Legend

Answered

css, 2 conflicting interests, and why I, You, and the Dw team get it wrong.

Forum|Forum|8 years ago
October 25, 2017
9 replies
14594 views

I could have posted this in 'that other' discussion, but this is not about 'splitting Dw up', more about 2 different types of user and why we will never 100% understand each other, but do need each other in one program.

First I would like to point out that I do not work for Adobe, do not take part in any decision making, and do not participate in Dw CAB or pre-release..

I read this article a few days ago, then looked at how the W3C specs are written, and took a really good look at this and other forums posts concerning web development. No I will not include web design because if you are writing any code then that is development -

https://alistapart.com/article/the-story-of-css-grid-from-its-creators

The passage in the above linked to article that got me thinking was -

"Peter Linss, then Co-Chair of the CSS Working Group, also suggested that they incorporate the concept of grid lines in the spec (instead of only talking about tracks). He believed including this familiar graphic design concept would make the spec more accessible to designers."

(It's about 2/3rds of the way down "The spec evolves" section)

The bit about making the spec more accessible to designers, really made me laugh, because if a designer can understand the specs for css grid layouts, then actually use those specs to produce a working rwd layout. without lots and lots of of trials and errors, they are a much better coder than I.

That is where I think the understanding of coders and the Dw team, regarding designers knowledge and requirements, even those who may like to code, is being miss understood, (and visa-versa).

The Principal Dw product manager, is also responsible for the Brackets project. This means that he is probably more of a coder than a designer, but like Peter Linss of the css working group thinking that the specs from css grid layouts makes the feature more accessible to designers, does it really?

This is no insult to the Principle Dw product manager, as I am just as guilty as he is of the following -

If you watch -

https://video.tv.adobe.com/v/19908t_876d7009-77fb-4a67-86bc-70475fddf88e/?autoplay=true

In the section about the roadmap, if you listen carefully you will hear an audience member ask the question, "Does Dw support Flexbox?". To which the answer is a simple, "Yes".

The answer should have been, "Yes, but only in code view", (Live view is irrelevant for this discussion).

Now why is the simple "Yes" wrong.

css is no longer the simple 260 properties it was in the 2.1 specs, but is now well over 700 properties, many of which like flexbox and css grid layouts, are not 'so simple' to understand, even for someone who has been reading specs and interpreting the meaning of them for years. For someone who does NOT know how to read and apply them, such as a designer who has no interest in keeping up with what is happening, beyond what is required of him/her for their work, simply needs more info, and I am not talking about telling them what the specs say, which is all that is currently provided.

They need visual info, or feedback of how the property will look and work, not after they have applied the property to their code, but before they apply it. Even coders learning how to apply many of these 'newer' css features, and then using them in their actual work, would I think appreciate such feedback, and that is to me what Dw is or should be about.

So why is Dw, me and you wrong?

Dw now simply assumes that everything is so easy when it comes to html, css js, and even php, without even looking at the terminology or the requirements of the modern web site or browser based app. It has stopped being about web development and more about the 'other' trends in web development, (the 'what 3rd party feature is missing' ones). After all who creates custom sites anymore, now that we have frameworks and cms's. Code hinting, mvc, object/function referencing, databases, etc. etc. are things of the past no one requires them or would use them, and even if you would you can still use code view, but just remember to turn linting, code completion, hinting and anything else you may require off, (and that's if it is included).

Nothing in Dw is provided for anyone not willing to work with frameworks and cms's. Designers and developers are at war trying to get their requirements included, and the coder has become a 'dirty word' in these and a number of other forums when it comes to Dw, and trying to get ideas across and accepted that are not based on css 2.1 is no longer allowed.

We have all decided that, 'It's never going to happen', 'no one is listening', or that it does not matter what we say, but maybe it's time for everyone to take a good look at Dw anyway. Time for the Dw PM's, and other Dw/Adobe staff to take part in discussions, and all 'camps' to stop looking at Dw as 'their personal program', thinking that it should be based on past or their personal requirements, and as a complete heresy, maybe the Dw team should actually look at what is required without thinking 'they know best, and dam the rest'.

More to come!!!

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Preran

Preran

Thank you for replying Preran, and I do realise other Adobe staff may read what I and other participants write especially in such discussions. The time you all take is very much appreciated.

I do not expect actual joining in of such discussions by anyone from Adobe, as that would be completely inappropriate. I can only speek for myself here, but what i do mean by participation is making clear to me and others, information that we/I get wrong, or that we/I clearly have no idea about, especially when that is also echoed by other participants.

As an example -

No one is clear just what type of user Dw is aiming at, as the statement we all see, but none of us can actually define is, "The designer who wishes to code".

Such a statement leaves the range of targeted user open to anything between, 'beginner', who has never even read any code, but would like to learn, to the designer who wishes to build his/her own browser based applications that would offer all and every possibility, both in devices used, the functionality included, and uses just about every feature that one would associate with a fully functional desktop program and device specific app, plus they may wish to do so as an individual or as part of a large team.

As you can imagine, the requirements of both types of user, (and everyone in between) one would consider as being completely different, but no one who is not Adobe staff knows where the Dw targeted user falls between those two types of user.

At the other end of the scale, when Adobe participation would be appreciated, would be some indication of further interest in the discussion from Adobe, not participation, but say a simple post saying, "please discuss further".

Thank you, Paula. The product team posted this info some time ago Message from the Dreamweaver Product team , and while I understand that this does not directly speak to the kinds of users, it is pretty much in line with what we have seen in DW updates so far and the direction it is headed. During my discussions with the team at MAX, I did not hear of anything that isn't already addressed in this post.

In my opinion, these improvements still stay true to the promise of helping designers that want to code while also accounting for developers that still want to use DW for some of their workflows, and other users that DW can help. The team gets feedback from a wide cross section of its users and our forums are just one mechanism towards this end. The team also looks at top-voted feature requests on https://dreamweaver.uservoice.com/ for any changes that may be required to their priorities. I do believe that they take all feedback seriously while maintaining focus on the roadmap. I will also share this discussion with them so that they can mull on the requests and concerns posted here.

B i r n o u

Legend

concerning the Al / OS last exchange... some times ago, I felt the same on a large number of exchange and especially when Al was answering, whether it's in response to one of my messages or to other people, and I thought to react... but time has past on, and I didn't do it... then I thought that I was alone on this perception.

I don't think that the term is 'insulting',

without wanting to offend you, or anyone else, that could feel to be concerned .... please do not take offense ... I feel in some remarks and the manner in which the answer are addressed to people a fairly condescending way.

maybe I'm wrong, and the language barrier is a big part of it, but that the first time that subscribers to a public forum, which I'm involved in, cause such embarrassment.

I think we are all here to exchange ideas and confront each other, to bring our differences, to compare uses by expressing wishes ... in some interventions, I have the impression that some answer explains that the others do not understand anything, and that only the one who answer can explain life to all.

again, my goal is not to attack anyone, but simply to inform of this feeling, certainly that many of us on this forum do not know native English, and that makes even more participation in these exchanges very unpleasant.

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u wrote
concerning the Al / OS last exchange... some times ago, I felt the same on a large number of exchange and especially when Al was answering, whether it's in response to one of my messages or to other people, and I thought to react... but time has past on, and I didn't do it... then I thought that I was alone on this perception.

What you are reading is two different ways of stating a view, and illustrates how different english is used in different countries and areas in those countries.

Os i know from having lived in the north west of the U/K, is very straight spoken, and many in his area of the u/k simply say what they think, without wrapping it up in phrases that can give hidden meanings.

AL, I don't know where he lives in the US, but he is writting in a different manner in which hidden meaning can be read into what he writes, depending on how one wishes to read it. Which means it can be read in two different ways.

I did think of 'locking' this discussion when i posted that it was now going nowhere, but i left it open as one or two posts that where not by Os and AL, still required answering. Now it is at the point in which most people who may have read the discussion and taken what was written seriously, will simply ignore everything written, except perhaps to see how far it will be allowed to go before someone does say, 'enough is enough' and locks it.

ALsp

Legend

Fabrication is fabrication Paula. I don't care where you come from. And I have NEVER heard anyone make the kind of ethnic profiling implication you just made in a very long time.

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

Can we call this didcussion finished?

All everyone is doing now is repeating previous posts, or saying, "no I don't, yes you do", and the discussion is going nowhere.

osgood_

Legend

These discusions always decsend into a chaotic mess which is to be expected given the wealth of different opinions. No one is ever going to convince a non-believer from either stance. This one has run its course l think.

B i r n o u

Legend

OS said

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea wrote
3) It was not so long ago that DW users like Paula and David Powers, Massimo Forti and others were writing custom DW Extensions and giving them away on their websites. I had a great little extension that self-populated form Select lists with all the countries or all the states & provinces I needed.

I'm not taking about those kinds of extensions, they can be useful along with other scripts which remove blank lines from the code etc. I see them as superficial helpers, not something that forces particular workflows or method down your neck or as in the case of extensions can lead to lethagy leading to stagnation in ones progress and knowledege.

(SORRY I don't know how to answer to a particular message without having to get the full text... and just part of it... so all the above was said By OS and Nacy... so below is my feedback)

I usually use snippet for such a purpose

B i r n o u

Legend

OFF TOPICS
Hello Paula, I've just had a Cabernet - Syrah for diner... woaw... purely semantic, stuffed with metadata of red fruits and undergrowth humus ...... accessible by everyone around the table and responsive to both glasses

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

This discussion has taken a right, whilst it was hoped it would take a step into bringing Dw and web development using any program into the future.

Yes I agree the removal of the extension manager was a terrible decision by Adobe, i also agree extensions can be helpful, but there are a number of areas in which Dw has terrible support, and extensions offer no support.

Just about everything in the html5 specs that has been added in the last 5 years has no support in Dw, and i have yet to see an extension that uses html5 semantic mark-up, or even uses srcset and/or picture. Then we come to what is wrongly known as css3, again some extensions use it, but as for creating css animations, grid layouts, shapes, and just about anything that is thought of as 'the way forward' by many professionals, they offer nothing. As for javascript api's, so that users can create browser based applications both Dw and extensions offer no help at all.

Extensions are not the way forward for most of the above items, coding is, and even thinking that Dw users could compete and earn a living in the next five years without those items being better supported is 'cloud cuckoo land'.

Even users of the 'quick site creation tool' are starting to question the time v return of creating sites, and unless Dw users stop thinking 'quick and easy' will help them to be competitive enough to stop the cheaper wordpress, site builder and bedroom coders taking their business, then they had better start re-training for another profession.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Leveraging DW with plugins/extensions is nothing new to any of us who have used the product for many years. But Adobe has dropped the ball by not updating developer APIs or documentation beyond Creative Suite 5x. And we all know, a LOT has changed since then.

Adobe Dreamweaver developer API for extension development | Adobe I/O

Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 & CS5.5 * Adobe Dreamweaver API Reference

I don't see why 3rd party extension developers can't fill the void. But for that to happen, DW must be plugin friendly again.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

Thats just it Nancy, for all the items i mentioned extensions cannot fill the void, except by adding minimal support for some of their extensions behaviours, and even then it would probably be limited to a few transform/transition effects and not full css animations.

Extensions cannot create css shapes code, cannot create css animations, cannot use html 5 semantics without making the extension follow some form of html 5 template, and most certainly will never be able to create and use the javascript api's as usable code from the html5 and w3c specs.

Added - Please remember that using the javascrip api's, it is now possible to do everything a dedicated program or mobile app can do, and in the browser. The web stopped being just about small buisness sites 5-6 years ago, and developers that moved over to writing device specific apps are now comming back to web development as it offers the possibility of using the same code for both fields now. It is no longer a question of either/or, but one of 'one size fits all'.

B i r n o u

Legend

Well, it is hard to take part in such a discussion. That is right that I know you all by your various interventions on the CAB, but I do not really know what are your cultures and your deep personality.

That sometimes makes the comprehension of the humor subversive or not, the self-mockery, or just the simple provocation, not easy to capture for those of us that are not native English spoken.

That often makes the deep bottom line sometimes difficult to interpret. Therefore, to make the difference between a direct way of speaking or a gratuitous aggression.

Well that said,

Having no visibility on the real directives necessary for the average users of DW, nor the orientations of the entrepreneurial strategies concerning the Creative Cloud's audience. It is difficult to position oneself on the good or bad choices, of the successive versions of DW.

I remark that we are all just express our own subjectivity, based on our own and personal business. I often read in this thread, "... developer, casual developer, designer (to interpret it by non-developer)... and so on.... ".

However, hey, one criteria that is not present is that whatever we consider ourselves in which case we are... One all have to support the company to which we are affiliate. For that, we have to render projects on time to satisfy our clients or partners. We have to render a service beyond their requirement. We have to preserve a value for money that is up to the market. We are often part of a team... and each member of this team generally does not have the same field of action, nor the same approach and vision of the web site construction than us... But, we all have to refer and use the same technologies by tools which at one point somehow DW is part. (at least for us on this forum)

Moreover, today, the notion of a website itself can be completely different. Depending on whether one are trying to present a newsletter, or building a one page site full of animation, parallax effects, transitions.... , or having a hard dynamic website 'à la papa' ('old fashion look and feel') completely PHP/SQL based, or a web application that meets innovative needs relying on 'modern' conception, or being distributed as a complete integrated mobile consultation...

We also must not forget that some of us will take into account the quality of a code, and being more demanding on that point. Unlike others that will not hesitate to copy / paste here and there sections of code (more or less questionable), taking into account only the final rendering being the emerged part of the site and which will make the final reference.

We should not forget that the structure is the first major and important point, and that the HTML code quality will arise a strong guarantee of durability, scalability, interpretability and so on.

Therefore, whatever the profiles that we do have, by using DW we should at least know and understand basics of robust and well-interpreted HTML, we also must be sensitive to the structure, to the DOM, and to a real content strategy.

In such a thinking, must DW be a simple text editor? a complete IDE? a base for receiving extensions?

Should DW be more designer oriented than developer, or vice versa, or have to answer as well to the one as to the other?

I think that only Adobe can position such answers, and, understand what the real needs of their users is. But, in any case, DW must be able to remain independent of any third technology, or addons. DW must be open to be usable with other crosscutting tools, being part of the Creative Cloud or not.

As far as I am concerned, I think that DW should in no way become a complete and autonomous tool. On the contrary, DW must propose tools and features that allows us to not rely, and depend, on any add-ons to produce content based on pure Mozdev and WhatWG standards (becoming later on w3c recommendations).

Having a real time editable rendering, having a drag drop components interface to build and reflect the content strategy, integrating in such a way most of the needed technologies is what DW propose since the Macromedia age to gain more pure designers users, and that is a great bridge. However, this should not exclude the minimum coding skills mentioned above. And DW must always be on the gap in terms of novelty and future recommendations

then for extra features (features above basic needs), should we use and rely on extensions or not?

The main question are, Does the use of extension is time saving for this project, does the extension really meets the goals expectations, does the extension cost remains financially acceptable, does the use of the extension offers real interoperability with the rest of the team or with their own skills.

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

Congratulations Birnou, i think you have the jist of discussions such as this, which with not having english as your first language is quite an achivement. Even us who use english as a first language can, and often do get the other persons intentions and/or meanings wrong, (myself and AL being a classic example, in a couple of posts above).

I would ask though what, if any, your conclussions are. As from your post I am not certain if like me you think extensions are good, but learning to code is better. Or if you think Dw itself should include some of the features that currently rely on extensions?

It also sounds as though you agree with Os, (and others, me for example ) in that Dw should also become a more professional web development tool.

B i r n o u

Legend

pziecina wrote
Congratulations Birnou, i think you have the jist of discussions such as this, which with not having english as your first language is quite an achivement. Even us who use english as a first language can, and often do get the other persons intentions and/or meanings wrong, (myself and AL being a classic example, in a couple of posts above).
I would ask though what, if any, your conclussions are. As from your post I am not certain if like me you think extensions are good, but learning to code is better. Or if you think Dw itself should include some of the features that currently rely on extensions?
It also sounds as though you agree with Os, (and others, me for example ) in that Dw should also become a more professional web development tool.

The problem is that Dreamweaver cannot be both. I can't prove it to you, but I'm pretty sure that Dreamweaver's typical user is not a coder. But be that as it may, Macromedia figured this out many years ago, but after a change in management (still prior to Adobe) they lost their way. The sweet spot was Dreamweaver + Homesite. Homesite in its day was a nearly perfect code editor. Dreamweaver, though far from perfect, was the best visual web editor on the market. Flash forward to today. Dreamweaver is still trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up, Homesite was killed, and now we have Brackets, which is simply not in the same league as Homesite or the better code editors of today.

I've really started to work in the earlier age with the tools proposed by Nick (Bradburry)... I mean HomeSite and TopStyle... just before Jeremy (Allaire) bought them... and quickly became included in Macromedia tool set...

some in CAB, always refers to the old CSS panel... ??? funny... that was the one under Allaire licence...

I remember that it was before the first time of Drumbeat,

That's true that it was an other time ?

and as Paula, I've starting to use DW, because most of my clients, partners, or teams that I was involved in, was finding this UI friendly and easy to use.... so that way we was able to share the same tool, either if I had set in DW the round trip code editor for HTML with HomeSite, and for CSS with TopStyle...

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

O/K, now we have no more posts concerning extensions, (hopefully now out of everyones system) here is that 'more to come' i hinted at in my original post.

css and html/javascript was thrown into turmoil 10 years ago, the cause of that turmoil was the iPhone, and with its introduction the mobile web was born. We however as web developers tried desperately to 'shoe horn' our old tried and tested methods of creating sites into the sites we created so they also catered for those mobile devices, with varying success, but we never did really come to terms with how to actually do it, and now just to make matters worse, we have a revolution happening at the other end of the scale, with 4k desktop monitors, smart tv's and 4k gaming consoles, (with built in browsers) becomming more and more common.

Large companys invented frameworks to make development 'easier', promoted the use of pre/post-processors and as a result a generation of new developers never bothered, or thought they did not need to think about the future, or what was happening outside of those 'helper' tools. Even those with very little design or coding knowledge could get into rwd, and many did so thinking that the framework was how thing were supposed to be, and if you mentioned css to them, they looked at you with a blank expression as pre/post-processor code was all they knew, (what is this thing called css).

Programs such as Dw, have now embraced the framework, and incorporated many of the features users of them require, but in doing so abandoned the user requirering a semi-visual environment, the coder, the future, and to a large extent anyone who does not buy into the one size fits all way of working, and the tools Dw provides. They have done this at the same time programs such as VS have moved such features and tools they now provide to individual extensions, with the reasons given including, 'not every user requires them or wants them anymore', and 'the original reasons for including them, no longer exists'.

SO -

We now have dedicated css layout modules, css that can be conditionally included using css, css features that no framework includes, css that enhance a sites end users experiance, across all devices, viewports and resolutions. Even html and accessibility has moved on from those early days, (of 10 years ago) and browsers are starting to 'ignore' badly written javascript.

The question all the above asks is, why has Dw become what it is and is it worth my or anyone elses time who does not fit into Dw's 'vision'?

I would say NO, but then again i develop in components, not sites. I would also say YES, if i did not know how to use the css layout modules, modern css, html5 or was not interested in accessibility. I would also say NO if i was developing database driven sites, but YES if i was happy using extensions for server-side code.

There is no definitive answer to the above question, as everyone is different, working in different environments from single self-employed users to small 2-5 person teams, and working with different sized budgets from a few hundred to budgets that make the Ps budget look like petty-cash.

B i r n o u

Legend

so what ?

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

There is no so what Birnou.

All the information is there, and what the reader wishes to think, (or not) is for them to decide. I decided to write everything in an obtuse manner, as we all read into something exactly what we wish to read into it.

My conclusions will not be yours, just as yours will not be someone elses.

osgood_

Legend

pziecina wrote
If you watch -
https://video.tv.adobe.com/v/19908t_876d7009-77fb-4a67-86bc-70475fddf88e/?autoplay=true

30mins in and all I saw was some 'charlie' faffing around with some 3rd party Bootstrap snippets and using jquery 1.11.3..........??????????? .............yawn.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

osgood_ wrote
30mins in and all I saw was some 'charlie' faffing around with some 3rd party Bootstrap snippets and using jquery 1.11.3..........??????????? .............yawn.

If you listened closely, approx 80% of the room was using Bootstrap in their workflow. The remaining 20% used Foundation or something else.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea wrote
If you listened closely, approx 80% of the room was using Bootstrap in their workflow. The remaining 20% used Foundation or something else.

That's just it Nancy, we are all caught up in what Dw has to offer, not what it should be able to do if that 'offering' is not what one wishes to use. Once a feature such as bootstrap is the only known possibility for the creation of rwd sites in Dw, then that is the one users will have to use, as they have no other choice.

We have all contributed in some way to what Dw has become, and even though we all want the same result in that Dw should be a forward looking program, none of the feedback unless it is what the Dw team wants to hear is even being thought about.

Lets just suppose that Dw offered 3 alternative methods for creating rwd sites -

Bootstrap, with all the features available to users that it currently has, (plus v4 incorporated as a choice).
A custom solution, say one that uses flexbox, with all additional components available via a menu selection just as bootstrap is.
A 'future' solution, such as one based on css grid layouts, but all components based entirerly on html and css.

Offering the above is not difficult, but would require more than 'plug and play' incorporation into Dw. It would however require a visual layout method for some of the properties, as i am the first to admit spec code is for coders not designers who wish to code. It also requires templates, (which is easy) and those templates must be well documented.

The big question is though, which would be the most popular in say 3 years time?

Note: flexbox is now in the request for implementation stage of w3c approval, the next stage is making it into a recommendation, and css grids is not far behind, (at the moment).

ps - i already know what you are going to say Al

ALsp

Legend

pziecina wrote
The Principal Dw product manager, is also responsible for the Brackets project. This means that he is probably more of a coder than a designer, but like Peter Linss of the css working group thinking that the specs from css grid layouts makes the feature more accessible to designers, does it really?
This is no insult to the Principle Dw product manager, as I am just as guilty as he is of the following -

The DW Product Manager is obviously a large part of the problem. The fact that he does not interact with customers, and people like you, on this forum, is telling. The fact that he is in charge of Brackets is a little frightening, as Brackets is not even close to tools like Visual Studio and Aptana. The video, as hard as it was to follow, finally casts some light on why Dreamweaver is floundering, and it's a real shame.

pziecinaAuthor

Legend

ALsp wrote
The DW Product Manager is obviously a large part of the problem. The fact that he does not interact with customers, and people like you, on this forum, is telling.

I am as much to blame as him, i will not take part in CAB or pre-release anymore, as both are in my opinion a complete and utter waste of time. Why should he and his team think that my time is less valuable than their time, and ignore anything and everything that i posted in those forums and think that is o/k. All both groups are any good for is logging bugs, and even that i have doubts about as one CAB member admitted recently that he knows nothing about code or web development, (how does one log bugs, if you do not know how it should work).

I am available for discussions through this forum, or via PM's and emails, but as i and others are ignored by them, obviously don't know anything about web development, and i in particular am obviously only a trouble maker, those possibilities are not going to happen either.

Still, is it worth someone worrying about, probably not.

osgood_

Legend

pziecina wrote
Why should he and his team think that my time is less valuable than their time, and ignore anything and everything that i posted in those forums

Because you're just a minion

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded