I would like to see it go even further and specify what BSS will NOT do, and what this means -- like "custom code blocks" can NOT be directly incorporated into the internal working file for the program --- or something like that -- however it's best explained -- no direct linking to elements within the .bsdesign file. Perhaps even going a little bit further as a preamble "all website "builder" programs incorporate the use of proprietary working files within which all elements can be linked. This is how BSS operates, using a .bsdesign file" -- however more knowledgeable people can better explain things to a web newbie.
That's exactly what I wrote in my reworded blurb.
Listing every single thing a program cannot do would be impractical, and completely goes against basic marketing practices. Especially since most software companies are constantly adding new features to their software. You don't want to advertise what a product cannot do, you want to advertise what it CAN do.
Particularly when it comes to the industry of websites, there are thousands of features you could advertise a website builder as NOT being able to do. Bootstrap Studio doesn't support blogs, or e-commerce, or built-in uploading of exported code to web servers, and its built in animation tools are fairly limited, but down the road they may add or improve some of these things.
So while it's not exactly honorable, "lying by omission" is how all marketing works. Wix, for example, is incredibly guilty of this. People are often shocked to find out after spending considerable money, and hundreds of hours building a website in Wix, that it is not a truly responsive site, and they cannot export the code. Basically Wix "rents" its websites to its users. The customer never really owns it (which I find positively disgusting.) But if they advertised up front that their builder doesn't create responsive sites, and that they don't allow code to be exported, they'd instantly lose millions of potential clients.
Don't worry, we're both coming from the same place: we're both VERY supportive of BSS, and I frequently wonder if so many of the "repeated" questions aren't just coming from trolls, and I know what I would like to do to them ;-D
But some questions can legitimately come from web newbies, or just people who "for some reason" haven't done the very simple basics of searching out product information, but as Martin has done such a very good job of reminding us recently, we don't need to "sink to their level" by being "curt" or "rude" or whatever. As I know you must, I too read from a number of different forums, and as you so rightly point out some things like "proprietary internal design files" (whether they be from Wix or whatever) don't get explained upfront -- but despite the implications, the inherent limitations, of such things being rarely explained to end users "respected third party reviewers" often rate these builders as being the best or near to the best (see, for example ). Some might know, for example, that when they're using Mobirise they're "using Bootstrap", but they are totally confounded if you say, "well, yeah ..... sorta, but really more a subset of it, a subset chosen by the program developer, to keep things easy for him, but you can't do some things that you can do with plain vanilla Bootstrap". So, some things I think do need to be explained and therein lies the difficulty "where's the happy medium?" It's explained, as it should be, that BSS is "a builder of static sites". I don't think it needs to be to explained, in the upfront adverts, that it's not suitable for ecommerce or blogs, and other things requiring database connection -- that can be done in the forums -- and I do believe if someone is interested in buying a product it's incumbent on them to read the forums before making the purchase. I don't think the product's advertising needs to engage in "Listing every single thing a program cannot do", just move a little bit closer to a happy medium, "a little bit of education", something that BSS does well imho -- Lord knows, the other programs could do better there.
Also, most programs (eg. Pinegrow) allow you to download a trial version of their software, which should be all one needs to decide whether or not to purchase. I think Pinegrow's trial is fully functional, but rather short (7 days.) 14 days is more typical.
BSS has gone the route of creating a browser demo version of their software, which is great in one sense because you can try it immediately for whatever length of time you want, but it has way too many features disabled (like all the importing tools.) I think they'd be better off creating a time-limited trial version for prospective customers.
Wow, so much feedback. Awesome!
I am progressing the way Jo advised. This is how I am progressing the situation (also not to ask for refund and lose later updates and features):
(1) Use Pinegrow to edit and manage my existing website (2) Use BSS for new sites and pages.
The setback in having a proprietary assetized project folder is that the project folder and it parameters will become useless when the developer of this software decide to fold. Yep, risk management is what i am talking about. Remember, the intention procuring such a software is for use in the organization to make delivery effective and fast. Businesses and processes evolve rapidly and we in IT need to be responsive. The BSS should provide a fully functional trial version of the software just like Scriptcase and Coffecup. Listing out every thing a program cannot do is impossible i agree totally but providing a "less functional" trial version and then purchasing it only to find that the very feature they omitted in the trial version is the one that does not work is not good (sorry for using the word "scamming", truly unprofessional of me). I would suggest that BSS provide a fully function trial version and also a documentation/tutorial on how to import an existing project in such a way that BSS features can be fully realised. That way, a newbie or starter will know that the import function has limitation and there is another way of achieving the same.
Anyway, thank you all for the feedback. Stay safe, COVID is here to stay.
You can NOT be serious!!!!!
Wassamatter?! Didn't think you'd run across anyone with extensive experience of the "Wonder Products" you cite as the epitome of the type of software you dream of??!! (Although I don't have experience with Scriptcase -- but it's not a suitable comparison for evaluating BSS anyway) But I purchased the "lifetime version" of CoffeeCup back in the '90s -- "lifetime" that is, until they "lost" their original documentation, changed their licence agreement, and complained, when people complained they could no longer get upgrades "...but that was so long ago! You can't expect us to acknowledge that!" -- There are some choice complaints -- from others -- on YouTube about it all. In fact I own all the CoffeeCup products --- I had so much hope for it -- own all bar the current version of Site Designer (talk about "proprietary internal file types lacking the ability to import other files" -- they almost all fail this test) -- I don't trust them not to orphan it -- like they've orphaned everything else -- check the so-called "Manuals" -- so much development promised, none of it delivered. THEY wouldn't let you make the complaints in the forums like you've done here. They called time on anyone making complaints about their failure to maintain their other products, and banned anyone who complained again. Questionable business practices? I've been subjected to a lot of it.
But a time limited trial of the product? Could be an idea. But imho BSS do a pretty good job of supporting the product for what it is, and it was never meant to serve back-end functions, isn't labelled or promoted as being able to do so -- that's repeated MULTIPLE times in the forums -- so it shouldn't be criticised for not being able to do so.
Just copy and paste what TeschToy said [here] . . . CoffeeCup's Site Designer also did not allow any imports, none. At least with BSS you get the ability to pull in your CSS, JS and Images and only have to restructure/recreate the HTML pages with all the CSS at your fingertips to insert. It's not as bad as starting totally from scratch which Site Designer did/does and very very bad code I might add.
End rant, either way, same results. Glad to hear you've found a way to utilize BSS while moving forward. Good Luck and enjoy!
TEMPLATES -- THIRD PARTY
I can understand the "feeling" that you might have "wasted" money purchasing a gee-whiz template and then been unable to import it into your website development program, but where's the "evidence" that the template is successful at bringing about the changes in visitor impressions / behavior that it was purchased in hopes of bringing about -- ALWAYS measure the "performance" of your design efforts. I'm gobsmacked when I see all these templates being sold (look at all those from Mobirise!) without a single scrap of evidence that they've been successful for anybody else, let alone your own visitors.
Speaking of testing your site's performance, has anybody checked out the free SEO course going now? (from "a well known third party")_
Further to Jo's comment, see here
What's wrong with you people? Emotional or COVID stress?? All I said was "The BSS should provide a fully functional trial version of the software just like Scriptcase and Coffecup." This is with regards to providing full featured trail versions. I didnt know i would be meeting such emotional and fanatic group people in this forum. All the more justifies throwing this product in the tubes and writing a full disaster review regarding the type people using the product.
Sigh! Grow up!
I imported my whole site (rather a small one) in pieces as stated in the tutorial. The problem each page got listed as “customer code”. The stage canvas (i think) showed the index page. I could do any editing by clicking on the component in the page. I had drill through the entire code and look for lines. This is horrible! I could have done a better job using the web developer option in the browsers. Sigh!!
Like someone here pointed out in another post, it looks like a waste of money. Not a big amount but still a waste. Got the feeling i got scammed.
Umm, that is your oiriginal post, ... who's telling who to grow up here? You were the one complaining about exactly what we're talking about... where did you get lost in the conversation?
You just zero in on the word "scammed" and left out the real issue i raised. That is where you need to grow up. If a starving man complains, would you zero in on the words he uttered or would you focus on his starvation issue? We are taught to focus on the underlying issue and render the help needed instead on focusing on specific words that may arise due to frustration and create another wasteful issue. If we could not do that, we were also taught to shut up and learn. Have you tried to help me how i can get around the issue i had? No sir, you had pick the word "scam" and bicker about it. That is why you need to grow up.
I had enough of this.
@murugappan If you're cranky at me for calling you out on your using CoffeeCup as an example of "good business practice", being in ignorance of the many many times CC has failed its customers, then you have my apologies - I just found it hard to believe you had so little experience of a company you wish to have others copy. I think if you're going to use other companies as good examples then such comparisons should be "fair" and accurate.
In fact, I'm quite happy using CC as an example of business practice to follow. You see, as a company, they seem to have had some pangs of conscience -- many of its users paid hundreds of dollars more for the software they're now "virtually giving away". Take a case in point, their Bootstrap Builder -- originally selling for $129 (I got a special deal, buying it on the suggestion of the company CEO -- for what good that ever was, as I was moving on from another product), now only $29 -- it's an orphaned product -- NO developments or new features for well over 2 years. I've given you precise information on how the Company's current flagship product doesn't support importing templates. But for the same $29 you can get the standard version of BSS WITH full upgrades for 12 months -- and going by its history you can be sure there will be positive developments in BSS. SO, if you're suggesting we should follow the CC example, pay the $29 and you'll get a fully functioning and highly competent website development program, with 12 months upgrades, but which is yours to use forever -- so I'm not really using CC as an example of practice, just operating from a similar playing level, on your recommendation. That's a level-headed, unemotional approach.
Again another misunderstanding. I am not talking about the competency and quality of the features of CC. I am merely stating that BSS should provide a full featured trial version and not block out any of it features like the trial versions of Scriptcase, Bluementals etc. That way, when i download the trial version i will get to understand what it can do using the tutorials and then realise its limitation. In the current state, the trial version did not allow me to try out the import feature and I had to buy a version to discover. Like i said, the money is not the issue, it the inability to verify the feature that makes it an issue.
Anyway, i want to put this behind and move forward. Thank you for your advice.
Some people have no manners whatsoever I guess. You come here calling people names and trashing the app, what did you expect from us? Are you so upset that we don't all fully agree with you that you revert to disrespect instead? No sir,I am the one done dealing with you from today on. Good luck getting help with that attitude. Have a great day.
@murugappan your first post under this title was May 7, 2020 at 8:19 am, complaining of being unable to import code from an existing site you had, and have since come back with statements suggesting you had experience with a number of different programs and that the only way you could have known whether or not you'd be able to incorporate that into a BSS design was through trying it out in a fully working copy of the program which you "had to" buy, instead of using a limited duration/times-of-use trial version program (CC/Bluementals). One of the people who tried to answer your question was "Jo", noted in the forums as a Valued Member.
Could you tell us, again, please why you "had to" buy the program to find this out?
Before coming to this program had you never used online forums before?
If, as is usually compulsory in some forums before they try to answer your questions, you had searched them for your topic of interest, for "import existing site" (similar results for "import template", "import existing code"), you would have found a response from Jo dated March 6, 2017 at 2:11 pm, with a salutory lesson, let's hope -- the only thing you "had to" do was read the forums -- so, if you've had enough of us, guess what? You see, while we might not think there's no longer any need for the program to improve, we don't think we were the victims of a "scam", and we feel offended when you try to tell us we're in error for not thinking so.
My apologies, to everyone, for taking so long to dig this out, a bit out of touch with my early "forensic training".
Just an added note that when I tried to open the browser version on my iPad, it states that it doesn't work on iPads (try it on your own tablets) and that you can download the app risk free with a 30 day money back guarantee. So ... with that said, that's about as good as a trial version as I can think of. Get your money back and call it good.
This is what PrintNinja wrote and i rest my case: [Quote] Printninja replied:
I do understand how someone could become frustrated after buying BSS and discovering they can't "import" a website and edit it like a site built in BSS, because on BSS's website there is an advertised feature that reads:
Import Existing Websites: If you have a website that you've developed previously, you can import it. Just drag and drop the HTML, CSS, JS files and images into Bootstrap Studio and they will be added to your project.
However, this particular blurb is listed under the larger heading of EDITING CODE, which I suppose the developers feel explains that anything you import will only be editable as code.
From a marketing perspective, I don't like this. (Sorry Martin) It definitely creates a "gray area" where a potential buyer could believe that they can bring an existing website (or a purchased template,) into BSS and start editing via the visual interface, as if it were a website built in BSS. An experienced web developer might understand what they mean, but a novice who's just learning to create sites would probably not make the distinction. Personally, I would reword the text on the BSS website to read: