[jenbarnwell]

We have done both, and they both have their advantages, I definitely say on site though. The magic is there, Disney literally takes care of everything and if you stay off site you cannot get the dining plan. When we go we do a week on site and a week off site because we like them both and we have stayed at the same rental house for the past five years. It is amazing and the people who own it have been amazingly kind!

[zoomaster]

I agree with it both wa ys on and off. It depends as to how much other stuff we are doing off site as to weather we would stay on site or off site.. Such as this spring of 2010 we will be staying off site for Easter week because we have a Westgate timeshare there that we are using (well unless we transfer that week to the Smokies). IF all you are doing is WDW and have no car because you have flown there well on site makes all the sense. But if you drove and for half of the vacation you are doing other thing beside Disney I would look at off site locations.
Although I know that when it comes to vacation time I am usually just so happy to be away from work and gone from home that the rest is all a bonus anyway..

[Tinker Mel]

Not sure if this is helpful at this point, but I would definitely recommend on-site. We always stayed off-site for years, assuming the cost savings of the off-site room were enough of an incentive to outweigh the convenience that could be gained by staying on-site. Then we stayed on-site one time, and have never looked back. No more dealing with parking (or parking fees), no more trams, no more waiting for monorails back to the transportation & ticket center with a bunch of hot, sweaty, tired people at park closing when all you want to do is crash. I cannot recommend on-site strongly enough! But my kids aren't as old as yours, so definitely take that into account. Have you looked into the All Star Music family suites?