WYSIWYG websites generally stand out like a sore thumb.Freeway is fantastic (and may be less obvious) if you’ve got your heart set on WYSIWYG.
RapidWeaver and Everweb are CMS systems. Like Wordpress or Drupal, but on your computer. You create your website and then use a premade style. I’ve seen a few users around here with websites from these two.
The only reason I recommend RapidWeaver over Everweb is because Everweb has a yearly license renewal, where RapidWeaver sticks with upgrade fees (paid for major upgrades, not yearly.) When given the choice, I prefer the major version upgrades model.
If you want a HTML editor that you can get down and dirty with, I use Chocolat because I’m becoming less and less of a fan of those all-in-one fullscreen apps like Coda (which I’ve used in the past)
You want old? I remember when Pagemill I don’t think in some respects it’s ever been surpassed, either.
If the design is specific to email HTML then it’s worth considering Mail Designer. There are enough quirks and special cases there to warrant an especialized tool. Especially since the support and way to handle HTML emails is far from standard.
I spent months building tools that compose HTML emails. I was able to replicate all that work in an afternoon in Mail Designer 2.
I’d give a thumbs up to Coda too. I’d also say if you really want a decent website that is going to work properly on all devices then learn a framework like Bootstap and hand code it. WYSIWYG editors are fine for quick and dirty stuff, but if you are creating a site for anything more than casual use then it should be done properly, in a responsive layout using the latest standards. WYSIWYG editors always create very messy code and from an optimisation perspective, the better the code, the easier it is to optimise, which will give you better ranking results in the long run.
Ranking being better because optimized code is highly debatable. I have seen countless one page sites ranking first with very poor design. Google is more interested in the content, the keywords, in other words the text, than the HTML tags …
The problem is that wysiwyg editors generally generate excessive tags (tag soup) which in turn makes it hard for search engines to distinguish what’s important on the page. Also the larger the file size of a page does have an impact on ranking as it slows down the page load speed. Search engines do not like bloated html.
If you take a look at the Google webmaster tools page speed tests you’ll see that page load speed is important, especially when dealing with mobile devices. If you’ve ever tried to complete all of the optimisations suggested by the Google webmaster tools on a site generated by a wysiwyg tool, you’ll find it very tricky.
Also html code should read in the same order within the source as you want it to read on the page. This makes it far easier for search engines to distinguish what content is most important and what is secondary. Creating syntactically correct html is something wysiwyg editors are very poor at.
As I say, if it’s a personal site then wysiwyg is fine, but if your business is going to rely on organic search traffic then you will either need a finely crafted site or amazing, compelling and unique content.
The Google tool mentioned is more for creating animation and interactive content. The demo video talks about how it replaces flash for banner ads and animation. That’s different than content driven sites.