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!!!

[Preran · Accepted solution]

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.

[ALsp]

prerankurnool  wrote

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.

Just an opinion, but most marketing geniuses believe the worst thing you can do sometimes is allow a customer focus group to help design your product 🙂 Some of the world's best cars, for instance, are the result of ignoring customer rants.

Just saying...

[Preran]

I agree. It's a fine balance between being futuristic and balancing aspirations of paying customers. I believe that the management teams aren't ignorant of this challenge either.

[pziecina]

I don't think a customer focus group would be a problem for concern, provided one remembered that the person who is providing that feedback and suggestions, may not be the best person to actually give feedback, or provide suggestions.

It is no use getting feedback or suggestions from someone who does not code, if the requirerments of coders is to be considered. It is also no use getting feedback from someone who only knows the theory, or only teaches about web development, as the practical every day issues they will never face.

Visual helper features can only be correctly constructed and implemented if those requirering them and who will use them, are involved, which unfortunatly cannot really happen until a later stage, (once it is almost too late to change anything) unless those users have actually tried to use the feature/code, and know how they would like it to work.

Targeted feedback, feature incorporation and functionality must always come from those who have used a feature and know how it should work. Feedback should be relevant and not just sound like a good idea.

Time for the argument now. -

bootstrap, pre/post-processor, code editor, git, and css designer all come to mind in demonstrating badly thought out features and possibly bad feedback.

[osgood_]

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

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...."   

But that's what Muse does - so if you're that impressed go and join the Muse forum and use Muse if you thnk it's an impressive project and want to point and click, which you don't, because you always tell people here in the forum it's limited in what it can do.

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe. What professional tool do they currently have for real web-developers to use, none?

Maybe PVII and DMXZone would be far better suited at aiming their products at Muse and Adobe can guide DW into being a more professional orientated product for professional coders.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe. What professional tool do they currently have for real web-developers to use, none?

Maybe PVII and DMXZone would be far better suited at aiming their products at Muse and Adobe can guide DW into being a more professional orientated product for professional coders.

I don't think that is what Nancy wanted to imply.

As for professional tools from Adobe for web developers, I have said it before, and I will say it again Adobe and the Dw team simply do not 'get' the web as an independent media. They have lots of programs that include the use of html5, css and javascript, and those programs even have javascript de-bugging tools, something that is not included in Dw, (2015 did have one, but it was so inaccessible, its inclussion was a waste of time). The big difference between Dw and those programs though, is that Adobe controls the hosting of them, so it is a self-contained environment, unlike a site/app created in Dw.

Once the site/app is created in Dw, Adobe has no profit from them.

The reason I include the Dw team in the above statement, is because even though much of Dw's code is html, css and javascript, and given that they certainly use another program to create the code that 'runs' Dw. They fail to include features in Dw that they must use in the creation of Dw, things like de-buggers, and project managment features. Why they think what they are using and consider essential is not required in Dw is beyond understanding, they could argue that it is not possible to create a program like Dw to run in a browser, unfortunatly if they do then that would only prove they have no idea about what is now possible.

Even the c++ compiled code that Dw currently uses could in a few years time run in a browser, using web assembly.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

osgood_   wrote

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe. What professional tool do they currently have for real web-developers to use, none?

Maybe PVII and DMXZone would be far better suited at aiming their products at Muse and Adobe can guide DW into being a more professional orientated product for professional coders.

I don't think that is what Nancy wanted to imply.

Well its not a view I share at all. I could do without another Wordpress or Muse, Wix etc geared towards bricklayers and chocolate makes rather than the professional developer. I guess Adobe really has a big problem because there are certainly more bricklayers and chocolate makers than professional web-developers so they are going where the most money is, naturally.

Smaller companies are much happier to bring out niche products which satisfy the demands of a niche market. Larger companies will follow the money.

[ALsp]

osgood_  wrote

pziecina   wrote

osgood_    wrote

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe. What professional tool do they currently have for real web-developers to use, none?

Maybe PVII and DMXZone would be far better suited at aiming their products at Muse and Adobe can guide DW into being a more professional orientated product for professional coders.

I don't think that is what Nancy wanted to imply.

Well its not a view I share at all. I could do without another Wordpress or Muse, Wix etc geared towards bricklayers and chocolate makes rather than the professional developer. I guess Adobe really has a big problem because there are certainly more bricklayers and chocolate makers than professional web-developers so they are going where the most money is, naturally.

Smaller companies are much happier to bring out niche products which satisfy the demands of a niche market. Larger companies will follow the money.

If by professional developer you mean an expert coder, then he or she would have no use for Dreamweaver, and understandably so. Dreamweaver has always been for casual coders and visual designers. Adobe's problem is they fail to see this. The good thing is that being part of a subscription insulates Dreamweaver from a complete market tank. Adobe can fix this, once they see the facts. Dreamweaver needs to be simplified, brought back to its roots... modernized, of course. In a one on one meeting I could tell Adobe exactly what to do, but it not here. It would get lost.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

If by professional developer you mean an expert coder, then he or she would have no use for Dreamweaver.

Probably my point really, what does Adobe have in the way of a web-editor for more  professional orientated coders, not experts by any means but certainly not your typical 'Sunday driver'? Perhaps I've got this all wrong. Being  a graphic designer for a large part of my career I was bought up on Adobe products - InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, aimed at the professional market, I think anyway. When I got into web-design many years ago I believed DW was the professional software to use but obviously it never was - that was  programs like page-spinner, textmate, coda, notpad++ etc, now Sublime, Atom, VC code, Storm, etc etc

OK I think I probbaly don't really belong in this forum, which is what I've said previously, because I don't consider myself to be a causal coder but there is still call for more experienced coders to guide casual coders when they need help - DW can't do everything just by pointing and clicking as some quickly find out when pointing and clicking, or lack of coding knowledeg results in a coding mess which can then only be sorted out by actually looking at the code and identifying where the potential issues may lie. I see all kinds of rubbish posted by the casual user in here on a daily basis unfortunately. 

I guess those like Ben and Nancy like to be refered to as casual coders, not serious about what they do, although I think they would disagree. I'm not a casual coder so its inevitable there is going to be some friction  between myself and those that use DW or produce products for it, which as you suggest is for the casual coder and I would agree with that.

I think some of the issues and problems is that many who get into web-development have not come for a design orientated/creative background but come from other walks of life so producing original or bespoke solutions or understanding how what they do works (maybe because of a late start in a different career) is not something they really consider important whearas I do, or at least try to, because that's what I've always done.

Web-development is seen as the cheap and easy option when looking for another career, you can set up and work from home, no qualifications or skill is required, manage you own time etc,  but maybe the desire to learn is not there when templates and extensions are too tempting because there is no blood, sweat and tears to endure. All I can say is I would not do anything differently. I love coding although yes it is frustrating a lot of the time but it gives me satisfaction when I can sort out a probelm which others can't because i have taken the time and trouble to understand how what I'm using actually functions.....the differnce being casual and professional. I'd love it if they would go on the same journey as me if they want to be considered serious players of course, it's long and hard but in my opinion the benefits are very real.

[Nancy OShea]

osgood_  wrote

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

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...."   

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe.

You're missing the point as usual, OS.   Adobe has always supported plugins.  Photoshop & Lightroom would not be what they are today without plugins.  Adobe is following the same basic approach with Muse as they always have.  Build a decent core software and invite 3rd party developers to create the extras.  Over time, Adobe might even integrate that plugin into the core product.

Do you have any idea how many Adobe products are extendable with scripts (if you know how)?  And how many plugins are supporting these products right now with Adobe's blessing? 

Photoshop  Third-party plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop.

Illustrator Illustrator plug-ins

Acrobat -Third-party plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop.

InDesign  InDesign plug-ins, free third-party plug-ins

After Effects After Effects plug-ins, free third-party plugins | Adobe After Effects CC

Premier Pro Third-party plug-ins for Premiere Pro CC

Business Catalyst  Adobe Business Catalyst 3rd Party Plugins Tutorials | BC Academe

and more....

Some of the plugins I'm talking about -- particularly in the motion graphics categories -- are industry recognized tools of the trade and in some cases have received  very prestigious awards.  I think your  general bias towards plugins is born largely out of naivete about  what's going on outside your man cave.  If you used After Effects (just one example), I think your attitude about plugins would be very different.

In contrast to the above links, do a Google search for Third Party Dreamweaver Extensions and you'll see a very short list of companies on the SERP (not even on Adobe's website) -- namely PVII, DMX Zone, Extend Studio and WebAsssist.  That's it!!   And I'm not sure if WebAssist and Extend Studio are in the game anymore.  So that leaves 2.   

For whatever reasons, Adobe is supporting 3rd party plugins for other products.  But the same cannot be said for Dreamweaver.

Nancy

[B i r n o u]

agree...

check the list...

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons

[ALsp]

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

agree...

check the list...

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons

I don't think you got Nancy's point. Not even close, actually

The App Store is a failure that will only get worse, especially for Dreamweaver. It is predatory and arguably unethical. But most of all, it does not even work most of the bloody time .

We go back to the very beginning of Dreamweaver, not just to Drumbeat.

I understand how someone not familiar with how the more advanced client-side extensions work can easily come to erroneous conclusions, but I also feel those folks should refrain from expressing any opinions until they learn a bit more.

[B i r n o u]

I think that you didn't get mine...

Completing what said Nancy, I point to what Adobe (and so DW) give as possible extension... and worth that is difficult for much case to set it

[ALsp]

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Your English is much better than my French, but I just don't think you got the point. Of course, I could be wrong.

[B i r n o u]

I don't understand your two last paragraph ?...

why are you refering to drumbeat... ? what is the point ?

and I completly miss understand your last one ? can you please reformulate it

[ALsp]

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

I don't understand your two last paragraph ?...

why are you refering to drumbeat... ? what is the point ?

and I completly miss understand your last one ? can you please reformulate it

I was just mentioning, casually, that my history with Dreamweaver predates the Allaire acquisition.  The last paragraph is easy. We make client-side extensions, as opposed to database or server-side extensions. My assertion is that based on what you wrote, you might not have an actual working understanding of what the types of extensions we make actually do.

Does that help?

[B i r n o u]

I still don't really get the point concerning Drumbeat... that is true that I have mentionned Drumbeat in a previous message to clarify, that I was using Homesite and TopStyle at the time of Nick... so before Allaire acquisition...

Dreamweaver wasn't existing at that time... then when DW born (few month later)... during the very first time Macromedia try to acquire Nick's solution throught Jeremy... it tooks several years... and that was just before Macromedia also acquire Drumbeat...

concerning extension... I wasn't refering to you and your team... I was speaking in extension in general...

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe Exchange is a joke. Nothing works as expected.

I prefer to  get my extensions directly from the developer's websites of which there are currently 2  active players for Dreamweaver -- Project VII and DMX Zone.

Responsive Web Design Extensions, Apps, Add-ons and Plugins for Dreamweaver

https://www.dmxzone.com/3/extensions/

The other 2 are not saying if their products work in DW 2018.

Dreamweaver extensions | PHP web apps | Store builder | WebAssist

http://www.extendstudio.com/products/dreamweaver-extensions.html

[B i r n o u]

that is exactly what I said... or at least trying to say...

agree...

(explanation, that do mean that I agree with what you said)

check the list...

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons

(explanation, that do mean, that if you don't have the right place to go, since extension manager was removed, what was sale by Adobe was the Addons web site)

[ALsp]

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

that is exactly what I said... or at least trying to say...

agree...

(explanation, that do mean that I agree with what you said)

check the list...

https://exchange.adobe.com/addons

(explanation, that do mean, that if you don't have the right place to go, since extension manager was removed, what was sale by Adobe was the Addons web site)

The Add-On "site" is useless. First of all, it rarely works . Secondly, it should contain clear links to developer sites, as Nancy has pointed out (twice now). Third, the extension manager removal was a marketing move. The underlying code, "ExMan" still exists, or Adobe would not be able to install from the App Store. It gets more complicated and I'm afraid I'm going to lose you again, unless I can find someone fluent in French to write this for me. I'm sorry.

[Nancy OShea]

Birnou,

Je ne supporte pas la page Add-ons d'Adobe.  Le contenu est de la merde.

Les liens vers la page Add-ons d'Adobe ne doivent pas être publiés.

[B i r n o u]

<joke cite="">well, we go out into the forest ... we breathe, ... one ... two ...</joke>

[B i r n o u]

I agree, and again that is what I said...

FYI, I never said that exchange was good, I just said ...that the entrance that Adobe propose to users is exchange... and in a previous mail (3 nov. 2017 09:14) I also said  "... and worth that is difficult for much case to set it..."

the icing on the cake is that personally I never use extensions for the need of the application that I develop and maintain .. so I would be neither for nor against lived way ...

[osgood_]

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

osgood_   wrote

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

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...."   

I don't really see that guiding DW towards a Muse orientated workflow is in the best interest of Adobe.

You're missing the point as usual, OS.   Adobe has always supported plugins.  Photoshop & Lightroom would not be what they are today without plugins.  Adobe is following the same basic approach with Muse as they always have.  Build a decent core software and invite 3rd party developers to create the extras.  Over time, Adobe might even integrate that plugin into the core product.

Do you have any idea how many Adobe products are extendable with scripts (if you know how)?  And how many plugins are supporting these products right now with Adobe's blessing? 

Photoshop  Third-party plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop.

Illustrator Illustrator plug-ins

Acrobat -Third-party plug-ins for Adobe Photoshop.

InDesign  InDesign plug-ins, free third-party plug-ins

After Effects After Effects plug-ins, free third-party plugins | Adobe After Effects CC

Premier Pro Third-party plug-ins for Premiere Pro CC

Business Catalyst  Adobe Business Catalyst 3rd Party Plugins Tutorials | BC Academe

and more....

Some of the plugins I'm talking about -- particularly in the motion graphics categories -- are industry recognized tools of the trade and in some cases have received  very prestigious awards.  I think your  general bias towards plugins is born largely out of naivete about  what's going on outside your man cave.  If you used After Effects (just one example), I think your attitude about plugins would be very different.

In contrast to the above links, do a Google search for Third Party Dreamweaver Extensions and you'll see a very short list of companies on the SERP (not even on Adobe's website) -- namely PVII, DMX Zone, Extend Studio and WebAsssist.  That's it!!   And I'm not sure if WebAssist and Extend Studio are in the game anymore.  So that leaves 2.   

For whatever reasons, Adobe is supporting 3rd party plugins for other products.  But the same cannot be said for Dreamweaver.

Nancy

My biased toward extensions, plugins, html frameworks, whatever you want to call them, only extends to those who have expectations of furthering their skills and becoming a serious developer, you and many more obviously don't, so you're excused.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

If by professional developer you mean an expert coder, then he or she would have no use for Dreamweaver, and understandably so. Dreamweaver has always been for casual coders and visual designers.

I don't think Dw should be an either/or program anymore.

Yes, it should go back to supporting its original user base, and in a much better way than now or previously, but it also requires what we are calling 'the expert coder' in this discussion. Without the coder taking part in Dw's development then i think it would stagnate at best, or get even more features wrong than it presently does at worst.

Only coders use, (or should i say are more likely to play) with newer w3c features, and to get coders involved in Dw's development, Dw itself must offer them some incentive to take part in its development, and continue taking part. Most coders would be happy with simple improvments such as stand alone auto-prefixer, better and more up-to-date code hinting/completion across all supported w3c specs and a php/js de-bugger.

Without coders there would be little or even no improvments in how web development moves forward.