back seat: Conventional wisdom says that if you know anything about HTML, just do a "view source" in your web browser. If you see something that's merely disgustingly bad, it probably came out of DreamWeaver. If it's unbelievably horribly awful, most likely a Microsoft product. (Sadly, this has spawned a mini-industry to create so-called "HTML optimizers"--products that take the substandard output from pricey commercial products and regurgitate it in a less embarrassing form.)
I've often wondered why HTML editors even exist; it's not like HTML is complicated. The most difficult and time-consuming aspects of putting together a decent web site typically involve design and graphics work--two things HTML editors don't address. "Cookie-cutter templates" are OK, I guess, if you don't mind a "one size fits none" approach. Actually, I can see one advantage: HTML editors
might save some time when producing conceptual designs and mockups. My
hope is that all of these would at least produce
valid documents. (Sigh, whimper.)
I favor the "immersion" approach: go web surfing. Just do what you normally do, but start taking notes. Which sites work for you? Which ones don't? What do the "good" ones do right? What do the "bad" ones get wrong? This lets you develop your own "success criteria" for what constitutes a "good" site. You should do this regardless of whether you intend to build your own, or hire someone else to do the work. Step away from the computer, and sketch out on paper what you'd like to see.
Then, take a look at the free stuff. For example, see if
Nvu or
SeaMonkey's Composer will meet your needs.
Things every web author should read: