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!!!

[ALsp]

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...."   

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.

It would be a good direction except that Muse can never handle the level of extensions that we do. It is not a worthwhile platform in terms of high-end automation and management with a proper UI.

[pziecina]

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

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

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

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

SO -

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

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

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

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

[B i r n o u]

so what ?

[pziecina]

There is no so what Birnou.

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

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

[B i r n o u]

I'm certainly missed something in your write, I should put in google translator... I said So what ? just because, what I red from your text was like... the sky is blue, the wind blow, the sun arise, the birds sing or ... the sky is dark, the wind stop, the birds are not around... whatever... I mean nothing is really subjective, or I didn't find any sort of position... but as I said I'm certainly missed it... I should add more white wine to my today Sauerkraut... hmmm

[pziecina]

Hi Birnou,

Don't bother with google translator, as it would probably make even less sense than it does now.

My idea of writting in an obtuse manner, was that i could simply make statements, without drawing any conclussions or saying xyz is wrong in Dw, (or any other ide). By doing so the discussion is open to anyone to decide what is happening, or even not happening in web development.

Normally such discussions say this or that is wrong, xyz should be better supported, but in my experiance just one or two points out of a number of points are normally highlighted by others in such writings, and often those one or two points are taken out of context. This way i hoped people could just simply, 'have their say' without bothering about specifics, or saying anyone is wrong.

[B i r n o u]

well, I must admit that I've missed those points... and there are so much ways of users type and needs that it is very wide open as subject.

in an other hand how many of us expect that anything done will be done in within DW IDE ?

personnaly DW is just a part of the tools used everyday for web purpose... if it handle the job, cool, if not, I find the appropriate one for such a need... whatever the road taken, DW (or any other molecular tools used) musn't create interfact each other...

the best exemple I can use for demonstrate it... DW propose SASS... cool... DW propose Bootstrap... cool... DW propose GIT... cool... but I don't use any of them from DW.... Sass is handle by Ruby and use GEMs that DW doesn't propose... Bootstrap... I simply don't use it... I prefer to rely on other frameworks alternatives... GIT, well most of the command that I need go throught tasks or directly on command lines...

but all the above doesn't mean that I don't use DW...

[Nancy OShea]

It's the same for me Birnou.  I frequently use Photoshop to edit images.  But I don't use everything Photoshop can offer.  It's the same with Dreamweaver.   I use what is appropriate for my project and ignore the rest.

[osgood_]

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

It's the same for me Birnou.  I frequently use Photoshop to edit images.  But I don't use everything Photoshop can offer.  It's the same with Dreamweaver.   I use what is appropriate for my project and ignore the rest.

Its just a shame you also have to ignore what it DOESNT include and should....still as I said that can be said for the majoriy of software programs. I get along just fine using any darn editor, past or present, they are all the same. I have no allegiance to any of them any longer being as though they are as poor as one another.

[ALsp]

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

well, I must admit that I've missed those points... and there are so much ways of users type and needs that it is very wide open as subject.

in an other hand how many of us expect that anything done will be done in within DW IDE ?

personnaly DW is just a part of the tools used everyday for web purpose... if it handle the job, cool, if not, I find the appropriate one for such a need... whatever the road taken, DW (or any other molecular tools used) musn't create interfact each other...

the best exemple I can use for demonstrate it... DW propose SASS... cool... DW propose Bootstrap... cool... DW propose GIT... cool... but I don't use any of them from DW.... Sass is handle by Ruby and use GEMs that DW doesn't propose... Bootstrap... I simply don't use it... I prefer to rely on other frameworks alternatives... GIT, well most of the command that I need go throught tasks or directly on command lines...

but all the above doesn't mean that I don't use DW...

As an "ACP" (whatever that actually means) and a frequent poster on the prerelease forum, you are taken seriously by average users. In my opinion, that brings with it a certain responsibility. That's basically it. You can take that as an insult or an opportunity, or not at all 🙂

[pziecina]

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

well, I must admit that I've missed those points... and there are so much ways of users type and needs that it is very wide open as subject.

...

but all the above doesn't mean that I don't use DW...

That's the idea of myself not writing or concentrating on any particular point(s). It allows posters to say what they want, (just as yourself, Os and Nancy have done). If someone wished to do so, one could also just pick a particular paragraph and reply to that, or even 'add' a paragraph to discuss.

Everything is open.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

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

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

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

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

SO -

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

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

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

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

The way I now see DW is this.

It has nothing unique to offer. It's more or less like any number of other editors in the market place. I don't particularly think it's any worse or better than the other editors in some areas. Having used it for many years I would have liked to have seen it evolve into a better programme but in my opinion it has declined over the past few years. What it and the other editors don't offer are 'practical' ways to do basic things or required things in modern day website develoment like css pre-fixing.

I'm a developer in the middle tier. I don't want to use a terminal or command line to install preprocessors or task runners. I don't want to use Sass or Less to handle just pre-processing as I see no point for the kind of websites that I produce. I don't want to use 3rd party applications like Prepros or Code-kit. I want an editor which does the basics out-of-the-box and then if I require some fancy workflow I can add that as requied not be forced to add it just to do something simple.

On another subject, as I dont want to appear as though I'm always being critical of DW have you ever tried to create a snippet in VC Code or Atom, Brackets etc? WOW they are all crap, now requiring some silly json.file where all snippets are contained in one long list, WTF? So its not just DW that is getting it wrong, they all are.

Every modern editor I've tried and believe me Ive tried dozens over the last few months (I've now run out of options) is lacking in some area. Where one gets it right the other doesn't and vice-versa.

If you specifically want to pick on DW then it died when it decided to leave it up to 3rd parties to provide the basics i.e., Server Behaviours was a unique selling point that no other editor could touch. It allowed entry level access to buidling a database driven site to hobbyists and amatuers, now what does it offer.......a few out-of-date Bootstrap snippets which you can get from the Bootstrap website and build your own....how is that innovative or forward thinking? An editor whiere you can't edit the color scheme easily, as I understand it wrapping snippets have disappeared and you have to drop back to a previous version to bring them in. I mean currently it's not really fit for purpose.

Having said that believe me I've sat in all the other editor forums where they have tried to bring the editor kicking and screaming into what is thought of as state-of-the-art and they are getting just as  much flack.

Now lets look at todays 'kids'. A new concept of workflow has evolved which involves helpers, frameworks - trying to produce a website using one language, javascript, instead of having to learn 2 or 3, php, asp, cf etc - Gulp, Grunt, Pug , Pulp, Ding, Ping - I thought this may be clever but I'm now beginning to think this may be as a result of being a web-developer doesn't require much skill any longer, so someone invents a workflow which is mostly beyond the concept of what is considered, or has been in the past considered the normal workflow, which has become too mainstream that anyone can do it and is no longer skillful.

Will React, Angular, Bootstrap, etc stand the test of time or are they only here for a few years - Ruby is already suffering a decline as is JQuery. But again are they now just unfashionable, rather than being 'obsolete' in the eyes of some.  I've studdied many a tutoraial on React, Angular etc and developers are using them to do what javascript or jQuery can do in a few lines of code. Is this because the 'kids' have no concept of javascript/jquery/php etc or is this what they think is the correct workflow and is now being taught as mainstream?

Just my thoughts.

[B i r n o u]

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

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

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

Well that said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pziecina]

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

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

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

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

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

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

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

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

[pziecina]

Please don't mention Brackets AL, the more i use it the more I dislike it.

[ALsp]

pziecina  wrote

Please don't mention Brackets AL, the more i use it the more I dislike it.

Sorry. But here's the thing...

People who want to be coders might listen to Adobe and install B_ _ _k_ _ s. And they might believe that this is what a professional code editor is. But since they are not really code experts yet, they haven't used a good code editor, such as Visual Studio, Aptana, or several of the other decent ones. This is why the nature of the typical Dreamweaver user is so hard to pin down. They sometimes, perhaps often, believe what Adobe tells them, what this forum tells them. They haven't seen the light yet . They tend also to believe that Bootstrap is the cat's meow. Ah, kids. And related to all that, they believe that when Google leads them to a cool image gallery or menu, and they copy the code and paste it inside their Dreamweaver page, that they are... coders. They believe that Bootstrap is CSS and jQuery is JavaScript. The only thing that keeps this all in perspective for me is that I still have a teenager at home .

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

pziecina   wrote

Please don't mention Brackets AL, the more i use it the more I dislike it.

Sorry. But here's the thing...

People who want to be coders might listen to Adobe and install B_ _ _k_ _ s. And they might believe that this is what a professional code editor is. But since they are not really code experts yet, they haven't used a good code editor, such as Visual Studio, Aptana, or several of the other decent ones. This is why the nature of the typical Dreamweaver user is so hard to pin down. They sometimes, perhaps often, believe what Adobe tells them, what this forum tells them. They haven't seen the light yet . They tend also to believe that Bootstrap is the cat's meow. Ah, kids. And related to all that, they believe that when Google leads them to a cool image gallery or menu, and they copy the code and paste it inside their Dreamweaver page, that they are... coders. They believe that Bootstrap is CSS and jQuery is JavaScript. The only thing that keeps this all in perspective for me is that I still have a teenager at home .

Aptana is dead though aint it. The homepage hasn't seen any activity since 2014? Last news was Dec 2013.

It was one of the editors that I was going to give a try out in my many months recently testing just about every Mac compatible editor out there, but lack of any new development put me off.

Possibly the other problem there is not an editor which suits the middle tier of developer like myself - you either have something like DW not good enough or something like  Storm - too complex. Whilst I like Storm it doesn't feel nice for the kind of developemnt I do. I dont particullary need heavy debuggers for the small amount of php, javascript, jquery that I write.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Please don't mention Brackets AL, the more i use it the more I dislike it.

Whats wrong with Brackets, ok it's not perfect but its better than Sublime, Atom and maybe even VC Code in my view. It leaves a lot to be desired - insists you use the inbuilt live browser view which is completely unreal. An editor should at least give you the option to choose what browser you want to view your page in because some of us coders  don't  want crap injected into our page code, which Brackets is a master at. There is supposed to be a browser plugin but it's never worked for me.

It does have its nice points though like css quick edit, its unfussy which I like in a product. It obviously lacks things like a decent snippets panel.  I know it has some json plugin crap and some other developer has attempted to produce a better snippet panels but all I  need is a simple option to float a snippets panel please not something that you have to keep popping up and down from the foot of UI window browser. File managemnt is non existent but it is in Sublime, Atom and VC Code.

Its a good start but I haven't seen much progess so I dont want to invest much time in an editor that I think Adobe wont give over much time to developing because it makes them no money. Make it better, include the simple features I mentioned update the UI a bit and charge for it and keep developing it. I prefer it to DW.

[pziecina]

Don't forget Os, when I and AL are talking about VS we are talking about VS Pro, not VS code, which is like comparing a 1960's ford cortina with a 2017 BMW M series.

Yes, i do use VS Pro for my actual work, and i am certainly not a typical Dw user. What i did use Dw for though was for a very important part of my workflow, as it was ideal for creating 'quick and dirty' concepts, that i could then show to everyone and we could decide if an idea was worth taking forward and developing further.

Why did i do it that way, simple, Dw was so easy to use.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Don't forget Os, when I and AL are talking about VS we are talking about VS Pro, not VS code, which is like comparing a 1960's ford cortina

Whats wrong with a 1960s Ford Cortina - that's a classic car, maybe a Robin Reliant:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/02/a3/e5/02a3e5b262213e1d695c5d0e6f477ea7.jpg

[B i r n o u]

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

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

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

That's true that it was an other time ?

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

[B i r n o u]

Sorry for the delays, I have much to run these days… and I’m not very often just in front of a network… so…

Do I like Extensions, or does learning code is better… I can’t say one or the other… it doesn’t work that way in my mind… I mean… saying this comparison, will mean that extensions are made for non coders… and I do’nt think it that way… I think that as I said in my previous message,

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

Then, does learning code is better… ?.... funny ?.... what do we talk about… ? we talk about creating web site, so… what creating a web site does mean today ?.... I also answer that in my previous message

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

So now who are we ?

are we some one that create a web sites for a leaving ? or are we someone whose is maintaining a unique website for his own purpose… ???

if we are on the second case… it is completly different that if we are in the first case… so if we are in the first case… learning code is not better… it is a NEED.

Do I think that DW should include extension… ??? not at all….

DW should propose nativaly all the tools and features to have under mouse and keyboard all the WhatWG/ MozDev + ECMA (editor, tooltip/autocomplete, debuger and linter, canIuse reflector…) for the all webstandards. and propose that in WYSIWYG IDE UI.

The extension should , then, fill the GAP in a real User Friendly Interface for those of us that aren’t coders. (including Coders profile… see my previous sentance)…

Remember the SB… always propose fields to manually enter specific query string, regular expression, and so on…)

Now, does DW should be more professional web development tool…. ????

One word……

Definitly

[osgood_]

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

we talk about creating web site, so… what creating a web site does mean today ?....

Finding as many extensions and plugins as you possibly can if you are a DW user, obviously,  goes without saying - pray that nothing goes wrong because you won't have the knowledge to sort it out - happy days!

Mean while in a land, not too far away, everything is looking good.

[B i r n o u]

je vais écrire en français, car au plus je lis les réponses, au moins je comprends le sens de cette conversation... Enregistrer