20+ page, fully responsive websites with slideshows, galleries, videos, contact forms, downloadable files and loads of content in just a few days without ever having to go to the web for code snippets or Bootstrap resources (example... heartandsoulcenter.com took me about five days, soup to nuts.)

Wow, you guys are really harsh. What a great way to impress people and retain a CUSTOMER. Yes, CharlieSummers is a BootStrapStudio Customer. Is he complaining about the product? Yep. BTW, he's allowed to...he paid for the product and if it's not performing to the level he expected he has the right to give his opinion.

After watching the quick "how to" videos promoting BSS4 I gave it a try. It's been about two weeks to get a simple website framework up and running from one of supplied templates. It's simple to get a quick prototype up; harder to get a polished webpage that actually looks right on all screen sizes.

You guys raggin' on Charlie must have missed the question I posted requesting help. It went unanswered and I eventually answered it myself. I posted a second question, and it too is sitting. Crickets.

There doesn't appear to be a comprehensive User Guide. Video lessons are great, but I'd prefer to see and actually read documentation. Doing google searches to see how other people have done stuff is not "help".

OK..flame away.

No need to flame.

Look, the guy has basically never posted a thing, or interacted in any way with the community here. In his first and only post he trashes the program, making claims that simply aren't true, and then expects people who don't even know him to "convince him" to renew? Maybe he should try contacting the developers with his gripes, since they're the ones with a vested interest in not losing his business. I couldn't care less if he doesn't renew.

People who ask for help here nicely usually get it, unless it's something very unusual. I didn't see your post from two weeks ago about the carousel indicators, but I can tell you now that they are created using a data URI. The SVG data is pulled from an online URL and the indicators are rendered along with the page. I'm not sure why Bootstrap does it this way, but here is the info you need for changing the colors... https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49391266/change-bootstrap-4-carousel-control-colors

BSS is a fine program, but there is a learning curve, and it kind of presupposes that people using it have a basic knowledge of CSS and the Bootstrap framework. It's not the easiest program for someone who's never built a website before, or has no idea what CSS classes or stylesheets are. Such people would be better off with builders like Wix or Weebly, or doing an intro course in web design first.

Also, a lot of the things BSS does can be learned about simply be reading the official Bootstrap documentation. https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.1/getting-started/introduction/

Well said Printninja, I totally agree.

Ditto, although I do have to agree, and have pointed it out myself as well as have others that they have a huge lack of documentation (current). Most of what there is covers the basics, but a lot is missing from there and the videos are not kept up to date either (unless they added some in the past couple months). Really is getting to the point of needing a good documentation manual, but in their defense as well, I can see why it might be something to hold off on. A lot of things have changed just over the past year and every time things change they have to be rewritten.

Either way, there "is" documentation that will get you a good start and show you some of the more complex things as well such as the Linked Components which is one of it's best features in my opinion.

Anyways, I digress. It's a great app, I've built client production sites with it for over 2 years and it did a great job for them and still is. Maybe next time the OP has issues with something like software, this experience will prompt him to ask questions rather than point fingers. Just my 20 Cents (inflation you know!) :P

@Printninja

People who ask for help here nicely usually get it, unless it’s something very unusual.

Usually, when someone has reached the point of posting on a forum for "help", they've exhausted all the "normal" avenues; Looking through the provided Help, doing searches on Stackoverflow, doing generic Google searches. I would guess that most, if they're at all like me, have reached a certain level of frustration. I get the "learning curve" with a new product thing. When I take an hour to figure out something new, I chalk it up to learning. When something simple take 4-8 hours, I get aggravated. When it takes longer than that, I've reach the WTF point. With a new product or tool, you don't know what you don't know. You sometimes can't ask the right question because you simply don't know the "correct" way to phrase it.

The docs link you provided for BS4 is great if you want to roll your own webpage from scratch. It doesn't really address the issues with lack of BSS documentation.

BSS is a fine program, but there is a learning curve, and it kind of presupposes that people using it have a basic knowledge of CSS and the Bootstrap framework"

I'm going to call BSS on this (humor). Agreed, BSS is great for putting together simple pages. For me it seems to lack the functionality to do what I would consider some basic things a webpage should support from within the BSS UI. Sure, I could probably "export" the webpage created by BSS and then go in and manually edit places in the HTML that the UI does not supply support for, but then what's the point of BSS?

For me it seems to lack the functionality to do what I would consider some basic things a webpage should support from within the BSS UI.

I'm curious as to what you think these things are? Could you give me an example?

I have slogged my way through learning many, many programs over the years, and the reality is, few of them have perfect "soup to nuts" documentation. Bigger companies like Adobe can afford to have a dozen people work for months on updating the docs every time they do a new release. Most small companies have a handful of people (or sometimes only one) doing everything from coding to debugging to sales and support. To compound the issue, when the people writing the documentation are the ones who actually created the program, sometimes it's hard for them to "step outside themselves" and imagine what it's like being a beginner who has never seen the software before.

In the case of website builders, knowing how to build a website by hand writing code makes using any builder infinitely easier. There's a huge difference between seeing terms like "display block" when you know what that actually does in CSS, vs never having heard of CSS or the display rule. The first time I used a website builder (Website Realizer) I was basically lost. It took me weeks to grasp things like "head" and "body" because I never bothered to learn HTML and CSS. When I started using BSS, it was ten years later, and I could basically code a site by hand, so the program made sense very quickly. I barely had to refer to the documentation.

The good thing is, the web is built on standards, and those standards are very well documented. Learning them, IMO, should precede trying to build sites with any builder, because it always make any task easier when you understand the underlying mechanics.

If someone wants to learn BSS (or any "visual" builder) without learning how websites work (code), that's their choice, but they are going to encounter many more speed bumps along the way. Dozens of companies have tried to create software to make building websites "simple" for non-coders, but they always reach a point of diminishing returns, a trade-off between ease of use, sacrificing complex features, and producing semantic code that crawlers can understand. Adobe Muse came close to building a purely "visual" builder for non-coders, and eventually had to shut the program down because the code it produced was so abysmally bad it was like it was shitting all over the internet.

BSS is practically an anomaly in the world of website builders. It produces clean, semantic code while giving the user a large variety of easy-to-use visual tools. Is it perfect? No. I hate that it allows inline styling. I don't like that it has locked classes (though I understand the reason.) There are some things that you cannot do through the program's UI which seem strangely restrictive (no borders, text-shadows, CSS transitions and animations) but that's probably because they're not part of the stock Bootstrap framework. Personally, I'd much rather see a tool for setting border properties than hue, saturation and sepia (which I'm sure I'll never use.)

But so far, I've yet to have to convert a single object to HTML. Everything I've needed to do could be done by using the visual tools, or writing a little CSS. And I've RARELY had to refer to the documentation. What's more, I've made a number of UI suggestions that the devs incorporated into new releases, which I consider amazing. You'd rarely get that sort of interactivity from a large company.

Overall, having used a half-dozen different website builders, I think BSS is BY FAR one of the best pieces of software I've ever come across.

For me it seems to lack the functionality to do what I would consider some basic things a webpage should support from within the BSS UI.

I'm curious as to what you think these things are? Could you give me an example?

I have slogged my way through learning many, many programs over the years, and the reality is, few of them have perfect "soup to nuts" documentation. Bigger companies can afford to have a dozen people work for months on updating the docs every time they do a new release. Most small companies have a handful of people (or sometimes only one) doing everything from coding to debugging to sales and support. To compound the issue, when the people writing the documentation are the ones who actually created the program, sometimes it's hard for them to "step outside themselves" and imagine what it's like being a beginner who has never seen the software before.

In the case of website builders, knowing how to build a website by hand writing code makes using any builder infinitely easier. There's a huge difference between seeing terms like "display block" when you know what that actually does in CSS, vs never having heard of CSS or the display rule. The first time I used a website builder (Website Realizer) I was basically lost. It took me weeks to grasp things like "head" and "body" because I never bothered to learn HTML and CSS. When I started using BSS, it was ten years later, and I could basically code a site by hand, so the program made sense very quickly. I barely had to refer to the documentation.

The good thing is, the web is built on standards, and those standards are very well documented. Learning them, IMO, should precede trying to build sites with any builder, because it always make any task easier when you understand the underlying mechanics.

If someone wants to learn BSS (or any "visual" builder) without learning how websites work (code), that's their choice, but they are going to encounter many more speed bumps along the way. Dozens of companies have tried to create software to make building websites "simple" for non-coders, but they always reach a point of diminishing returns, a trade-off between ease of use, sacrificing complex features, and producing semantic code that crawlers can understand. Adobe Muse came close to building a purely "visual" builder for non-coders, and eventually had to shut the program down because the code it produced was so abysmally bad it was like it was shitting all over the internet.

BSS is practically an anomaly in the world of website builders. It produces clean, semantic code while giving the user a large variety of easy-to-use visual tools. Is it perfect? No. I hate that it allows inline styling. I don't like that it has locked classes (though I understand the reason.) There are some things that you cannot do through the program's UI which seem strangely restrictive (no borders, text-shadows, CSS transitions and animations) but that's probably because they're not part of the stock Bootstrap framework. Personally, I'd much rather see a tool for setting border properties than hue, saturation and sepia (which I'm sure I'll never use.)

But so far, I've yet to have to convert a single object to HTML. Everything I've needed to do could be done by using the visual tools, or writing a little CSS. And I've RARELY had to refer to the documentation. What's more, I've made a number of UI suggestions that the devs incorporated into new releases, which I consider amazing. You'd rarely get that sort of interactivity from a large company.

Overall, having used a half-dozen different website builders, I think BSS is BY FAR one of the best pieces of software I've ever come across.

I’m curious as to what you think these things are? Could you give me an example?

Sure in the thread I started here… https://bootstrapstudio.io/forums/topic/form-methodpost-action/

The code at the above forum link is working HTML code. With the URLs and some input fields modified for privacy. The code has been functioning since 2000, when I first included it in a webpage.

I have tried using the Form Component with a button defined as a type Submit. All the “hidden” fields are defined in the form prefaced with “type hidden”.

When the Submit button is pressed, the url in the action is visited and replies that there is no “vendor_id” field supplied.

I took the hidden attributes out of the form body and placed them in a Hidden Input Component in the form. Thinking that would work.

When the Submit button is pressed, the url in the action is visited and replies that there is no “vendor_id” field supplied. This field is clearly defined in both implementations.

So without documentation, it’s kind of hard to determine why the BSS generated code does not work. One would expect that if a UI component were used that it should function without issues. Obviously, there is a setting, or a toggle, or some field the UI that needs something for this to work. The submit actually goes to the webpage as defined in the “action” field, but the BSS code fails to send the hidden input fields.

I should point out that the “Contact Us” template form that is provided by BSS also does nothing when the submit button is pressed, so maybe it’s the same problem. Again, without documentation, it’s kid of difficult to know where to start looking to resolve the issue.

I hate to point out the obvious again, but the way the BSS product is marketed is as a “drag and drop”..with the ability to easily modify CSS IF you want to. One shouldn’t need to dig into the HTML or CSS the UI creates to make things work. You should be able to work entirely within the BSS UI. I should mention that even if you import working HTML code to try to make things work, you can’t edit what you import..or so I thought. I figured that since you could not access the attributes of the Custom Code you were not allowed to make changes. I finally realized you could edit it in another pane..just not in the Attributes pane. Documentation would have pointed this out.

I imported my working HTML code as a page and it gets added to the project as Custom Code. Running it in preview mode works..just like the code has for the last 19 years.

I can make a hack or work-around to fix the issue, but what I would REALLY like is to work within the BSS UI.

The good thing is, the web is built on standards, and those standards are very well documented. Learning them, IMO, should precede trying to build sites with any builder, because it always make any task easier when you understand the underlying mechanics.

Right. The trouble is that the entire reasoning behind my purchase of BSS was to NOT have to learn all the ins and outs of HTML and CSS. I’ve already done websites from scratch using HTML. I would prefer to do other types of programming.

But so far, I’ve yet to have to convert a single object to HTML. Everything I’ve needed to do could be done by using the visual tools, or writing a little CSS.

Maybe your websites have been of a more generic nature..IDK. Though I don’t consider a simple form post with hidden input out of the ordinary or complex, the BSS UI does not appear to handle this in a reasonable or straightforward way.

And I’ve RARELY had to refer to the documentation.

Ah. What documentation would that be again, exactly? ;-). And, FWIW, I do think BSS is a very good tool. I just wish there were a little more documentation or examples for us "noobs".

If you'll look over your own thread again, I left a post saying that Forms were the one thing I don't use in BSS. In that regard I can't disagree with you about the program being deficient, because I've never even tried to use the feature. In my experience, most website building software doesn't offer really comprehensive form support, so for (I think) the $100 a year I spend on Jotforms, I get hundreds of features and tools, total security, and I can easily keep track of how my client's websites are performing in terms of form submissions.

Nor have I ever tried importing HTML, though looking over the tutorials, it does appear to explain how you can edit the imported code.

If you've been at this for 19 years, than I should think you'd understand why there will never be a 100% drag-n-drop builder that can do everything as completely as coding by hand. I've never used a website builder that didn't necessitate writing some custom code at one time or another.

I believe we should stop this thread here as lbc has posted the above also on a separate thread which makes more sense to answer there. Save me from having to read/see the same posts in multiple places lol.

If you’ll look over your own thread again, I left a post saying that Forms were the one thing I don’t use in BSS.

Right. In the other thread, I was requesting help in figuring out how to integrate a working form into the BSS UI.

Nor have I ever tried importing HTML, though looking over the tutorials, it does appear to explain how you can edit the imported code.

I really hate to belabor this point. Tutorials are not documentation. You cannot look at the table of contents or the index of a “tutorial”. I don’t have time to sit through a tutorial when what I need could be easily searched for in print documentation in a couple seconds. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes documentation.

If you’ve been at this for 19 years, than I should think you’d understand why there will never be a 100% drag-n-drop builder that can do everything as completely as coding by hand. I’ve never used a website builder that didn’t necessitate writing some custom code at one time or another.

Yes, I’ve been tortured by HTML for 19 years..coding in other languages a lot longer..argh..has it really been 43 years..now you’ve made me feel really old..I think I'll go take a nap..LOL.

I fully understand the necessity of creating work-arounds when a development tool has areas that are incomplete.

Funny thing is, I don’t think we’re in disagreement on how well BSS can quickly make nice looking webpages.

Hey. You and Jo and JohnZeman have fun here. When you succeed in running off everyone else that has a contrary opinion, you can all sit around and tell yourselves how great BSS is. Hasta.

Was going to ask you if you tried the Helpful Tips & Tricks section to see what people added, but it looks like it's been either unstickied or gone, not sure which. That's sad because I went through the main tutorial video and mapped out the sections of it there so that people could go directly to the part they needed help with. Sorry for that, and I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, I hope you don't think that, I agree 100% that this app needs documentation, and actually when Gabriel came in we were led to believe that's what she would be doing, but ... it's been quite some time and I've not seen any happen other than a few little updates to the site pages to add a little few extra things to the current tutorials. It's still old videos, it's still very very incomplete, and they are more than aware of it as I've brought it up and so have others periodically over the past couple years.

Not much more I can tell you on it other than I've stopped holding my breath waiting on it. Shame really, so many users could benefit from it, so many forum people like myself and quite a few others that have answered the same questions many times because they weren't in any tutorials or manuals would be able to stop typing the same things over and over. This forum is not very conducive to good organization so things get lost in the shuffle, and you really can't sit and pin every post people make that is helpful etc.

I don't know what to say. I found the instructions on importing and editing HTML in about 5 seconds by clicking on the HTML heading on the tutorials page. I don't find this program especially hard to figure out without documentation, and if HTML has been torturing a person for 19 YEARS it might be time to consider doing something else for a living besides building websites. Just my opinion.