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

[pziecina]

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!!!

[pziecina]

Believe it or not Nancy and Os, your couple of posts regarding inDesign are probably more in line with what i hoped this discussion would cover, than any other posts.

As an example, when engineers ot technicians attend product training courses, they are always given at least one high quality hard backed book about the product and how it works, which includes what i have seen described as 3d images, (we call them cut-outs or exploded views). These books cost in the hundreds as they are custom and produced in small quantities.

In the training section of the site, we then try our best to not just to re-produce how those books look, (often using the inDesign files) but to enhance the experiance. This often includes hi-quality images, (if screen allows) and the use of css shapes and exclusions in order to flow text around parts of the images, (or should that be flow over parts of the image main elements contours).

The point is that what one may think of as only possible in printed books, (especially hi-quality ones) can now be done on the web, and the cost once one knows how is minimal. The new possibilities of the web are i think being ignored, and many of them are not generaly known about, (they hit the news for a short time then were forgotten). A number of them do require pollyfills to work across all devices, learning the css is possibly too time consuming for many, or if it is not the css itself the actual creation of the css properties requires help, (css custom shapes is an excellent example of 'help required).

Discussions on what help web developers require, would have been more appropriate in my opinion, and what is possible but not supported.

[Nancy OShea]

pziecina  wrote

The point is that what one may think of as only possible in printed books, (especially hi-quality ones) can now be done on the web, and the cost once one knows how is minimal.

OK.  So you're wishing for a new DW / ID hybrid that allows users to visually design print style layouts, shapes, cut-outs, etc...,  then exports to semantic HTML5 and responsive, prefixed CSS3 with polyfills.

I think Al is right.  That's going to take a while.

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

OK.  So you're wishing for a new DW / ID hybrid that allows users to visually design print style layouts, shapes, cut-outs, etc...,  then exports to semantic HTML5 and responsive, prefixed CSS3 with polyfills.

I think Al is right.  That's going to take a while.

NO certainly not, my point is that what i described is available in html5 and css NOW, there is no requirerment for a new hybrid program, all that is required is for Dw to incorporate very, very, simple helper features. Even some of the polyfill required were written by Adobe all those years ago, (well, about 6 actually, i do exaggerate sometimes ).

The possibilities of the web have left many developers far behind and still developing for the past, with the possibilities either ignored or not known about. In another thread i mentioned creating tutorials, (probably better described as brief write ups with live example page) and it was the possibilities of demos for 'newer' html5 and css that are little known about i wished that section to be also used for.

[B i r n o u]

Ola Paula, I hundred per cent agree with you.. you're so sharp and clear on that way... that is what I called in a previous message ".. or having a hard dynamic website 'à la papa' ('old fashion look and feel') completely PHP/SQL based ..."

<joke>Are you re-inveting aldus framemaker... euh... robohelp...???? did you know that it is still around... Adobe RoboHelp (2017 release)-For Personalized Content and fill the gap</joke>

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea   wrote

I honestly  got more value from  dissecting a few client-side extensions than I did from any of the books & tutorials I'd read up to that point.   I used extensions as much to help me become a better coder as I did to expedite project completion. 

We'll we all did that didn't we and soon realised 'hey I don't need this thing I thought was magic', it's only code and once I understand this code I can write my own code and expand upon this thing I have been using which wasnt quite right but I accepted it because I had no other option,  I could not code and didnt understand what this thing was doing, but it worked, I was happy, to a certain point.

If that's what you think, then you're basing your opinions on very old extensions. It's like trying to describe driving this year's Porsche when the last car you actually drove has a 3-speed manual on the column and wire spoke wheels.

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 knowledge.

Your opinions do not relate to our extensions, Osgood. I don't know why you have no interest on at least reporting on something real, instead of imagined. It's not constructive and it's sort of like the fake new of the web design industry.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

osgood_   wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea    wrote

I honestly  got more value from  dissecting a few client-side extensions than I did from any of the books & tutorials I'd read up to that point.   I used extensions as much to help me become a better coder as I did to expedite project completion. 

We'll we all did that didn't we and soon realised 'hey I don't need this thing I thought was magic', it's only code and once I understand this code I can write my own code and expand upon this thing I have been using which wasnt quite right but I accepted it because I had no other option,  I could not code and didnt understand what this thing was doing, but it worked, I was happy, to a certain point.

If that's what you think, then you're basing your opinions on very old extensions. It's like trying to describe driving this year's Porsche when the last car you actually drove has a 3-speed manual on the column and wire spoke wheels.

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 knowledge.

Your opinions do not relate to our extensions, Osgood. I don't know why you have no interest on at least reporting on something real, instead of imagined. It's not constructive and it's sort of like the fake new of the web design industry.

Very real. Why aren't you producing extensions for Sublime, Atom, Storm, VC Code etc - you know, all those editors that real developers use if you insist your products are being used by professionals?

I would have thought that would have been a good market for you to tap into unless of course a real developer wouldn't use such extensions.........

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

Very real. Why aren't you producing extensions for Sublime, Atom, Storm, VC Code etc - you know, all those editors that real developers use if you insist your products are being used by professionals?

I would have thought that would have been a good market for you to tap into unless of course a real developer wouldn't use such extensions.........

You are making no sense at all.

[osgood_]

I thought it was a reasonable question. I know you cant just shovel your current extentions into another editor but could you not diversify your coding talents and come up with a plugin or two for other editors, which might be useful for the professional that uses that type of editor and will find hard to resist.

It seems to me youre concerned with the downturn of DW of late and the path its taking so maybe it might be an idea  to stop putting all your eggs in one basket.

It seems to me if DW fails youre dust.

[B i r n o u]

perhaps I miss understand what you said OS, do you mean that AL shouldn't run on the same horse, or, do not put all his eggs in one basket

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

perhaps I miss understand what you said OS, do you mean that AL shouldn't run on the same horse, or, do not put all his eggs in one basket

You could use that expression - putting all your money on the same horse is rather short sighted.

I dont know what his issue is to be honest apart from having an inflated opinion of himself which he likes to regularly gloat about and in my opinion not really warranted.

If he doesnt like the path DW is taking  then do something about it, it seems like another company has been rather more positive. They dont come into the forum moaning and groaning, they just man up and do something about the situation.

[B i r n o u]

Hello Al, I wont argue on this, I just try to understand better the bottom line, but when you said

"...Nancy made the strongest and, in my opinion, most logical comparison, in talking about Photoshop and Illustrator plugins..."

well what are the software for photography out there, beside Photoshop I mean... well Photoshop is a big, very big, huge... vessels out there... and so when a paper magasine place it in cover the sale are double that when it is not...

what is Illustrator ?.... well more or less the same...

now back to DW... woaw... so much alternative used by the profession, that DW is far less , very less, the leader ship around it... I haven't your vision with all your thousand users... but during the speak, training, consulting, and code help,  I can say that I meet a lot of context and situation.... so much people talk about visual, coda, note pad++, sublime, webstorm, ultra edit (some of Aptana), Atom... and worth Adobe propose two editors in opposition to DW, Bracket, and Muse... so makes a lot...

all that to say, that we also have to take into account the market...

so I already saw one of your message in CAB, where you said that Adobe close itself the door to extension developer, and I agree with you...

perhaps that explain why wappler is in a such great position today... don't you think....

[ALsp]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

Hello Al, I wont argue on this, I just try to understand better the bottom line, but when you said

"...Nancy made the strongest and, in my opinion, most logical comparison, in talking about Photoshop and Illustrator plugins..."

well what are the software for photography out there, beside Photoshop I mean... well Photoshop is a big, very big, huge... vessels out there... and so when a paper magasine place it in cover the sale are double that when it is not...

what is Illustrator ?.... well more or less the same...

now back to DW... woaw... so much alternative used by the profession, that DW is far less , very less, the leader ship around it... I haven't your vision with all your thousand users... but during the speak, training, consulting, and code help,  I can say that I meet a lot of context and situation.... so much people talk about visual, coda, note pad++, sublime, webstorm, ultra edit (some of Aptana), Atom... and worth Adobe propose two editors in opposition to DW, Bracket, and Muse... so makes a lot...

all that to say, that we also have to take into account the market...

so I already saw one of your message in CAB, where you said that Adobe close itself the door to extension developer, and I agree with you...

perhaps that explain why wappler is in a such great position today... don't you think....

Yes and no. It could be a successful endeavor, but it also could be a wakeup call for Adobe. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

[B i r n o u]

well you adopt the british way... " wait and see "... when I use to leave in US, I loved the " Just do it "... 😜

[ALsp]

DMX Zone's team is not American, so...

An besides we didn't "do it"

[B i r n o u]

like what, nobody is perfect ...

[B i r n o u]

OS said

"... I think that is the issue. DW users are predominately 'part-time' website creators, so it's obvious they don't want to code, have no interest in code. My only confusion is why don't they use Muse, it seems a much better fit... "

I completly agree, and that was what I always think, that Muse was made for...

[pziecina]

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]

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. 

[pziecina]

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'.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

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.

Someone did take a right turn, or a wrong turn. But it certainly wasn't me. You're coming from a negative perspective, Paula, and that never does any good. There is little that cannot be accomplished with extensions, and I'm speaking of addressing those features you mentioned. But it can't happen overnight, and it can't happen quickly when the extension developer community has been systematically abandoned by Adobe -- whether intentionally or not.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from anymore. Let companies like PVII and DMX Zone flourish, with Adobe's full support, and even you might be pleasantly surprised at what will emerge.

[pziecina]

I'm not saying that extensions will not fill the gap at some time in the future, but as someone who has been using all the items i mentioned, and writting pollyfils when required for the last 6 years. I think i can say i certainly know as much as yourself about the specs, how to use them, and fixing any browser incompatibilities, (pollyfils for the api's alone was not a trivial js coding project).

Plus i don't think many Dw users can wait years for the gap to be filled, and i doubt if the Dw team even know there is a gap.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

I'm really not sure where you are coming from anymore. Let companies like PVII and DMX Zone flourish, with Adobe's full support, and even you might be pleasantly surprised at what will emerge.

I think where we are both going to always disagree AL, is that given the price of Dw, i think it should provide much, much more, but you think extension developers should provide what is missing, and quite reasonably make a profit from doing so, which lets be honest is the only reason we both work .

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

ALsp   wrote

I'm really not sure where you are coming from anymore. Let companies like PVII and DMX Zone flourish, with Adobe's full support, and even you might be pleasantly surprised at what will emerge.

I think where we are both going to always disagree AL, is that given the price of Dw, i think it should provide much, much more, but you think extension developers should provide what is missing, and quite reasonably make a profit from doing so, which lets be honest is the only reason we both work .

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you yourself have said you are not a typical Dreamweaver user. As for extensions, Nancy made the strongest and, in my opinion, most logical comparison, in talking about Photoshop and Illustrator plugins. There are, and have long been, toms of them. There is no way Adobe can pack up a Photoshop, Illustrator, or even a Dreamweaver version with everything a user will need. And Dreamweaver adds a few nuances... Simply adding code support for entire CSS or other specifications is clinical, very easy to do, and Adobe has no excuse for not getting it right. Adding tools currently served by extensions, such as menu builders, widgets, and page-layout systems is not so easy. Adobe has 2 choices:

1. Include someone else's code

We know this doesn't work and we have historical evidence of why it doesn't work.

2. Build these from scratch using no CSS or script libraries.

Adobe does not have the staff to do that... at least to do it well.

As for the money part, you are, in my opinion, extremely wrong. If you are looking at a customer who is a web designer, then the money to buy additional tools is totally unrelated to the cost of the core program, which is totally irrelevant in a subscription model, unless you are speaking only of customers who buy a single product subscription. Isn't that easy to understand?

For a professional designer, the cost of tools is a matter of elementary-level accounting theory. If it helps you to get a project and/or it has a measurable and positive return on investment, then it is inarguably a wise business decision. We've thought this through for many years, and both Gerry and I were fairly high-level business executives before starting PVII. My points are evidenced based, and formulated on sound and time-tested business theory.

Disagree if you will, but I have yet to see a winning case made for point of view. Instead, you seem to be pulling this whole discussion into a vacuum. Why is that?

[pziecina]

I'm not pulling it into a vacum, if you read the original post we have moved onto a completely different topic, which is O/K, but was it was not my intention.

We are both making assumptions about Dw users, you in that Dw users do not want to code, and that they are only interested in building what i would call 'small web sites', and I am making the assumption that if Dw provides the features users would be willing to advance their coding skills, and would be interested in building fully functional browser based web applications, or at least more than the current offering.

Who is right?

Probably you mainly, (only currently though) but i also think that enough users would want what i think Dw should include, (possibly more) at least enough to make it worth Adobe and Dw's time to do so.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

We are both making assumptions about Dw users, you in that Dw users do not want to code, and that they are only interested in building what i would call 'small web sites', and I am making the assumption that if Dw provides the features users would be willing to advance their coding skills, and would be interested in building fully functional browser based web applications, or at least more than the current offering.

I think that is the issue. DW users are predominately 'part-time' website creators, so it's obvious they don't want to code, have no interest in code. My only confusion is why don't they use Muse, it seems a much better fit. DW seems like a fish out of water mainly catering to non-coders for which a program addressing their requiremenst is already in the same stable,  so why persist with DW, which seems to be neither one or the other.

I mean it don't matter much to me, I'm not trying to force it in one direction or the other I'm just curious that it's staggering along like a drunk badger when it should be saying lets go this way or that way.

Photoshop is aimed at professionals as is Illustrator and InDesign, if amatuers want you use them there is nothing stopping them but Adobe aren't sitting around a table discussing how do we cater for amatuers to the detriment of ignoring the professional market in those programs, I don't think anyway.