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]

ALsp  wrote

pziecina   wroteALsp

As for locking this discussion, only if it gets personal.

Yeah, well, that's another thing. If you have the authority to lock a discussion, then you should have the authority to guide this forum in a more productive way toward the interests of the typical Dreamweaver user.

..

But pleas do not take it personally.

I rarely take things personal, except when stupidity is involved.

As for guiding this forum, that is not in my remit. If it was i would ban the lot of you (LOL)

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

... then you should have the authority to guide this forum in a more productive way toward the interests of the typical Dreamweaver user.

Nothing much is being posted in the forum, so I will ask a question if I may AL?

"What would you say are the interests of the typical Dreamweaver user"?

Anyone else can also say what they think are the interests also.

BTW: I am asking because I cannot see what the typical Dw user 'is' interested in.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

As for being a poor developer !!!

I'm not saying everyone that works for Government is under qualified. It just depends - local government is rife with underperforming personal on high salaries paid for by the tax payer.....so heck yeah I should be jumping up and down if they are wasting my money on extensions

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

This topic will likely be locked before logic prevails, but I can try...

jQuery is like Bootstrap's script persona. It is intended as a one stop shop for people with a partial understanding of JavaScript. There are very few "coders" around today who can actually write a complete, purposed script. So, no matter what you say, at least in terms of JavaScript, you are very heavily dependent on other people's code and techniques 🙂

Well I guess you could take that to the extreme and say we are all using html, css etc which are other peoples code and techniques

Its actually what you do with it that counts or more to the point what you can do with it . Some can do more than others given they have taken the trouble to invest time rather than using extensions and html frameworks, regardless of what you think or say.

ALsp  wrote

And your comments regarding governments? I'm not sure I'm following, unless it is that because some of them might be doing something you do not agree with, they are open for ridicule.

A lot of Government departments don't always employ the sharpest 'tools' in the box. Infact they have a track record of employing 3rd or 4th tier skilled workers that probably would need to use an extension or framework to get the job done.

ALsp  wrote

This forum could be so great. It really could. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, Osgood. It's not because you disagree with me. I can handle that. It's the way you do. But I guess it's a reflection of modern society.

Now you've lost me. I'm just giving an opinion.....no need to feel sorry, save that for yourself.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

ALsp   wrote

This topic will likely be locked before logic prevails, but I can try...

jQuery is like Bootstrap's script persona. It is intended as a one stop shop for people with a partial understanding of JavaScript. There are very few "coders" around today who can actually write a complete, purposed script. So, no matter what you say, at least in terms of JavaScript, you are very heavily dependent on other people's code and techniques 🙂

Well I guess you could take that to the extreme and say we are all using html, css etc which are other peoples code and techniques

Its actually what you do with it that counts or more to the point what you can do with it . Some can do more than others given they have taken the trouble to invest time rather than using extensions and html frameworks, regardless of what you think or say.

ALsp   wrote

And your comments regarding governments? I'm not sure I'm following, unless it is that because some of them might be doing something you do not agree with, they are open for ridicule.

A lot of Government departments don't always employ the sharpest 'tools' in the box. Infact they have a track record of employing 3rd or 4th tier skilled workers that probably would need to use an extension or framework to get the job done.

ALsp   wrote

This forum could be so great. It really could. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, Osgood. It's not because you disagree with me. I can handle that. It's the way you do. But I guess it's a reflection of modern society.

Now you've lost me. I'm just giving an opinion.....no need to feel sorry, save that for yourself.

No, you're not giving an opinion, your speaking as if you have some sort of ex cathedra privileges here. In my opinion, you don't merit that privilege. In my opinion, and in my observation, you have not earned it. There is a right way to express a dissenting opinion. In my opinion, it is not one of your skills.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

No, you're not giving an opinion, your speaking as if you have some sort of ex cathedra privileges here. In my opinion, you don't merit that privilege. In my opinion, and in my observation, you have not earned it. There is a right way to express a dissenting opinion. In my opinion, it is not one of your skills.

So you don't like me expressing an opinion about extensions, that's going to be pretty obvious as you earn money by producing them, now that's a really big shock.

Like you would know all about dipolmacy. I've followed some of your 'debates' in other forums and you soon loose it if you think anyone is being disrespectful to yourself and your opinions.

I dont really care if think how I express myself is to your standards or not.  Get over youself. Nearly everyone of your posts contains a barbed and quite derogatory remark, unlike me you don't even know you're doing it.

I certainly dont see what you have done to earn any respect or merit. How many issues do you ever solve in this forum or is it just all about how many extensions you can shift?

[BenPleysier]

Tut tut! I just found this interesting link.

Getting back to the subject, I do use extensions for Dreamweaver to a very high degree. The reason that I use extensions is because they save me time which in turn saves my clients dollars. Surely there is no debating that logic. Surely it is better than copying and pasting code for a widget from the internet or from someone else's website. Or is there? I know for a fact that PVII widgets contain vanilla JavaScript, no jQuery. How good is that?

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Tut tut! I just found this interesting link.

Getting back to the subject, I do use extensions for Dreamweaver to a very high degree. The reason that I use extensions is because they save me time which in turn saves my clients dollars. Surely there is no debating that logic. Surely it is better than copying and pasting code for a widget from the internet or from someone else's website. Or is there? I know for a fact that PVII widgets contain vanilla JavaScript, no jQuery. How good is that?

Sadly you and Al have me all wrong. You both take yourself too seriously and usually misinterpet many of my posts as being arrogant or not sincere. I'm here to depart whatever knowledge I may have and hopefully help a few posters. I've always been humble in saying I'm not as good as I should be or even want to be. I'm still learning and I like to give the benefit of my learning to others IF they will/want to listen based on all the bad experiences I've been through getting to a level which may or may not be beyond where they currently are.

Having a laugh and lightening the mood sometimes along the way is all part of my character. I'm very sorry if both you an Al find it hard to accept me as I am. There's really nothing I can say or do or add to that. I am what I am, not perfect by any means, I know that, whereas I don't think either you or All know that you are not perfect either.

As for saving time. I've stated in many many posts, which you chose to ignore ,money is not always the prime objective. It depends what kind of client you work for. Plus in the past I've taken your challenge of extension v hand-coding and completly shown it to be equally as fast or in some cases faster.

I don't know who is saying anything about taking code from someone else website or internet and pasting it, not me.

Much like Bootstrap works using vanilla javascript, not, please use a workflow that you preach, otherwise some might think you are being insincere just becuse you find me objectionable. Personal issues should not come into it.

[pziecina]

O/K Ben, please don't refer to Os as a troll, as both he and AL are as bad as each other judging for their posts, and the troll statement is unjustified.

My one objection, (well maybe more than one) to extensions is cost, and the entire set-up of them in Dw, (distribution and installation).

Dw lets be honest is a very expensive program for what it offers. If a new developer purchasing Dw for the first time has to then purchase extensions, just to get features and functionality that should be included as standard, that cost sky rockets beyond what any resonable person should be expected to pay.

Even VS Pro becomes cheaper to purchase than Dw.

The problem of finding and installing extensions for a new user is also not a trivial subject, because unless one knows about which extension developers produce the best products, and that one must download a 3rd party extension manager, the new Dw user is in a lot of trouble, and could end up paying lots of money out for extensions that they should not use, (those that require the old SB's for example).

If Wappler is also offered as part of the dmx subscription model, then it will certainly be more cost effective than Dw. The big problem there is that many self-employed or small team developers will also require Ps, but with the Photograph package from Adobe only costing $10.00 per month, and many svg editor/creation programs now being offered free or at a reasonable cost, the 'other' programs required may not mean that a CC subscription is also required.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

O/K Ben, please don't refer to Os as a troll, as both he and AL are as bad as each other judging for their posts, and the troll statement is unjustified.

My one objection, (well maybe more than one) to extensions is cost, and the entire set-up of them in Dw, (distribution and installation).

Dw lets be honest is a very expensive program for what it offers. If a new developer purchasing Dw for the first time has to then purchase extensions, just to get features and functionality that should be included as standard, that cost sky rockets beyond what any resonable person should be expected to pay.

Even VS Pro becomes cheaper to purchase than Dw.

The problem of finding and installing extensions for a new user is also not a trivial subject, because unless one knows about which extension developers produce the best products, and that one must download a 3rd party extension manager, the new Dw user is in a lot of trouble, and could end up paying lots of money out for extensions that they should not use, (those that require the old SB's for example).

If Wappler is also offered as part of the dmx subscription model, then it will certainly be more cost effective than Dw. The big problem there is that many self-employed or small team developers will also require Ps, but with the Photograph package from Adobe only costing $10.00 per month, and many svg editor/creation programs now being offered free or at a reasonable cost, the 'other' programs required may not mean that a CC subscription is also required.

I'm not sure we're you think you were endowed with the right to disparage me. And what gives you the right to be the economic arbiter of extensions? This is a Dreamweaver user forum. In my opinion, I, along with DMX Zone, and any other legitimate extension developer should be allowed to announce product releases and recommend their products in a professional manner when relevant.

As for cost, it is my opinion that some of our products extend Dreamweaver to the extent of making it a far more valuable tool than it is by itself. In fact, many of our longer-standing customers use Dreamweaver only because it allows them to use our tools and get our support. So, I can make a case that we might (to some) be worth more than Dreamweaver. Extensions are tools, Paula. I don't know why you can't understand that. I really don't. People buy tools all the time. It's part of being productive. If you build homes, the aggregate value of your tools will likely exceed the value of any single home. Does the web design business operate in a different plane of logic? Or is it just some of the folks on this forum?

There is no possible way to measure the cost effectiveness of a tool unless you are familiar with the tool in question. If you go into a line of work with a penny for penny mentality than it's probably not a serious line of work for you.

I'm not trolling. I won't even imply that Osgood is. All I'm doing is trying to get a little understanding from the regulars here. Dreamweaver is my business, I've paid my dues in playing a not so insignificant role in Dreamweaver's success, as have several other Extension developers. In thanks for that, we've been essentially shunned from recommending or announcing our products, because even when we do manage to post something relevant and helpful, someone here (often bearing an Adobe honorific) cuts us down and casts us as predatory marketers.

You mention cost, and distribution/installation as if those three issues are something you really understand. You don't. Clearly you don't get the cost part. And clearly you do not understand (or will not admit) that you understand the installation part. Perhaps you don't realize that the now-famous ExMan utility have been a part of Dreamweaver for many years; that the now-defunct  Adobe extension manager was simply a front end for ExMan. Did you know that? Did you know that Adobe purposefully dropped its Extension Manager to drive extension developers to sell their tools on the Adobe App Store for a 30% cut? And do you understand how much time and effort was invested by Project Seven and DMX Zone to produce alternative extension managers? I want to say how dare you, but I won't.

If your goal is benign and altruistic, and you really want to help others and not serve a purpose of your own (whatever that might be) then you should want to cultivate my presence, as well as other extension developers' presence  in this forum, because if you are as good at making extensions as you claim to be then you will know that anyone who is capable of developing a Project Seven or DMX Zone extension know an awful lot about coding.

Please think about some of the things that have been said in this thread. I'm sure a reasonable person can see that this is not about trolling for reactions ... at least not from me.

[pziecina]

What a complete load of rubbish AL.

I would suggest that if you actually read what i posted, instead of taking everything you think I have written as a personal insult, you will see that I am not complaining about extension developers but about Dw not including essential features, that have to then be paid for, by forcing those users who requirer them to purchase them from yourself and other extension developers.

If Dw was not missing essential features, do you really mean to tell everyone that dmxzone would have decided to develop Wappler?

The fact that users MUST go to yourself or dmxzone in order to download an extension manager, was one of my complaints, as that feature was only removed in order to force users to purchase extensions directly from Adobe. If i thought that was not wrong I would NOT have mentioned it. So once again read before replying with such derogatory comments.

Then we come to wanting to cultivate your participation in the forum. Why, that is your decission, and i certainly will not tell users to use xyz extension, you are welcome to do so, and i have personally, just like many other moderators in this forum approved your posts when you do so. If it is the fact that your posts must be moderated that annoys you, then all i can suggest is that you start replying to posts that do not include recommending your extensions.

[ALsp]

Paula,

We need to get back to a civil discourse on how to have a conversation. Starting a post by calling my words or opinions rubbish is not a good start.

If you feel I misunderstood your words, then offer a courteous clarification. How could I possibly object to that?

I think I might be in a good position to understand DMX Zone a little. I also think that given Dreamweaver's development issues and problems, the past two years, Wappler could have more than one purpose or cause. The Dreamweaver user market has gone south, taking market potential away from companies like ours and DMX Zone. I could be wrong, and I don't know enough about Wappler, but I would take an educated guess that its reason for being could be more about tapping the market of web designers who do not use Dreamweaver. But I think that's kind of obvious so I'm not sure of your point. But please don't bother clarifying that as I think it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion topic here. At least it is to me.

pziecina  wrote

The fact that users MUST go to yourself or dmxzone in order to download an extension manager, was one of my complaints, as that feature was only removed in order to force users to purchase extensions directly from Adobe. If i thought that was not wrong I would NOT have mentioned it. So once again read before replying with such derogatory comments.

Then we come to wanting to cultivate your participation in the forum. Why, that is your decision, and i certainly will not tell users to use xyz extension, you are welcome to do so, and i have personally, just like many other moderators in this forum approved your posts when you do so. If it is the fact that your posts must be moderated that annoys you, then all i can suggest is that you start replying to posts that do not include recommending your extensions.

The context of how you stated the distribution/installation issue led me to misunderstand you. But just set me straight. No need to be feisty or rude.

I'm not asking you to tell users anything.

Your last paragraph is confusing. I have no idea what you are talking about, actually. I have had posts where I included a link to my site for a poster I felt might benefit from an automated tool based on his or her post. But my answers usually include other options, including hand-coding. I have had posts moderated and rejected simply because they included a link to my site. But getting back to your last paragraph, it seems you're contradicting yourself.  Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding you. Again.

[pziecina]

Agreed AL,

The section that anoyed me was the italics in -

"Did you know that Adobe purposefully dropped its Extension Manager to drive extension developers to sell their tools on the Adobe App Store for a 30% cut? And do you understand how much time and effort was invested by Project Seven and DMX Zone to produce alternative extension managers? I want to say how dare you, but I won't.

My mentioning the requirerment for a 3rd party extension manager, was because there was never any need for Adobe to discontinue it, except for as you say 'to maximize Adobes profits' by forcing unknowing users to use the App Store.

As for the rejecting your posts just because they contain a link to your site, all i can say to that, is that it would be utter stupidity to do so, and i don't think anyone in this forum would do so.

Now, back to my original question for today -

"What would you say are the interests of the Dw user"?

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

As for the rejecting your posts just because they contain a link to your site, all i can say to that, is that it would be utter stupidity to do so, and i don't think anyone in this forum would do so.

Now, back to my original question for today -

"What would you say are the interests of the Dw user"?

I don't know precisely who rejected my posts and I believe you when you say it wasn't you. But it has happened. I'll try it again at an appropriate time in relevant manner and let you know via private message if I get the old heave-ho.

As for what I consider to be in the best interests of Dreamweaver users is rather nuanced, but based on direct and regular contact with our customer base. And I do believe that our typical customer closely mirrors Adobe's typical Dreamweaver user.

• He is not an expert coder.
• She is a visual designer.
• He appreciates time-saving tools.
• She tends to get snookered into using the third-party features in Dreamweaver (Spry, Boilerplate, Bootstrap) because she assumes that if it's part of Dreamweaver it's the right thing to use.
• He wants a simplified and straightforward CSS editor that is incapable of messing up a CSS rule.
• She could benefit from being able to see the comments inside a CSS file, in the panel.
• He would benefit from a related files feature that simply opened the asset file directly instead of a phantom copy.
• She needs a proper Extension Manager,  because let's face it, the App Store frequently does not even work (we've already discussed Adobe's questionable ethics in that area).
• He would probably welcome back the missing, but not dead, features removed in the past few versions (DT CSS, SSI, plus others).
• She might like the ability to download and install third-party templates that easily integrate into the File New dialog. In fact, as she grows and learns, she might want to share her designs with other users. A template/starter page installer.
• A Content Management service that is efficient, lightweight, and works seamlessly with Dreamweaver designed/managed pages. I could go much further on this topic, but let's start small.
• A revised and stronger Snippets implementation.
• A simple set of web image editing features (optimization and batch processing internalized in Dreamweaver).
• The removal of all built-in dependencies on third-party code, because Adobe is simply not capable of choosing the right code or keeping it up to date.

I could probably continue this list for a hundred more items, but how about this...

Why don't you and others add to it?

[pziecina]

First can you let me know before and after posting anything with a link, (and having it rejected) that way i can check in the back room to see if anyone mentions it, (and hopefully ask them not to do so in the future) also if someone just removes the link before approving, inform me.

As for your list, i think we have discussed most of the items before, but i am not certain if we did so in this forum or the pre-release. Either way we have never had any feedback from the Dw team, and I still have reservations about Dw incorporating a custom CMS, (on its past record of updating features).

I would also have reservations about image editing, as in my experiance in both CAB and pre-release, too many Dw 'advisors' ignore srcset requirerments, and do not even consider that hi-dpi images are important. To put it simply Dw is being advised about how images were created and used back in the 90's not the present day.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

I'm not trolling. I won't even imply that Osgood is. All I'm doing is trying to get a little understanding from the regulars here. Dreamweaver is my business, I've paid my dues in playing a not so insignificant role in Dreamweaver's success, as have several other Extension developers. In thanks for that, we've been essentially shunned from recommending or announcing our products, because even when we do manage to post something relevant and helpful, someone here (often bearing an Adobe honorific) cuts us down and casts us as predatory marketers.

I've already agreed with you Al in another thread that you have every right in my opinion to announce your extensions wherever you see fit. I have zero issues with that so I don't quite know why you're having a go at me, on the basis I just happen to have a differing opinion about extensions than you do. I would expect you to defend them vigorously but not at the expense of implying I have no credibility/merit, maybe in your eyes for personal reasons, yes, but in the forum as general I would have to disagree, but then I would.

All I'm really interested in are  those that come here and want help with coding as in 'coding' - Ben, Nancy, yourself can cater for those who are not interested in investing time learning how something works. It's not always realistic for some people to invest that time and be expected to invest that time and thats where I think products 'out of the box' drag and drop, click and point are a good match.

I think you are probably a little frustrated, maybe,  at the path DW is taking and that may be attributied to some of the things in your posts. Youre probably right to be concerned.........thats why DMXZone have I think done something positive.

[ALsp]

Nothing of the sort, Osgood. Based on Ben and Paula's feelings, I will not hesitate to mention my extensions if they are relevant. But I have had numerous posts rejected for that in the past. I'm glad the forum has moved beyond that.

I have no problem with anyone's right to his or her opinion, but propriety and common decency should prevail. At least I think so. My only problem with you is that you seem to take every opportunity to criticize not just extensions, but the people who use them. They are not some evil thing you need to protect people from. And the way you do it, does not imply that you have a working model of how some of today's more advanced extensions actually work. If you want to write knowledgably about our products, let me know and I'll give you one to play with. In fact, I'd even listen to your suggestions on how to improve a tool.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

Nothing of the sort, Osgood. Based on Ben and Paula's feelings, I will not hesitate to mention my extensions if they are relevant. But I have had numerous posts rejected for that in the past. I'm glad the forum has moved beyond that.

I have no problem with anyone's right to his or her opinion, but propriety and common decency should prevail. At least I think so. My only problem with you is that you seem to take every opportunity to criticize not just extensions, but the people who use them. They are not some evil thing you need to protect people from. And the way you do it, does not imply that you have a working model of how some of today's more advanced extensions actually work. If you want to write knowledgably about our products, let me know and I'll give you one to play with. In fact, I'd even listen to your suggestions on how to improve a tool.

Well I've only implied they are probably mostly hobbyist or amatures, I don't think that is being too critical really. There is a market out there if you look after a church website or small company website and spend half the time updating it and half the time doing something else. I don't expect those kinds of users to be the least bit interested in coding, but then I can't really say I class them as anything other than hobbyist or amatuer.

I do a lot of DIY but I'm mostly absolutely crap at it, along with most other things, so in the eyes of a skilled craftsman they would consider me an amatuer, too right. I would agree with them.

I know I'm probably in the wrong forum given the demographic of a typical DW user but I can't get away, I've been here for so long.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

. If you want to write knowledgably about our products, let me know and I'll give you one to play with. In fact, I'd even listen to your suggestions on how to improve a tool.

Actually AL I would recommend that Os trys your extension for creating flexbox layouts, as in my opinion it is worth the cost just for teaching Dw users how to use flexbox, and showing how the different properties affect a flexbox layout.

Maybe if one thinks of such extensions as learning tools also, then many objections may disappear (cheaper and better than videos or most books i have read).

[Nancy OShea]

We recently had a troll in our midst.   I think you know who I'm talking about but in case you don't, feel free to private message me. 

None of us here are trolls in true sense of that word.   Opinionated & passionate?  Yes.  Evil-doers?  No.    We have our disagreements for sure but it's not personal.  OS has a bias against frameworks / extensions.  OK, fine.  I don't agree with that POV but I accept it.  That's who he is.  Likewise, OS needs to accept that many of us DO use frameworks / extensions because we CAN.  In all candor, If DW was NOT extendable, I would have stopped using it years ago.  As Paula says, there are other fish in the pond at far less cost.

When Adobe threw out ExMan, I was really pissed and said as much publicly.  I like extensions.  I want Adobe to work closely with extension makers because that's in the user's best interest.    For heaven's sake,  where would MUSE be without plugins?  Look in the MU forum sometime.  Whenever anybody asks "how do I add _____ to my MU project?"  someone invariably chimes in with "Oh look. there's a MU plugin for that, go here...."   

As I see it, If a chasm ensues between Adobe and the leading DW extension makers, we must all be concerned, even if we don't all use extensions because it speaks to a much bigger problem in terms of how relevant DW can be for future product users.  Right now,  I'm of the opinion that PVII and DMX Zone are closer to the pulse of what an average DW user wants and expects from the product than Adobe is. 

Admittedly, you can't please everyone all the time.  That's where extensions come in.  Adobe needs to understand that their core software has to excel  at what IT does and be extension friendly so users can boost its capabilities to fit their particular needs -- from coding add-ons to widgets and beyond. 

Nancy

[Preran]

Hi Nancy,

I am responding to your comment about extensions. I have shared this feedback with the product team, and I believe that they are in perfect agreement with what you say. They are working towards improving this experience but I do not have any definite timelines yet.

Thanks,

Preran

[ALsp]

  wrote

Hi Nancy,

I am responding to your comment about extensions. I have shared this feedback with the product team, and I believe that they are in perfect agreement with what you say. They are working towards improving this experience but I do not have any definite timelines yet.

Thanks,

Preran

That's very nice to hear.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

Preran   wrote

Hi Nancy,

I am responding to your comment about extensions. I have shared this feedback with the product team, and I believe that they are in perfect agreement with what you say. They are working towards improving this experience but I do not have any definite timelines yet.

Thanks,

Preran

That's very nice to hear.

If that is all that comes out of this entire discussion, then it will have been worthwhile.

I just wish more Adobe staff than just Preran would get involved and reply

[Preran]

Hi Paula,

I am part of the social team that monitors Adobe's social channels that includes Adobe forums and other social properties. It is my responsibility to share with concerned teams my observations from these social spaces, and in turn, report back on them. While it looks like I am the only person that is responding, my responses are based on collaboration with various teams at Adobe. This helps other teams can focus on their core responsibilities while still ensuring that any needs from them arising out of social channels are addressed.

Having said that, members of product teams do drop by regularly to check on product related issues. They are as much invested as I am, but as a  messenger, it looks like I am doing all the talking.

Thanks,

Preran

[pziecina]

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".