This study compared the use of two developmental alternatives: a Web Editor (WE) in combination with a customized template/shell (Teaching Not Teaching, T-N-T) and a WE only, for development of a Web-based lesson by pre-service teachers. Six hypotheses were tested to find whether the WE and T-N-T alternative was more efficient, effective, and appealing than the WE only development alternative. The efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal of developing a Web-based lesson was examined using these variables: lesson creation time; perceived effort; inclusion of six specified instructional components; functionality of six specified technical components; teacher appeal; and likelihood of intended future use (dependent variables) and the lessons development alternatives WE and T-N-T or WE only (independent variable). A quasi-experimental design and t-test analyses were employed. Pre-service teachers (N=103) were assigned to one of the two development alternatives. Instruments included researcher-developed evaluations, self-report tools and the Computer Attitude Scale. Dependent variables investigated in this study included: lesson creation time; perceived effort; inclusion of six specified instructional components; functionality of six technical components; teacher appeal; and rate of future use. Statistical analysis of six hypotheses conformed that developing Web-based lessons using WE and T-N-T was more effective than using WE only. The analysis also revealed that neither developmental alternative was superior in terms of efficiency or appeal. (Author)